Rep. Ryan Zinke Resigns as Delegate to RNC

AP ^ | 7/15/2016 | AP

[usafa92]

A Montana lawmaker has resigned as a delegate to the Republican National Convention over the GOP's position on the transfer of federal lands to states.

Republican U.S. Rep. Ryan Zinke told The (Billings) Gazette that he still plans to give a speech Monday to the convention about national security. But he says he's withdrawing as a delegate because the GOP platform is "more divisive than uniting."

[Vigilanteman]

There are a lot of these nimrods who think they can have the best of both worlds: federal ownership with free or nominal grazing rights. Apparently, they learned nothing from the Bundy ranch roundup in Nevada and the killing of a supporter in Oregon.

[little jeremiah]

I live in a state which is around 80% fed owned. IT TOTALLY SUCKS.

[Jim W N]

the Lone Star State kept all its public lands. The Feds had to buy land from Texas when we because a state--

Gadzooks, you mean the feds had to actually COMPLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION???

[Congress shall have the power] to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings Art I, Sct 8, Cl 17.

[map]

He’s withdrawing as a delegate but he’s going to give a speech.

This man is mentally ill.

[PeterPrinciple]

. A few folks think that state ownership is worse than Feds....cuz no telling what they will do.

---

Someone is going to control the land. the questions is who, fed, state, local, or private. None are perfect.

[Impy]

Odd of Zinke to raise a stink about a parochial issue like this. We don’t need anything negative going on right now.

[campaignPete R-CT]

dink zinke is favovred but in a targeted seat.

he looking for an excuse to mouth off about somethin

[napscoordinator]

Everyone is scared that McDonald’s will be all over the national sites like the rest of the world. It is weird going to red square and seeing American business’s all around it.

[Enchante]

The left is busy demagoguing this issue to death already. Facebook is aflame with viral memes saying that the Republicans want to abandon the National Parks etc.

I think it might have helped to be a bit more specific about what is contemplated, although someone like Zinke surely understands that the Rs are not (generally) talking about the National Parks, but especially about the vast amounts of land under the Bureau of Land Management, which is generally the less attractive and much less visited tracts of land... and which was ALWAYS intended to be managed for resource extraction. Hell, the National "FOREST" system (not the Nat'l Parks) was also always intended to allow logging and mining, but over time the left tries to re-define all federal land as untouchable for any productive purpose.

Most Americans have no idea that in a large number of western states close to HALF or more of all land is under federal control:

[Georgia Girl 2]

Are you aware the feds are poised to commandeer 90,000 acres of TX land along the Red River mostly in private hands and give it to OK? Greg Abbott has reportedly said over my dead body but they will likely try it anyway.

[Reno89519]

Why? Don’t you appreciate being to travel in over 80% of your state? I’m in Nevada, grew up in Idaho and Alaska, lived in Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico. I truly love and appreciate the public lands. Can you imagine if they were transferred to private ownership, fenced off, etc.? Incredible loss.

[semimojo]

HORSECRAP! The lands that the Feds “took” when a state joined the union, were lands that lay within the borders of that state.

The US government bought a bunch of land. At this point all of the citizens of the country owned the land.

At some point, an area within that federally owned land petitioned for statehood, and as part of that territory becoming a state there was a negotiation as to which entity would own which land.

There was no state to own land before it became a state. The creation of a state is a joint decision between the territory and the federal government.

Do you dispute these facts?

[5th MEB]

Not in CALIFORNICATION they won’t.
At least in my state I say let the feds keep it.
If this state ended up with all federal lands you could kiss any hunting, fishing, rock hunting, or any other recreation good by.
California will GIVE it to the Nature Conservancy, Sierra Club, and the rest of the ENVIRONAZIS.

[vette6387]

“Do you dispute these facts?”

Yes I do. It's a distinction without a difference. How do you adequately address the matter of the early states, and not just the original 13 ( most of which are east of the Mississippi) having federal land ownership within their borders that is single digit percentage-wise, when all the states in the West that joined later having, in many cases, the Fed Gov owning at least half of the land and in many cases upwards of 90%? It flys in the face of the Constitution which set up the states as the supreme entities, with the FedGov relegated to the few matters that are/were considered to be of national importance ( like defense and immigration. which the bastards seem to be determined to ignore, and Education, etc. which they are steadfastly determined to commandeer) land ownership being also nowhere defined in the Constitution. Either you are a States Rights Advocate or you are a Federal Government Sycophant. There isn't any middle ground. You seemingly are fine with Federal supremacy and I am not. For years on end, the Fed Gov has intruded in the States business of managing their own land area. The further control of non-private land gets from the people who live on or near it, the worse it is for those people. I don't buy all this crap about “the feds preserving anything.” And added to all this you have the EPA intruding on private property rights. All of it should undergo a massive overhaul, with the end game to transfer, over time any and all land for which the Federal Goverment has no immediate legitimate use. Furthermore, Federally owned land that has ceased to be of use for it's original purpose, should also be returned to the people. To be sure, states will need to manage their "newly acquired" land, but that management will be done a whole lot closer to the people than it is now. Plus, all these rogue federal agencies will go out of business.

[little jeremiah]

I live surrounded by millions of acres of national forest. They won’t allow fire wood cutting any more, nor Christmas tree cutting. They put up barriers so we can’t drive down to the big creek to collect stones any more (as though a few people every now and then would deplete the creek) even though those stones come down from the mountains. They warn hikers about all the MX dope growers in the mountains who are dangerous. They keep closing down or eradicating dirt roads since they don’t want people driving on them.

It’s “look but don’t touch”. Surrounded by millions of acres of land, and most people here live in poverty.

The state should be in control, not the fedgov. Then the state will be beholden to the citizens of the state (or should be), local control, counties should have a say or part go to state and part to county. People who live here want to see natural beauty but we also want to earn a living. Forests can be managed for resources and not over cut or ruined by bad logging practices.

[little jeremiah]

Then give it to the counties!

[vette6387]

PERFECT! I was looking for that graphic. People need to see and comprehend how badly the Federal Government has been with respect to the Western States. Just look at the disparaity between Massoftwoshitts at 0.4% and Nevada at 84.5%. What’s wrong with this picture?
As for the poster who thinks keeping all of us off of our land is a good thing, just how does that work when you compare Minnesota with 5.6% vs. Montana with 29.9%. Is there really any logical argument that says that state and private ownership ruins the land! It’s just stupid to make that kind of a statement.

[Duchess47]

You have the problem of states selling/leasing land to foreign enities (of course the feds do that too) and that may be his concern.

[vette6387]

“You have the problem of states selling/leasing land to foreign enities (of course the feds do that too) and that may be his concern.”

The enabling legislation should address that issue completely. But as I read his post, he appears to be one of those people that want to enjoy the “pristine land that no man has entered upon,” so he's just a elitist who doesn't want “his private preserve” opened to others. The fact is that the states with little or no Federal land ownership have manage to “preserve” the naturally beautiful places in their states, so it all hinges on state leadership. Beyond that, with all these federal “set asides,” we have seen areas that have minerals and petroleum that we need going forward. We are well beyond the point where businesses can get away with being land rapists, and again proper legislation at both the state and federal level should safeguard the environment.

[semimojo]

How do you adequately address the matter of the early states, and not just the original 13 ( most of which are east of the Mississippi) having federal land ownership within their borders that is single digit percentage-wise, when all the states in the West that joined later having, in many cases, the Fed Gov owning at least half of the land and in many cases upwards of 90%?

This isn't at all complicated. Have you ever traveled across America?

The eastern and mid-western states have a lot of arable land that people wanted to homestead. Exactly the same opportunity that settlers in the western states had. As it turns out, there's lots of land in the West that isn't really productive and no one living within the territories wanted to claim.

That's the fact.

Either you are a States Rights Advocate or you are a Federal Government Sycophant.

Sure, of course I am.

Under what legal concept do you assert that the states now own this land that they never claimed or wanted at the time of statehood?

Federally owned land that has ceased to be of use for it's original purpose, should also be returned to the people.

What? It's already owned by the people.

To be sure, states will need to manage their "newly acquired" land, but that management will be done a whole lot closer to the people than it is now.

Again, which people?