It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama seizes N.M. land for national monument in Bundy-like showdown

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
Most of the western half of this country and many in the Eastern portion are incensed at the Bundy situation and the Texas BLM brou ha ha on the Red River plus many recent and not so recent stories on landowners getting severely treated by various agencies of the federal government.


Do you have a link?



I have to believe western ranchers at this point are justified if they express a feeling that the federal government is at war with them - its a feeling I'd sympathize with.


They've been getting free feed for their cattle for YEARS and now it's being taken away. Of course they're going to be upset.




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I really don't have a problem with this. We need to protect our forests and other natural areas. Mass urbanization is destroying the country and as Benevolent Heretic showed, most of the state is on board with this decision. So what's the problem? Not everything Obama does has to be hated and despised. He can make good decisions too.

By the way, if it helps drugs traffickers get into their product into the country, good, more support to end the war on drugs. Whatever shows the public that it is terrible for the American people quicker.
edit on 21-5-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
It was proposed to set aside 50,000 acres for protection of the areas you pointed out but the US Senate according to source article wanted 500,000.


Sorry, you're wrong.



In all, the proposal encompasses close to 500,000 acres of land in three units.


From the same source



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=17947309]buster2010



Sorry just because they will no longer be allowed to use motorized vehicles on the land isn't land grabbing. People will still be allowed to go on the land. Did you ever stop to think one reason for this is because of idiots on atv's tearing up the land by making new trails where they shouldn't be? If the government was to take this land and then say no one is allowed on it then it would be a land grab but they aren't doing that are they?


If you are a rancher trucking water to a cattle tank it is. Just like most other subjects you strongly support the government position on - your initial issue such as off trail ATV use is couched in truth, it is the draconian enforcement measures instituted by the federal government and blindly supported by many that's a problem. In the case of ATV users the few who violate the rules should be punished to full extent, just like gun abusers or other individual law breakers. The propensity of government to punish those who follow the law along with the abusers is wrong.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Phoenix
It was proposed to set aside 50,000 acres for protection of the areas you pointed out but the US Senate according to source article wanted 500,000.


Sorry, you're wrong.



In all, the proposal encompasses close to 500,000 acres of land in three units.


From the same source



Same source,


New Mexico’s representatives in Congress have been divided over the monument. Rep. Stevan Pearce, a Republican, called for a 50,000-acre monument, one-tenth the size of the one Mr. Obama will designate. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I linked related ATS threads on Bundy Ranch and Texas BLM land grab at beginning post - thank you!



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix

That's from YOUR source. The original poll taken of NM voters opinions was about the entire 500,000 acres.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have not been to the Organ Mountains. I appreciate that you're not particularly taken with them but maybe the local communities have a different opinion and are hoping to encourage more tourism?

As for the issue of grazing — grazing is permitted at a large number of national monuments. The BLM, FS, and NPS oversee something like 250,000,000 acres of grazing land combined. Do you have any evidence, other than a statement that local rancher's have expressed concerns, that ranchers will be unduly impacted?

Does anyone?
edit on 2014-5-21 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Phoenix

That's from YOUR source. The original poll taken of NM voters opinions was about the entire 500,000 acres.


Like I said polls are not reliable IMHO due manipulations in posing questions, sampling and such.

If I asked in a poll "would you be for free ice cream for all" the answer is obvious. If in turn I asked "would you be in favor of longer working hours" the answer is obvious. I'm not a fan of polls for this reason and you'll rarely see one cited by me.

My concerns are growth of the federal government in scope, power, reach and authority in areas not already existing - in fact I'd be very comfortable with a massive reduction.

Haven't you noticed most everything it touches turns out badly or corrupted in the end.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: burdman30ott6

I have not been to the Organ Mountains. I appreciate that you're not particularly taken with them but maybe the local communities have a different opinion and are hoping to encourage more tourism?


I have been there many times and they are beautiful!




posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I linked related ATS threads on Bundy Ranch and Texas BLM land grab at beginning post - thank you!



But that doesn't tell me that most people in the west and across the country support him, as you claimed.


originally posted by: Phoenix
Most of the western half of this country and many in the Eastern portion are incensed at the Bundy situation and the Texas BLM brou ha ha on the Red River

edit on 5/21/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 02:53 PM
link   
I'd much rather see this land to be used for public use than be given to Texas oil companies to exploit; like our New Mexican republican Gov. Susanna Martinez likes to do.

I guess she is paying back her massive campaign contributions from Texas.

www.abqjournal.com...

imo...she cares much more about her Texas connections than the people of New Mexico! Screwing the people that elected her.


edit on 21-5-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 05:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
Like I said polls are not reliable


The results are that over 80% want to protect the land. If it was 50% I could see having doubt of the results, but the people of NM are educated on this situation and overwhelmingly support it.



posted on May, 21 2014 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

I linked related ATS threads on Bundy Ranch and Texas BLM land grab at beginning post - thank you!



There was no land grab at the Bundy ranch just as there was no land grab in Texas either. First the land didn't belong to Bundy and in Texas the land running along the Red River has belonged to the government since the 1800's. In the Texas thread I linked the case showing that the land was federal land.



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Posted by Phoenix


New Mexico’s representatives in Congress have been divided over the monument. Rep. Stevan Pearce, a Republican, called for a 50,000-acre monument, one-tenth the size of the one Mr. Obama will designate.



If Obama's is ten times that amount, that is five hundred thousand square acres which is a Whooping - 781.25 square MILES !!

What the heck kind of monument is going to take 781.25 sq miles of space? Looks to me like they want all the land they can get.. possibly for oil and gas but i'm just guessing.
edit on 22-5-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
What the heck kind of monument is going to take 781.25 sq miles of space?


A mountain range.



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: theantediluvian

You don't believe in national parks and monuments? I'd like to add my face to Mt. Rushmore, are you going to support that? Maybe Yellowstone would be better without all those trees? Would you fight for my right to start a logging company and deforest a few hundred square miles in Yellowstone for my personal profit? Maybe I could become a rancher and graze my herd at your local park?


Have you been in the Organ Mountains before? There's absolutely nothing unique about them when compared to the dozens of other volcanic "spurdaps" on either side of the Rio Grande Rift. The feds could next declare Cook's Peak, the Floridas, Red Mountain, and Black Mountain in Luna County 'National Monuments' for the same rationale their using here. All of those have cattle grazing on them, too. Also, unless this has changed in the past 12 years, the state of New Mexico owns a state park in this area of the Organs. That ownership is now moot as I assume the BLM will alter their land rights, too. (I'm assuming they'll use the State Park area as the Nat. Monument headquarters as it is conveniently located and already developed at the state park.


If grazing was allowed before it became a national monument then it will be allowed after it becomes one. Unless harmful grazing is occurring in which the ranchers permits would have been cancelled regardless if it was made into a monument or not.
edit on 22-5-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I'm thinking this doesn't reach 'Bundy Level'. And I'm hearing that this will raise the number of illegals coming into the country, giving them safe places to hide and traffic .... but I haven't seen any info supporting that. Can someone who thinks that please post it so I can read it? Otherwise, at this point I have to go with this being a 'protect some pretty mountains' thing and not a big land grab thing.



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010
If grazing was allowed before it became a national monument then it will be allowed after it becomes one.


You're right.




"Industrial uses – oil, gas, mining – things like that will be prohibited,” he points out. “And the area will be protected for traditional uses including grazing, but also recreation, and obviously the wildlife and habitat and biodiversity, and all those important resources as well."


Source[ editby]edit on 5/22/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Another no mans land along the border.

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in AZ is one of these no mans land and closed to the public.
radioviceonline.com...

www.greeleygazette.com...

i think they should turn the land along the border into bombing ranges and post this type of signs.
www.travelthewholeworld.com...

Let the cartel people take there chances.
It would be a good training area for drones.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join