Sounds more like scapegoating to me, looking for an excuse.
Itchy trigger fingers and all that.
I mean, what's the point of owning all those weapons if you don't realistically expect to use them?
150 Terrorists invade Oregon
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
Sounds more like scapegoating to me, looking for an excuse.
Itchy trigger fingers and all that.
I mean, what's the point of owning all those weapons if you don't realistically expect to use them?
In some of their minds that fight is coming and they are getting ready for it. It's not just trailer park redneck boys either. I'm seeing it from housewives, small business owners, mechanics, school employees, chefs... A anti big gov/corrupt gov. mentality has definitely taken hold in these small western towns.
Right or wrong it's spreading. Quickly. In 5 years it'll be a very real problem.
See, I've seen one person post on it at all. Those that have talked about it at all either haven't given a ****, or been the type to actually send bags of gummy *********.
It's amazing how different our world can seem.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
As a "Westerner" almost my entire life, I agree 100% that wilderness areas should be managed by the Federal and not state governments. Open them up to State regulation, and, my guess is, it won't be long until they are being developed to suit the wants of narrow special interests, as opposed to keeping them as a legacy for all citizens.
I am on record, more generally, of not being a fan of the strict 'State's rights' perspectives, as I think states are much more easily captured by special interests than is the Federal government, and on issues which affect us all (including particularly the non-majority or vulnerable groups in society), State's rights is more or less equivalent, in practice, with capture by local special interests or exclusion of 'out' groups.
well, you're going to have to fight for illegal "beliefs" or "ideals" in the real world. You're actually worse in terms of lawlessness than the worst redneck gun-toting rubes the West can produce.
Why? You are ignoring the actual compact of the states that started this country, or perhaps have never understood it, and you are ignoring many Acts of Congress that were passed, and then ignored by Federal officials. Just because you don't think armed federal officers who ignore the law are a problem doesn't make you or the federal officials right.
In the larger picture, you're also ignoring the fact the fact that an unspoken revolution is going on, has been going on for decades, with little public notice or press. When a federal agency passes some new rules, in effect putting new laws on the books, and enforces them with their own agency "police" officers, badges, guns and all that, and then hauls US Citizens into their kangaroo "Administrative Courts" staffed by their own employees, and issue fines that banckrupt US Citizens, I call that "Revolutionary" and in fact an armed insurrection against the citizens of the United States. This is what is actually going on in scores of federal agencies.
If you will not recognize this as the source of the conflict, it might cost you your fairly understandable and pleasant little ideal of a United States that can have public lands at all.
Just a few general observations here. . .
President Jefferson struggled with the conflicting notions of a government purchase of the Lousiana territory. He knew the dangers of an all-powerful government trodding down the people. The idea of the world being managed from London sorta failed in the American colonies. Of course a lot of people believed The Crown could manage land better than letting people own it outright. . . still do. . . we call them Canadians, locally, today. The whole world-wide movement to sequester lands as reserves, refuges, parks, monuments, and such is Prince Philips WWF crusade today. It's "The King's Forest" all over again.
Jefferson bought the land, because owning the land would protect American colonies' rear, so to speak, and there was a lot of politics in settling how these lands would eventually be given to new States, and admitted to the Union. You could say, the Louisiana Purchase caused the Civil War because an unhinged redneck named Lincoln was elected who declared there would be no more slave states. You could say, the Lousiana Purchase caused the Mexican-American war, and the secession of Texas from Mexico. Americans wanting to own land and carrying notions of liberty and limited government heading west to have their own land.
Adam Clayton Powell was a British-educated scientist/geographer, who began the counterattack against American private land ownership and re-introduced, politically, the notions of a "King's Forest" world, supposed protected from the spoiliations of ignorant human hands.
I might see some benefits to preservation and keeping lands open to the general public, but this idea today has been corrupted by the inordinate power/influence corporate interests have in all aspects of our government. People who, like Canadian Jimmy who never was a real American westerner, and others who have been drinking heavily from the mainstream media and PBS propaganda soures. . . well, almost all Americans today, do indeed feel "vested" in federal land ownership. And what with National Parks being about all ordinary Americans know about having a vacation, it is very important.
That is why, when the fire devastated the mountain near me, the Interior Dept was there with bulldozers and backhoes and road graders to restore the trailheads for hikers, but imo these irresponsible and incompetent "land managers" might as well have deliberately set the fire. They refused to do anything when it was just a few trees and a patch of underbrush. The terrain was not a proper target for this kind of natural fire cycle/leave human hands out of the equation philosophy. When winds came up and fanned the flames, it spread quickly across ground highly susceptible to erosion. When rains came, monsoonal rains not unlike other years in recent memory, there was unbelievable flash flood and devastating erosion. The roads were all washed out, fences washed away, even my field covered with toxic mud laden with PCBs. All wood ash has toxic levels of PCBs, btw. Oh, it gets eaten up by microbes or whatever, but the EPA would shut down a small business with some ashes dumped out back. And I had to fix my fences and ditches and plow the land, without any attention or sympathy from the ******* Interagency Council whose ignorant policies caused all that devastation of "our public land".
At any rate, I consider it a massive ignorance to imagine Federal management is better than any other kind of management. Local people know the land is important to them personally, and they take better care of it. The average rancher today takes pretty good care of his grazing lands, and often, the regulations of the BLM impede better management. Used to be, most BLM personnel were locals, but in the last decades, the Washington BLM officials have been deliberate excluding locals from their hiring of staff. That is a violation of how many laws, really. No, Management wants easterners hostile to the western people to be their managers because they literally can't get westerners to follow their policies. So, this is a growing source of local resentment. The BLM is becoming a foreign occupation of the West.
President Jefferson struggled with the conflicting notions of a government purchase of the Lousiana territory. He knew the dangers of an all-powerful government trodding down the people. The idea of the world being managed from London sorta failed in the American colonies. Of course a lot of people believed The Crown could manage land better than letting people own it outright. . . still do. . . we call them Canadians, locally, today. The whole world-wide movement to sequester lands as reserves, refuges, parks, monuments, and such is Prince Philips WWF crusade today. It's "The King's Forest" all over again.
Jefferson bought the land, because owning the land would protect American colonies' rear, so to speak, and there was a lot of politics in settling how these lands would eventually be given to new States, and admitted to the Union. You could say, the Louisiana Purchase caused the Civil War because an unhinged redneck named Lincoln was elected who declared there would be no more slave states. You could say, the Lousiana Purchase caused the Mexican-American war, and the secession of Texas from Mexico. Americans wanting to own land and carrying notions of liberty and limited government heading west to have their own land.
Adam Clayton Powell was a British-educated scientist/geographer, who began the counterattack against American private land ownership and re-introduced, politically, the notions of a "King's Forest" world, supposed protected from the spoiliations of ignorant human hands.
I might see some benefits to preservation and keeping lands open to the general public, but this idea today has been corrupted by the inordinate power/influence corporate interests have in all aspects of our government. People who, like Canadian Jimmy who never was a real American westerner, and others who have been drinking heavily from the mainstream media and PBS propaganda soures. . . well, almost all Americans today, do indeed feel "vested" in federal land ownership. And what with National Parks being about all ordinary Americans know about having a vacation, it is very important.
That is why, when the fire devastated the mountain near me, the Interior Dept was there with bulldozers and backhoes and road graders to restore the trailheads for hikers, but imo these irresponsible and incompetent "land managers" might as well have deliberately set the fire. They refused to do anything when it was just a few trees and a patch of underbrush. The terrain was not a proper target for this kind of natural fire cycle/leave human hands out of the equation philosophy. When winds came up and fanned the flames, it spread quickly across ground highly susceptible to erosion. When rains came, monsoonal rains not unlike other years in recent memory, there was unbelievable flash flood and devastating erosion. The roads were all washed out, fences washed away, even my field covered with toxic mud laden with PCBs. All wood ash has toxic levels of PCBs, btw. Oh, it gets eaten up by microbes or whatever, but the EPA would shut down a small business with some ashes dumped out back. And I had to fix my fences and ditches and plow the land, without any attention or sympathy from the ******* Interagency Council whose ignorant policies caused all that devastation of "our public land".
At any rate, I consider it a massive ignorance to imagine Federal management is better than any other kind of management. Local people know the land is important to them personally, and they take better care of it. The average rancher today takes pretty good care of his grazing lands, and often, the regulations of the BLM impede better management. Used to be, most BLM personnel were locals, but in the last decades, the Washington BLM officials have been deliberate excluding locals from their hiring of staff. That is a violation of how many laws, really. No, Management wants easterners hostile to the western people to be their managers because they literally can't get westerners to follow their policies. So, this is a growing source of local resentment. The BLM is becoming a foreign occupation of the West.
I believe LaVoy Finicum was a man who put himself in a bad situation. He said he was willing to die, constantly carried a gun during this occupation, fled from officers, and tried to go around a road block by police. He got out of the truck and didn't get on the ground and also reached for his waste. There isn't sound in the video so I'll go off of what I can see, not what I can speculate with no real proof. He reached for his waste and forced an officer to make a split second decision in a bad situation. These men occupied the refuge for 3 weeks and had every day to peacefully resolve the issue and turn themselves in. They made their point and just like other peaceful protests in our countries past, they should have turned themselves in and took the consequences that awaited them. Instead they continued pushing forward ridiculous demands and showing no signs of ending their occupation. Whether people want to argue the states right side of the argument and beyond it does not immune them from the laws they have broke.
There is court case after court case of the Supreme Court upholding federal land and its management agencies. The constitution also says something about the Supreme Court, strange how these men want to ignore over 100 ruling by the Supreme Court over the last 100 years on the very issues of public land and federal management. The federally managed public lands are constitutionally and lawfully upheld. If Utah decides to take $14 million of your tax dollars to sue the Feds over this very issue, you'll get to see the court rule on it again and give Utah their teeth at the doorstep after they knock them out.
There are frustrations among every stake holder and member of the public with some point of management of these lands, but that does not mean we get to hijack the whole system for personal gain. Instead of constantly working against federal agencies maybe the state should try working with them to find a better middle ground for management of these lands. That does not mean grazers get everything their way. With 320 million owners who get to voice their opinion on management, depressed budgets that half are spent on fire, and a mandate of multiple use, the BLM and Forest Service do the best with the hand they are dealt in most cases in my opinion. It's time to work together to collaboratively manage these lands, keep them public, keep them multiple use, keep them healthy, and move on from this century long entitlement fight. I support improving federal public land management, and will never support a transfer to the state or disposal to private interests.
There is court case after court case of the Supreme Court upholding federal land and its management agencies. The constitution also says something about the Supreme Court, strange how these men want to ignore over 100 ruling by the Supreme Court over the last 100 years on the very issues of public land and federal management. The federally managed public lands are constitutionally and lawfully upheld. If Utah decides to take $14 million of your tax dollars to sue the Feds over this very issue, you'll get to see the court rule on it again and give Utah their teeth at the doorstep after they knock them out.
There are frustrations among every stake holder and member of the public with some point of management of these lands, but that does not mean we get to hijack the whole system for personal gain. Instead of constantly working against federal agencies maybe the state should try working with them to find a better middle ground for management of these lands. That does not mean grazers get everything their way. With 320 million owners who get to voice their opinion on management, depressed budgets that half are spent on fire, and a mandate of multiple use, the BLM and Forest Service do the best with the hand they are dealt in most cases in my opinion. It's time to work together to collaboratively manage these lands, keep them public, keep them multiple use, keep them healthy, and move on from this century long entitlement fight. I support improving federal public land management, and will never support a transfer to the state or disposal to private interests.
The original plan. . . the idea of a government with checks and balances between three branches. . . was intended to limit the probabilities of a government that could ignore human rights like the British did with the early Americans who had to fight for their rights. Despite the best design we could invent aimed at limiting government abuse of the citizens, we have ignored the plan, and reaped a government that is abusive of its citizens in many ways.
The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself power that was never constitutionally given to it, the power to issue laws not just "interpret" or resolve conflicts in practical application of the Constitution or Acts of Congress. HIllary Clinton says she wants Obama on the Supreme Court, a clear statement of the intent of some to use the Court appointments to advance political ideologies. I could say a lot about the Court. Once upon a time, the Supreme Court tried to stand for the rights of the Cherokee against settlers who wanted the Cherokee lands, but President Andrew Jackson mocked the Supreme Court saying it had issued its opinion, but he had the soldiers, and totally ignored it. The President then issued orders to relocate all the eastern Indians west of the Mississippi River, in the lands purchased at great conscientious agony by Jefferson, who did not want a government with so much power it could ignore human rights.
One Eye, and others who still trust that federal officials and government policy-makers are the better managers, are ignoring a huge string of Federal atrocities against human beings going back to the way we dealt with the Indians, and then with the blacks let go from plantations with their liberty, but no functional human rights. Federal policies continued racism for over a hundred years against both these groups of US Citizens. In effect, they were excluded from American economic opportunity. Today, ordinary Americans are being subjected to similar injustices with a Supreme Court that is complicit in the problem.
Being forced by federal soldiers onto Reservations, excluded from citizenship, and managed by an agency of the Federal government was all done with a US Supreme Court that played along with the idea.
The Supreme Court has arrogated to itself power that was never constitutionally given to it, the power to issue laws not just "interpret" or resolve conflicts in practical application of the Constitution or Acts of Congress. HIllary Clinton says she wants Obama on the Supreme Court, a clear statement of the intent of some to use the Court appointments to advance political ideologies. I could say a lot about the Court. Once upon a time, the Supreme Court tried to stand for the rights of the Cherokee against settlers who wanted the Cherokee lands, but President Andrew Jackson mocked the Supreme Court saying it had issued its opinion, but he had the soldiers, and totally ignored it. The President then issued orders to relocate all the eastern Indians west of the Mississippi River, in the lands purchased at great conscientious agony by Jefferson, who did not want a government with so much power it could ignore human rights.
One Eye, and others who still trust that federal officials and government policy-makers are the better managers, are ignoring a huge string of Federal atrocities against human beings going back to the way we dealt with the Indians, and then with the blacks let go from plantations with their liberty, but no functional human rights. Federal policies continued racism for over a hundred years against both these groups of US Citizens. In effect, they were excluded from American economic opportunity. Today, ordinary Americans are being subjected to similar injustices with a Supreme Court that is complicit in the problem.
Being forced by federal soldiers onto Reservations, excluded from citizenship, and managed by an agency of the Federal government was all done with a US Supreme Court that played along with the idea.
Last edited:
I was raised in the West, not as a rancher, a miner, a lumberman, or a farmer, but in a family of school teachers. When I saw the signs along the road a few miles outta town that read "Your Public Lands", I was fully vested in the idea. I could go out there and hike anywhere I wanted. I could pick up pretty rocks or even arrowheads. Tourists came in long caravans of recreational vehicles, campers, and stuff, and kept me busy washing the dishes at the little greasy spoon café. We got jobs being nightclerks in the motels. National Parks were a great idea, our little town made of living off them.
It's a great dream, but it's not going to be the future. In the future, most Americans won't be able to afford their rec vehicles, or go to the National Parks. Land managers don't want people hiking just anywhere anymore, and they put up fences to keep you out. They are plowing up dirt roads and scattering boulders across them everywhere, for years now. . ..hardly any of the old jeep trails left for the hardcore explorers. . .
If you pick up an arrowhead, or a pretty rock, you're a criminal. A lot of places you are a trespasser to walk on the land at all. For sure you can not drive a truck or ATV off the road. . . Yes, you need to bring your own wood if you want to have a camp fire in the little campground slot. You can't hack at the undergrowth or trees, even in places where the Interagency Council considers the undergrowth and excess trees a problem.
People from the East who are actually Americans, unlike actual Canadians, can tell their representatives they still want their "Public Lands", but that idea has lost some of it's appeal to people who are beginning to realize that the nice words and ideals are not the reality. It's not our "Public Lands" anymore, it's the "Government Lands". We're back to the realities of "The King's Forest" of Old England. Where landless peasants huddled under the walls of the castles and lived bareboned survival lives working for meagre wages or sharecrop farmers.
Only today, we depend on government "entitlemensts", which the government cannot really afford to pay anymore.
It's a great dream, but it's not going to be the future. In the future, most Americans won't be able to afford their rec vehicles, or go to the National Parks. Land managers don't want people hiking just anywhere anymore, and they put up fences to keep you out. They are plowing up dirt roads and scattering boulders across them everywhere, for years now. . ..hardly any of the old jeep trails left for the hardcore explorers. . .
If you pick up an arrowhead, or a pretty rock, you're a criminal. A lot of places you are a trespasser to walk on the land at all. For sure you can not drive a truck or ATV off the road. . . Yes, you need to bring your own wood if you want to have a camp fire in the little campground slot. You can't hack at the undergrowth or trees, even in places where the Interagency Council considers the undergrowth and excess trees a problem.
People from the East who are actually Americans, unlike actual Canadians, can tell their representatives they still want their "Public Lands", but that idea has lost some of it's appeal to people who are beginning to realize that the nice words and ideals are not the reality. It's not our "Public Lands" anymore, it's the "Government Lands". We're back to the realities of "The King's Forest" of Old England. Where landless peasants huddled under the walls of the castles and lived bareboned survival lives working for meagre wages or sharecrop farmers.
Only today, we depend on government "entitlemensts", which the government cannot really afford to pay anymore.
I suspect some of the contributors to this thread who with great belief supporting federal management of "our" land already know about the stuff I'm going to link below:
First of all, there are folks who really want this planet to be under their management, with their vision of a future that is "natural", with the humans sorta confined to special places, or "reservations", much like the once proud plains Indians were put on their reservations because of visions of another future unlike their past. For these folks, with lots of money and lots of clout, the government is the natural tool for attaining their vision, not that they are not using other tools to do it.
take a look at the map of the United States the Smithsonian is talking about:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/?no-ist
First of all, there are folks who really want this planet to be under their management, with their vision of a future that is "natural", with the humans sorta confined to special places, or "reservations", much like the once proud plains Indians were put on their reservations because of visions of another future unlike their past. For these folks, with lots of money and lots of clout, the government is the natural tool for attaining their vision, not that they are not using other tools to do it.
take a look at the map of the United States the Smithsonian is talking about:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-aside-half-planet-wildlife-180952379/?no-ist
So, Red, there is something going on that will affect your state, and create "public lands" in your backyard. Lots of farmers will be deliberately bankrupted by federal agencies, implementing policies that just cannot be compatible with an economic farming operation. The USDA will call in loans and take possession. A part of this coordinated effort, directed at the highest levels by people who think they are saving planet Earth somehow, is Agenda 21:
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21
Before throwing out meaningless insults like "Conspiracy Theory", please consider this is a UN program, and the link is to the official UN public presentation of the plan. Such plans, once in place as "non-binding" have a historical trend of morphing into more concrete forms no one can ignore or just not implement.
In the past 24 years, practically every US community has had folks "Think Globally. Act Locally" on this program, and as a result, almost every US city, county and State has adopted specific parts of the program, with efforts for full implementation going forward.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/outcomedocuments/agenda21
Before throwing out meaningless insults like "Conspiracy Theory", please consider this is a UN program, and the link is to the official UN public presentation of the plan. Such plans, once in place as "non-binding" have a historical trend of morphing into more concrete forms no one can ignore or just not implement.
In the past 24 years, practically every US community has had folks "Think Globally. Act Locally" on this program, and as a result, almost every US city, county and State has adopted specific parts of the program, with efforts for full implementation going forward.
Patriots who see their basic human rights, and their say in their government, heavily eroded, will paint a less favorable picture of what is going on:
https://tv.infowars.com/index/channel/category/reports
Well, I'm undecided on whether Alex Jones is really a patriot, but that's another discussion. . . .
https://tv.infowars.com/index/channel/category/reports
Well, I'm undecided on whether Alex Jones is really a patriot, but that's another discussion. . . .
Babe, I don't have all day so I'm just gonna hit on a few points. In one of your posts you mention the jeep trails getting closed and how hard core explorers can't explore anymore. If you need a road to get to the backcountry you aren't a hard core explorer. Yes there have been roads closed, but the areas are available to those willing to get on their two feet and walk. That is not a loss of access it is a change in access and in many areas I embrace it. There are roads and busy places everywhere, roadless areas are special places you can get away from it all and closed roads have been asked for by the Amerocan public in many situations.
You go over a lot of things in your posts and I will just say I understand the frustration, but that shouldn't make you want to transfer these lands where they will inevitably be chipped away and sold and you won't be back on them once there is a no trespassing sign at the entrance. I'm sorry it's what will happen, some aren't even hiding the fact anymore that the end goal is private ownership of these lands. There are over 320 million people in this nation. Our public lands have more pressure and use on them than they ever have. That includes record visitors to national parks and such. You try to paint the picture like they are being shut down when in reality they are recording record use and visitors year after year. There have to be some regulations to protect the wildlife and landscapes from over exploitation and damage. I will not say the Feds do a perfect job managing, but they're dealt a **** hand and do the best they can in a lot of instances. Public land management isn't easy, and it isn't going to be any easier if the state gets a hold of it. It will end in the slow but steady sale of these places we all enjoy and I can't support our generation being the one that sold out our public lands for future generations.
You go over a lot of things in your posts and I will just say I understand the frustration, but that shouldn't make you want to transfer these lands where they will inevitably be chipped away and sold and you won't be back on them once there is a no trespassing sign at the entrance. I'm sorry it's what will happen, some aren't even hiding the fact anymore that the end goal is private ownership of these lands. There are over 320 million people in this nation. Our public lands have more pressure and use on them than they ever have. That includes record visitors to national parks and such. You try to paint the picture like they are being shut down when in reality they are recording record use and visitors year after year. There have to be some regulations to protect the wildlife and landscapes from over exploitation and damage. I will not say the Feds do a perfect job managing, but they're dealt a **** hand and do the best they can in a lot of instances. Public land management isn't easy, and it isn't going to be any easier if the state gets a hold of it. It will end in the slow but steady sale of these places we all enjoy and I can't support our generation being the one that sold out our public lands for future generations.
I don't agree with transferring all public lands to the states. But I don't agree with the large %s of western lands that are federal property. nor do I think that giving those lands to the state automatically means they will be sold of. Some of them might sure but not all, it's not a guarantee.
I also do think that the BLM is heavy handed and I absolutely understand the frustration these protestors feel. I also understand the unappreciated efforts the feds make to preserve said lands.
This is all a mixed bag for me. Both sides.
I also do think that the BLM is heavy handed and I absolutely understand the frustration these protestors feel. I also understand the unappreciated efforts the feds make to preserve said lands.
This is all a mixed bag for me. Both sides.
Stoked, if you don't like the western public lands, the east has the private property your looking for. Move, the government forces no one to live here. I'm not saying that to be an ******* but no one keeps any of these people in places that have always been surrounded by public land.
As for selling, the state has a pretty good record of selling them. Will it all happen at once? No, but slowly and surely it will be sold off parcel by parcel. It is no secret the state isn't going to be able to afford such an expense as managing these lands or fighting fires without federal money. The BLM can have a heavy hand in some instances, but for the most part they are isolated instances not the norm. The BLM should hire land managers as their law enforcement. A few decades ago when land managers started encountering more hostile situations (drug cartels, assault rifles, etc.) they started hiring former FBI agents, police officers, and those with criminal justice backgrounds and educations. I can see why they did it, but it has turned part of their land management force into intense officers that heavily enforce laws and regulations with absolutely no give. Take Dan Love the special BLM agent that is over Utah and Nevada. He was in charge of the Bundy ranch and went about it all wrong. He is one of those heavy handed BLM employees you speak of. He's someone you would want by your side if you went into battle, but not someone you would ever want to go to war against. That's what needs to be worked on, is employees. Comgress needs to fix some policies and the BLM needs to work on some personal relationships. The current system of public lands isn't as broken as its made it to be. There are some obvious things that can be fixed, they just need to actually be done. Now it also needs to be considered that almost all law enforcement have a heavy hand these days not just the BLM, and that is partly because of the world we live in today. It's a dangerous place, and many times these BLM rangers are all alone, 20-30 minutes away from any backup or help. I'm okay with them being armed enough to defend themselves, it isn't as easy or safe of a job as some would like to think. I've heard people complain they now carry assault rifles, including state representatives. Well what about our states wildlife officers? The last two DWR officers I've been checked by had a pistol at their side, a short barrel shotgun, and an assault rifle in their vehicle on a gun rack in between the passenger and drivers seat. It's hard to complain about federal officers being armed when your state officers are just as heavily armed. I'm fine with law enforcement having protection but they better not abuse it.
I get where your coming from with the frustrations we all have them in every part of life, but that doesn't mean we pick up our ball and go home. We work through these issues like adults. We don't need to transfer or sell these lands. They are important to our nation, our economy, our access, and future generations, and they need to be treated as such.
As for selling, the state has a pretty good record of selling them. Will it all happen at once? No, but slowly and surely it will be sold off parcel by parcel. It is no secret the state isn't going to be able to afford such an expense as managing these lands or fighting fires without federal money. The BLM can have a heavy hand in some instances, but for the most part they are isolated instances not the norm. The BLM should hire land managers as their law enforcement. A few decades ago when land managers started encountering more hostile situations (drug cartels, assault rifles, etc.) they started hiring former FBI agents, police officers, and those with criminal justice backgrounds and educations. I can see why they did it, but it has turned part of their land management force into intense officers that heavily enforce laws and regulations with absolutely no give. Take Dan Love the special BLM agent that is over Utah and Nevada. He was in charge of the Bundy ranch and went about it all wrong. He is one of those heavy handed BLM employees you speak of. He's someone you would want by your side if you went into battle, but not someone you would ever want to go to war against. That's what needs to be worked on, is employees. Comgress needs to fix some policies and the BLM needs to work on some personal relationships. The current system of public lands isn't as broken as its made it to be. There are some obvious things that can be fixed, they just need to actually be done. Now it also needs to be considered that almost all law enforcement have a heavy hand these days not just the BLM, and that is partly because of the world we live in today. It's a dangerous place, and many times these BLM rangers are all alone, 20-30 minutes away from any backup or help. I'm okay with them being armed enough to defend themselves, it isn't as easy or safe of a job as some would like to think. I've heard people complain they now carry assault rifles, including state representatives. Well what about our states wildlife officers? The last two DWR officers I've been checked by had a pistol at their side, a short barrel shotgun, and an assault rifle in their vehicle on a gun rack in between the passenger and drivers seat. It's hard to complain about federal officers being armed when your state officers are just as heavily armed. I'm fine with law enforcement having protection but they better not abuse it.
I get where your coming from with the frustrations we all have them in every part of life, but that doesn't mean we pick up our ball and go home. We work through these issues like adults. We don't need to transfer or sell these lands. They are important to our nation, our economy, our access, and future generations, and they need to be treated as such.
I don't take that as an attempt to be a jerk. I have even lived back east. Memphis area for about 10 years.
But that does nothing to address this issue. I agree that picking up the ball and going home is not the answer. I do not agree with many of the tactics this protestors have used. Taking the refugee was idiotic IMO. But I'd don't agree with all the BLM tactics either.
Also not all of those lands are "important to our nation, our economy, our access, and future generations". I don't want the feds fully gone. But they don't need 85% of NV, 70% of AK and 60% of UT for example.
I think reigning in the BLM would go a long way to curbing this "rebellion" or whatever we want to call it. For example this story... really? I can easily see how this turns people against the BLM and national lands entirely.
https://www.newschannel6now.com/story/30916489/blm-land-grab-2016
But that does nothing to address this issue. I agree that picking up the ball and going home is not the answer. I do not agree with many of the tactics this protestors have used. Taking the refugee was idiotic IMO. But I'd don't agree with all the BLM tactics either.
Also not all of those lands are "important to our nation, our economy, our access, and future generations". I don't want the feds fully gone. But they don't need 85% of NV, 70% of AK and 60% of UT for example.
I think reigning in the BLM would go a long way to curbing this "rebellion" or whatever we want to call it. For example this story... really? I can easily see how this turns people against the BLM and national lands entirely.
https://www.newschannel6now.com/story/30916489/blm-land-grab-2016
Stoked I agree, the BLM should not be doing anything like that. I would be fine with cutting down some federal lands, but I fear if the state got a hold of them, they would sell the ones that would bring the most value which would be the most pristine places we all use. There's a lot of federal land that really has very little use you almost couldn't give away. They aren't going to get anything out of those lands and if they aren't getting anything if they ever get backed into a corner I can see them selling valuable lands just like they do every year to fund their deficiencies. We definitely need to find a balance where everyone is at least a little happy, and we can get there it's just going to take some work and changes.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
that's probably because they look beautiful. But looking beautiful has no relation to environmental sensitivity or any metric for an area's ecological importance.
I'm sure we can come up with economic, historical and environmental reasons for other places. But that doesn't apply, or shouldn't, to the %s of land controlled.
But as long as the BLM continues as is and people like the Bundys are not reigned in this fight will continue to grow and in increasingly aggressive/deadly ways.