http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land
Posted on 04/14/2014 1:54:43 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
ST. GEORGE – Gov. Brian Sandoval signed Assembly Bill 227 into Nevada law Tuesday, approving the creation of the Nevada Land Management Task Force. The signing of AB 227 makes Nevada the fifth state to look into the movement initiated by Utah lawmakers that urges the federal government to transfer management of public lands over to state control.
In a press release issued by the American Lands Council, Nevada Assemblyman John Ellison, the primary sponsor of AB 227, said, “Gov. Sandoval and our state legislature have taken the first step in fulfilling our responsibility to our children and for the future of our state in making congress honor the same promise to Nevada that it made and kept with Hawaii and all other states east of Colorado.”
The “promise” that Ellison refers to is what is referred to as a state’s “enabling act,” which is basically a statehood contract. When a state joins the country, part of its lands are held under federal jurisdiction – which land transfer proponents argue was only meant to be a temporary arrangement. While lands management was transferred to many states that lie east of Colorado, in the west this did not come about.
On March 23, 2012, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed into law House Bill 148, known as The Transfer of Public Lands Act. HB 148 was spearheaded by Rep. Ken Ivory and demands the federal government transfer control of the public lands to the state by the end of 2014.
Like the Utah bill, Nevada’s AB 227 does not include national parks and other lands that have a similarly protected status in the proposed transfer. Public lands currently cover an estimated 70 percent of Utah, and over 81 percent of Nevada.
(Excerpt) Read more at stgeorgeutah.com ...
Taxes collected from the public use of those lands would also provide additional funding to state educational spending. It’s for the children. Always for the children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_land
This is the appropriate way to highlight this important issue. Bundy, by virtue of his non-payment of fees and decades of disobedience of court orders, is not an a good poster-boy for this cause.
See also:
How long will our politicians continue to dither over federal control of Nevada lands?
by Thomas Mitchell
Excerpts:
The Utah Legislature has approved legislation demanding that the federal government cede certain federally controlled lands to the state.
A resolution accompanying the bill says such things as:
“WHEREAS, the enabling acts of the new states west of the original colonies established the terms upon which all such states were admitted into the union, and contained the same promise to all new states that the federal government would extinguish title to all public lands lying within their respective borders …
“WHEREAS, the state and federal partnership of public lands management has been eroded by an oppressive and over-reaching federal management agenda that has adversely impacted the sovereignty and the economies of the state of Utah and local governments …
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that … the Legislature of the state of Utah demands that the federal government imminently transfer title to all of the public lands within Utah’s borders directly to the state of Utah. …”
Arizona is working on similar legislation. So why doesn’t Nevada get on board and pass such a bill?
Well, been there done that.
In 1956 the voters of Nevada amended the state Constitution to allow taxation of federal lands, should the Congress ever consent. In 1996 the voters again amended the Constitution to remove the so-called Disclaimer Clause in which all unappropriated land was ceded to the federal government in perpetuity, should Congress ever consent.
Senate Joint Resolution 27 in support of that amendment read in part:
“WHEREAS, The State of Nevada has a strong moral claim upon the public land retained by the Federal Government within Nevada’s borders; and
“WHEREAS, On October 31, 1864, the Territory of Nevada was admitted to statehood on the condition that it forever disclaim all right and title to unappropriated public land within its boundaries; and
“WHEREAS, Nevada received the least amount of land, 2,572,478 acres, and the smallest percentage of its total area, 3.9 percent, of the land grant states in the Far West admitted after 1864, while states of comparable location and soil, including Arizona, New Mexico and Utah, received approximately 11 percent of their total area in federal land grants …
“RESOLVED, That the Legislature of the State of Nevada hereby urges the Congress of the United States to consent to the amendment of the ordinance of the Nevada constitution to remove the disclaimer concerning the right of the Federal Government to sole and entire disposition of the unappropriated public lands in Nevada …”
Bundy not paying ‘fees’ to an agency that wants to put him out of business is perfectly fine. It’s no different than the Connecticut gun owners who refuse to pay a fee so their state government can confiscate their guns.
Yeah, well, I guess our boys in Boston circa 1773 were not necessarily good poster boys at the time either.
Thanks for posting this - I'm getting quite an education in federal lands today!
Sandoval appears to be running hard to get back in front of the parade. His involvement in the Battle of Bundy’s Cattle was weak tea and certainly hurt him politically. This is an effort (welcome just the same) to repair some of the damage.
He paid his fees to the state, who owned the land. Not to the feds.
I’d say he represents a lot of whats right with America.
If we continue being good little followers down the path to socialism we will continue to reap the same rewards.
Do you get paid by the hour to troll these threads?
Exactly what moral authority does Bundy have? He has been using public lands without compensation for his personal benefit. If he had been escrowing the grazing fees he could have at least claimed to be acting in good faith. Of course he didn’t do that because the courts have repeatedly told him that he is wrong.
Further, his arguments that since he is a member of the public he can do what he wants on public land is the same argument used by OWS when they occupied public parks. Medea Benjamin considers Congressional hearing rooms First Amendment zones, too.
If anyone is a collectivist, it is Bundy. His argument that he has some inherent right to use public lands for his benefit is no different that leftist radicals claiming that the workers have the right to control a factory for their benefit.
Where in the constitution does the Feds have the right to own 40% of CA, 90% of Nevada, in the form of BLM, Nation Parks, National Reserves, Military bases. the land should be owned, managed, governed by the state.
Hey, he’s here in California. This is what passes for a conservative in this benighted state.
Seriously.
He may well be the most conservative person in his entire circle of friends.
What moral right did the patriots have to dump the tea into Boston harbor?
Hint: it ain’t about the money.
It’s just a tax on tea and stamps. These British Colonists are not good poster boys for The Empire.
And your claim that you have the slightest clue as to all the details of the situation has become downright laughable.
The range rights given as an incentive to settle the West would be part of the conditions of the Deed contract signed by Bundy's forefather. These range, or land usage rights are inheritable, and the contract itself stipulates who the payment should be made to.
The fact the BLM tried to impair the obligation of this contract by stepping in the middle and demanding payment for the land based on a contract it was NOT a party to, is, itself, Unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1: .......or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts
Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation.
James Madison, Federalist #44
Of course it is about the money. He didn’t have an objection to paying the grazing fees to the feds until sometime in the 90s. Why didn’t he make the claims before.
So it appears Nevada is not really a state, but a fed district, similar to D.C.
In other articles I have seen the total of fed owned land in Nevada is 86%.
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.