Western lawmakers strategize on taking control of federal lands

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: Diisenchanted

"I think the feds could do a much better job of it if we'd stop cutting their pay and their budgets every year. But hey, fiscal "responsibility" over reason and logic, right?"

It is apparent that you do not have much dealings with BLM people. If you have even stood and watched their faces while they actually exert power over civilians you would recognize the sexual orgasmic look of pleasure exhibited while the meanness is carried out. It is not about salary cuts, it is about power. The same power craving as other deviants.

edit on 26America/ChicagopmSat, 19 Apr 2014 18:34:26 -05002014-04-19T18:34:26-05:000634464 by searching411 because: only wanted part of it

Can we get a source or did i miss it?

a reply to: Flatfish

So let me get this straight you read the first post and stopped there?

Your quote: How the hell did I miss that one?

Could it possibility be that you haven't paid attention?

I clearly explained the twelve states in the second post.

a reply to: xuenchen

These cuts:

Coinciding with the drought, the Bureau of Land Management had its budget cut 47 percent, leading to a loss of half its forestry staff.

Add that to the sequestration, it's no wonder the government can't do it's job. That was kinda the point of electing the Tea Party, to stop the government.

a reply to: onequestion

I'm not sure what you want a source too, but I have added sources.

You must have missed it.

a reply to: links234

The government is doing the job it has set out to do. The BLM is out to take over all land possible. The BLM does not want anyone on 'THEIR" land. The land is often fenced and blocked off. No cattle, no horses, no hikers, no campers, no logging, no hunting, no fishing, no enjoying -- period. For what ever reason the BLM wants to keep it from everyone. This is about being the all powerful and all knowing wizard of Oz. Why is the BLM not confiscating Central Park in NY or other parks in the eastern states? Why are they only wanting to eliminate access to lands in the west?

a reply to: Diisenchanted

I have the turkey hanging on the wall. The Plublic land we hunt turkey on is managed by the Corp of Engineers because we have dams and waterways. We lived on property once that had BLM land next to it. We hunted pheasants on it. You just had to walk. I am not lying, what would be the point of that? Come to Eastern Washington, get your license and a map and find out for yourself.

originally posted by: Diisenchanted
a reply to: Flatfish

So let me get this straight you read the first post and stopped there?

Your quote: How the hell did I miss that one?

Could it possibility be that you haven't paid attention?

I clearly explained the twelve states in the second post.

Still don't see why I should have used the number 12 when only 9 of them seem to have been interested in participating with this scheme.

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: Diisenchanted

So I guess they think that the citizens of the other 41 states will cheerfully go along with these 9 states taking over land that belongs to "all of us?" The last thing in the world that I want is for a bunch of radical right-wing legislators taking control over something that is a "national asset."

Stupid is as stupid does!

That is too funny. So because of some folks discussing these state vs. federal land issues, and because you don't seem to like the idea of the state running things as opposed to being federally run, they must be right wing and also radicals too?

That there is a very heavy load of serious baggage you are lugging around, and helping them with the real plan of keeping you divided rather than united..

These BLM guys are stealing cattle and selling them in Canada at auction. They are crooks in a racket to make money and clear the land for federal government use. Of course they know who will be at these auctions - it's all pre-arranged

It's all a scam. Now to prove it.. If we can do that, we might have ammo to fight with.

a reply to: MOMof3

I told you I would get back to you on what I was referring to so here ya go.

link

Couldn't copy and paste, but if you look at the map you'll see what I mean.

Clearly the B.L.M. is not doing their job. They haven't been for years.

The link is a pdf.

I really hope it happens. I am frustrated with BLM. Maybe I can use the land the BLM closed off near my home.

Across the street actually 20 years ago a rancher ran cattle there it is 28miles by 15 miles . About 1990 - 1995 the grazing was closed again the land was grazed since 1870s the old ranch house that stood on the Edge since 1880 was demolished no option to move it either nor land swap with adjoining parcels to save the structure rancher owned land 25' away. I know 15 families who quit agriculture because of BLM games. The parcel next to it he was also ran off all the 120 year old stock tanks and dams destroyed this is a dry area those gave habitat for a host of wildlife . Those 2 families were among of the first settlers to make this town many streets and areas are named after them here before statehood .


When it was leased open access to anyone just dont hurt land or cow and close the gate. Grew up horseback riding out there. It was great to roam out there. It is locked up tight no access . Unless you are employed with a oil company. And since this heavy traffic of trucks havent seen an antelope in 20 years they use to go right by my house from BLM to river behind me . The 20 head of antelope gone and just a few deer. Thank You BLM jerks !

That burns my hide. It is easier to go hiking on one of the rez around here than on BLM land.

BLM has tried to take land from the old spanish land grants from the 1600 & 1700s. That is deeded land when the New Mexico territory was acquired by US those were to be grandfathered in . At least till BLM gets greedy.


Those who dont support this need to get out west talk to ex ranchers or ex sheepherders or people who see BLM close off places to roam . You change your mind.

If your against the states handling the land. Just come to the 4 corner states with a map that shows where BLM land is see how many are closed off locked with padlocks (besides BLM guess who has the keys oil and gas and coal companies ). See how many you can get to . Then you can see what we see . Then you can be informed enough debate the issue .

Why can a for profit company have access to public land and I don't .

a reply to: Diisenchanted

I am sure BLM could use help after layoffs and cuts. NO, I will not join in on this subterfuge of trying to take Public Lands so the rich can buy it. Find other suckers for you cause for the rich man's land grab.

a reply to: MOMof3

I'm not saying that they should sell public lands to anyone! It is not my cause. I'm just saying that the federal government is doing a piss poor job of managing public lands.

If you would have went to the link I posted you would have read this: In six western states, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, over 4 million acres (an area larger than the state of Connecticut) are inaccessible to the public. In several situations, designated and potential wilderness areas are not even accessible.

You told me that all B.L.M. land was accessible all you have to do is walk there. That is simply not true.

I under stand that where you live in Washington B.L.M. land might be accessible, but in six western states 4 million acres of public lands are not accessible to the public.

why do you think they wanted the land that Cliven Bundy grazed his cattle on? I've heard several different stories, and none of them are good.

You can turn a blind eye and bury your head in the sand that is your choice.

Gee I wonder what Harry Reid was thinking about doing with that land.

Who is really the sucker?

originally posted by: Lostinthedarkness
I really hope it happens. I am frustrated with BLM. Maybe I can use the land the BLM closed off near my home.

Across the street actually 20 years ago a rancher ran cattle there it is 28miles by 15 miles . About 1990 - 1995 the grazing was closed again the land was grazed since 1870s the old ranch house that stood on the Edge since 1880 was demolished no option to move it either nor land swap with adjoining parcels to save the structure rancher owned land 25' away. I know 15 families who quit agriculture because of BLM games. The parcel next to it he was also ran off all the 120 year old stock tanks and dams destroyed this is a dry area those gave habitat for a host of wildlife . Those 2 families were among of the first settlers to make this town many streets and areas are named after them here before statehood .


When it was leased open access to anyone just dont hurt land or cow and close the gate. Grew up horseback riding out there. It was great to roam out there. It is locked up tight no access . Unless you are employed with a oil company. And since this heavy traffic of trucks havent seen an antelope in 20 years they use to go right by my house from BLM to river behind me . The 20 head of antelope gone and just a few deer. Thank You BLM jerks !

That burns my hide. It is easier to go hiking on one of the rez around here than on BLM land.

BLM has tried to take land from the old spanish land grants from the 1600 & 1700s. That is deeded land when the New Mexico territory was acquired by US those were to be grandfathered in . At least till BLM gets greedy.


Those who dont support this need to get out west talk to ex ranchers or ex sheepherders or people who see BLM close off places to roam . You change your mind.

Everyone should listen to this guy and read closely. He is there on hand.

a reply to: Diisenchanted

I live right in the middle of this fight. My husband's family owns farm land here since homesteading. I have seen acres of beautiful rich farmland sold to the highest bidder. Who immediately cuts the public off with "no trespassing signs" and does not make use of the land for production. Just fences and gates.

We can't go to our favorite spot on the Snake River to fish anymore. Because private owners bought, cut off the beach access with fences and gates. NO!

The first step is to get it out of Federal jurisdiction. Then give it to the states. Then the states sell it off to their cronies. NO!

I don't care if mother nature is taking over instead of man, government or private, screwing it up. Volunteer.

a reply to: Diisenchanted

The BLM lands in the PDF you linked are not closed to the public by the BLM, but because of the patchwork nature of the lands around the wilderness areas and designated sites.
In the 6 study areas highlighted in that report--there was no access because the surrounding land or portions of the access roads are privately owned.

The federal government is working on gaining right-of-way or easements to the public lands in question, but in the meanwhile the public land has been moved to wilderness status (or awaiting it) to preserve the unsullied nature of the land.

So, it isn't that the feds have locked out the public, it's that they are hitting roadblocks gaining passage to the public land from private land owners.

I'd like to give an example from my own experience working with the US Forest Service. The wilderness area in northern California where I worked, had many small, private in-holdings within the wilderness boundary.

One trail crossed a few 10's of feet into a private section. For years, this was never a problem for the landowners, until some uncouth hikers dumped trash all along that section. The landowners put up a gate. Now, that isn't a problem for hikers to go around, but it wasn't cool for pack stock, because of the steep side-slope. So the FS had to basically abandon that trail.

Then there was massive flooding a few years later, that took out a bridge on the road that led to the trailhead, and the privately held land.

Well, the FS negotiated with the land owner, to gain permanent trail access through their section, in exchange for a new bridge.

That's one example of how these access points into public land develop. It has to be a public-private partnership.
(People with poor wilderness ethics--should not be allowed near our public spaces. Just my strong opinion)

originally posted by: searching411
a reply to: links234

The government is doing the job it has set out to do. The BLM is out to take over all land possible. The BLM does not want anyone on 'THEIR" land. The land is often fenced and blocked off. No cattle, no horses, no hikers, no campers, no logging, no hunting, no fishing, no enjoying -- period. For what ever reason the BLM wants to keep it from everyone. This is about being the all powerful and all knowing wizard of Oz. Why is the BLM not confiscating Central Park in NY or other parks in the eastern states? Why are they only wanting to eliminate access to lands in the west?

That's the idea - the plan is to have these huge giant natural wildlife wildernesses where there are no humans. None. Zero. Just pure nature. Not even a cattle rancher. They might even be trying to restore the buffalo migration paths.