Why were the meetings behind closed doors ?
Call to action: Man the phones, send the letters!
How long before Harry calls them domestic terrorists?
And look for them to back down as soon as the FED tells them to shut up or lose many of their Federal funds.
All those years of states getting Federal funds has been like an addict getting his/her fixes. The states are too dependent on those funds.
Is this just more talk and no action. I’ll wait and see.
Is this the COWS group that spoke from the ranch or another group?
Coalition
Of
Western
States
Included would be ALL land for ALL federal uses and ALL land restricted to others by the feds, including military bases, federal buildings, training facilities, protected habitat, wetlands, national parks, etc.
National highways open for public use could be excluded.
Something like a maximum of 5% of total land area in each state would be a good place to start.
50 western state lawmakers seek votes from conservatives.
These are the same pubic officials, for the most part, who sat on their hands while spotted owls and envirofreeks destroyed our timber industry. What they’re saying makes sense but they have a long way to go to establish some level of credibility. Part of establishing same credibility is to nail down ways to guarantee long-term security to people who want to harvest trees, for instance. I damm sure wouldn’t want to finance a lumber mill if I wasn’t sure I’d have logs for the next 20 years at least. In Oregon these lands are supposed to finance our schools but not a single school official or other elected doofus stood up against the tiedied crowd——they let the whole thing collapse. So they have a really big hill to climb.
If the carpet is yanked from under the feds and BLM, wouldn’t one of the happy consequences be to give the EPA a stiff middle finger, too? Most of us in the southern and southwestern states would love that as well...
Was Senator Reid there? He represents then people of Nevada so he would be intrested in the abuses of his constituents...
I’m a Capitalist/Libertarian all the way and view this problem through my personal top three priorities:
1. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights
2. The inherent rights of wildlife have to a habitable environment and the ability to forage and graze wherever they want to
3. Protection of the environment (but within the limits of the above priorities).
I just visited Montana and fell in love with the state, especially the grizzly bears! Grizzlies are actually very friendly, gentle creature in the wild and only turn aggressive when threatened. We should just stay out their way and ban hunting in that beautiful heaven on earth!
Proposed Constitutional Amendment:
(1) The federal government may only own property rights in land for military institutions and government building for performing functions specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
(2) The square footage of any land used for buildings for performing functions specifically enumerated in the Constituion may be no more than nine times the square footage of such buildings and must be contiguous to the land on which such building resides.
(3) The District of Columbia is exempt from the foregoing provisions.
(4) All other property rights held by the federal government are hereby divested to the states.
Sagebrush rebellion part II: It’s a bout time!
I don't doubt that states may be able to manage the land but I'm not sure what they mean. From Section 3 of the Enabling Act: "That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States..."