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.

 

Why the Government Owns So Much Land in the West

page: 2
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

The specific complaint here is that the Federally-held lands would, for some reason, be better off (better used, more efficiently maintained) under State control or more truthfully under the control/use/abuse of local businessmen and women.

The implication continues that somehow these public lands belong "to the individual States" because they fall within their borders, when in fact, it is obvious, that their borders were set by the United States, the agreements in each action which made these States clearly demonstrates that the lands that are US property will remain so, etc.

"We the People" should be part of these decisions? WHO isn't a part of the decision? or rather WHAT makes you believe that what is going on with these Federal Western lands is opposed to the will of "We the People"?

SOME of us don't like some aspects of it, and SOME would like to use these lands for their own benefit for free, sure ...




posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So are you saying that you think the feds should retain control and everyone just needs to shut up and eat their peas? No, you didn't say that, but neither did you offer any alternatives, so I don't know. That's why I'm asking.

There will always be complaints -- specific or otherwise -- and implications... and, for that matter, accusations and recriminations from someone about someone... no matter what we do or don't do. There will always be those who believe they deserve more/better/the whole damn thing. That's the nature of the beast. And the problems with the feds managing/owning so much land, and how they manage the lands, is a growing problem for pretty much everyone involved/affected. Something is going to change. We can be part of the solution or part of the problem.

I disagree that the feds were intended to keep so much land within the states, and we can argue the original intention until we're blue in the face. It doesn't matter. Even if that were the original intent, it does not have to remain that way. Especially knowing what poor stewards the feds have been and continue to be. "We" made the rules, we can change the rules... in complete accord with the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

As I've already stated, I think the lion's share of usable land should be given to the people, in the same spirit as the original Homestead Act of 1862. I don't want any of it going to corporations -- domestic or foreign; but I suppose I could entertain the idea of some involvement with domestic corporations -- though I would expect them to pay for the land, with the same stipulations of developing the land and keeping it in the company in perpetuity. I want our national parks retained and maintained, with the active consent and participation of the respective states.

Pretty much no one is happy with the present situation and the ways the feds are "managing" these public lands. It is a problem. Hence the outrage and outcry. We know the problems. What are the solutions? What are your solutions?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:44 AM
link   
The West is an arid country. Building homes and communities on BLM land won't make the water appear. Without consistent water, homeowners leave and towns dry up. The West has been there, done that.

The BLM does sell land. But it's not like the BLM is sitting on all prime real estate. There are reasons people and corporations don't want it, such as parcels in Las Vegas that went unsold to developers due to water concerns and prior legal rights on the land.

Now, Utah, which is the major promoter of turning over federal land to states, is the best example to show just who would be the end buyer/user of beautiful but arid land:

This Land Was Your Land

The nuclear-power industry, invited by the governor’s office and the legislature, has floated plans to build a nuclear reactor along the I-70 corridor south of the Book Cliffs, with local county water rights to the drought-prone Green River ready for sale to supply the facility. Last June, the Utah Department of Air Quality, in expectation of full development of Utah’s Saudi Arabia, approved construction of a $230 million oil refinery near the Book Cliffs-East Tavaputs for the processing of oil shale and tar sands. The BLM has embraced preliminary plans for a new potash mine near Moab, and in September unveiled plans for oil and gas leasing on 144,000 acres in the remote canyon labyrinths of the San Rafael Swell west of Moab.
....
The Kaiparowits, he said, was full of coal. “One of the richest coal beds in America. This earth is to be used,” he said. “God put coal in the Kaiparowits for a reason. We need it! We need energy now, and our future needs more energy. And we need the roads to get to that energy.”


Yep. God's energy plan for America.
edit on 26-2-2016 by desert because: oops..source



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 08:52 AM
link   
There isn't much to enjoy in the US anymore for the average low wagers. No where to get away from the constant stress. Here in WA and ID, we have enjoyed accessible and cheap activities on Fed land for a long time. Now that 60degrees is here, we are going camping on BLM 20 miles down the road. We can have a campfire, shoot skeet, fish. Why would we want to give that up? And we have already lost good beaches on the Snake River, no longer accessible, to rich people who live there 2 mos out of the year. I give up.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

No land sales to corporations or foreign investors. It's OUR land.

Now THAT is the bottom line.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

No I didn't say that everyone needs to "shut up." Why would you even say that? Rhetorical device to get it out there?

You make post after post on this subject, clearly demonstrating a side, but then (deploying another device) you pretend that you're "just asking for solutions" and "trying to find answers."

I gave you an obvious answer ... if it's not broke, don't fix it. If it's broke, take the government to court and settle the matter.

Furthermore "everyone" is not complaining about the Federal lands.

I didn't offer any alternatives? To what? The system working as intended? The fact that there are and have been malcontents who didn't get their way in some small matter who try to blow the matter completely out of proportion? (See I can use rhetorical devices as well.)

No, the way the Feds manage the lands are not problems "for pretty much everyone involved."

You keep repeating these generalities that you wish to be true that just aren't because they serve your argument.

You can "disagree" that the elected and appointed representatives of the United States Government (not quite as self-serving as referring to them as "Feds" eh?) are not given Constitutional and legal mandate to conserve the lands belonging to the United States, and you can "disagree" that every Enabling Act that served as the basis to admit every one of these States didn't make the clear declaration that the people of the State agreed that Federal Lands would remain in the hands of the government but you're quite simply mistaken on that point.

That point in particular is more than clear Boadicea ... it's the law, it's what the People of Oregon, Nevada, and other nine States invovled AGREED TO!

You're calling for "solutions" to a problem that is NOT generally accepted to be true. And you keep doing it.

You're begging the question in an overt way.

The solution is, let Federal lands continue to be managed by the Federal government. You've ignored every witness, many in this thread, who have stated that they use these lands to their own enjoyment.

What's your solution? To let the "Bundy gangs" back-hoe more trenches and crap in them?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Gotcha. Thank you for actually answering my question... for the unnecessary and unwarranted insults, not so much. I will continue to make my case and state my position on this -- and other matters -- as I deem fit. I trust you will do the same.

As always, our words will stand on their own merit.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Thank you for your excellent post. I would, however, make one minor correction: the government does not own the land, we the people own the land which the government takes care of for us. Note the frequent use of the word "administer." Land requires a certain amount of maintenance. If the BLM were to sell some of the disputed land to ranchers, it should stipulate that the ranchers, not the taxpayers, are responsible for putting out any wildfires that happen there.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:34 AM
link   
In regards to foreign mining corporations on American soil, that ship sailed a long time ago...

Who Owns The West?
America's "hat", Canada, decades ago got into gold mining here, for example. The lone Gold Prospector with a homebuilt dredge and some dynamite and shovel are not the "people" who will end up mining the land, even if federal land is given to the states; in fact, Mr or Ms Prospector will undoubtedly run up against a No Trespassing sign. Corporations are people, my friend.

One of the problems with "American" corporations is that many that used to be American owned were bought out by foreign companies years ago. Rio Tinto is one foreign investor that comes to mind.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

You haven't been insulted by being called out on your method of argumentation.

If you are insulted, you have my apology for your bad feelings, but not for anything I've stated.

No one is trying to stop you from making your case. Good heavens.

And again, for the record, you addressed a general statement of mine directly and got a direct response from me.

I'm sorry you don't like the facts offered to you in response.

And yes, the facts do stand on their own merit.
edit on 26-2-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noetd



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:50 AM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Oh, MOM, yes, getting out to enjoy nature is so relaxing and fun. Over the years with stagnant wages and "user fees" replacing "lower taxes", BLM land in particular is good for families to use. A few years ago, we were camped in the desert on BLM land when a family stopped by. They wanted to see our new offroad toy, and then they showed us the game birds they had just hunted (on BLM land) to take home, clean, and eat. Land use for The People, indeed!



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: desert
a reply to: MOMof3

Oh, MOM, yes, getting out to enjoy nature is so relaxing and fun. Over the years with stagnant wages and "user fees" replacing "lower taxes", BLM land in particular is good for families to use. A few years ago, we were camped in the desert on BLM land when a family stopped by. They wanted to see our new offroad toy, and then they showed us the game birds they had just hunted (on BLM land) to take home, clean, and eat. Land use for The People, indeed!



Are you saying that you are not being assaulted by the Feds every time you set foot on the public lands?

I understood above that folks in the West are universally up in arms (literally in some ludicrous cases) over how badly these lands are being mismanaged, abused, etc.

Are you saying that isn't your experience?



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh the tangled webs we weave... and all that rot.

Whatever. I wasn't trying to argue. I was trying to discuss. Big difference. I gave my opinion and asked for yours. But now I know where you're coming from... you disagree with me... you were arguing with me.... I just didn't know that. Now I do. Gotcha.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh the tangled webs we weave... and all that rot.

Whatever. I wasn't trying to argue. I was trying to discuss. Big difference. I gave my opinion and asked for yours. But now I know where you're coming from... you disagree with me... you were arguing with me.... I just didn't know that. Now I do. Gotcha.


So you repeated the same thing you just said, and this is "discussion" ???

I provided the facts that you don't want to address. The fact that your contention is not accurate that "everybody" is against Federal land management, that US Government doesn't have the right to own and manage the land it does in the West on behalf of ALL AMERICANS, based on encoded law, etc. etc.

Continuing to respond personally and emotionally with no other evidence is pointless

I submit that we return to equally ignoring each other's posts if that suits you.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


I submit that we return to equally ignoring each other's posts if that suits you.


Yes, please. And thank you. My methods of discussion/debate/argument are obviously not up to your standards, and since I'm not going to change, and I doubt you are either, there's really no point. So, yes, please.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66


I submit that we return to equally ignoring each other's posts if that suits you.


Yes, please. And thank you. My methods of discussion/debate/argument are obviously not up to your standards, and since I'm not going to change, and I doubt you are either, there's really no point. So, yes, please.



Fine by me.

You can have the last words then.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The only time we were ever harassed... really, harangued... by a Fed was by a "bear ranger" in a nat'l park, who assumed we were the guilty party who had placed a tin can on the table at the empty campsite next door.

We've camped on/visited for years different Fed camping units. We've met people from all over the world who can't believe the beautiful tourist opportunities offered by our American govt. And tourism is just one of the functions as stewards of the land.

You know, It's an increasingly complicated world out there all around. We've had to put up with some new BLM rules, like replacing our older gas cans with new fangled ones that don't leak gas fumes. Sounds reasonable to me. Some people want to kick and complain about every new reg that comes along, but it's not 1816, it's 2016; there's a lot to deal with nowadays. In 1816 you chopped down a tree with an axe; in 2016 a chainsaw spark can start a major wildfire. If I camp on a business's private property, I'm always handed a list of do's and don'ts.

I've been on both sides of the same issues in my life. The best way to deal with problems is for leadership on both sides to sit down across a table and work out a compromise. Life gets complicated, and we just have to deal with it.

Now, I do know a couple people who had to deal with a federal magistrate for something they had done on fed property. .... but they deserved it, and they knew it. And it made for good stories for them to tell.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

Thanks for the excellent information!

There was a time when we all sat down and compromised. Now, it's all or nothing.

Oh well, maybe the dolphins will have more success ... or the roaches.

Thanks for your responses!



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Also from your source, and this is what I've been thinking

It may turn out that if the states own it, the ranchers will just be angry at another level of government for a different set of reasons.

I predict that the states would sell off this land to corporations (lining many officials' pockets in the process) and/or allow for corporations to (further) rape Mother Nature for profit uber alles.

Yes, communities and users of BLM lands in Oregon had beefs....ooh, pun....with the BLM. The problem with the Bundys is their cockamamie copy of the Constitution and religious beliefs. The Bundy beef with the Fed govt went way beyond any rational disagreement over management of BLM lands. IMO the Bundys etal are dupes in the grand scheme to have public lands privatized.



posted on Feb, 26 2016 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh the tangled webs we weave... and all that rot.

Whatever. I wasn't trying to argue. I was trying to discuss. Big difference. I gave my opinion and asked for yours. But now I know where you're coming from... you disagree with me... you were arguing with me.... I just didn't know that. Now I do. Gotcha.


So you repeated the same thing you just said, and this is "discussion" ???

I provided the facts that you don't want to address. The fact that your contention is not accurate that "everybody" is against Federal land management, that US Government doesn't have the right to own and manage the land it does in the West on behalf of ALL AMERICANS, based on encoded law, etc. etc.

Continuing to respond personally and emotionally with no other evidence is pointless

I submit that we return to equally ignoring each other's posts if that suits you.




I`ll agree to the BLM having jurisdiction over lands here in the west as long as a similar percentage is taken from states east of the Mississippi and managed by BLM.That way we all benefit from the largesse!We are all Americans,right?




top topics



 
17
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join