Govt land sell off (again)

[Hobo]

Well the congress is trying to sell off public lands yet again. Anyone in here enjoy hunting, hiking, off-roading or nature? This effort to sell off YOUR public lands goes against all of those pastimes. Privatization of these land is bad for our heritage, bad for outdoors enthusiasts and bad for our country. It is only good for the corporations and wealthy individuals who have the ability to purchase them. They justify the sell off as part of offsetting the national debt. Get real, if you want to do something about the debt then address the areas where uncontrolled overspending is occurring, cause that isn't on public lands.

H.R.621 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017

Read More

 

[Martini_Up]

If they're MINE, why can't I use them? I find locked gates all the time limiting my access. Much of MY land has so many restrictions on accessing it, I will never be able to use it.

Hunting, off-roading, fishing, etc... I have to pay for a permit or license to do these thing on MY land and even then these activities are allowed it's very limited which of MY land I can do them on.

When companies want to pay to use MY land they're denied by the real owners and it just sits there generating zero income.

Are you sure it's MY land??

 

[Hobo]

Sounds like you have a problem with the management of lands. Management policies can and do change pretty frequently. You have a voice in the way the lands are managed. If the lands are sold, you lose that voice. You won't have to worry about a gate being locked or paying for a permit because you will no longer have the right to access them at all.

 

[Martini_Up]

Bull. I'll pay a little bit and have all the access I can handle and feel as free as Daniel Boone did... just like I do each time I go to that 3000 acres ranch in Texas every spring. You see, Texas has VERY LITTLE public lands and yet I can ride, fish, hunt, camp, swim... so I find your argument that - if these lands are sold I can't use them - wrong.

 

[Hobo]

So you are going to pay for something that was free and think that is a better deal?

I know in Idaho many public lands are bought up by mining companies, companies that do not allow the riding, hunting, fishing, etc.-- much different than some recreation ranch in Texas.

 

[RVTECH]

Yea Lars Larson was discussing this a couple weeks ago - and he is FOR the privatization of public lands and keeps telling people how "All you need to do is ask permission to use the land and it shouldn't cost more than a couple hundred a year". I normally agree with most of his ideas but on this he is WAY off. He portrays it as though the owners will welcome us all with open arms for a small fee.

 

[Member 5605]

If they're MINE, why can't I use them? I find locked gates all the time limiting my access. Much of MY land has so many restrictions on accessing it, I will never be able to use it.

Hunting, off-roading, fishing, etc... I have to pay for a permit or license to do these thing on MY land and even then these activities are allowed it's very limited which of MY land I can do them on.

When companies want to pay to use MY land they're denied by the real owners and it just sits there generating zero income.

Are you sure it's MY land??

Maybe the gates are because of this stuff?

 

[Hop Sing]

Maybe the gates are because of this stuff?

View attachment 342595 View attachment 342596 View attachment 342597

Bingo.

 

[PaulB47]

You have a voice in the way the lands are managed.

No you don't. If you want to have say in something, the only way is to own it.

Just because private land is rarely used for hunting, does not mean it cannot be. This situation is analogous to government schools. Government provides school access for "free" (not really, but use is separated from charging for it). No surprise, most people use the "free" government schools since they pay for it in any case, even though these schools are worse than private schools and much worse than homeschooling. I'd rather pay a bit to join a club to have hunting rights.

If government got out of owning hunting lands, the "free" competition would disappear and you'd find a lot more now-private land available. There would also be more exclusion of the slob hunter element.

For those who like the notion of government lands, the proper owners of such land is the states, not the federal government (if the Constitution holds any meaning any more).

He portrays it as though the owners will welcome us all with open arms for a small fee.

Not all. The slobs would not be invited.

You only have to ask what YOU would do if you owned (by yourself or in a corporation with others) a couple thousand acres of land, with no "free" government competition. The reasonable thing to do would be to vet hunters, ask for references, charge a refundable cleaning fee, etc. You'd try to get an income from the land while keeping the damage down. Hell you might even put in feed plots here and there to support more deer and elk.

Socialism is the government ownership and control of the means of production. Government lands are an example of this.

 

[Crohnos01]

Maybe the gates are because of this stuff?

View attachment 342595 View attachment 342596 View attachment 342597

That's exactly why the gates are closed. My issue is with the groups the land owners single out for restrictions. Weyco is charging $300 a head to hunt their lands. Reportedly to be compensated for the jerks responsible for the photos you show. My issue is two fold: First, hunters are providing a service to Weyco by removing animals that would eat their young seedlings, aka cost them money.... so they are charging for saving them money . Secondly, hunters are not the idiots out causing this kind of destruction... as a hunter, I get up before daylight, go to the area I have spent days scouting out, QUIETLY look for game (spraying bullets all over is not hunting...dumping garbage is NOT hunting) go back to camp exhausted after dark, eat dinner, go to bed, and start all over again the next day. In addition, the State of Washington sucks at game management... it has become obvious that they want to charge you a ton of money for access permits, licenses, tags, stamps, and the set up the season and game regulations to almost assure you won'tbe successful.
I refuse to pay money to Weyco for helping them and being penalized for kids and jerkoffs that are causing their issues. My rifle, my money, and I are headed to Colorado where they have real hunting, and decent game management. I wish all hunters in the state would refuse to pay their dumbass fee...One year of everyone boycotting them might get their attention.

 

[Martini_Up]

My experience is when something is free, it's abused. When you pay for it, you treat is better.

So you are going to pay for something that was free and think that is a better deal?

How is it free? It's behind a locked gate! There are so many restrictions on the so called, "FREE" land that it can hardly be called free. And what about the licenses, passes and fees associated with that free land?? Get caught not having those licenses and passes and see how free you feel when your property is seized and you're taken away or given a nice big ticket among other penalties / restrictions as punishment.

Like I already said, I hunt in Texas. I roam around that ranch feeling as free as Daniel Boone. I know what it can be like so I no longer play the stupid game of pretending that Oregon's land is mine while navigating the; draws, lotteries, bow, black powder, rifle, early late, spike, this side of the HWY but north of the creek.... and paying how much for a SportPac now days??? AND how much for the lottery hunts?? What? Point system??? Hahahahahaha!!!!!

Ride a quad? How much does that cost you to ride on your FREE land?? Drivers license AND tags!!!

You can't even park for free if you ride snowmobiles!! Your car has to have a parking pass (snow park) and your sled has to have a license!

Look how much of land is inaccessible to THE MAJORITY of the people in Oregon. It sure doesn't feel like ownership when you will never be able to enjoy it.

And you say it's free.

Kindly don't come in here with your ideas of FREE when it definitely is not. You may make other arguments but FREE isn't one that has legs. Not even close.

 

[Dungannon]

I'm adamantly opposed to unilaterally selling off public land.

- There is very little public land in Texas for a reason. They were an independent Republic before becoming a State. As such, the land without private ownership was owned by the Republic [i.e., the then national government]. When the Republic became a State within the United States, the lands owned by the Republic of Texas became the lands of the State of Texas. Given the few sources of revenue in those days, sale of land was a primary means of raising revenue. Federal lands in Texas are all classified as acquired land, not public domain; and were purchased for specific national purposes authorized in advance by the Congress of the United States.

- There were a host of settlement laws passed by Congress, beginning in 1820 and petering out in the 1930's. The purpose of those laws was to entice Americans on the east coast to resettle in the west, and thereby solidify United States territorial claims against those of other nations like Spain, Great Britain and Russia. As you would expect, the really good land was settled first and the scruffy stuff passed by.

- In the late 1890's, Congress started setting aside 'Reserves' because of widespread fraud by pseudo-settlers. For instance, a homesteader would file for entry on certain lands, cut and sell all the timber, and then move on. The General Land Office ended up doing a lot of surveying and title work, but the desired result [permanent settlement, transfer of ownership into private hands, and generation of taxes to local government] did not occur. The last really big burst of homesteading was right after WWI, when largely eastern European immigrants settled on grazing land. The Stock-raising Homestead Act of 1916 expanded the acreage entitlement to 640 acres, as arid lands more suited to livestock rather than farming required a bigger footprint to be economically viable.

- Where reclamation projects were anticipated, unsettled lands suitable to irrigated farming were withdrawn from conventional settlement until after the water control and distribution infrastructure was in place. Then it was surveyed in parcels that were considered economic units, and sold to the public with the federal government acting as banker. After ten years, typically, the farmer got fee simple title and entitlement to water from the reclamation project subject to availability.

- The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 explicitly stated that it was the policy of the United States to retain the remaining public domain for the benefit of all citizens. Disposal by sale or exchange can still occur, but only as an outgrowth of Land Use Planning that identifies isolated, unmanageable properties. Exchanges are more popular than sales, as it results in a trade of equal value land. The result is blocking up ownership for the private landowner and government agency.

 

[Dungannon]

Most problems involving lack of access, or limitation on activity, are due to the existence of multiple federal and state laws having simultaneous effect. For instance, the federal lands may be managed for multiple purposes [wildlife, recreation, etc.] but the state regulates the wildlife and water resources.

Additionally, unless you have full access to all the relevant title documents, there may be private rights-in-title [easements, leases, etc.] that encumber public lands that limit access and use. This is almost always the case where federal and state lands are interspersed with private lands in a checkerboard pattern of ownership. Access via roads is routinely governed by reciprocal agreements that control who can travel the roads, and thereby share in an apportioned share of the road maintenance. Many private landowners don't want the general public traveling over their part of the road. And neither private or government agencies want to upgrade every back road to public road status [a legal distinction] which incurs significant upfront cost, annual maintenance, and risk of lawsuits for injuries attributable to failure to maintain.

Then you have all the types of land use plans that are in place. Access may be restricted by time of year or mode of transportation because the plan specifies restrictions to protect certain cultural or paleontological resources, threatened flora and fauna, etc. If a range project is underway to replace invasive species with native plant species, vehicles entry may be blocked in some places but foot traffic allowed.

I've only touched on a few examples, but it's way more complicated than most can imagine. And conflicts over access and use of state lands are every bit as complicated as those on various types of federal lands.

 

[HB of CJ]

Please show me anywhere in the US Constitution where it says the BLM and the FS should even exist? Constitutionally there should be ZERO federal land outside of military bases and necessary wharfs and warehouses for tariff purposes. That and Federal Post Office facilities.

The Fed Land Grab thing is western in nature. West of the Mississippi. Some eastern states have no federal land at all. It is a real bummer when Uncle Sam thinks they can own the world. Or half the state of Oregon. All of the Fed land MUST return to private ownership.

Or .... return it to the States.

 

[Dungannon]

The Bureau of Land Management originated as the General Land Office, and predates the Constitution. It existed under the Articles of Confederation and was charged with surveying the public domain and maintaining title records of all disposals and withdrawals. In 1946 the General Land Office and Grazing Service were combined and renamed the Bureau of Land Management under a reorganization plan approved by Congress and signed by President Truman.

The public domain was all lands claimed by the United States and outside the boundaries of the original 13 colonies. As a condition of statehood, the original thirteen states surrendered all claims to westward lands or we wouldn't have a United States. That particular issue was part and parcel of the larger issue of balancing the powers between large and small states and between the branches of government.

You won't find the BLM or FS mentioned in the Constitution. You won't find the Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard in the Constitution either. Or income taxes, the Federal Reserve, the Veterans Administration, Social Security, Medicare, the interstate Highway system, etc., etc. Or any of the Departments, individual Agencies and permanent Commissions. They are products of laws passed by Congress. Article I of the Constitution, Section 8, last paragraph: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the forgoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[Dungannon]

Western Land Grab is term used by those opposed to some action of the federal government. It may be Congress creating a National Park over the objections of local residents. Or the President designating a National Monument under authority of the Antiquities Act.

While I have always had misgivings about many events described in such terms, the notion of a western land grab is a contradiction in terms. Aside from the 13 original states which adopted the Constitution, every other state is a creation of federal statute by Congress. Likewise, the Counties are a creation of State legislatures.

All the lands west of the original 13 states was acquired in the name of the United States by treaty or war. As such, title transferred from one sovereign (e.g., King of France, King of Spain, federal government of Mexico) to another (the United States federal government). When settlers petitioned Congress to establish a new state, the Act of Statehood provided for specific land grants: typically Sections 16 & 36 in each Township plus block acreages to be selected by the state for support of prisons, mental institutions and the like. All the remaining land remained in federal ownership until transfer by a title instrument, usually a land patent.

Most of the land remaining under federal management are in the western states for good reason. Absent good soil and water rights, it wasn't of interest to early settlers. West of the 100th meridian, settlement was dictated by water. Whoever controlled the water controlled the landscape.

Everything changed in 1964. As a result of lawsuits over redistricting following the 1960 federal census, the Supreme Court in Reynolds vs. Sims declared that state legislative districts had to be based on roughly equal populations. And likewise, congressional districts had to be based on roughly equal represented populations. That ruling created a seismic political shift. People had been moving off the farm to the city for several generations and with subsequent redistricting, the political center of power swung decisively to urban populations. Rural populations everywhere, but especially in the west, have found that new laws reflect the views of urban populations because the majority of representatives in Congress are from urban areas. You don't have to like, but I think it helps to understand how this came about.

 

[Hobo]

Kindly don't come in here with your ideas of FREE when it definitely is not.

Well, driving on the thousands of miles of roads on FS or BLM land is free. Hiking on the thousands of miles of trails is free. Dispersed camping is free. Mountain biking is free. Rock climbing is free. Backcountry skiing is free. Nature photography is free. Canoeing, kayaking and many other watersports...all free.

It sounds like you are upset that you have to pay a fee for services provided to you. Game management isn't free, it costs a lot of money. I will gladly pay $19.75 for a deer tag because that money goes to ensuring game populations will persist over the long term. ATV permits? Have you ever had a vehicle that did not require registration? Do ATV trails build and maintain themselves without cost? Parking fee for snowmobiles? Are you going to operate snow removal equipment to clear and maintain your own parking spaces for your truck and trailer?

No, these things are not free because they are services.

 

[Roop]

Well, driving on the thousands of miles of roads on FS or BLM land is free. Hiking on the thousands of miles of trails is free. Dispersed camping is free. Mountain biking is free. Rock climbing is free. Backcountry skiing is free. Nature photography is free. Canoeing, kayaking and many other watersports...all free.

It sounds like you are upset that you have to pay a fee for services provided to you. Game management isn't free, it costs a lot of money. I will gladly pay $19.75 for a deer tag because that money goes to ensuring game populations will persist over the long term. ATV permits? Have you ever had a vehicle that did not require registration? Do ATV trails build and maintain themselves without cost? Parking fee for snowmobiles? Are you going to operate snow removal equipment to clear and maintain your own parking spaces for your truck and trailer?

No, these things are not free because they are services.

...Also, all those things that you mentioned that aren't free, are fees levied by the State government. NOT the Forest Service or the BLM.

 

[Martini_Up]

Forest Service says media needs photography permit in wilderness areas, alarming First Amendment advocates

 

[Hobo]

^ a proposed directive and fee schedule to issue special permits for commercial filming in designated wilderness areas?

Is that what is preventing you from being free like Daniel Boone on our public lands?