The federal government granted for free, around 125 million acres to the railroads so that they could build the transcontinental railway and other railroads such as the Illinois Central railway.

The feds are left "holding the bag" on land that brings in $112B per year.  It's understandable why nobody wants to buy it.

So all they had to do was complete probably the greatest civil engineering project in the world to date and it was theirs?

So what would constitutional republic shit be? Privatization right?

Once again I don't see why this is a bad thing to provide recreation and freedom to roam in vast open and a lot of the times untouched places on mostly "useless" land anyways. It pretty much preserves the stereotypes that east coasters just don't understand the western lifestyle.

 
Careful what you wish for, anything they can give access to they can also prevent people from using.

How / when did this happen? Utah wants (some) federally-held public lands turned over to it. In 2012 they passed a "Transfer of Public Lands Act".

Right, except that the federal government was actually planning to give away more land but they were stopped after the citizens realized that they gave up land (with mineral rights) that was worth way more than they realized. The railroad companies came out of the deal looking very good.  

I live on some of that free federal granted railroad property right now. The railroads owned the land a mile to up to 10 miles of land on both sides of the railroad, they sold a lot of the land, got richer beyond belief and then sold the mineral rights to the oil companies. if the oil companies who own the mineral rights to my acreage want to frack on my property they don't even need to tell me.  They could show up one day with equipment to dig on my land and I can't stop them.

So, actually I am fine with being able to enjoy all the beautiful federal land in my state.  If I want to buy more land, there is plenty of land for sale right now. I would rather not see them or the state give away or sell any of the federal land.

Plenty of people from Nebraska and Texas come and hunt, fish, camp and ski on this property also.

Please stay in Tennessee.  There is nothing for you out west.

Everyone else too, for that matter.

Oh bullshit.

You're not paying for the public lands.  The people who use the lands pay for them -- the BLM doesn't take from the general fund, they make more in revenue from oil and gas and grazing leases than their budget costs.

No.

They still don't want to own the land.  They don't want the state to own the land.  If they own it, they have to pay taxes on it.  If the state owns it, vice paying 2 bucks a head to graze on it, they'll pay 16 or more -- that's the going rate.  BLM charges far less.  

And we can't do shit with the land either.   You can fish/hunt/camp and you can hike it....but not much else.  No shooting, no 'wheeling, no ATV's....

You stopped way too early in the Constitution.  You need to keep reading.

The money comes from oil and gas leases, grazing fees, and mining leases.  

They use that money to manage the rest of it.

I've posted the links before.  This is probably the 50th thread on this topic in the last year or so.

Last update to the page was 2012, but here's a reference for the BLM bringing in more than it costs to operate.



http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM.html



From that page...



"The BLM does its complex and
challenging work with an annual budget of more than $1 billion and a
workforce of about 10,000 full-time employees. The BLM is one of a
handful of Federal agencies that generates more revenue for the United
States than it spends. For example, in Fiscal Year 2012, nearly $5
billion will be generated by activities on BLM-managed lands, including
an estimated $4.3 billion from onshore oil and gas development, with
about half of those revenues going to the states where the mineral
leasing occurred."

Look at all that less government freedom out west

Don't get your hopes up

Post it up, or I call BS.

Because all the landowners who owned acreage between the lake and the BLM land wet themselves in their rush to sell out when the developers came with open checkbooks. Also people in Saratoga Springs were complaining about bullet holes in their aluminum siding from all the shooting on the west side.  

The other places getting closed out in the West Desert were because the shooting ranges look like public dumps as people drag out every CRT monitor and non-functioning appliance they can find, shoot it up, and then leave it there. Then the bird-watching, metal detecting, and rockhound division of the "multi-use" clause complains to the BLM that it looks like a dump out there. When it comes to public land ranges I swear we're our own worst enemies.

I moved to Utah from Illinois. I owned a .308 semi and couldn't find a place nearby to shoot it in Illinois. And the ranges that did exist were crammed to the gills. I was living a wet dream when I moved to Utah. Get up, throw any and all the guns I wanted in the truck, drive 30 minutes and I had a whole desert to myself - pretty much what Paul's photos showed.

Shooters need to police their own. When was the last time you (the royal you - not singling out NYBTF) went to a BLM shooting site with a box of hefty bags and spent the day cleaning up after other people? The BLM also made the Manti-LaSal/Anasazi trail explicitly for the benefit of recreational OHVers. Could they stay on it? Nope. So yeah, more closures to halt erosion and resulting forage loss and destruction of historically significant areas. Yes, some of us think 2000 year old kivas and petroglyphs have their own intrinsic value.

And the Texans need to just shut the hell up until they agree en mass to stop coming here and using the national land to shoot deer, elk, and my neighbor's horses. They should be at home working on that terrible hog problem they have that forces them to charge people $600 a day to help fix. On private property.

I've been priced out of skiing, sailing, and hunting in the East. If the public lands were privatized I'd be priced out of shooting, hunting, camping, and hiking there as well. I'm more than happy to pay a share of my taxes to keep those lands free to the public. Just like I'm happy to pay for good schools even though I don't have any kids. I don't benefit directly from them, but I know we need them and I benefit indirectly from those schools in a lot of ways. Same kinda deal.

NOW we are getting to the root of the issue.

Fuck the Laws and Constitution.....where is my fucking MONEY!!!
I am really tired of this shit.

What, you need a link to the Constitution?  You want me to read it for you?  

Here is a nice link to the Heritage Foundation's discussion and analysis of US Const. art. IV, sec. 3.  


US Const. art. 1 sec. 8 has absolutely nothing to do with the Federal Government's ability to own property and anyone who claims such is simply spouting shit they are hearing on the internet.  Here is what it says:

"Congress shall have the power ... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"    

Section 8 defines the powers of the legislative branch.  It states that Congress shall "exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever, over" the federal district and military installations.   This clause has nothing to do with the ownership of property, but rather was drafted to ensure Congress is the exclusive legislative authority.  Contrary to what the self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" are saying on YouTube the purpose of section 8 is to limit the power of the states, not the federal government.  Without the enclave clause, the states could presumably try to legislate conduct on the federal lands to the extent that the legislation did not conflict with federal law.  During the drafting of the Constitution the  framers were personally aware of the state-federal conflicts that had plagued our earlier government.  The enclave clause was to guarantee a federal capital that was free of state interference.  

As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 43 "The indispensable necessity of compleat authority at the seat of Government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every Legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings be interrupted, with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general Government, on the State comprehending the seat of the Government for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the Government, and dissatisfactory to the other members of the confederacy."
Section 8 also grants Congress exclusive authority to legislate conduct on lands acquired from the states for other needful buildings.  

If the going rate is 16 a head why are we subsidizing them about 87% of the cost?  Oh that's right because it's the federal government running it.  

The land did just fine for thousands of years before big daddy government showed up. it will "manage" on its own just fine if out up for sale and there are never any takers. heck, much of it can be given to the states or counties if it has to be in the hands of "the people."

You rhetoric is almost fully akin to what you hear from Communists in this part of the world about the horrors of the 1990s when public property *100% of, well, everything) started to be sold off. Many countries still have fucked up distorted real estate markets because big daddy government still owns most of the apartment buildings and land.

Not to mention expanding "congested areas".

I wish we had public land here in Ohio.  I rather be surrounded by "restricted" public land, than have everything thats privately owned being sold to build strip malls, shopping centers, and HOA's.

That was the deal the stock assosciations worked out with the federal government.

This is very interesting how the stockmen opposed homesteading and buying the lands in the late 19th, and how they lost control of the BLM boards in 93, or how the boards were eliminated.  How did that hqppen

The 1996 "antiterrorism and effective death penalty act"

It was the statute used w the 5 yr min, it had section in it dealing w arson when used as a terrorist attack against gov or gov property.  They charged the Hammond's w this in 2011 after failing to incite them per other laws previously.  It was a clear misuse of the law which was aimed at intentional terroristic acts, arson being amoung them.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/oregon-mandatory-minimums/422433/

We should probably keep this thread more on topic but you owe everyone in it an apology for spreading misinformation.

They were charged with arson.

Not terrorism or "terroristic arson" (which isn't a thing, btw).

They were charged with and convicted of arson.  Period.  When you destroy federal property, you get charged with a federal crime.  Go try to burn down a post office and see what happens -- you're going to get charged in federal court, with arson, destruction of government property, etc.

The law you reference is a law that establishes a federal minimum sentencing guideline for arson (along with many other things).

You should apologize to the membership of this site for pontificating about something you don't understand.

Because that's the rate that's been worked out over the years.  It adjusts every year, probably based on what they need.  Remember, the BLM is a net contributor to the federal budget, unlike almost all other organizations in the government.  Their revenues fully support their budget and provide a surplus every year.  They don't need to charge 16 bucks a head, they're making the money they need to accomplish their mission.

You remember how we passed something after 911 called the Patriot Act?  How many things in that bill are about Patriot or patriotic activities?  The title of federal legislation is not law, it has no effect, and is purely about marketing the bill.  How could anyone not support the Patriot Act?  The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 was little more than another omnibus crime bill passed in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing.  Like the Patriot Act there were many subparts to the bill, including Title VII which amended and enhanced criminal penalties.

Everyone who screams about this being terrorist arson fails to recognize that 18 U.S.C. 844(i) existed before the ADEPA.  Prior to the ADEPA, the relevant portion of 844(i) read:

"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not more than ten years or fined not more than $10,000, or both;..."

So how what changes did the ADEPA make to  844(i)?  Fortunately, we can actually look at the bill, under Title


SEC. 708. ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR USE OF EXPLOSIVES OR ARSON CRIMES.
<< 18 USCA § 844 >>

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 844 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—(1) in subsection (e), by striking “five” and inserting “10”;(2) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:“(f)(1) Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property in whole or in part owned or possessed by, or leased to, the United States, or any department or agency thereof, shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both.“(2) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and as a result of such conduct, directly or proximately causes personal injury or creates a substantial risk of injury to any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall be imprisoned for not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title, or both.“(3) Whoever engages in conduct prohibited by this subsection, and as a result of such conduct directly or proximately causes the death of any person, including any public safety officer performing duties, shall be subject to the death penalty, or imprisoned for not less than 20 years or for life, fined under this title, or both.”;(3) in subsection (h)—(A) in the first sentence, by striking “5 years but not more than 15 years” and inserting “10 years”; and(B) in the second sentence, by striking “10 years but not more than 25 years” and inserting “20 years”; and (4) in subsection (i)—(A) by striking “not more than 20 years, fined the greater of the fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,” and inserting “not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title”; and(B) by striking “not more than 40 years, fined the greater of a fine under this title or the cost of repairing or replacing any property that is damaged or destroyed,” and inserting “not less than 7 years and not more than 40 years, fined under this title”.

So the end result is the current version of 844(i) which reads:

"Whoever maliciously damages or destroys, or attempts to damage or destroy, by means of fire or an explosive, any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, fined under this title, or both;"      

As you can see, the ADEPA did not create a federal arson charge, nor did it create a crime for terrorist arson.  The plain language of the statute does not require an terroristic intent or effect.  Instead, the only thing that the ADEPA did was change the criminal penalty for a criminal law that was already on the books.  This is far from the worst thing that the federal government did in the ADEPA, if you really want something to be upset about, we should have a long discussion about what the ADEPA did to habeas corpus.

That I did not know.
From http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/About_BLM.html


Of course then it becomes a states rights issue.  Why should the states give up "about half of those revenues"?  And what is the return on investment of "245 million surface acres" and "700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate"?

Read this for an example of bad science and mismanagement by people with no interest in what they manage... the federal government.  Not sure the state can do better but I am willing to let them try because I have a better chance of getting things fixed if they mess up.

The states do not own the land or the revenue from it.  They never have, and in fact specifically gave up the right to take that land when they entered the Union.

In general, the states do not have the capability to manage that land.  BLM has a great deal of interest in managing the land.  The Bundys want the land given to the state so they can control it better, but that's not the purpose of public land.

So because the territory decided (or maybe was coerced who really even knows at this point?) 152 years ago we should just blindly continue with the same decision?  And what is the purpose of the land that the Bundys used that makes federal ownership so compelling.

Would rather the fed own more land in this state. This state just hands land over to eco groups.

I have to admit I am jealous of you guys out west and the vast expanse you can use for outdoor activities.  Then again I am very happy to own my little wooded 10 acre "ranch" here in Kansas.  Think I'll drive down this weekend and chop down a few cedar

 
I cannot explain what you chose to ignore or not understand.  Perhaps the Supreme Court can.








While the full scope of § 3, Art. IV, of the Constitution has never been definitely settled, it is primarily a grant of power to the United States of control over its property, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 89; this control is exercised by Congress to the same extent that an individual can control his property

 
There is no Constitutional violation in the Federal government owning land.


Declaiming it loudly on the internet does not undo hundreds of years of a specific understanding of the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2) of the Constitution.

 
No, they gave it away for railroads - and then the railroads created towns along the railroads through selling land to immigrants - which benefited the railroads, the US and the states.

Yes, at times some of the Western states have wanted the choice bits.  They don't want the vast acres of nothing where it takes multiple acres to support a cow.

 
"During the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the grazing boards were dissolved because they violated a new federal law that did away with a broad array of such special purpose advisory groups that influenced government without participation of the general public."  source


NYT 1993 editorial


To this end, the plan includes management regulations that would shorten grazing seasons, curtail the use of pesticides and allow for terminating grazing leases if ranchers mismanage the land they are using. Water rights would belong to the Government, not the leasing rancher. And grazing advisory boards, now composed entirely of ranchers, would be replaced by "resource advisory councils" including environmental, recreational and local business interests as well.


The Grazing District Boards were the subject of a lot of research by Phillip O. Foss.

 
It perpetuates the 'sweet deal' that stockmen have always gotten from their use of public land.

 
A portion of all BLM generated revenues go to the state where the activity took place.


The states get money for nothing (no cost to them).

And screws landowners that want to lease their own grazing land because Uncle Sugar is undercutting the going rate.

It's in the state Constitutions, which are what allowed them to join the US.

The states don't want the land.  Every now and then, somebody comes along and starts agitating for the states to take over the land, tries to pass a law or a resolution or some shit, and usually cooler heads prevail, run the numbers, and see that the states don't have the tax base to manage the land at all.

You can read the BLMs mission statement and the Constitution of Nevada that left that land under federal control as well as I can if you want the history.

Reading the words doesn't explain why they did it.

Yes -- and I don't really have a problem with it, as long as it meets the expenses the BLM needs to do their job.

I don't know what you're fishing for.  It doesn't really matter -- it's settled law.  If you want it changed, then go to Congress and get a law submitted to do that.  Every one of those states is represented at the federal level, and if they wanted to take that land back, they could probably get a law passed that would give them the land.

They can't support it.  They don't have the money to do it.  And the cattle barons don't want them to anyway, because the prices would go up to market rates and they wouldn't be able to lease their 10,000 acre spreads to graze their cattle on.