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.
So stop subsidizing it release grazing land to the public market and this all goes away. No more hulabaloo over excessive federal involventment in states, no more subsidizing ranchers, no more ranchers needing to deel with the fed gov FOREVER should the wish to own any land everyone wins!
How about "We the people" who own this land tell those entitled ranchers to shut up and get lost. End all leases and install an electric fence. And make it a federal crime (with mandatory minimum prison times starting at 20 years) to trespass with the intent to profit from our land. They do not have a right to let their cattle graze on this land. How preposterous.
So stop subsidizing it release grazing land to the public market and this all goes away. No more hulabaloo over excessive federal involventment in states, no more subsidizing ranchers, no more ranchers needing to deel with the fed gov FOREVER should the wish to own any land everyone wins!
If there is ever a large scale government land offering that is cheap or almost free, I hope it's reasonable.
1-10 acres per person (or whatever is needed) and it has to be inhabited by that person, directly tied by SS number or something else. No speculative buyers, no corporations buying it, no living out-of-state and claiming it, no using it for mini storage, and none of the other 100s ways property is used without actually living on it.
Be nice to see the old style homesteaders try to make a go at it.
Strangely disturbing tweet-gone-viral from an aspiring antigovernment militant, who can't join the Bundys because he hasn't gotten his federal disability check.
And for some reason he feels compelled to petition Jesus for money. Or to make sure that all blood shed is that of law enforcement officers rather than of armed militants.
I bet the befuddled old guy manages to meet some new friends who will come up with the $300, just so long as he brings some guns and enunciates coherently into a microphone about his plans for mayhem.
Sad. He's probably a real person, beset with pain and financial problems.
I hope that he has family, friends, or someone in his extended community such as a pastor, who gets wind of this desperate measure and reaches out some human compassion, fellowship, and good advice to him.
How about "We the people" who own this land tell those entitled ranchers to shut up and get lost. End all leases and install an electric fence. And make it a federal crime (with mandatory minimum prison times starting at 20 years) to trespass with the intent to profit from our land. They do not have a right to let their cattle graze on this land. How preposterous.
Why do we the people own 80% of the land in some of these states? What good is it doing us? What good does it do residents of these states when we the people refuse to sell the land? These are not parks tourists go to visit but grazing land good for pretty much nothing else. Sell the land at the market rate and all of this goes away.
So stop subsidizing it release grazing land to the public market and this all goes away. No more hulabaloo over excessive federal involventment in states, no more subsidizing ranchers, no more ranchers needing to deel with the fed gov FOREVER should the wish to own any land everyone wins!
Your simple solution to this is anything, but simple.
First, many property owners hold onto land for purely speculative purposes because they imagine the land might be more valuable in the future than it is now. Holding on to public lands will undoubtedly increase their value over time.
Second, much of the land has recreational value and should be kept in public ownership to maximize those possibilities. Hiking, mountain biking, snowmobiling, and even use of an ATV are acceptable to me in the right conditions. I support hunting and fishing too as long as those activities are regulated to conserve the species being harvested. I do know this: They aren't making any more land. If this land is sold for private use, many opportunities for recreation may be lost.
Third, some land may not exactly have a recreational use, but it is valuable for helping to conserving certain animal species. This is a good point to speak about grazing. Government ownership of grazing lands helps regulate the amount of damage done. By allowing grazing, but placing restrictions on it, we help conserve or preserve the land. I'm surprised that more ranchers can't see this.
Fourth, before these decisions are made a comprehensive study of these lands should take place. I want to know exactly what my government is giving up and why. I want to make darn sure its sold at fair market value and is not a windfall for some private interest.
Fifth, Congress represents the people and ultimately Congress should make any decision to sell public lands only after close consultation with the public, after public hearings, and after expert testimony is heard.
These lands are not just our resource. They belong to future generations as well.
Last edited by markg91359; 01-04-2016 at 04:14 PM..
]
First, many property owners hold onto land for purely speculative purposes because they imagine the land might be more valuable in the future than it is now. Holding on to public lands will undoubtedly increase their value over time. So the federal government should speculate on land values? If making money on land ownership was that easy everyone would be doing it, its not like an acre costs anything out there.
Second, much of the land has recreational value and should be kept in public ownership to maximize those possibilities. Hiking, mountain biking, and even use of an ATV are acceptable to me in the right conditions. I support hunting and fishing too as long as those activities are regulated to conserve the species being harvested. I do know this: They aren't making any more land. If this land is sold for private use, many opportunities for recreation may be lost. This is a region where land sells for a thousand bucks an acre, they are not running low out there. Nobody is going to the desert and shrub lands to go fishing, lol.
Third, some land may exactly have a recreational use, but it is valuable for helping to conserving certain animal species. This is a good point to speak about grazing. Government ownership of grazing lands helps regulate the amount of damage done. By allowing grazing, but placing restrictions on it, we help conserve or preserve the land. I'm surprised that more ranchers can't see this.Do you have any evidence to suggest BLM land is better managed than private held land? Who is saying the land should be closed to hunting etc? Its wide open spaces with pretty low grazing density because the land cant support anywhere near as many cattle in that region as it can here in the northeast. Open land doctrine covers this nicely.
Fourth, before these decisions are made a comprehensive study of these lands should take place. I want to know exactly what my government is giving up and why. I want to make darn sure its sold at fair market value and is not a windfall for some private interest. Of course it should be sold at market value, why would anyone say otherwise?
Fifth, Congress represents the people and ultimately Congress should make any decision to sell public lands only after close consultation with the public, after public hearings, and after expert testimony is heard.Well duh.
These lands are not just our resource. They belong to future generations as well.Its empty desolate grazing land, its not going anywhere.
See above, that was easy. Certainly a whole lot easier than the ongoing situation we have now. No more federal employees managing land, no more alleged subsidization of ranchers grazing, no more fighting over excessive federal land ownership in the west.
PS - I have no problem with wealthier counties/cities supporting less-wealthy ones. I have a major problem with the ceaseless carping from the usual suspects who claim an up-by-the-bootstraps ethos as they endlessly demand local control... but won't stop cashing the welfare checks from Washington or the state capital, and arrogantly assert their right to those checks.
You will be offending a lot of the suspects who don't want to hear it.
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.
