Conspiracy Theory

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
I was talking to a guy at a convenience store paying for gas (he had some interesting bumper stickers) about all the threads on here about public land grabs. He started talking about about how a lot of the people with real money (I'm not talking about the1% but, rather, the 1% of the 1%) are setting themselves up in New Zealand for the apocalypse (choose your flavor, economic melt down, viruses, social unrest, zombies, whatever). He said the local public land grabs are probably just the bottom 99% of the 1% and the politicians who can't afford New Zealand who are trying to set themselves up in our remote areas.

Discuss :D

Don't we have some New Zealanders on here? Any room on your couch?:eek:

Sorry if this ain't the right forum
 

SunRiverMan

New member
Joined
Nov 16, 2012
Messages
36
Location
Great Falls, Montana
I don't see how Montana is going to be able to afford to buy federal land in the first place. New Zealand is a super volcano and anybody that thinks they will survive there is a fool.
 

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
I don't see how Montana is going to be able to afford to buy federal land in the first place. New Zealand is a super volcano and anybody that thinks they will survive there is a fool.

That's two strikes against Montana then, because I hear Yellowstone is a super volcano too. :eek:
 

Cornell2012

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
534
Location
Portland, OR
He started talking about about how a lot of the people with real money (I'm not talking about the1% but, rather, the 1% of the 1%) are setting themselves up in New Zealand for the apocalypse

Shhhhh - The public isn't supposed to know about this yet.
 

LopeHunter

Well-known member
Joined
May 31, 2007
Messages
2,842
Location
MO-->CA-->NW-->AZ&NW
Was Britain's decline gradual or a bang bang quick thing? I feel we in the U.S. are ebbing as a nation with the growing debt we rack up as a nation. Sure, we can still kick rear and blow big holes in the ground but when we take a moment to see if we are stronger than a decade ago, seems the answer has been no since around 1970.

We are the proverbial frog in the pot of water that is slowly warming up rather than the frog in danger of falling into the boiling pot.

The top 1% of the top 1% have a whole different set of worries when you not only control generational wealth but exceed "small nation" wealth. Kids hooked on coke and trying to take short cuts to gain prestige (looking at your Paris H.), grandkids with the third set of step parents, failing health from lots of calories and not much exercise, looking older no matter what age-defying treatments you try, usually zero true friends but instead have people laughing at your jokes, etc.
 

VAspeedgoat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
2,741
Location
Timberville, VA
I'm right there with ya lopehunter. As a nation we have always been good at three things.....growing food, simple yet functional engineering, and fighting. Now we have to feed the world, police the internet, and be everyone's big brother and friend. Time to get back to basics.

That being said, I'll take my chances with the volcanoes I'm heading to Wyoming for the apocalypse!
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
5,605
Dow Jones report predicts an uptick on the price of Reynolds Aluminum shares. Food and Drug Administration warns public of the dangers of formaldehyde in Chinese made foil hats. Read all about it in this weeks Conspiracy Report! :)

Don't look for the obscure answers when the obvious suffice. Greed is motive enough to explain the push for public lands becoming private.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
947
Sooo, the paranoia is only on the right?

Being afraid of the state controlling lands administered by the Fed. is not paranoid, but justified? ....and I am not advocating Fed. relinquishment of said lands... I think that the state could benefit from control, perhaps use the resources more wisely(timber/gas/oil/grazing) and could even profit from control, if done right.... With a policy of "no net gain" and "no net loss" the state could block up accessible land through sales of landlocked parcels.....and once again, I not advocating just thinking of the possibilities.
 

shoots-straight

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 6, 2005
Messages
6,223
Location
Bitterroot Valley
Sooo, the paranoia is only on the right?

Being afraid of the state controlling lands administered by the Fed. is not paranoid, but justified? ....and I am not advocating Fed. relinquishment of said lands... I think that the state could benefit from control, perhaps use the resources more wisely(timber/gas/oil/grazing) and could even profit from control, if done right.... With a policy of "no net gain" and "no net loss" the state could block up accessible land through sales of landlocked parcels.....and once again, I not advocating just thinking of the possibilities.

I don't think the left is paranoid of the state owning lands, heck most advocate for more lands to be bought by the state. The right only thinks the state should have lands that are already public.

Strange slant even coming from you. You don't advocate that state lands transfer but see it being a good deal?

Come on man!
 

dukes_daddy

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
812
Location
Riverton Utah
Don't we have FEMA camps hidden in the west?

As for me when I see the first Zombie or Mushroom Cloud I'm heading to the nearest Polygamist Community. I know they are stocked for end of days.
 

shootbrownelk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 2, 2015
Messages
1,206
Location
Wyoming
Sooo, the paranoia is only on the right?

Being afraid of the state controlling lands administered by the Fed. is not paranoid, but justified? ....and I am not advocating Fed. relinquishment of said lands... I think that the state could benefit from control, perhaps use the resources more wisely(timber/gas/oil/grazing) and could even profit from control, if done right.... With a policy of "no net gain" and "no net loss" the state could block up accessible land through sales of landlocked parcels.....and once again, I not advocating just thinking of the possibilities.
You don't think for one second that the state of Wyoming will block-up state land for recreational users do you? For one thing, you can't camp or even have a fire on Wyoming school trust lands. The lease holder (rancher/outfitter) can do whatever he pleases on lands he leases for grazing...use an ATV or truck for access, sportspeople can not. If control of state lands goes to the states, they'll keep the same rules. No camping, no fires and no access without permission. The developers and ranchers will gobble it up as the state can't afford to maintain what they have now. It will be the end of DIY public land hunting as we know it. JMO
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,071
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
I not advocating just thinking of the possibilities.
Eric Albus

The problem with that statement is that, similar to other points, it implies creativity in "thinking" of the possibilities ... when in fact the possibilities have been hashed, rehashed, postulated, refuted, debated, and reiterated ad nauseum for several years. What always comes out at the end of the debate is the fact that state lands are constitutionally mandated to produce revenue, money, income, funding ... and are thus fundamentally different from federal public lands, which are managed for various goals and multiple uses. With regard to specific access and uses for hunting and other outdoor recreation, camping, travel, game retrieval, campfires, access permission and a number of other considerations are significantly different on state lands than on federal public lands ... by laws, rules, regulations, and policies not easily rescinded or revised. Why does that seem to be such a difficult concern to understand by those outdoorsmen, who advocate or "think of the possibilities" of transferring America's public lands to the states, to understand?
 

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
Eric Albus

The problem with that statement is that, similar to other points, it implies creativity in "thinking" of the possibilities ... when in fact the possibilities have been hashed, rehashed, postulated, refuted, debated, and reiterated ad nauseum for several years. What always comes out at the end of the debate is the fact that state lands are constitutionally mandated to produce revenue, money, income, funding ... and are thus fundamentally different from federal public lands, which are managed for various goals and multiple uses. With regard to specific access and uses for hunting and other outdoor recreation, camping, travel, game retrieval, campfires, access permission and a number of other considerations are significantly different on state lands than on federal public lands ... by laws, rules, regulations, and policies not easily rescinded or revised. Why does that seem to be such a difficult concern to understand by those outdoorsmen, who advocate or "think of the possibilities" of transferring America's public lands to the states, to understand?

Correct.

An analogy can be made to the fiduciary duty that is actually written in the law, mandating that those who have it MUST do what is in the best FINANCIAL interest of those to whom they owe the duty. This is what drives Wall Street, banks, insurance companies and anyone who owes such a duty to shareholders or others. This also provides them with cover whenever they do something that, while legally and financially sound, is still morally and ethically reprehensible. Even when legal, moral and ethical, it allows them to bounce back and forth between what is in the short term financial interest of their charge and that which is in the long term financial interest of their charge. Most are driven by the short term and sometimes their personal remuneration is contingent upon the returns they generate each quarter. Further, if they personally are "set" then they are more inclined to take risks, since it is not their money.

That is the State.

The feds, by comparison, are more akin to a trust which *can* (but does not always) include considerations that go far beyond mere generation of income. These considerations are written into law and interpreted by a judiciary which is not subject to election and which has a greater level of immunity from local "friendships" and peer pressure.

Quite simply, a State cannot be trusted to protect resources belonging to citizens of other states. States own the wildlife and it's a miracle there is any. Indeed, there would not be if it weren't for hunters and fishermen, both in state and out.
 
Last edited:

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,071
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
'Good analogy.
Taking it another step. Once "resources belonging to citizens of other states" are transferred, then those citizens not longer have rights, privileges, or interests in those resources. Furthermore, once those resources are fully exploited, depleted of value, and/or sold ... then any rights, privileges or interests are gone forever!
 

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
'Good analogy.
Taking it another step. Once "resources belonging to citizens of other states" are transferred, then those citizens not longer have rights, privileges, or interests in those resources. Furthermore, once those resources are fully exploited, depleted of value, and/or sold ... then any rights, privileges or interests are gone forever!

There were some folks who used to have a "Seventh Generation" philosophy and tried to think of those unborn when making decisions. Don't see much of that, even with all the lip service paid to "the children." Mighty convenient how daddy lining his pockets can so easily be spun for his kid's benefit. .......... Then look at his kids.
 

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
947
James, I agree that the state owns the wildlife, and it is a miracle there are any....
 

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
James, I agree that the state owns the wildlife, and it is a miracle there are any....

I think wildlife still exists for at least a few reasons: 1. Wildlife does make money for the State economy in general; and 2. The States with the most diverse, desirable, huntable wildlife species tend to have large, undeveloped federal tracts (i.e. a home for wildlife to live in). I'm sure there are more reasons but without an economic value and place to live, wildlife would be relegated to a status like we find in many non-western states (pests eating the azaleas or tipping over garbage cans at night).

If any other money-maker out-values the wildlife, or the place they live, then we can kiss them good bye. I've seen it happen in some of my old stomping grounds.

"The land where I travel once fashioned with beauty
Now stands with scars on her face
The wide open spaces are closing in quickly
From the weight of the whole human race.

And it's not that I blame them for claiming her bounty
I just wish they'd taken her slow
'Cause where has a slow movin'
Once quick draw outlaw got to go?"

Waylon Jennings.
 
Last edited:
Top