Posted on 06/21/2017 10:15:23 PM PDT by Twotone
Those “reasons” sound like recommendations to me.
Makes sense to the ranchers to do it when the alternative is equivalent to @ 200 - 250 dollars / year per cow/calf pair.
Typical federal idiocy, driven by emotional images.
Yep. Give her the job; sell off federal land, reduce the federal debt and return the land to the states or private control.Why should the feds own and control 80 percent of Nevada?>>> to give it ti harry reid. that is why i agree.
“A Grade-A resume for the job!”
______________________________________
1+++. Not only her resume, but her enemies!
Tell me who your enemies are and I’ll tell you what kind of person you are!
Instead, the courts use the "property clause"
Federal lands are managed in accordance with the acts of congress and the main one is FLPMA in 1976. The Taylor Grazing Act, Endangered Species Act, and a few others also play a big part. Other lesser acts also come into play, like wild and scenic river act or the Wilderness act.
The Land Agencies are like all federal agencies, they have a large number of lawyers to interpret acts of congress, court decisions, and negotiated agreements.
Beat me to it.
"fringe extremists"? Really? Har har....
Sounds like one of the best possible candidates; someone to help “drain the swamp” at the BLM.
Actually, Constitutionally, there should be no BLM, as there should be no Federal acquisition of land merely to hold land. The Constitution limits Federal land acquisition to only as needed to house some work the Federal government is doing.
All Federal land NOT in active use by the Federal government should in part be turned over to the states, particularly in the western states, and in part sold off (including in the western states).
The “outdoor life” lobbies will protest, and claim their billion dollar industries will be hurt, yet the lie in that is that instead of lobbying the federal government they will need to lobby their state governments, and the end result might not be as forbidding to their interests as they claim.
Meanwhile the western states, like Alaska, will be able - like Alaska, to pursue productive life of THEIR natural resources, on their own, and like Alaska obtaining the royalty income from it, unhindered by the BLM.
She works for me!
Good selection.
5.56mm
If the federal government is holding that land illegally then how can they legally sell it?
There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents federal land ownership. And this would issue can be solved at the stroke of a pen by Congress passing legislation selling land the government does own back to the states. Problem solved.
Like cattle? Hardly indigenous either, and ruin vast tracts of land by overgrazing. So do sheep. They are far more responsible for ruining prairie ecosystems than horses. It's obvious profits come first, so other species have to go. The BLM holds helicopter roundups, which are cruel. It terrifies the animals and young foals can't keep up, get separated from their mares, etc. Why can't wild horse stallions be gelded to control numbers? I think the BLM has long been headed by absolutely incompetent people, or they would have had a decent non-lethal plan in place for the past few decades.
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”
A factor most folks ignore is that all those lands need to be policed, and states universally prefer the Feds to do that.
It costs a lot, and if we do not police those lands, criminals will quickly identify them as great place to do bad things, like manufacture meth with impunity.
They already do that, but sooner or later they get caught.
I have run into some shifty characters on BLM land, with no one around for many miles, including Mexicans shooting guns and who seemed hostile to me.
I find it interesting, and strongly disagree with your premise that it is not applicable. 1,8,17 is THE oontrolling portion of the contract between the states and the federal government that limits the land area within states that federal can control, and the purposes to which they shall be used.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.