User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 12:33:29 AM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For comparison: http://www.pubtheo.com/images/tax-payments-benefits.jpg So, in Nevada we get a 31% ROI on the Feds using 84.5% of our land. http://m.memegen.com/gclun7.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit Nevada. In general if is shocking http://patterico.com/files/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-03-at-3.16.02-PM.png Article its from: http://patterico.com/2016/01/03/what-are-the-bundys-protesting/ For comparison: http://www.pubtheo.com/images/tax-payments-benefits.jpg So, in Nevada we get a 31% ROI on the Feds using 84.5% of our land. http://m.memegen.com/gclun7.jpg The issue with all of these charts is they look at where the money is spent; NOT what it pays for. Buy Missiles built by Ratheon in Tucson? Money to Arizona. Fund the Grand Canyon? Money to Arizona. Maintain the National Forest? Money to Arizona. Repave the runway at Luke AFB? Money to Arizona. Sure, it's money, and sure, it's spent here. But it ain't exactly a handout... The Feds spend money on their stuff, and they own a lot of stuff out here. But those states aren't the ones getting the free shit from everyone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 12:36:21 AM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have 7 ranges within 30 miles, two indoor. I can hunt on three ranches within 175 miles. One has 37 sections of land and the owner probably does not even know what BLM stands for.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Don't people complain that there is no where to hunt in Texas without paying for a lease? Or having to drive three hours to shoot past 100 yards at a private location. I have 7 ranges within 30 miles, two indoor. I can hunt on three ranches within 175 miles. One has 37 sections of land and the owner probably does not even know what BLM stands for. Not to mention the million or so acres of public hunting land leased from private owners by the state People that do the bitching are the same ones that gorge themselves on monster drinks whil playing call of duty We do just fine without sucking on the federal land tit like some other posters are so proud of |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 12:37:13 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As a fellow Texan, I am proud of our state but sad that we have to drive elsewhere or pay rediculous $ to hunt, shoot or 4 wheel. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Look like we have less fed land ratio compared to everyone else  As a fellow Texan, I am proud of our state but sad that we have to drive elsewhere or pay rediculous $ to hunt, shoot or 4 wheel. Mostly, the feds don't own that. Some guy with more money than you does, and found a way to make a profit from it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 12:41:51 AM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For comparison: http://www.pubtheo.com/images/tax-payments-benefits.jpg So, in Nevada we get a 31% ROI on the Feds using 84.5% of our land. http://m.memegen.com/gclun7.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit Nevada. In general if is shocking http://patterico.com/files/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-03-at-3.16.02-PM.png Article its from: http://patterico.com/2016/01/03/what-are-the-bundys-protesting/ For comparison: http://www.pubtheo.com/images/tax-payments-benefits.jpg So, in Nevada we get a 31% ROI on the Feds using 84.5% of our land. http://m.memegen.com/gclun7.jpg Fuck Iowa and its corn grown FSA!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 12:44:03 AM EST
[#5]
Private property FTW.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 1:11:40 AM EST
[#6]
Why does GD hate the Constitution?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 2:02:43 AM EST
[#7]
Here's another map illustrating the federal ownership of land (mostly in the West):
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blame the states and the residents at the time of admission. They thought it was better to leave the crappy land in the hands of the Feds, rather than have to pay for its upkeep themselves. And the ranchers who thought the idea of free grazing land was better than having to buy their own land to graze on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Blame the states and the residents at the time of admission. They thought it was better to leave the crappy land in the hands of the Feds, rather than have to pay for its upkeep themselves. And the ranchers who thought the idea of free grazing land was better than having to buy their own land to graze on. Quoted:
The states didn't want it and neither did the people. Feds got left holding the crappy land while everyone else tried to get the good stuff. it's not the Fed's fault that so much of the West is useless.  You are so very wrong on this. Utah and other western states did nothing different than eastern states. The Feds just decided (in 1970) that, rather than dispose of the lands like they were supposed to, they'd keep them. You can read the first 8 pages of this report if you want to understand the history here. Quoted:
It's just not that simple. The states don't have the money to sustain the land if it were given to them and would certainly sell it off. Who would buy it? There is no interest in selling it acre by acre. The folks pushing for this to happen (including Ted Cruz) know full well that corporations and elites like Soros, Buffet, Etc. will cherry pick the best pieces ( think views, minerals, timber, and water) and land that has been available to enjoy by EVERY AMERICAN for a hundred years will be gone forever. Crony Capitalism at its worst. The Feds have generally done a piss-poor job of managing the lands they control. The states would do much better. Hell, the states are already doing a better job of it. SITLA, just one agency in Utah's state government, manages about 3.4 million acres of land (to put that in perspective, that's more land than the entire state of Connecticut), and they do just fine with it. As an added bonus, turning over most of the federally-held land to the states would keep the Feds from holding western states hostage over PILT money. That PILT money, and the leverage it gives them over western states, is probably a large part of the reason they're unlikely to ever relinquish ownership of the land. Quoted:
Aren't there lots of complaints about BLM shutting down areas to human use for rather arbitrary reasons? My understanding is that off-roading was getting harder to do because of the federal bureaucracy involved. YES! I was just in a meeting earlier tonight where we were discussing how the BLM has closed a popular target shooting area, and their plans to increase the closure area in the next couple of years. Here's a map. They've also been working to close roads and block OHV access. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 2:44:02 AM EST
[#8]
I actually enjoy the USNF system.
I've spent a lot of time in Arapahoe NF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/6/2016 10:14:43 AM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I actually enjoy the USNF system. I've spent a lot of time in Arapahoe NF. I enjoy the National Forests here in Utah too, but there's no reason I couldn't enjoy a Utah State Forest just as much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:05:44 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's big out here. Most don't want the land back, cheaper for the big gov to manage it. what is this managing of sagebrush deserts exactly consist of????? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:14:59 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
yeah that's why the bundy clan are stirring shit. It's fine if the feds own and maintain it but they need to allow the people to use it. Especially people who have used it for generations. It also needs to be available for mineral exploration and extraction provided the land is reclaimed afterward and doesn't trample on someones existing grazing rights. The people need to generally have free access to the land and be able to hunt fish and generally recreate on it. It is a bit communist sounding but the federal government is of by and for the people of the united states so anything the fed owns everyone owns Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The flip side is that I can go Jeeping, hunting and shooting for free in National Forests and BLM holdings. We DO have large recreation areas. Aren't there lots of complaints about BLM shutting down areas to human use for rather arbitrary reasons? My understanding is that off-roading was getting harder to do because of the federal bureaucracy involved. yeah that's why the bundy clan are stirring shit. It's fine if the feds own and maintain it but they need to allow the people to use it. Especially people who have used it for generations. It also needs to be available for mineral exploration and extraction provided the land is reclaimed afterward and doesn't trample on someones existing grazing rights. The people need to generally have free access to the land and be able to hunt fish and generally recreate on it. It is a bit communist sounding but the federal government is of by and for the people of the united states so anything the fed owns everyone owns at last sentence so delusional it's sad |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:17:07 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They were convicted of arson. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I see. Were they charged with "terrorism". The rally I saw on video indicated that he, and some other guy, were charged with "terrorism" for starting fires. If so, I don't remember that word being used back in the 90's in that way. But as I said, my only source of information was some light reading and that video, so I realize it's one sided. . They were convicted of arson. Terroristic arson under a 1996 anti-terrorism law. This is because earlier attempts at inviting them failed as they had not violated any of those other laws not in a way that anyone felt could never really be sustained in trial |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:31:39 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why wouldn't you want the ranchers to just own the land they used? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
As an Oregonian I would prefer that the Federal and State lands stay the way they are. I've met plenty of ranchers while on public lands. Some are great people... others think that they are King of the land and don't waste any time telling you what you can do on "their" land. Why wouldn't you want the ranchers to just own the land they used? Most of THEM didn't want it at the time. They currnetly pay $1.35 per animal unit on the land I believe. The COST of owning the land would be MUCH HIGHER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:35:44 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Disgusting. Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:39:55 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Disgusting. Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. You're welcome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:40:49 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look like we have less fed land ratio compared to everyone else There are ten other states with less Fed land ownership than Texas. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:41:54 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. Sure. Until somebody behind a desk in DC decides they don't want you on that land anymore.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:45:38 PM EST
[#18]
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:53:05 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:53:26 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Disgusting. Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. Enjoy it while you can, comrade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 12:58:38 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Enjoy it while you can, comrade. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Disgusting. Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. Enjoy it while you can, comrade. Why do you say this? none of the BLM/National Forest/Wilderness has been closed off around here and it won't be because the economy depends too much on it here between recreation, ranching and hunting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:01:47 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. How is this socialism? Is the land actively taxing you and redistributing your wealth? Who's being negatively affected by large tracts of vacant land? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:01:50 PM EST
[#23]
was like damn OK and the mid west has hardly any.
then i was like oh yeah they gave it all to the Indians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:25:49 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Disgusting. Yea disgusting...especially when I have millions of acres to hunt in, shoot guns in, fish, ski, camp, and wander. The east with all their fenced off private land can't comprehend the concept of public land and what they do comprehend they envy. If it was state land, I would have no problem. But it is federal land, so my taxes, in 1.6% fed land Alabama are paying for you to go hunt, fish, ski, camp and wander. I have access... if I can get there, a several day drive. You are using the power of the federal government, specifically the IRS and threat of prison, to deprive me of money so you can go wandering for free. If it is worth it to have that land for your recreational value, you pay for it. Stop forcing me to pay for your fun. And before you point out that Alabama gets more back than they pay in taxes I would remind you that Alabama is relatively poor so does not pay a lot of taxes but gets lots of NASA and defense contractor dollars through Huntsville and Redstone Arsenal. Things that produce a product, not random welfare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:37:40 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it was state land, I would have no problem. But it is federal land, so my taxes, in 1.6% fed land Alabama are paying for you to go hunt, fish, ski, camp and wander. I have access... if I can get there, a several day drive. You are using the power of the federal government, specifically the IRS and threat of prison, to deprive me of money so you can go wandering for free. If it is worth it to have that land for your recreational value, you pay for it. Stop forcing me to pay for your fun. 100% valid argument and I actually agree with you. The states that benefit most from public lands should also shoulder the costs toward that public land. We had a freakin surplus of tax money from pot here in CO...I wouldn't mind if that went toward public lands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:38:01 PM EST
[#26]
I live in Colorado and we get all kinds of people from other states that enjoy the federal land here. You are more likely to bump into a texan or cornhusker here in the woods than someone from Colorado.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:43:52 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. The BLM here in Utah fenced off one of the most popular shooting spots (on the west side of Utah Lake). They're moving to close more BLM land to shooters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:51:20 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish Iowa had some public land. Triying to find a place to hunt in this state is a nightmare. It's around, unfortunately, you have to get away from the Ames/Ankeny/DesMoines corridor to find it. 2 hours North of DesMoines and you can find quite a few public spots, I have 8-10 spots that I can run the dog within 20 minutes of my house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:51:24 PM EST
[#29]
NY FTW
wait...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 1:52:54 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is this socialism? Is the land actively taxing you and redistributing your wealth? Who's being negatively affected by large tracts of vacant land? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. How is this socialism? Is the land actively taxing you and redistributing your wealth? Who's being negatively affected by large tracts of vacant land? Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 2:05:27 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. How is this socialism? Is the land actively taxing you and redistributing your wealth? Who's being negatively affected by large tracts of vacant land? Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism? Public control of the means of production. National parks don't really count as means of product. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 2:16:52 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The people commenting negatively on Western lands obviously didn't grow up in the west. I would take access to BLM land in Utah where I grew up any day over what we have in Kentucky where everything is fenced off farmland. So socialism is cool as long as you get what you want.... go it. How is this socialism? Is the land actively taxing you and redistributing your wealth? Who's being negatively affected by large tracts of vacant land? Have you ever looked at the definition of socialism? ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 2:46:25 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
100% valid argument and I actually agree with you. The states that benefit most from public lands should also shoulder the costs toward that public land. We had a freakin surplus of tax money from pot here in CO...I wouldn't mind if that went toward public lands. Thanks for that. Here in North Alabama, we have a land trust that runs quite a few bits of land, some next to state parks and such. Each time is use them, I put money in. In the form of fees if someone is at the gate or more typically when nobody is there in the drop box. What bugs me is that I pay for all that federal land too. And should bug everyone because nobody uses all of that land. tanstaafl I visit Colorado occasionally, and would not mind paying to use land out there on a similar system or a state park pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:35:27 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I visit Colorado occasionally, and would not mind paying to use land out there on a similar system or a state park pass. I wouldn't mind having to pay to have an annual national forest/BLM pass or wilderness pass that would go into a state by state fund. Nothing is truly free so the people using it should be the ones paying for it. National parks and some state areas do this already, why not national forest/BLM? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:40:33 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. Land is the ultimate "means of production". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:42:07 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. That's weird. I thought that the entire Oregon thing was over the use of land for grazing (aka producing livestock). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:44:41 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Land is the ultimate "means of production". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. Land is the ultimate "means of production". Private land, but land designated as wilderness isn't producing anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:46:09 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Private land, but land designated as wilderness isn't producing anything. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. Land is the ultimate "means of production". Private land, but land designated as wilderness isn't producing anything. Exactly. Government should own land that it uses to do legitimate government shit. That's it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:47:20 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's weird. I thought that the entire Oregon thing was over the use of land for grazing (aka producing livestock). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. That's weird. I thought that the entire Oregon thing was over the use of land for grazing (aka producing livestock). Once again privatization of land through a LEASE from the BLM. vacant unleased national forest/BLM/wilderness/national parks isn't technically "producing" anything...unless you really want to argue tourism as a means of production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:49:08 PM EST
[#40]
Quoted: Holy shit Nevada. In general if is shocking http://patterico.com/files/2016/01/Screen-Shot-2016-01-03-at-3.16.02-PM.png Article its from: http://patterico.com/2016/01/03/what-are-the-bundys-protesting/ And the Hoover Administration offered to cede (sell) these public lands to the states in the late 1920s. The Western states did not want the land. The Western states wanted the Federal government to pay for managing it. And the politically dominant stockmens' associations (ranchers) want leasing so that grazing was controlled. They supported the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 that ended homesteading and created managed grazing on public land - and the two agencies that became the BLM. As long as the ranchers dominated the local BLM Grazing District boards the ranchers loved some BLM. After the grazing boards were shut down and the BLM wasn't dancing to the ranchers' tune any more... Hey, that was in 1993. The same year Bundy quit paying. This shit didn't start last year. It started with the Louisiana Purchase. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:50:50 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. Government should own land that it uses to do legitimate government shit. That's it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. Land is the ultimate "means of production". Private land, but land designated as wilderness isn't producing anything. Exactly. Government should own land that it uses to do legitimate government shit. That's it. So what to do with all of the public land then? privatize it? Release it to the states? The conundrum with privatization is that it will crush several industries just in CO alone that are multi billion dollars of economic activity (skiing and hunting). I agree, the feds own too much land and much of it doesn't even have a good enough budget to manage it correctly, but it's not a cut and dry issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:51:44 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once again privatization of land through a LEASE from the BLM. vacant unleased national forest/BLM/wilderness/national parks isn't technically "producing" anything...unless you really want to argue tourism as a means of production. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
ummmm socialism is economic theory. Last time I check empty vacant land such as a wilderness for example doesn't have any means of production. That's weird. I thought that the entire Oregon thing was over the use of land for grazing (aka producing livestock). Once again privatization of land through a LEASE from the BLM. vacant unleased national forest/BLM/wilderness/national parks isn't technically "producing" anything...unless you really want to argue tourism as a means of production. Forests don't produce anything. 
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/sep/20/nation/la-na-nn-house-vote-logging-national-forests-20130920 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:52:53 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what to do with all of the public land then? privatize it? Release it to the states? The conundrum with privatization is that it will crush several industries just in CO alone that are multi billion dollars of economic activity (skiing and hunting). I agree, the feds own too much land and much of it doesn't even have a good enough budget to manage it correctly, but it's not a cut and dry issue. Perhaps if they are multi billion industries they could....I don't know....buy the land they use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:54:19 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aren't there lots of complaints about BLM shutting down areas to human use for rather arbitrary reasons? My understanding is that off-roading was getting harder to do because of the federal bureaucracy involved. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The flip side is that I can go Jeeping, hunting and shooting for free in National Forests and BLM holdings. We DO have large recreation areas. Aren't there lots of complaints about BLM shutting down areas to human use for rather arbitrary reasons? My understanding is that off-roading was getting harder to do because of the federal bureaucracy involved. There is the perspective that uncontrolled off-roading isn't good for the land. Nowadays every thing is like ARFCOM and ammo sales. Some guy posts on Faceook that XYZ area is great for whatever and the next thing you know the place is 5 deep in jackoffs and the responsible users are overwhelmed with idiots. How do you manage that? I don't know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:56:08 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Perhaps if they are multi billion industries they could....I don't know....buy the land they use. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what to do with all of the public land then? privatize it? Release it to the states? The conundrum with privatization is that it will crush several industries just in CO alone that are multi billion dollars of economic activity (skiing and hunting). I agree, the feds own too much land and much of it doesn't even have a good enough budget to manage it correctly, but it's not a cut and dry issue. Perhaps if they are multi billion industries they could....I don't know....buy the land they use. Exactly... I thought all that land was worthless? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 3:58:04 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Public land for the public to use sounds great, and it use to be until in Nevada they have started fencing off large portions, only to tell people they cant use the land. Endangered species by the hundreds, protect the beetles, the trees, the roads, the air, the water, the climate. There are too many to list, and it has become a joke. Funnel everyone into the same areas, close off the rest with bullshit excuses or outright lies, backed by enviro groups with money to sue for anything, then charge bullshit fees on the overcrowded small areas of use. It's getting worse by the day. This is the other side which is drowned in the "I want mine!" Bundy narrative. BLM and FWS, et al. do see to be doing this and if there is any balance in the agencies it isn't apparent. And these agencies appear to be blind to any other uses and deaf to any other input. I'm all for conservation, but it has to be realistic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:01:51 PM EST
[#47]
People who argue for privatization don't get that the land would all be bought by foreign companies, corporations or billionaires like the Turners and Malones who are already some of the largest ranchers. The majority of people would not like this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:04:05 PM EST
[#48]
The answer is, bring back the homestead act.
160 acres staked out, you need to build a house and work the land (plant trees, farm it, whatever the area supports) for 5 years before getting ownership. Fail...and you get nothing, someone else can give it a shot. One parcel per applicant, no exceptions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:06:04 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People who argue for privatization don't get that the land would all be bought by foreign companies, corporations or billionaires like the Turners and Malones who are already some of the largest ranchers. The majority of people would not like this. Well if it's going to not benefit proletariat then damn right the federal government should own it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2016 4:07:23 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People who argue for privatization don't get that the land would all be bought by foreign companies, corporations or billionaires like the Turners and Malones who are already some of the largest ranchers. The majority of people would not like this. The majority of people probably don't like that child molesters get fair trials either... |
|
|
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.
