Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.

 d-usa wrote:
The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.

I know...

I would think that the State would be a better steward over the land than the Feds.

Just my honest opinion.

 CptJake wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 von Hohenstein wrote:
If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.

But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?

Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?

Because this board has users from many countries, and they are all allowed to participate in discussion without their viewpoint being derided like that

A viewpoint based on no fact/evidence probably is worth derision. And his viewpoint is based on nothing but emotion.

It's not based on no facts.

"At 6221 Osage Ave., Philadelphia, PA, on May 13, 1985, members of MOVE, a predominantly black organization dedicated to nature, and African tradition, were confronted by the Philadelphia Police Dept., after neighbors complained of MOVE’s constant bullhorn announcements of anti-American sentiment at all hours. In an attempt to clear the building, the police fired tear gas, and the fire dept. hosed the roof with water cannons. A burst of gunfire erupted from inside the building, and the police responded with thousands of rounds of small arms fire for 90 minutes. They then tried to remove two roof structures by dropping a 4 pound bomb of C-4 and Tovex onto the roof. This started a fire that eventually consumed the entire neighborhood. Eleven members of MOVE died in the fire. Only two survived."

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.

I know...

I would think that the State would be a better steward over the land than the Feds.

Just my honest opinion.

Why, exactly? From a practical standpoint natural resources are parts of complex systems that don't conveniently divide themselves along our political borders. Particularly from a conservation standpoint there is much that simply can't meaningfully fall within a single state's jurisdiction. In addition land that goes from federal to state control might suddenly leave those living one side of the border or another dealing with the consequences of decisions made in another state, where previously they didn't have to deal with that.

Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 von Hohenstein wrote:
If these guys were black, they would have been shoot by the police days ago.
If these quys were muslims, they would have been shot by the military days ago.

But they are white, so they are allowed to do their thing.
At least this is how it looks like from the other side of the ocean. Why are these guys still not arrested?

Why would we care how it looks on the other side of the ocean?

Because this board has users from many countries, and they are all allowed to participate in discussion without their viewpoint being derided like that

A viewpoint based on no fact/evidence probably is worth derision. And his viewpoint is based on nothing but emotion.

It's not based on no facts.

"At 6221 Osage Ave., Philadelphia, PA, on May 13, 1985, members of MOVE, a predominantly black organization dedicated to nature, and African tradition, were confronted by the Philadelphia Police Dept., after neighbors complained of MOVE’s constant bullhorn announcements of anti-American sentiment at all hours. In an attempt to clear the building, the police fired tear gas, and the fire dept. hosed the roof with water cannons. A burst of gunfire erupted from inside the building, and the police responded with thousands of rounds of small arms fire for 90 minutes. They then tried to remove two roof structures by dropping a 4 pound bomb of C-4 and Tovex onto the roof. This started a fire that eventually consumed the entire neighborhood. Eleven members of MOVE died in the fire. Only two survived."

It is not based on fact, Waco and Ruby Ridge were all white folks and many more were killed, and they are more recent as well. So there is no fact presented that whites get treated differently and even less that Muslims would have the military used against them. Add in, your example is an example of city cops from a single city vice the Feds. Again, his position is based on emotion, not facts.

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.

I know...

I would think that the State would be a better steward over the land than the Feds.

Just my honest opinion.

Why, exactly? From a practical standpoint natural resources are parts of complex systems that don't conveniently divide themselves along our political borders. Particularly from a conservation standpoint there is much that simply can't meaningfully fall within a single state's jurisdiction. In addition land that goes from federal to state control might suddenly leave those living one side of the border or another dealing with the consequences of decisions made in another state, where previously they didn't have to deal with that.

Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.

Because why not?

FWIW, I'm not talking about the Federal parks or protected areas. There's a need for that and I have no qualms for that being under Federal jurisdiction.

Is there any justification, other than the fed is the current owner of the title, for the feds owning that much land in the west?

Because most of those states have like 3 people living in them, and it has been expanded on earlier the feds have owned that land for a long time because no one wanted it.

 Ustrello wrote:
Because most of those states have like 3 people living in them, and it has been expanded on earlier the feds have owned that land for a long time because no one wanted it.

I know the history, I'm just arguing that NOW the state may be better stewards over these lands.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the state legislature wouldn't want it as they'd have to pay for the maintenance.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:
Because most of those states have like 3 people living in them, and it has been expanded on earlier the feds have owned that land for a long time because no one wanted it.

I know the history, I'm just arguing that NOW the state may be better stewards over these lands.

However, I wouldn't be surprised if the state legislature wouldn't want it as they'd have to pay for the maintenance.

I wouldn't trust most states especially the great plains ones who would sell out to mining companies and frakkers in a heart beat.

 whembly wrote:

Because why not?

Because it would cost the Fed hundreds of millions if not billions to just give it away, and the State probably can't afford to buy the land let alone maintain or manage any of it.

I'd also posit that if the best response to "Why?" is "Why not?" then there basically is no reason to change the status quo. Especially when there are reasons "why not?"

Is there any justification, other than the fed is the current owner of the title, for the feds owning that much land in the west?

They got it, therefore it is theirs. The Federal Government does have property rights like everyone else.

 whembly wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
The Feds are doing stuff with the land. People just don't like what they are doing with it.

I know...

I would think that the State would be a better steward over the land than the Feds.

Just my honest opinion.

Why, exactly? From a practical standpoint natural resources are parts of complex systems that don't conveniently divide themselves along our political borders. Particularly from a conservation standpoint there is much that simply can't meaningfully fall within a single state's jurisdiction. In addition land that goes from federal to state control might suddenly leave those living one side of the border or another dealing with the consequences of decisions made in another state, where previously they didn't have to deal with that.

Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.

Because why not?

FWIW, I'm not talking about the Federal parks or protected areas. There's a need for that and I have no qualms for that being under Federal jurisdiction.

Is there any justification, other than the fed is the current owner of the title, for the feds owning that much land in the west?

Again:

Last and certainly not least, for the average citizen the state and federal government are both so far removed from being something they can exert direct influence over that the difference between the two basically rounds down the same. However state legislatures are far more easily pocketed by the powerful. State governments are more susceptible to manipulation by interest groups and face less scrutiny.

In other words for any square mile of land X, I can be reasonably sure that the federal government is less likely than a state government to sell, lease, license or otherwise hand it off to private entity exerting dubious monetary influence, a crony, or any number of other parties in fashion that may or may not actually count as corruption.

You specifically said you thought the state government would be a better steward, so you must actually have a reason for believing that right? "Why not" is not any sort of reason, you may as well tell me you flipped a coin "Tails Feds, Heads State. Oh I got state". I can certainly think of valid reasons state ownership could be considered better (though wouldn't personally call any of them stewardship), but I'm asking which ones you are thinking of specifically.

In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.

Considering that the two main grievances so far are "feth off, I'm not paying for no grazing rights" and "feth off, I'll hunt and burn whatever I want" I don't think the state is going to do much better there.

 d-usa wrote:
Considering that the two main grievances so far are "feth off, I'm not paying for no grazing rights" and "feth off, I'll hunt and burn whatever I want" I don't think the state is going to do much better there.

With the Bundys? Yeah... you're right about that.

But don't discount the plights that the ranchers have with BLM/Feds in general.

 whembly wrote:
In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.

You're aware that Bureau of Land Management have offices and officials elsewhere in the country, not just in D.C. right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.

You're aware that Bureau of Land Management have offices and officials elsewhere in the country, not just in D.C. right?

Of course. And?

 whembly wrote:
In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.

It's not some paper pusher in DC. The BLM has local commissions and officers to directly manage grazing on public lands.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Of course. And?

I suppose the 'and' would be is there any criticism of BLM policy here other than "federal government bad."

 LordofHats wrote:

 whembly wrote:
In the context of this thread... I believe the State would be better at managing public lands with respect to allowing ranchers use the land than some bureaucrat in D.C.

It's not some paper pusher in DC. The BLM has local commissions and officers to directly manage grazing on public lands.

Yup. And... who's their boss?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Of course. And?

I suppose the 'and' would be is there any criticism of BLM policy here other than "federal government bad."

Not really.

I'm just arguing, in the context of some of these Rancher's plight, that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.

 whembly wrote:
in the context of some of these Rancher's plight

That's kind of the problem. What plight? That to use public lands they have to follow laws and pay fees? The State would have laws and fees too. It's not like we're just going to go back to the good old Open Range, and why would we want to? Surely we haven't forgotten the Dust Bowl already (add that to the list of reasons why Federal management trumps State management btw).

that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.

By what logic? What reasons? Are there any or is this just "government bad?" Saying the state would be better at it is a somewhat empty statement. Why would they be better?

 CptJake wrote:

Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military?

Blacks are more likely to be shot in a city having taken over a building. Or just walking around.

I can give you some numbers on Native Americans: Despite making up .8% of the general population, Natives compose 1.9% of police shootings.

An interesting recent example was that of Paul Castaway who was shot by police before he could do himself harm.

No, seriously, he had a knife to his own throat so the police shot him dead.

Video and witnesses showed he made no threatening moves toward the officers who cornered him.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military?

Blacks are more likely to be shot in a city having taken over a building. Or just walking around.

I can give you some numbers on Native Americans: Despite making up .8% of the general population, Natives compose 1.9% of police shootings.

An interesting recent example was that of Paul Castaway who was shot by police before he could do himself harm.

No, seriously, he had a knife to his own throat so the police shot him dead.

Video and witnesses showed he made no threatening moves toward the officers who cornered him.

None of that contradicts my point.

 whembly wrote:
I'm just arguing, in the context of some of these Rancher's plight, that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.

What plight, specifically? Federal grazing fees are a fraction of what it costs on private land. It's set to the minimum required by law and has been since 2007, $1.35/AUM. The free market would charge an average of $20.10/AUM for grazing on private land. This is why the BLM runs a loss, year after year, $120 million plus a year since 2002.

Cliven Bundy doesn't even want to pay that. He wants to pay nothing, and he is paying nothing. We're paying for it. My tax dollars are going into Cliven Bundy's pocket because he won't pay his land fees, so please, tell me more about how he's the victim. He then inspired Lavoy Finicum to stop paying his land use fees, as well, because why not? The federal government showed they won't do anything about it.

This really feels like a fact-free, knee jerk "well, if it's the federal government, it must be bad" based opinion.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm just arguing, in the context of some of these Rancher's plight, that all those public lands may be better off under their States' management, rather than Federal.

What plight, specifically? Federal grazing fees are a fraction of what it costs on private land. It's set to the minimum required by law and has been since 2007, $1.35/AUM. The free market would charge an average of $20.10/AUM for grazing on private land. This is why the BLM runs a loss, year after year, $120 million plus a year since 2002.

Cliven Bundy doesn't even want to pay that. He wants to pay nothing, and he is paying nothing. We're paying for it. My tax dollars are going into Cliven Bundy's pocket because he won't pay his land fees, so please, tell me more about how he's the victim. He then inspired Lavoy Finicum to stop paying his land use fees, as well, because why not? The federal government showed they won't do anything about it.

This really feels like a fact-free, knee jerk "well, if it's the federal government, it must be bad" based opinion.

Constant over-arching regulation changes.

Just google fu ranchers taking on BLM (not Hammonds/Bundy) and you'll see numerous account along those same vein.

Granted... nothing may change, but there are real issues that Ranchers in general has with BLM.

Hence why I posited that maybe... just maybe, those massive federal lands out West to revert back to the states and let those states determine how to manage it. Let places like CA and CO be in the forefront of environmentalism and save the rabbit mouse, while MT and NV can open up the lands to any rancher.

But, hey... I'm jumping around with my hair--on-fire, knee-jerking my way here I suppose...

 whembly wrote:

Constant over-arching regulation changes.

Then the immediate solution would seem to be to stop having regulatory changes, which is a much less extreme solution.

Granted, as someone who has listened to 'legitimate' complaints about Federal regulations in another area, what exactly are these over-arching changes? Major legislation has not been passed in this area since 1976 (Federal Land Policy and Management Act).

EDIT: And I'll be honest. I did try to look up what there might be about this, but I actually don't find much direct criticism of the BLM. Complaining that they have to maintain their own fences means little to me. Build a fence, so what? The most substantive complaint I can find against the BLM policy directly is actually that their AUM charge is too low and hurts the free market. The complaint that actually catches my attention isn't actually against the BLM. It's against Ranchers who sublet their Grazing leases for massive profit margins to other ranchers (which is illegal). How bout we get on that, cause that's kind of a dick move.

BLM built the fence to prevent the ranchers from having water access from their stocks on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

 CptJake wrote:


Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military? Hell, can you find any examples of Muslims in the US being killed by the military as you claim would be the case? Even the gak bag Nidal Hassan was killed by civilian DoD cops.

.

I just wanted to point out this error. He's still alive, last I heard.

And there is totally a different justice system for "Black Americans" and "White Americans", that difference being green.

And if we really want to go historical on Federal Govt involvement in crackdown of fringe groups, the experience of the Black Panthers and the KKK should be pretty self illuminatory. I don't think that's a word but I like it.

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military? Hell, can you find any examples of Muslims in the US being killed by the military as you claim would be the case? Even the gak bag Nidal Hassan was killed by civilian DoD cops.

.

I just wanted to point out this error. He's still alive, last I heard.

You are absolutely correct, I meant shot... Obviously he lived and I had a massive brain fart.

 whembly wrote:
BLM built the fence to prevent the ranchers from having water access from their stocks on the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.

And? It's a Wildlife Refuge. What did they expect? It's not like this thing suddenly came into existence overnight. It's been there since 1908, it was an allowance that they got to water herds there at all.

Further, what fence? The BLM and Ranchers negotiated to be put up in 2013 to keep herds from watering in parts of the refuge agreed to be off limits to herds? This agreement was made in 2013, and Ranchers had a say in it (among other interested parties) before the BLM put it in action. Hell, in searching the background on this fence I've actually found that Hammond set another fire in 1999 (so that's three now), discharged a rifle at hunters who were legally on the refuge with valid permits, and that Hammond tried to claim a water source near his property was his when it actually wasn't and the BLM put up a fence because he wasn't allowed to use that water source for his herds and that was in 1994. Hammond seems to suffer from Cliven Bundy Syndrome, which includes symptoms such as claiming that land that isn't his is his, throwing raging hissy fits that laws exist and he isn't exempt to them, and being a pain in the local community's butt but for some reason is a hero for causing nothing but trouble.

EDIT: Like seriously... How the hell is this guy only just now going to Prison? He's been a rampant terror for at least 20 years.

 CptJake wrote:

DutchWinsAll wrote:

 CptJake wrote:


Can you show any examples in the US where the groups you mention took over a building in the woods and were then killed by cops/military? Hell, can you find any examples of Muslims in the US being killed by the military as you claim would be the case? Even the gak bag Nidal Hassan was killed by civilian DoD cops.

.

I just wanted to point out this error. He's still alive, last I heard.

You are absolutely correct, I meant shot... Obviously he lived and I had a massive brain fart.

No you were just wishing the same as the rest of America that he wasn't sitting in Leavenworth collecting a Captain's salary still, the disgusting feth that he is.

He dos not collect a salary.