Make America Beautiful Again EO

[mevertsen]

The best thing we can do is vote the politicians who are wanting to sell OUR public lands out of office. The ones with the "R" next to their names have been pushing for public lands to be transferred to the states for decades. This would have resulted in the same thing since the states would sell the land for $$ to the highest bidder.
This latest thing was just trying the same thing in a different form. Except that the majority of the $$ would have gone to the orange menace.

This is my biggest concern.

I do believe the land is supposed to be in stste hands, vs federal.

However, i also know, the second it hits state hands, the various legislatures will find a away to get it sold for various pet projects, depending on the political leaning of the specific legislature at the time.

 

[peterk1234]

This is my biggest concern.

I do believe the land is supposed to be in stste hands, vs federal.

However, i also know, the second it hits state hands, the various legislatures will find a away to get it sold for various pet projects, depending on the political leaning of the specific legislature at the time.

How can states afford to manage it? I think the importance of this cannot be overstated. I'm pretty sure states have to run a balanced budget. All it takes is one wildfire and a state is out of business. While I don't believe in running deficits, it's a necessary evil on the federal side.

You know the solution to a state's deficit budget if they had the land. Yup, sell it all.

Not an option. I rather redraw the states' boundaries to exclude federal land.

 

[rogerthat]

This is my biggest concern.

I do believe the land is supposed to be in stste hands, vs federal.

However, i also know, the second it hits state hands, the various legislatures will find a away to get it sold for various pet projects, depending on the political leaning of the specific legislature at the time.

Why do you believe the lands should be in states hands?

 

[mevertsen]

Why do you believe the lands should be in states hands?

Its been years since I really dove into the issue.

But the conclusion i came to was that the original federal lands was supposed to be given to state control in time, back when we had larger territories and before all the states were formed. Basically, feds owned the land while territories, then it goes to the states.

But its what the sagebrush rebellion, and current southern Utah area ranchers land on.

I believe the screenshot here are correct, but I would have to dive into again more in depth to refresh my memory on the issue.

 

[mevertsen]

How can states afford to manage it? I think the importance of this cannot be overstated. I'm pretty sure states have to run a balanced budget. All it takes is one wildfire and a state is out of business. While I don't believe in running deficits, it's a necessary evil on the federal side.

You know the solution to a state's deficit budget if they had the land. Yup, sell it all.

Not an option. I rather redraw the states' boundaries to exclude federal land.

I agree. A lot of states can't. The answer would be to sell it, so it's not their problem.

Its a dilemma for me.

Constitution says, it can be sent to the states.

But going to the states would end in disaster.

I live in an area that absolutely hates the BLM and forest service. But no one can provide a truly reasonable alternative that keeps the land in states hands and funds all the needs.

 

[Wildabeest]

There are a lot of opportunities in the outdoor community for outrage these days

 

[mtmiller]

Its been years since I really dove into the issue.

But the conclusion i came to was that the original federal lands was supposed to be given to state control in time, back when we had larger territories and before all the states were formed. Basically, feds owned the land while territories, then it goes to the states.

This is not true.

 

[mevertsen]

This is not true.

Okay. Thats the conclusion I came to. Not necessarily fact. But a conclusion a lot of people have had as well.

Show me how its NOT true.

 

[mevertsen]

Looks like i was incorrect above regarding ths stance from the Sagebrush Rebellion. That was another issue they landed on. That was based primarily on the various Wilderness acts

 

[peterk1234]

Okay. Thats the conclusion I came to. Not necessarily fact. But a conclusion a lot of people have had as well.

Show me how its NOT true.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIV-S3-C2-2/ALDE_00013510/

 

[BuzzH]

It will certainly be interesting to see the actual real outcomes vs the assumed outcomes. So far I see a lot of similarities.

I can tell you what the real outcome is for the project I work for, nothing assumed about it. Just fact.

 

[rogerthat]

Its been years since I really dove into the issue.

But the conclusion i came to was that the original federal lands was supposed to be given to state control in time, back when we had larger territories and before all the states were formed. Basically, feds owned the land while territories, then it goes to the states.

But its what the sagebrush rebellion, and current southern Utah area ranchers land on.

I believe the screenshot here are correct, but I would have to dive into again more in depth to refresh my memory on the issue.

Awww a copy of the old Cliven Bundy pocket constitution! I jest! Lots of knowledgeable people on here I think we can walk through this a bit. The Property Clause of the Constitution allows Congress with no limitations to dispose of federal property but it doesn’t require it. Each western territory started as federal lands. The homestead act was passed to promote these to private and often as the territory became a state an act granting statehood would lay out some of these lands becoming state lands but there was always a line in each state constitution that said the states with this act disclaimed any right to the federal lands within its borders. I paraphrase obviously. There was never a promise or a requirement to transfer the lands to the state. I’m always curious where the school of thought on state rights to federal lands comes from.

 

[mevertsen]

Awww a copy of the old Cliven Bundy pocket constitution! I jest! Lots of knowledgeable people on here I think we can walk through this a bit. The Property Clause of the Constitution allows Congress with no limitations to dispose of federal property but it doesn’t require it. Each western territory started as federal lands. The homestead act was passed to promote these to private and often as the territory became a state an act granting statehood would lay out some of these lands becoming state lands but there was always a line in each state constitution that said the states with this act disclaimed any right to the federal lands within its borders. I paraphrase obviously. There was never a promise or a requirement to transfer the lands to the state. I’m always curious where the school of thought on state rights to federal lands comes from.

Again, it was years ago (20 maybe), when I really looked into it.

Keep in mind, my attorney we have used for our estate planning, etc, is the son of Grant Gerber, attorney behind Jarbidge Shovel Brigade, and the Cowboy Express ride across the US that he actually died on.

I know several people who are related to the Bundys and Ruth's, so you could say very easily that there is still and was in previous years a lot of influence in research and conclusions.

Bottom line is, Congress very easily could transfer or dispose of federal property, according to the previously mentioned article.

That being said, I do believe land could be better taken care of if it were much more under local control, but there are so many greedy hands, that I dont think it would stay in state / local government control for very long if it were to be transfered to the state.

And then there are the mentioned issues if fire suppression and various other problems. Side note to that- we have some fires burning in Northern Nevada right now. And people either bitch about the lazy locals, or w
bitch about the BLM and how they handle it, conspiracy theories abound. So no matter what, stuff is still going to burn.

But I guess you could say, in some ways, this area is so "RED" I almost live in an echo chamber. There really arent a lot of differing opinions. Everyone hates the federal government for one reason or another.

 

[rogerthat]

Again, it was years ago (20 maybe), when I really looked into it.

Keep in mind, my attorney we have used for our estate planning, etc, is the son of Grant Gerber, attorney behind Jarbidge Shovel Brigade, and the Cowboy Express ride across the US that he actually died on.

I know several people who are related to the Bundys and Ruth's, so you could say very easily that there is still and was in previous years a lot of influence in research and conclusions.

Bottom line is, Congress very easily could transfer or dispose of federal property, according to the previously mentioned article.

That being said, I do believe land could be better taken care of if it were much more under local control, but there are so many greedy hands, that I dont think it would stay in state / local government control for very long if it were to be transfered to the state.

And then there are the mentioned issues if fire suppression and various other problems. Side note to that- we have some fires burning in Northern Nevada right now. And people either bitch about the lazy locals, or w
bitch about the BLM and how they handle it, conspiracy theories abound. So no matter what, stuff is still going to burn.

But I guess you could say, in some ways, this area is so "RED" I almost live in an echo chamber. There really arent a lot of differing opinions. Everyone hates the federal government for one reason or another.

Yup, spot on they could but hopefully we the people tell them that’s not what we want. That’s Randy’s mission and what keeps me around this place. There is an argument that these lands were never intended to stay in federal ownership which is what I believe is the crux of Utahs lawsuit and maybe where your research lead you.

All good I know where you’re coming from. It’s redder than an over ripe jalapeño around these parts also. A neighboring county has a ton of Bankhead jones lands which cause next level resentment and hate towards the feds. Give us our lands back!!!! (They were homesteaded lands purchased back by the feds)

 

[Alpine01]

How can states afford to manage it? I think the importance of this cannot be overstated. I'm pretty sure states have to run a balanced budget. All it takes is one wildfire and a state is out of business. While I don't believe in running deficits, it's a necessary evil on the federal side.

You know the solution to a state's deficit budget if they had the land. Yup, sell it all.

Not an option. I rather redraw the states' boundaries to exclude federal land.

They would have to raise taxes to fund the additional costs to manage them. Can they do that? Sure. Will they do that? That's a good question. Alternatively, they can lease/sell them for someone else to generate some form of income. Neither is politically appealing in our current near 50/50 political divide.

 

[Aperventure]

No the threat is real and apparent if your paying attention but I guess maybe you could miss it if you stick your head in the dirt…I guess you are a coal miner so name checks out. Burgum has straight out said these are just assets on balance sheet and the intent is to maximize the return on these assets. Conservation isn’t going to provide this return last I checked. This admin has been exceptional at using deceptive or straight up false language to serve up the political red meat to the base… kind of like waste fraud and abuse means spending that isn’t supportive of their agenda once you translate it. I’m still waiting for them to arrest people for all this fraud that doge found. Maybe the arrests are still coming. The wheels of Justice turn slow that’s for sure.

You are correct, until someone is charged with crimes for this waste fraud and abuse it’s exactly as you say

 

[Alpine01]

You are correct, until someone is charged with crimes for this waste fraud and abuse it’s exactly as you say

Try this. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/nati...s in,with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud.

 

[Aperventure]

Try this. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/national-health-care-fraud-takedown-results-324-defendants-charged-connection-over-146#:~:text=National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in,with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud.

Thank you! This is amazing.

Do you got anything that DOGE found ?

 

[Nick87]

Try this. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/national-health-care-fraud-takedown-results-324-defendants-charged-connection-over-146#:~:text=National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in,with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud.

I don't care who caught them, that is great news. Just scraping the surface.

 

[SAJ-99]

But I guess you could say, in some ways, this area is so "RED" I almost live in an echo chamber. There really arent a lot of differing opinions. Everyone hates the federal government for one reason or another.

Not surprising. The main topics of conversation in rural areas, right after the weather, fall into three categories. 1) the price of the 3Fs (fuel, feed, and fertilizer) are too high, 2) idiot neighbor is doing something wrong (who the idiot neighbor is typically rotates) and 3) the government is screwing us again (rotating between county, state, Feds).