Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one 'assumed control' of any land - these have always been federal lands. Tourism is one the major industries in UT, WY, MT and many other Western states. Why do you think people are going to these states? I'll give you a hint, it is not the cuisine or the night life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1
Beyond the lease money for grazing what value are we the people getting from these lands? Why is it the fed should not assume control of land in my state to ensure proper appreciation?
No one 'assumed control' of any land - these have always been federal lands. Tourism is one the major industries in UT, WY, MT and many other Western states. Why do you think people are going to these states? I'll give you a hint, it is not the cuisine or the night life.
I was talking about MA land. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander right? The fed should take over MA land to ensure proper enjoyment of the people. Where are we soviet russia?
Why would the federal government take over MA lands, or state lands in any other state? You are making a false dichotomy here. The existing federal lands have always been federal lands, they were not taken over. You are the only one talking about the government 'taking' land here.
They belong to all of us, and shouldn't be given away, just like the government won't give away the Lincoln Memorial, or any of the NPS historical parks in MA.
Edit to add:
With the exception of some political ideologues, when I lived in the NE I heard much more complaining about there being too little public land in the East, as opposed to too much land in the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpm1
I was talking about MA land. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander right? The fed should take over MA land to ensure proper enjoyment of the people. Where are we soviet russia?
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,503,473 times
Reputation: 12187
Yes, there is a difference between national parks and federal land / nat'l forest. I didn't make it clear that I knew the difference. Nat Parks are totally off limits for commercialization while other federal lands allow commercialization that is regulated and planned. Laws about herding is part of that regulation. If you disagree with the regulation feel free to write your congressman to get the laws changed. But as long as the law is on the books you are a law breaker to go against it.
My opinion on this event is colored by knowing family members who are towards the anti govt militia end. I have cousins who do paramilitary training and illegally make large guns like AR 15. They are against any laws telling them what they can do on private land. My thought has always been that an entity that goes on your land but isn't limited by your boundary - such as air, water, and wildlife - has the right to regulated by the govt. Otherwise people could legally pour lead into water that goes downstream and sickens everyone else.
Why would the federal government take over MA lands, or state lands in any other state? You are making a false dichotomy here. The existing federal lands have always been federal lands, they were not taken over. You are the only one talking about the government 'taking' land here.
They belong to all of us, and shouldn't be given away, just like the government won't give away the Lincoln Memorial, or any of the NPS historical parks in MA.
My opinion on this event is colored by knowing family members who are towards the anti govt militia end. I have cousins who do paramilitary training and illegally make large guns like AR 15.
There is nothing illegal about building your own firearm. In fact building your own firearm is specifically protected by US law. Now if you cannot legally posses the firearm that is another matter.
Beyond the lease money for grazing what value are we the people getting from these lands? Why is it the fed should not assume control of land in my state to ensure proper appreciation?
You've been ranting for a long time on this topic. Perhaps, you ought to take a few minutes and educate yourself why that land is owned by the federal government in the first place.
Most western states sit on territory taken from Mexico during the Mexican War of 1846-1847. That war was resolved by the Treaty of Guadulupe Hidalgo. In that treaty, Mexico ceded approximately 50% of its landmass to the United States. With that act, the land became property of the federal government of the United States. I speak primarily of Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, and California. However, the story of how other states became states may also have a bearing on public lands in those places as well.
Some land has been transferred to the states or to private individuals over the years. Homestead laws allowed some of the land to become private in that fashion. The federal government deeded a percentage of public land to the states for use as a "school trust fund" when each chunk of that piece of territory became a state. Other land was deeded to railroads as part of laws to encourage railroad building. Miners could obtain public land and a right to mine minerals simply by developing a working mine on public lands. Than there was land given to the states to develop "land grant colleges.
The correct way to view these public lands is that they belong to all the citizens of the USA. They don't belong to the individual states in which the land is present. They don't belong to ranchers or private people who happen to live near or on these lands. This is because the lands passed to the United States long before any of the western states existed.
I live in the West in Utah. I happen to think that the management of federal lands by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and the Bureau of Reclamation is imperfect, but on the whole pretty good. Often, the President will select a western governor to be head of either the Department of the Interior and/or the BLM because of the importance of public land issues in our states.
I could possibly see some of the land being sold to states--at fair market value. However, this land should not simply be given to the states. It would be an unjustified windfall that is not deserved.
Westerners are interested in public lands being used to encourage recreation, conservation, reclamation (dams), forestry, and mining. Frankly, many state governments do not have the financial resources to manage these lands at any level near an appropriate one.
The federal government is not going to assume control over lands it does not own. What you fail to understand is that the states never owned the lands in question.
Yup! It is fantastic isn't it? Have you ever spent any time in NV? You could spend a lifetime exploring the intersection of the Mojave and the Great Basin, it is a truly unique area.
Yup! It is fantastic isn't it? Have you ever spent any time in NV? You could spend a lifetime exploring the intersection of the Mojave and the Great Basin, it is a truly unique area.
It sure explains the feds wild popularity in NV. Self determination is only for us east coasters.
The correct way to view these public lands is that they belong to all the citizens of the USA. They don't belong to the individual states in which the land is present. They don't belong to ranchers or private people who happen to live near or on these lands. This is because the lands passed to the United States long before any of the western states existed.
I could possibly see some of the land being sold to states--at fair market value. However, this land should not simply be given to the states. It would be an unjustified windfall that is not deserved.
And it should have ceased being federal land when the states were incorporated. If we wanted NV to be a fed territory we should not have granted them statehood, but we did. States are semi soverign for a reason, why are we denying that sovereignty to western states that we easterners enjoy?
Just because the fed controls the land does not mean they should continue to control the land based on some arbitrary tradition. If NV is to be a state it should have control of the lands within its territory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
