Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: yoe

The article indicates blocking mining *outside* Yellowstone. From the article, its not clear who owns these lands outside Yellowstone. If the Feds own them, that’s one thing. If the lands are privately owned, that’s another thing, and use of one’s private property should not be infringed without due compensation.


3 posted on 11/22/2016 11:00:49 AM PST by bkopto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bkopto

The EPA is now wanting to or is controlling private land that has “water” running through it...Even if it is a dry stream bed...They are saying what the land can and can’t be used for...

Eliminate the EPA....


6 posted on 11/22/2016 11:05:32 AM PST by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: bkopto
"... should not be infringed without due compensation."

Absolutely!! Most are privately held lands...you will have to do a little research to see where or if there might be a problem....hope not.

11 posted on 11/22/2016 11:11:39 AM PST by yoe (I am getting my country back! Hooray!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: bkopto

The feds do not OWN these lands...they are managed by either the Bureau of Land Management, or the US Forest Service.

Both entities should be eliminated and these lands should be managed by the states.


13 posted on 11/22/2016 11:18:45 AM PST by Cuttnhorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: bkopto
The story says the pending mining permits involve private lands near Yellowstone. It's not clear what the federal hook is for interfering with private development on private lands. FWIW, the feds own 30 percent of Montana, mostly concentrated in the mountains. That actually puts Montana on the low end of the western states in terms of federal ownership, since the farmers and ranchers beat the restrictionists to much of the eastern part of the state.

There is a fundamental asymmetry to federal land ownership that seriously distorts our politics. The western states have huge federal land holdings. The federal presence is very minor in most of the eastern states. If it were up to me, I would privatize a lot of BLM and Forest Service land in the west and use the proceeds to expand national park assets in the east. I would not touch the crown jewels, but a large part of the federal estate in the west has traditionally been leased to farmers, ranchers, and timber and mining companies. From time to time, the feds get imperial and decide to force the locals off land they have worked for generations. That's where a lot of the bad blood comes from.

Meanwhile, the east is crowded and would benefit from significant park expansion. Again, if it were me, I'd start with riverfronts, floodplains, and historic sites and build out from there. There's no magic "percentage of federal ownership" figure, but I find it crazy that we're paving Civil War battlefields, with bitter fights to save a few acres here and there, while the Forest Service and Park Service in the west are adding buffer zones to protect buffer zones that protect parks in states that may already be over 50 percent federally owned.

16 posted on 11/22/2016 11:21:30 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson