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.
....the conjectured mis management of locals lands by a far away government down in Washington......
The reference I have made to former empires troubles with local governments in the past have bearing on this problem
Could there possibly a maximum size that governments reach which suddenly ends them up on a watershed they cannot then escape?
Some kind of disconnect is operating which has reared itself frequently throughout history.....
Shouldn't we be able to "do the math" by now....?
I see an agenda here and it has nothing to do with John Sturgeon's rights unfortunately.
Funds were raised to finance his fight. The state's two senators endorsed his cause. In a crowning achievement, the state of Alaska itself endorsed it.
By way of context, in many states in America's great west, much land is owned by the federal government. That is a source of conflict with locals, who want to use the available resources rather than protect them.
originally posted by: Pyle
So man broke the law and gets mad that he got caught? I am not saying the law is good but is that pretty much his whole argument? Operating motorized vehicles off road in Nantional Parks is mostly prohibited. He should have been fighting a law change and not going to the Supreme Court.
I think you're mistaking BLM or National forest for National Parks. There is a big difference. If you have a National Park near by go visit it and you'll see what I mean.
originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Devino
Then why is the government contracting these lands out to major gas, oil, and mining companies after it is confiscated?