User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:06:57 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And screws landowners that want to lease their own grazing land because Uncle Sugar is undercutting the going rate. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 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.  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. It perpetuates the 'sweet deal' that stockmen have always gotten from their use of public land. And screws landowners that want to lease their own grazing land because Uncle Sugar is undercutting the going rate. Not really. The vast majority of grazing land in those states is federally owned and leased out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:08:10 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. The land that brings this agency four times what they spend on it, all while giving away the rights at a fraction of the market price, couldn't be afforded by the states? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:10:25 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. The vast majority of grazing land in those states is federally owned and leased out. How does it not? That small minority of grazing land owners are competing against a federal agency that paid nothing for the land, pays nothing in taxes, and doesn't care about maximizing its return. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:12:44 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The land that brings this agency four times what they spend on it, all while giving away the rights at a fraction of the market price, couldn't be afforded by the states? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. The land that brings this agency four times what they spend on it, all while giving away the rights at a fraction of the market price, couldn't be afforded by the states? Correct. First, the states wouldn't manage it like the feds do. They would chop up and sell off immediately the usable pieces, which would destroy the revenue stream the BLM uses to pay for the rest. The rest would then be left unmanaged... The firefighting budget alone is bigger than the entire budget of the state of Wyoming. I've posted the links that explain this already. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:14:36 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How does it not? That small minority of grazing land owners are competing against a federal agency that paid nothing for the land, pays nothing in taxes, and doesn't care about maximizing its return. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not really. The vast majority of grazing land in those states is federally owned and leased out. How does it not? That small minority of grazing land owners are competing against a federal agency that paid nothing for the land, pays nothing in taxes, and doesn't care about maximizing its return. who is offering land to graze in the western states? Essentially no one. It's all federally owned. And the prices were set by the grazing boards. Again, the west isn't trying to change this. They're pretty happy with it the way it is. It's a good deal for them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:15:57 PM EST
[#6]
The Federal Government has no business owning land outside of a very narrow scope, military bases etc. And hell, that should be leased to them by the states.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:16:19 PM EST
[#7]
You all keep saying that the 'Feds' owns this and that.. It's our land.. if it is not deeded to a person or company, it belongs to us, The People!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:26:01 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the people here saying they already make great use of it for hunting and camping. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The feds ought to own/control about a tenth of that at most. Fucking disgusting.  Who would buy it? All the people here saying they already make great use of it for hunting and camping. Come on dude. You know that it needs to remain wild. I showed you that in Utah last time. It is special. It is all of ours. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:38:09 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Federal Government has no business owning land outside of a very narrow scope, military bases etc. And hell, that should be leased to them by the states. That's an opinion. The Federal government does own land. If we followed your opinion, we'd still be crammed into the 13 original colonies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:40:52 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's an opinion. The Federal government does own land. If we followed your opinion, we'd still be crammed into the 13 original colonies. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Federal Government has no business owning land outside of a very narrow scope, military bases etc. And hell, that should be leased to them by the states. That's an opinion. The Federal government does own land. If we followed your opinion, we'd still be crammed into the 13 original colonies. Geez, context. It once served a specific purpose, once states are formed, the land should go to them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:46:08 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You all keep saying that the 'Feds' owns this and that.. It's our land.. if it is not deeded to a person or company, it belongs to us, The People! Yes, just like the Sheriff's police car is owned by the people of his locality... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 8:47:04 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Geez, context. It once served a specific purpose, once states are formed, the land should go to them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Federal Government has no business owning land outside of a very narrow scope, military bases etc. And hell, that should be leased to them by the states. That's an opinion. The Federal government does own land. If we followed your opinion, we'd still be crammed into the 13 original colonies. Geez, context. It once served a specific purpose, once states are formed, the land should go to them. They didn't want it. The Feds tried to give it to them earlier in the 1900s. The states still didn't want it. Watcha gonna do? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 9:09:06 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
who is offering land to graze in the western states? Essentially no one. It's all federally owned. And the prices were set by the grazing boards. Again, the west isn't trying to change this. They're pretty happy with it the way it is. It's a good deal for them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really. The vast majority of grazing land in those states is federally owned and leased out. How does it not? That small minority of grazing land owners are competing against a federal agency that paid nothing for the land, pays nothing in taxes, and doesn't care about maximizing its return. who is offering land to graze in the western states? Essentially no one. It's all federally owned. And the prices were set by the grazing boards. Again, the west isn't trying to change this. They're pretty happy with it the way it is. It's a good deal for them. Essentially no one =/= no one. And are you surprised that there are few people doing it when the feds own so much land while being able and willing to undercut everyone? So far I haven't heard much in the way of good reasons to do it this way other than "this is how we've always done it."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 9:09:55 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They didn't want it. The Feds tried to give it to them earlier in the 1900s. The states still didn't want it. Watcha gonna do? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Federal Government has no business owning land outside of a very narrow scope, military bases etc. And hell, that should be leased to them by the states. That's an opinion. The Federal government does own land. If we followed your opinion, we'd still be crammed into the 13 original colonies. Geez, context. It once served a specific purpose, once states are formed, the land should go to them. They didn't want it. The Feds tried to give it to them earlier in the 1900s. The states still didn't want it. Watcha gonna do? Sell it for whatever the market prices it out at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 9:40:57 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then I don't see what people are complaining about. The government has huge land holdings, large chunks of it are basically useless. People however are free to go wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and other recreation on it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 
Have you ever been out west? I mean out in the lonely places of Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah? You're not growing shit out there. Ever. Then I don't see what people are complaining about. The government has huge land holdings, large chunks of it are basically useless. People however are free to go wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and other recreation on it. Sure... until the .gov says that we can't do that. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 9:41:57 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because providing places for people to wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and otherwise recreate isn't a legitimate function of government, let alone federal government. Everybody wants to be a constitutional Republic until it's time to do constitutional Republic shit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The government has huge land holdings, large chunks of it are basically useless. People however are free to go wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and other recreation on it. Because providing places for people to wheel, camp, hunt, shoot, and otherwise recreate isn't a legitimate function of government, let alone federal government. Everybody wants to be a constitutional Republic until it's time to do constitutional Republic shit. ^^^ and this. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 9:54:06 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sell it for whatever the market prices it out at. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Federal Government has no business owning land outside of a very narrow scope, military bases etc. And hell, that should be leased to them by the states. That's an opinion. The Federal government does own land. If we followed your opinion, we'd still be crammed into the 13 original colonies. Geez, context. It once served a specific purpose, once states are formed, the land should go to them. They didn't want it. The Feds tried to give it to them earlier in the 1900s. The states still didn't want it. Watcha gonna do? Sell it for whatever the market prices it out at. Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 9:56:01 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. So therefore the feds need to own 47% of the west.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:26:59 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Essentially no one =/= no one. And are you surprised that there are few people doing it when the feds own so much land while being able and willing to undercut everyone? So far I haven't heard much in the way of good reasons to do it this way other than "this is how we've always done it." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not really. The vast majority of grazing land in those states is federally owned and leased out. How does it not? That small minority of grazing land owners are competing against a federal agency that paid nothing for the land, pays nothing in taxes, and doesn't care about maximizing its return. who is offering land to graze in the western states? Essentially no one. It's all federally owned. And the prices were set by the grazing boards. Again, the west isn't trying to change this. They're pretty happy with it the way it is. It's a good deal for them. Essentially no one =/= no one. And are you surprised that there are few people doing it when the feds own so much land while being able and willing to undercut everyone? So far I haven't heard much in the way of good reasons to do it this way other than "this is how we've always done it." So propose a law and see what will happen. No one will care. You're taking up a cause nobody wants, and making up arguments nobody has ever made because nobody cares. Even madcap, as absurd as the arguments he comes up with are, hasn't tried to make up the "OMG the little landlord guy is getting screwed" argument, because it doesn't even make any sense. There's simply no such thing in the west. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:28:23 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So therefore the feds need to own 47% of the west. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. So therefore the feds need to own 47% of the west. They've owned it since 1848 and no one other than a few agitators has seriously proposed changing it since. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:34:59 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, our very first Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, probably had a fairly large impact on the land grab. Wealthy Progressives, like the nobility of old, need their game reserves. http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/0-theodore-roosevelt.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Disgusting. 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. Actually, our very first Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, probably had a fairly large impact on the land grab. Wealthy Progressives, like the nobility of old, need their game reserves. http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/0-theodore-roosevelt.jpg Yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:35:25 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So propose a law and see what will happen. No one will care. You're taking up a cause nobody wants, and making up arguments nobody has ever made because nobody cares. Even madcap, as absurd as the arguments he comes up with are, hasn't tried to make up the "OMG the little landlord guy is getting screwed" argument, because it doesn't even make any sense. There's simply no such thing in the west. There are sure an awful lot of articles about how much land the feds own out west if the target audience is only me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:36:51 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They've owned it since 1848 and no one other than a few agitators has seriously proposed changing it since. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. So therefore the feds need to own 47% of the west. They've owned it since 1848 and no one other than a few agitators has seriously proposed changing it since. By that logic Social Security has been around since 1935 and nobody has seriously proposed stopping it therefore it's good and legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:40:04 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
By that logic Social Security has been around since 1935 and nobody has seriously proposed stopping it therefore it's good and legal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. So therefore the feds need to own 47% of the west. They've owned it since 1848 and no one other than a few agitators has seriously proposed changing it since. By that logic Social Security has been around since 1935 and nobody has seriously proposed stopping it therefore it's good and legal. So propose a law. See where it goes. The states have representation in Congress, they can change this if that's what they want to do. You can make up bullshit on a website all day long. Nobody cares. You're arguing "state's rights" when the states don't want the land, expressly agreed to not owning the land, and have never seriously challenged it in 150 years. And it's not unconstitutional welfare or a ponzi scheme like social security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:40:43 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are sure an awful lot of articles about how much land the feds own out west if the target audience is only me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So propose a law and see what will happen. No one will care. You're taking up a cause nobody wants, and making up arguments nobody has ever made because nobody cares. Even madcap, as absurd as the arguments he comes up with are, hasn't tried to make up the "OMG the little landlord guy is getting screwed" argument, because it doesn't even make any sense. There's simply no such thing in the west. There are sure an awful lot of articles about how much land the feds own out west if the target audience is only me. Not really. There are people who like to agitate. There's been no serious movement to change anything since the 1850s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:41:46 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So propose a law. See where it goes. The states have representation in Congress, they can change this if that's what they want to do. You can make up bullshit on a website all day long. Nobody cares. You're arguing "state's rights" when the states don't want the land, expressly agreed to not owning the land, and have never seriously challenged it in 150 years. And it's not unconstitutional welfare or a ponzi scheme like social security. It's been around for 80 years and nobody is seriously proposing it be stopped. Propose a law and see where it goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:43:35 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really. There are people who like to agitate. There's been no serious movement to change anything since the 1850s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So propose a law and see what will happen. No one will care. You're taking up a cause nobody wants, and making up arguments nobody has ever made because nobody cares. Even madcap, as absurd as the arguments he comes up with are, hasn't tried to make up the "OMG the little landlord guy is getting screwed" argument, because it doesn't even make any sense. There's simply no such thing in the west. There are sure an awful lot of articles about how much land the feds own out west if the target audience is only me. Not really. There are people who like to agitate. There's been no serious movement to change anything since the 1850s. Agitation is good. Getting people to ask "why" is something that isn't done enough. Hopefully they learn that the only answer to many of these is "reasons" and "we've always done it this way". |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:44:21 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. * Where permitted by the government, in designated areas, certain times of day, for state sanctioned activities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:46:37 PM EST
[#29]
Here in Washington County, southwest Utah, the BLM and the feds fuck up everything they touch.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 10:51:56 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Does wonders for private property values. In some locations, if the federal and state governments relinquished their hold on land, prices would decline substantially. And the common man could afford it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 11:05:28 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And the common man could afford it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Does wonders for private property values. In some locations, if the federal and state governments relinquished their hold on land, prices would decline substantially. And the common man could afford it? Every fed land auction I have seen has had the prices driven out of the range of us normal people by well-heeled individuals and developers/ development corps. IMHO, every spot of land thought to have value now or the near future would be priced out of reach by the people and organizations with the money to do so. The 160 acres in the middle of a desert, with little-to-no vegetation and no ground water, no road and no services, no aesthetic value or no spectacular view, might be within the means of a common man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 11:08:55 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every fed land auction I have seen has had the prices driven out of the range of us normal people by well-heeled individuals and developers/ development corps. IMHO, every spot of land thought to have value now or the near future would be priced out of reach by the people and organizations with the money to do so. The 160 acres in the middle of a desert, with little-to-no vegetation and no ground water, no road and no services, no aesthetic value or no spectacular view, might be within the means of a common man. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does wonders for private property values. In some locations, if the federal and state governments relinquished their hold on land, prices would decline substantially. And the common man could afford it? Every fed land auction I have seen has had the prices driven out of the range of us normal people by well-heeled individuals and developers/ development corps. IMHO, every spot of land thought to have value now or the near future would be priced out of reach by the people and organizations with the money to do so. The 160 acres in the middle of a desert, with little-to-no vegetation and no ground water, no road and no services, no aesthetic value or no spectacular view, might be within the means of a common man. Can't let the bourgeois go around using their money to buy things that should belong to the people now can we. ETA: I like how the land is simultaneously worthless and nobody wants it and would be gobbled up at values that would make it unaffordable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 11:10:40 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sell it for whatever the market prices it out at. Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. you say lots of stuff i agree with. i'll take it a step further--the word 'park' would be eliminated, and yellowstone would turn into one guy's backyard. ted turner actually tried to do this in our county in MT in the late 70s or early 80s. bought up a ton of land that had always been open for hunting/camping/fishing, and immediately fenced it all off. that was his right, and even though all the locals hated it, they respected property rights. then he started trying to deny access along the waterway (which is public access up to the high water mark). barricaded the stream to keep canoers from using it, and even tried to build a dam. the men in my hometown were putting together what they referred to as a 'dynamite party' to take out the (utterly illegal) dam, but the fed gov finally stepped in and smacked turner down for interfering with a public waterway. city folk are just so conditioned by being caged that they see the world like a yard dog does. they run ruts around the fenceline, barking "mineminemine". their whole life is about fences, so they can't even imagine a world that isn't divided into yards. take the chain off a dog like that and put it in open country or the forest, and it simply can't function. this is why most city people and easterners feel so disoriented when they come out west. they have to be caged in order to feel secure. a big part of what makes this country great is the vast amount of public land out west. i brook no bullshit about poverty and hunger, because if a guy is suitably motivated, he can walk into the national forest and feed himself. i know this for a fact, because that's how our family ate when i was growing up. the bloombergs and clintons of the world couldn't keep us out of the NF, because that land belongs to all of us. so yeah--most city people should probably limit themselves to central park and their suburban backyards, where there are enough fencelines to run. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2016 11:23:51 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can't let the bourgeois go around using their money to buy things that should belong to the people now can we. ETA: I like how the land is simultaneously worthless and nobody wants it and would be gobbled up at values that would make it unaffordable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Does wonders for private property values. In some locations, if the federal and state governments relinquished their hold on land, prices would decline substantially. And the common man could afford it? Every fed land auction I have seen has had the prices driven out of the range of us normal people by well-heeled individuals and developers/ development corps. IMHO, every spot of land thought to have value now or the near future would be priced out of reach by the people and organizations with the money to do so. The 160 acres in the middle of a desert, with little-to-no vegetation and no ground water, no road and no services, no aesthetic value or no spectacular view, might be within the means of a common man. Can't let the bourgeois go around using their money to buy things that should belong to the people now can we. ETA: I like how the land is simultaneously worthless and nobody wants it and would be gobbled up at values that would make it unaffordable. It's not a matter of should or shouldn't. It's fact, whether you like it or not. The land is public land, by treaty, by the Constitutions of the states, and by law and precedent. We're talking about 640 million acres. 28% of the entire landmass of the United States. Is it so hard to believe that vast amounts of it are essentially worthless, and small amounts are incredibly valuable and allow the BLM to use the revenues from that land to manage the rest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 12:28:12 AM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can't let the bourgeois go around using their money to buy things that should belong to the people now can we. ETA: I like how the land is simultaneously worthless and nobody wants it and would be gobbled up at values that would make it unaffordable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Does wonders for private property values. In some locations, if the federal and state governments relinquished their hold on land, prices would decline substantially. And the common man could afford it? Every fed land auction I have seen has had the prices driven out of the range of us normal people by well-heeled individuals and developers/ development corps. IMHO, every spot of land thought to have value now or the near future would be priced out of reach by the people and organizations with the money to do so. The 160 acres in the middle of a desert, with little-to-no vegetation and no ground water, no road and no services, no aesthetic value or no spectacular view, might be within the means of a common man. Can't let the bourgeois go around using their money to buy things that should belong to the people now can we. ETA: I like how the land is simultaneously worthless and nobody wants it and would be gobbled up at values that would make it unaffordable. Some land is valuable - location near existing towns/ cities, mineral rights, etc... Other land is essentially useless, or would cost massive amounts of money to be made useful. Scale also comes into play - a little land here and there becoming available vs everything at once - one of those raises value, the other can lower it dramatically. But I think you already knew that. Questions for you. Exactly how is it good for the country to open up massive amounts of US territory for sale, regardless of any potential impact it has on property values? Or does the fedgov sell the land in parcels that don't utterly destroy what little wealth some people have left? How long will that take? What if much of the land doesn't sell? Like those areas out in the middle of a desert, with little-to-no vegetation and no ground water, no road and no services, no aesthetic value or no spectacular view? What then? Give it away? Keep it? (Have you seen the "checkerboard"? Take a look at one of the northern Nevada land status maps. Winnemucca District, for example. See those squares in a checkerboard pattern? Private and Public lands in sections, because of the railroads and they way land was disposed of years ago. It is a major PITA for those in the area dealing with land management or property rights. I would highly suggest we try not to have more of that.) Give it away to who? The States? The ones who didn't want it to begin with? The ranchers? The ones who didn't want it to begin with? The common man? The corporations? What happens when all the new common man land owners realize they cannot afford the cost of developing/ maintaining the affordable land out in the middle of nowhere? Or they cannot pay/ stop paying the property taxes? Now the States are stuck with worthless land? What about the existing grazing rights? Or the existing oil, gas and mineral leases? Or the multiple thousands of existing rights-of-way across public lands for such mundane things as roads and pipelines and power lines and cell towers and etc...? "Sorry, it's all null and void, shut down your operations until the land is sold and hope you can work a lease deal with the new owners"? edit to add - Or do you force existing lease agreements (some of them are long term) on the new landowners? And what about all of the land that has listed T&E species? Would you buy land with Desert Tortoise habitat? Or how about the Moapa Dace? What if the USFWS lists the Western Sage Grouse? Do you have any idea of how much of the west the sage grouse's habitat encompasses? How many people would just choose to not buy the land due to the issue of dealing with one or more T&E species? Or might it be better to use the public lands for the benefit of the country as a whole, let the land management agencies deal with the land with T&E species, and dispose of the land a little at a time as it becomes needed by the local communities? How would you handle it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 12:34:57 AM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All the people here saying they already make great use of it for hunting and camping. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The feds ought to own/control about a tenth of that at most. Fucking disgusting. Who would buy it? All the people here saying they already make great use of it for hunting and camping. And put up fences. Screw that, it's everyone's to enjoy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 1:16:36 AM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or having to drive three hours to shoot past 100 yards at a private location. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. My gun club range is only twenty minutes away,can shoot up to 350 yards,ok to shoot NFA stuff,and cost me $25/year to belong. There are three other ranges that are closer and one is about 30 minutes away w/1,000 yard range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 3:22:06 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Disgusting. 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. Actually, our very first Progressive President, Teddy Roosevelt, probably had a fairly large impact on the land grab. Wealthy Progressives, like the nobility of old, need their game reserves. http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/0-theodore-roosevelt.jpg Yep So the designation of public lands as national parks is a land grab? Who did TR land grab from? The Federal government to give to the Federal government? Yellowstone (for example) was public land before it was designated a National Park. National Parks are bad? Are we supposed to strip mine Yellowstone for freedom? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 3:23:02 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: By that logic Social Security has been around since 1935 and nobody has seriously proposed stopping it therefore it's good and legal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. So therefore the feds need to own 47% of the west. They've owned it since 1848 and no one other than a few agitators has seriously proposed changing it since. By that logic Social Security has been around since 1935 and nobody has seriously proposed stopping it therefore it's good and legal. How is Social Security (as set up) bad and illegal? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 5:10:56 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is Social Security (as set up) bad and illegal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trump Yellowstone Park Ted Turners Yosemite Forest Mitsubishi Redwoods Sorry, all you peons need to stay in the cities. No acce$$. So therefore the feds need to own 47% of the west. They've owned it since 1848 and no one other than a few agitators has seriously proposed changing it since. By that logic Social Security has been around since 1935 and nobody has seriously proposed stopping it therefore it's good and legal. How is Social Security (as set up) bad and illegal? Well, at least you're a consistent socialist....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 9:21:59 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well, at least you're a consistent socialist.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: By that logic Social Security has been around since 1935 and nobody has seriously proposed stopping it therefore it's good and legal. How is Social Security (as set up) bad and illegal? Well, at least you're a consistent socialist.... Please answer the question. I want to understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 11:01:23 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 Oh bullshit. 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. 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. hmmm, well, I stand corrected. Though the minimum penalty at issue was set legislation called the "terrorism something something" that part of it was not really regarding terrorismn and the hammonds were not really charged as terrorists, as had been explained in various stories about the incident. I appreciate you taking the time to straighten me up on this sir and I apologize to everyone, but not you josh, not you... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/9/2016 11:07:28 PM EST
[#43]
I can tell you this.
whether or not the vast federal holdigns are constitutional or not I do not know, but they should have specifically made it a duty of the fed gov to provide a long range facitlly within so many miles of every murican so we could live up to our civic duty. It needs to be the national sport like in medieval england (archery) or in switzerland. It's just too damn hard to get a 800+ yard range east of the MS 
a lot of interesting posts here about the freedoms of the west... very compelling, at least from some standpoints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2016 4:20:43 AM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but they should have specifically made it a duty of the fed gov to provide a long range facitlly within so many miles of every murican so we could live up to our civic duty. It needs to be the national sport like in medieval england (archery) or in switzerland. It's just too damn hard to get a 800+ yard range east of the MS
you just earned my vote for the presidency. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2016 4:49:40 AM EST
[#45]
It's awesome having damn near the entire state to go hunting, shooting, camping etc. Does suck having to deal with the fucked up BLM.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2016 5:00:04 AM EST
[#46]
Abandoned missile site about 3 miles from my house.
Not sure if it is Federal property any longer. Walk the doggie through there now and then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2016 5:06:29 AM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe sell some of the premium stuff or land used by ranchers and the like and give the rest to the States. Do this with the National Parks and such, too. The national government should not have that much land, should not have such a hold over the States, should not be able to destroy people over land it does not actually use like what happens in Oregon and other places out West, and it has no constitutional power to own a lot of the land that it owns (and should be forced to conform with the law). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The feds ought to own/control about a tenth of that at most. Fucking disgusting. Who would buy it? Maybe sell some of the premium stuff or land used by ranchers and the like and give the rest to the States. Do this with the National Parks and such, too. The national government should not have that much land, should not have such a hold over the States, should not be able to destroy people over land it does not actually use like what happens in Oregon and other places out West, and it has no constitutional power to own a lot of the land that it owns (and should be forced to conform with the law). No. Preserve national parks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2016 2:15:04 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you just earned my vote for the presidency. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
but they should have specifically made it a duty of the fed gov to provide a long range facitlly within so many miles of every murican so we could live up to our civic duty. It needs to be the national sport like in medieval england (archery) or in switzerland. It's just too damn hard to get a 800+ yard range east of the MS
you just earned my vote for the presidency. That's essentially how I use BLM land here. Goes out past a mile, and we set up steel all over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2016 2:34:46 PM EST
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/10/2016 3:13:41 PM EST
[#50]
I am stunned that New Hampshire has the highest percentage of any state east of the MT->NM line. I had no idea that the White Mountain Nat'l Forest was 13.4% of our land area. Unlike the land out West which was parts of various purchases, the WMNF land was acquired by the Feds from private holders (mostly logging companies) in the early 20th century under the auspices of the Weeks Act to protect watersheds in eastern states.
|
|
|
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.
