It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You have been suckered into supporting Russias company.
I see the punishment as cruel and unusual because I don't believe the men should have ever been charged with any crimes at all.
So the guiding principle for the Feds -- as established by the Founding Fathers -- is really the Social Contract, which requires the feds to act in the best interests of the people... ALL the people.... in ALL matters relegated to their responsibility.
There is nothing that can be done in the interest of ALL the people.
Is it in the best interests of the people -- ALL the people -- to maintain the current level of property ownership by the feds?
Do you think unlimited development is good for ALL? Do you think Yosemite would be a good place for a subdivision?
If the feds own almost half the state, thus restricting the availability of homes and properties for building homes, that naturally increases the price of property for everyone else.
There are many people, with many interests. The ranchers want wild horses gone. Others want them left alone. Some people think the federal government shouldn't own any land. Others think that National Parks are a really good idea.
Do you think Yosemite would be a good place for a subdivision?
originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: dragonridr
You bring up many relevant issues involved in this whole mess. And for the sake of this discussion, I won't argue about the feds being the best one to manage the land...
But if they are indeed the best managers of the land, then all the more reason we need to end their reign of terror and abuses, and demand accountability -- for the ranchers, for the environment and wildlife, and for the people. Even wildlife advocates are challenging the competency and motivations of the fed agencies and how they manage the lands.
originally posted by: diggindirt
a reply to: Boadicea
Determination of land use should never, ever be left to a board of bureaucrats, most of whom have never set foot on the land.
Timbering can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
Grazing can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
Mining can be done responsibly. Local people can see to it.
When it isn't being done responsibly, local people shouldn't have to travel to Washington to complain and be heard. They shouldn't have to occupy federal building to bring attention to the problems.
I can tell you that it is far easier to look my state senator or representative in the eye than it is to speak face to face with my federal representatives. It is also far easier to impact state legislation due to the fact that our legislature is limited in session length. They're not sitting in their offices year-round thinking up ways to separate me from my money. States already have laws in place regarding all the activities mentioned above. Having the state take the lands now owned by the feds would be far more economical than the present system.
Problem is animal rights groups want to stop cattle grazing on fed lands. Because as I'm sure you know cattle destroy vegetation
The easiest answer would be to stop thr practice of allowing ranchers to pay to graze. However this is hardly fair to the ranchers that can't support their herds on just their property. But the same land they want to use is the one that supports the wild population. So what's good for cattle is bad for the wild animals.
What's thr ranchers proposed solution kill them off. Or in the case of wild horses condone rounding them up for sale.
Bottom line is no matter what you decide as responsible others will disagree. You can't nor should you try to make everyone happy.
States already have laws in place regarding all the activities mentioned above. Having the state take the lands now owned by the feds would be far more economical than the present system.