User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 7:31:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? Those lands have 'managed' themselves for millions of years without human intervention. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 7:35:12 AM EDT
[#2]
Didn't know there were so many militant tree huggers on arfcom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 7:56:15 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I worry that the local, State-level politicians are more concerned about their own political power, than about our individual rights to use the land as we like. Been trying to dig into various things. Doesn't help when stuff is passed by congress that refers to some other hundred plus page document. Then the next change to another. Was juggling a half-dozen different pdf documents to try and sort some things out (reference some GAO reports of BLM not following directives/rules/laws/intent). Back and forth, back and forth, back and forth....AAAHHHHHH My head was full of fuck. 
Why in the hell don't they just replace the whole thing and change/amend the parts necessary? It gets so damn convoluted. Especially when you think you finally understand what it was and what the changes were. Only to find out the tagged an amendment to some other bill that changes the whole bloody thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 8:35:56 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Really. I want to know at what point nature became unable to "manage" itself without human assistance. I am also interested in how you can still go on a boar- and deer-hunting vacation in Italy after all those centuries of unmanaged growth? Or, did the Etruscans and Romans and Italians during the Dark Ages have bureaucrats who restricted land use? Also, what is nature up to here? It looks like a man-made structure in an urban area is decaying while flora are flourishing. Is it reasonable to guess that, if left alone, the plants will continue to flourish and provide cover and food for small animals and birds? It's almost as if nature is trying to reclaim the structure. Is this happening thanks to some diligent bureaucrat? http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f68/48743d1173172313-modern-ruins-abandoned-places-photography-new-orleans-creepy-housing.jpg What agency is managing nature's reclamation of this urbanized area? http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f68/48741d1173172195-modern-ruins-abandoned-places-photography-nagasaki-overgrown.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 8:48:37 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So in your opinion where should people be allowed to build residences? Most of our cities were built on land every bit as beautiful as those areas pictured. Please try and give a non emotional answer. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ........... Now think how much prettier it would be under private ownership with tract housing all over it or bulldozed up and sold for profit to appease the anti government land folks! Gr So in your opinion where should people be allowed to build residences? Most of our cities were built on land every bit as beautiful as those areas pictured. Please try and give a non emotional answer.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 9:10:40 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tell me about your trophy hunting opportunities in TX. And no, hunting for african critters in a high fence preserve doesn't count. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well the FSA is alive and well here I guess. Tell me about your trophy hunting opportunities in TX. And no, hunting for african critters in a high fence preserve doesn't count. Doesn't that prove the point? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 9:19:15 AM EDT
[#7]
Since everyone was wanting to talk shit about hunting in Texas.
We have almost 1M acres set aside for public hunting. Here is a map |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 9:42:34 AM EDT
[#8]
WA has a hard enough time generating the funding required to manage state parks, admittedly there are many of them. There used to be more and some are managed by USACE now. WA could not begin to afford managing all the USFS, BLM, DOE, USACE, and NP land here.
Management costs money for everything from wildlife management, forestry, fire suppression, habitat management and improvement, etc. Libertarian ideology often sounds good in it's simplicity, but it falls apart the second the rubber meets the road of the complexity of reality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 9:48:39 AM EDT
[#9]
I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 10:00:57 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't that prove the point?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Well the FSA is alive and well here I guess. Tell me about your trophy hunting opportunities in TX. And no, hunting for african critters in a high fence preserve doesn't count. Doesn't that prove the point?
What? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 10:14:07 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. public water access While I despise the BLM and the feds managing our public land, I distrust Utah politicians even more. The above law was passed due to many of the lawmakers with private land on a couple of blue ribbon trout streams along with a few influential people here. This law effectively killed any type of boat angling on the Provo river among others because while it is legal to put into the river in the canyon, it is illegal to pull out downstream. Utah and others western states economies rely on Tourism and recreation. It is also a way of life for many of the residents here to recreate/explore/hunt/fish/ a huge number of activities that are unique to these area's. While giving these lands to the state will not mean the end of the many national parks and state parks in the state, it would mean the selling off and closures of much of the national forests in the area, the closure of the west desert to the public, and overall killing of the Utah recreation industry as logging, and mineral giants buy much of the land. Federal BLM and forest lands allow mineral and logging rights but also allow public access. It is this relationship that has allowed the west to stay open and "wild" as well as made the public lands profitable to the states and fed. Tax dollars are not spend on these area's, mineral and logging rights do |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 10:24:39 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've lived in az for 31 years and there plenty of no trespassing signs here. Your point is what? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OH FUCK NO. The state legislatures are full of petty crooks that would be stealing the cookies from the cookie jar faster than you can imagine. These "conferences" are all about transferring Federal lands to state control where selected rich and influential individuals can acquire the deeds. There are very good reasons why the dry Western states need a preponderance of public lands, and I certainly don't expect the derptastic ignorance of East Coast Bible-based 8th-grade-education GD logic to understand. Signing them over to a bunch of thieving lawyers in the state legislature is stupidity of the highest order and would completely destroy the quality of life in the West, aside from the water disaster, you might as well move down South or to Texas... no freedom of movement on the land and home of the "No Trespassing" sign. Fuck No. Please take the dick out of your mouth when you post here  Can you elaborate on what that means, exactly? I'm sorry, but Texas is a Godawful place to live, expressly because of the lack of public lands. That's the reason you people have to buy up all the Elk tags in the Southwest, and why you see so many Texas plates in the NF lands in the summer. Refugees. Stay home and enjoy your no trespassing signs. I've lived in az for 31 years and there plenty of no trespassing signs here. Your point is what? Do you get out much? Do you use water? I'm sure that a guy with your sophisticated understanding of Arizona land management knows that we have tens of millions of acres in Arizona that are preserved for watershed management so that reservoirs fill up and we can have agriculture and big cities. A peripheral benefit of that is we have millions and millions of acres of public land where we have pretty much free use of the land, which has helped to shape the culture of the state. Here everyman is a stakeholder and has freedom to move on the land. Sell it off to the shitheads in the state legislature and you get a fenced of nightmare like Texas. That doesn't even purport to explain how the water system sustains itself. But at least we get to make a few millionaires this year. (Fuck next year.) It'll happen through "innovation" or through "God's plan" both of which have been proposed in this thread. Guess what? Fucking innovation is what enabled the Reclamation Projects that enabled the cities and the vast agricultural areas. The National Forests sustain the water projects like SRP which enable the private use of land in Arizona. You know what verbiage they used when they innovated the reclamation projects? It was God's plan so we could make a garden in the desert. The fact that you guys don't understand shit but smugly proclaim your knowledge of public lands in the West (from your perch in eastern states like Texas or VA ) is hilarious. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 10:28:14 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Posting pictures of what appears to be Kudzu is not exactly helping prove your point. It's a perfect example of damage caused by humans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Really. I want to know at what point nature became unable to "manage" itself without human assistance. I am also interested in how you can still go on a boar- and deer-hunting vacation in Italy after all those centuries of unmanaged growth? Or, did the Etruscans and Romans and Italians during the Dark Ages have bureaucrats who restricted land use? Also, what is nature up to here? It looks like a man-made structure in an urban area is decaying while flora are flourishing. Is it reasonable to guess that, if left alone, the plants will continue to flourish and provide cover and food for small animals and birds? It's almost as if nature is trying to reclaim the structure. Is this happening thanks to some diligent bureaucrat? http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f68/48743d1173172313-modern-ruins-abandoned-places-photography-new-orleans-creepy-housing.jpg What agency is managing nature's reclamation of this urbanized area? http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f68/48741d1173172195-modern-ruins-abandoned-places-photography-nagasaki-overgrown.jpg The one photograph does indeed appear to show kudzu. So what about the other one? You talk about "my case," so is it safe to say that you disagree with the point of that post? Do you disagree with the idea that, if man stops tending an urbanized area, the area becomes overgrown and new habitat begins to form? What happens to your nicely cultivated lawn if you stop subjecting it to your human influence? Does it desertify and become unusable, or does vegetation take hold and thrive, eventually creating dense scrub and, one day, forest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:09:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Didn't know there were so many militant tree huggers on arfcom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:22:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:37:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM does not take money from tax payers in other states. It produces about five times its budget in revenue from the use of the land, which is put back into those states where the land is located. As I've already posted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:44:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BLM does not take money from tax payers in other states. It produces about five times its budget in revenue from the use of the land, which is put back into those states where the land is located. As I've already posted. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM does not take money from tax payers in other states. It produces about five times its budget in revenue from the use of the land, which is put back into those states where the land is located. As I've already posted. but if what you say is true that is all the more reasonfor the States to handle it. I still believe that you should pay you use the land also. Anyone using it for free is taking from someone else that is paying. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:54:11 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM statistics The BLM makes on average of 277 million from leases, claims, and mineral rights. It cost the BLM 17 mill to facilitate recreational activities. By the way, the land is free for ALL Americans to be on, not just western states. You can drive of fly over here and shoot for miles if thats what you want, no one is stopping you |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:06:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: BLM statistics The BLM makes on average of 277 million from leases, claims, and mineral rights. It cost the BLM 17 mill to facilitate recreational activities. By the way, the land is free for ALL Americans to be on, not just western states. You can drive of fly over here and shoot for miles if thats what you want, no one is stopping you Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM statistics The BLM makes on average of 277 million from leases, claims, and mineral rights. It cost the BLM 17 mill to facilitate recreational activities. By the way, the land is free for ALL Americans to be on, not just western states. You can drive of fly over here and shoot for miles if thats what you want, no one is stopping you Another member of FSA shows their face. Anyone playing there for free is a free loader... period. You guy fail to see that the people paying for the use of those lands are passing on those costs to the people that buy their goods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:15:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Since everyone was wanting to talk shit about hunting in Texas. We have almost 1M acres set aside for public hunting. Here is a map |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:35:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another member of FSA shows their face. Anyone playing there for free is a free loader... period. You guy fail to see that the people paying for the use of those lands are passing on those costs to the people that buy their goods. Ok, you got me there, exept you vision of FSA includes every single person in the USA. More tax money is put into infrastructure such as roads then we put in through registration and gas tax. so just by driving down I-80 and not paying any tolls for it I'm getting free shit ( and people in Ohio would agree with me). Also lets get to the point of the argument here, most of us in Utah at least would be willing to pay to play. I am fine going into state parks and do so every month and paying 8 $ entry. The issue here is that there will be a closure of land that generations here have used. That states will sell to the highest bidder, That a mine will buy the mineral rights to thousands of acres and cut off all access to that land, instead of the way the feds run it by selling the mineral rights to the land but allowing public access. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 1:43:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure they do. but if what you say is true that is all the more reasonfor the States to handle it.
I still believe that you should pay you use the land also. Anyone using it for free is taking from someone else that is paying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM does not take money from tax payers in other states. It produces about five times its budget in revenue from the use of the land, which is put back into those states where the land is located. As I've already posted. but if what you say is true that is all the more reasonfor the States to handle it.
I still believe that you should pay you use the land also. Anyone using it for free is taking from someone else that is paying. I can agree with that. Annual use permit system of sorts. Like the vehicle stickers used in many areas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:09:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure they do. but if what you say is true that is all the more reasonfor the States to handle it.
I still believe that you should pay you use the land also. Anyone using it for free is taking from someone else that is paying. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM does not take money from tax payers in other states. It produces about five times its budget in revenue from the use of the land, which is put back into those states where the land is located. As I've already posted. but if what you say is true that is all the more reasonfor the States to handle it.
I still believe that you should pay you use the land also. Anyone using it for free is taking from someone else that is paying. The BLM brings in 5 dollars in revenue for every dollar they spend. They're one of the extremely few (maybe the only one) federal agencies that actually feed into the budget rather than operating at a deficit. I posted the links to their budget a couple of pages back. The states involved can't budget their way out of a paper bag -- and btw, they've already been given 73% of the land that the BLM used to manage, and haven't done shit with it other than continue to fuck up their budgets. They've actually been given nearly all the desirable land the BLM ever managed -- and btw, that they never had any claim on to begin with. You do realize the entirety of that land was obtained by the federal government by purchasing it from Mexico, after they beat Mexico to their knees in a war, right? The states have never had any claim to it, and they have no claim to it now. Except for AK, of course, which they outright purchased from Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:18:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The BLM brings in 5 dollars in revenue for every dollar they spend. They're one of the extremely few (maybe the only one) federal agencies that actually feed into the budget rather than operating at a deficit. I posted the links to their budget a couple of pages back. The states involved can't budget their way out of a paper bag -- and btw, they've already been given 73% of the land that the BLM used to manage, and haven't done shit with it other than continue to fuck up their budgets. They've actually been given nearly all the desirable land the BLM ever managed -- and btw, that they never had any claim on to begin with. You do realize the entirety of that land was obtained by the federal government by purchasing it from Mexico, after they beat Mexico to their knees in a war, right? The states have never had any claim to it, and they have no claim to it now. Except for AK, of course, which they outright purchased from Russia. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I am all for it as long as access to said lands does not become restricted any more than it is now. I would also like to see some legislation to keep our wild places wild. Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM does not take money from tax payers in other states. It produces about five times its budget in revenue from the use of the land, which is put back into those states where the land is located. As I've already posted. but if what you say is true that is all the more reasonfor the States to handle it.I still believe that you should pay you use the land also. Anyone using it for free is taking from someone else that is paying. The BLM brings in 5 dollars in revenue for every dollar they spend. They're one of the extremely few (maybe the only one) federal agencies that actually feed into the budget rather than operating at a deficit. I posted the links to their budget a couple of pages back. The states involved can't budget their way out of a paper bag -- and btw, they've already been given 73% of the land that the BLM used to manage, and haven't done shit with it other than continue to fuck up their budgets. They've actually been given nearly all the desirable land the BLM ever managed -- and btw, that they never had any claim on to begin with. You do realize the entirety of that land was obtained by the federal government by purchasing it from Mexico, after they beat Mexico to their knees in a war, right? The states have never had any claim to it, and they have no claim to it now. Except for AK, of course, which they outright purchased from Russia. You are very mistaken. People had claim to that land before it was a State. For one there is a great deal of Federal land that was bought and taken from Citizens through eminent domain. I guess the mexicans swam home from the Federal land in South Florida. You are sure don't understand that there is no right for the Feds to own land like this in the Constitution. You have contradicted yourself so many times in this thread that is sad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:21:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok, you got me there, exept you vision of FSA includes every single person in the USA. More tax money is put into infrastructure such as roads then we put in through registration and gas tax. so just by driving down I-80 and not paying any tolls for it I'm getting free shit ( and people in Ohio would agree with me). Also lets get to the point of the argument here, most of us in Utah at least would be willing to pay to play. I am fine going into state parks and do so every month and paying 8 $ entry. The issue here is that there will be a closure of land that generations here have used. That states will sell to the highest bidder, That a mine will buy the mineral rights to thousands of acres and cut off all access to that land, instead of the way the feds run it by selling the mineral rights to the land but allowing public access. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Another member of FSA shows their face. Anyone playing there for free is a free loader... period. You guy fail to see that the people paying for the use of those lands are passing on those costs to the people that buy their goods. Ok, you got me there, exept you vision of FSA includes every single person in the USA. More tax money is put into infrastructure such as roads then we put in through registration and gas tax. so just by driving down I-80 and not paying any tolls for it I'm getting free shit ( and people in Ohio would agree with me). Also lets get to the point of the argument here, most of us in Utah at least would be willing to pay to play. I am fine going into state parks and do so every month and paying 8 $ entry. The issue here is that there will be a closure of land that generations here have used. That states will sell to the highest bidder, That a mine will buy the mineral rights to thousands of acres and cut off all access to that land, instead of the way the feds run it by selling the mineral rights to the land but allowing public access. That comment about the roads is disingenuous and you know it. But I am glad you see the need in people paying their own way in life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 2:46:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The one photograph does indeed appear to show kudzu. So what about the other one? You talk about "my case," so is it safe to say that you disagree with the point of that post? Do you disagree with the idea that, if man stops tending an urbanized area, the area becomes overgrown and new habitat begins to form? What happens to your nicely cultivated lawn if you stop subjecting it to your human influence? Does it desertify and become unusable, or does vegetation take hold and thrive, eventually creating dense scrub and, one day, forest? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Really. I want to know at what point nature became unable to "manage" itself without human assistance. I am also interested in how you can still go on a boar- and deer-hunting vacation in Italy after all those centuries of unmanaged growth? Or, did the Etruscans and Romans and Italians during the Dark Ages have bureaucrats who restricted land use? Also, what is nature up to here? It looks like a man-made structure in an urban area is decaying while flora are flourishing. Is it reasonable to guess that, if left alone, the plants will continue to flourish and provide cover and food for small animals and birds? It's almost as if nature is trying to reclaim the structure. Is this happening thanks to some diligent bureaucrat? http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f68/48743d1173172313-modern-ruins-abandoned-places-photography-new-orleans-creepy-housing.jpg What agency is managing nature's reclamation of this urbanized area? http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/attachments/f68/48741d1173172195-modern-ruins-abandoned-places-photography-nagasaki-overgrown.jpg The one photograph does indeed appear to show kudzu. So what about the other one? You talk about "my case," so is it safe to say that you disagree with the point of that post? Do you disagree with the idea that, if man stops tending an urbanized area, the area becomes overgrown and new habitat begins to form? What happens to your nicely cultivated lawn if you stop subjecting it to your human influence? Does it desertify and become unusable, or does vegetation take hold and thrive, eventually creating dense scrub and, one day, forest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 7:02:16 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are very mistaken. People had claim to that land before it was a State. For one there is a great deal of Federal land that was bought and taken from Citizens through eminent domain. I guess the mexicans swam home from the Federal land in South Florida. You are sure don't understand that there is no right for the Feds to own land like this in the Constitution. You have contradicted yourself so many times in this thread that is sad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Would a 50 or 100 dollar a year permit dissuade you? It would not bother me at all. I believe in people paying their own way. Some of the posters above believe it is OK to take money from Tax Payers in other States to pay for their recreational land. This rubs me the wrong way as does the rest of the FSA's entitlement mentality. BLM does not take money from tax payers in other states. It produces about five times its budget in revenue from the use of the land, which is put back into those states where the land is located. As I've already posted. but if what you say is true that is all the more reasonfor the States to handle it.
I still believe that you should pay you use the land also. Anyone using it for free is taking from someone else that is paying. The BLM brings in 5 dollars in revenue for every dollar they spend. They're one of the extremely few (maybe the only one) federal agencies that actually feed into the budget rather than operating at a deficit. I posted the links to their budget a couple of pages back. The states involved can't budget their way out of a paper bag -- and btw, they've already been given 73% of the land that the BLM used to manage, and haven't done shit with it other than continue to fuck up their budgets. They've actually been given nearly all the desirable land the BLM ever managed -- and btw, that they never had any claim on to begin with. You do realize the entirety of that land was obtained by the federal government by purchasing it from Mexico, after they beat Mexico to their knees in a war, right? The states have never had any claim to it, and they have no claim to it now. Except for AK, of course, which they outright purchased from Russia. You are very mistaken. People had claim to that land before it was a State. For one there is a great deal of Federal land that was bought and taken from Citizens through eminent domain. I guess the mexicans swam home from the Federal land in South Florida. You are sure don't understand that there is no right for the Feds to own land like this in the Constitution. You have contradicted yourself so many times in this thread that is sad. No, they did not. The Feds continued to manage land no one else wanted to manage after the war - and they purchased the land from Mexico. Blm land wasn't taken by eminent domain. That's a completely different discussion, and nearly all eminent domain seizures are done by your bastions of freedom, the states. I have not contradicted anything but your misinformed rhetoric on a subject you know nothing about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 1:30:20 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they did not. The Feds continued to manage land no one else wanted to manage after the war - and they purchased the land from Mexico. Blm land wasn't taken by eminent domain. That's a completely different discussion, and nearly all eminent domain seizures are done by your bastions of freedom, the states. I have not contradicted anything but your misinformed rhetoric on a subject you know nothing about. You are really wrong. By the way how hard did those Mexicans fight up in Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas? The only rhetoric here is being spread by you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 5:43:20 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are really wrong. By the way how hard did those Mexicans fight up in Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas? The only rhetoric here is being spread by you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, they did not. The Feds continued to manage land no one else wanted to manage after the war - and they purchased the land from Mexico. Blm land wasn't taken by eminent domain. That's a completely different discussion, and nearly all eminent domain seizures are done by your bastions of freedom, the states. I have not contradicted anything but your misinformed rhetoric on a subject you know nothing about. You are really wrong. By the way how hard did those Mexicans fight up in Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas? The only rhetoric here is being spread by you. You know what, believe whatever bullshit you want to believe. I've given you facts, and you're response is to stick your fingers in your ears. Plonk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/21/2014 5:47:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You know what, believe whatever bullshit you want to believe. I've given you facts, and you're response is to stick your fingers in your ears. Plonk. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: No, they did not. The Feds continued to manage land no one else wanted to manage after the war - and they purchased the land from Mexico. Blm land wasn't taken by eminent domain. That's a completely different discussion, and nearly all eminent domain seizures are done by your bastions of freedom, the states. I have not contradicted anything but your misinformed rhetoric on a subject you know nothing about. You are really wrong. By the way how hard did those Mexicans fight up in Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas? The only rhetoric here is being spread by you. You know what, believe whatever bullshit you want to believe. I've given you facts, and you're response is to stick your fingers in your ears. Plonk. You have presented not one fact and you believe we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Where did you go to school? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 7:48:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have presented not one fact and you believe we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Where did you go to school? Where did you go to school cuz your reading comprehension sucks. He didn't even suggest that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 2:01:14 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where did you go to school cuz your reading comprehension sucks. He didn't even suggest that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You have presented not one fact and you believe we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Where did you go to school? Where did you go to school cuz your reading comprehension sucks. He didn't even suggest that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Yes he did. He said we fought the Mexicans for the BLM land. He does not realize that the BLM did buy land, did use eminent domain and the Feds used with treaties and wars to get the land before that. Go back and read for yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:03:12 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where did you go to school cuz your reading comprehension sucks. He didn't even suggest that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You have presented not one fact and you believe we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Where did you go to school? Where did you go to school cuz your reading comprehension sucks. He didn't even suggest that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. You're dealing with someone who lives in a fantasy world, not much point in bothering. You're correct, I never said that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. In fact, I never said a word about Idaho. This entire discussion has been specifically about Nevada, with a little bit of Utah and Arizona thrown in for good measure, although BLM has land all over those three states, along with California (also purchased from Mexico) and Alaska (purchased from Russia) comprise most of the BLM land in the United States. It would be logical to assume that was what I was talking about. Dude on my ignore list is crowing about finding something my argument did not apply to because I wasn't talking about it. Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:09:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're dealing with someone who lives in a fantasy world, not much point in bothering. You're correct, I never said that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. In fact, I never said a word about Idaho. This entire discussion has been specifically about Nevada, with a little bit of Utah and Arizona thrown in for good measure, although BLM has land all over those three states, along with California (also purchased from Mexico) and Alaska (purchased from Russia) comprise most of the BLM land in the United States. It would be logical to assume that was what I was talking about. Dude on my ignore list is crowing about finding something my argument did not apply to because I wasn't talking about it. Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have presented not one fact and you believe we fought Mexicans in Idaho. Where did you go to school? Where did you go to school cuz your reading comprehension sucks. He didn't even suggest that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. You're dealing with someone who lives in a fantasy world, not much point in bothering. You're correct, I never said that we fought Mexicans in Idaho. In fact, I never said a word about Idaho. This entire discussion has been specifically about Nevada, with a little bit of Utah and Arizona thrown in for good measure, although BLM has land all over those three states, along with California (also purchased from Mexico) and Alaska (purchased from Russia) comprise most of the BLM land in the United States. It would be logical to assume that was what I was talking about. Dude on my ignore list is crowing about finding something my argument did not apply to because I wasn't talking about it. Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth. The discussion was about all the BLM land. You also need to go back and read |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:10:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:21:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth.
What's so funny? Or try this one... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:23:09 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth.
What's so funny? Idaho wasn't even Idaho back then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:25:54 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Idaho wasn't even Idaho back then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth.
What's so funny? Idaho wasn't even Idaho back then. You're absolutely right. The Idaho territory was created from the Oregon Treaty land later on, in 1863. But we were talking about the land, not the states specifically, and you make my point that the feds controlled the land before the state existed even better than I might have had I cared enough to bother. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:37:30 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're absolutely right. The Idaho territory was created from the Oregon Treaty land later on, in 1863. But we were talking about the land, not the states specifically, and you make my point that the feds controlled the land before the state existed even better than I might have had I cared enough to bother. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Idaho was the result of a treaty between the US and Britain in 1846, for whatever that's worth.
What's so funny? Idaho wasn't even Idaho back then. You're absolutely right. The Idaho territory was created from the Oregon Treaty land later on, in 1863. But we were talking about the land, not the states specifically, and you make my point that the feds controlled the land before the state existed even better than I might have had I cared enough to bother. So they should have just left it as a territory if they wanted to continue to own the land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 3:51:06 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they should have just left it as a territory if they wanted to continue to own the land. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're absolutely right. The Idaho territory was created from the Oregon Treaty land later on, in 1863. But we were talking about the land, not the states specifically, and you make my point that the feds controlled the land before the state existed even better than I might have had I cared enough to bother. So they should have just left it as a territory if they wanted to continue to own the land. Or not. You guys really just don't get the west and never will. Why continue to pontificate about it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/22/2014 4:21:00 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Texas public hunting https://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/public/lands/table_contents/ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? Ever try to hunt in Texas? My grandfather had to drive hundreds of miles and pay thousands of dollars to find a place where he could hunt, and he could only hunt from a stand, because the plot was too small and had too many hunters on it to be able to do anything other than stand hunt. Unless you've got an in with one of the five land-owners in the state, you can't really hunt in Texas. It's all private land. lol Texas public hunting https://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/public/lands/table_contents/ Hell while I was stationed there I was considered a damn yankee and I got to hunt in the fabled hill country. It's amazing what being a decent guy offering to help fill feeders, fixing fence and hauling hay will get you access to. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
