The Larger, but Quieter Than Bundy, Push to Take Over Federal Land

The New York times ^ | January 10th, 2016 | By JACK HEALY and KIRK JOHNSON

[Mariner]

ENVER — Ken Ivory, a Republican state representative from Utah, has been roaming the West with an alluring pitch to cattle ranchers, farmers and conservatives upset with how Washington controls the wide-open public spaces out here: This land is your land, he says, and not the federal government’s.

Mr. Ivory, a bespectacled business lawyer from suburban Salt Lake City, does not fit the profile of a sun-scoured sagebrush rebel. But he is part of a growing Republican-led movement pushing the federal government to hand over to the states millions of acres of Western public lands — as well as their rich stores of coal, timber and grazing grass.

“It’s like having your hands on the lever of a modern-day Louisiana Purchase,” said Mr. Ivory, who founded the American Lands Council and until recently was its president. The Utah-based group is funded mostly by donations from county governments, but has received support from Americans for Prosperity, the group backed by the billionaire Koch brothers.

[Mariner]

If there's another revolution, it will start in the West.

[skeeter]

Will read the article, but the headline is kinda funny. Like the federal government didn’t take over someone’s land to begin with.

[stevem]

The feds ought to sell all that land and put a dent in the $20 trillion putative debt.

[combat_boots]

I think the feds will give it away, in payment of debt.

[Mariner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_Rebellion

[Mariner]

"I think the feds will give it away, in payment of debt."

Like, to China?

How on earth would they enforce their ownership?

[Jack Hammer]

Federal land, federal land, federal land.

Whatever happened to ‘of the people’ by the people, for the people’?

Next we hear, obama will come out and claim it’s ‘his’ house, and he’s not leaving.

[Dick Bachert]

QUESTION 1: How much land is owned and controlled by Washington?

ANSWER: See the map below.

QUESTION 2: WHY??

ANSWER: Anyone...anybody...HELLLOOOO!  (crickets)

FACT THAT SHOULD CONCERN US ALL: The federal government owns or controls more land in the nation that there is east of the Mississippi. That's a great way to, if not totally destroy the states, erase their borders and the STATE sovereignty the Founders attempted to preserve.

What does the Constitution authorize?

Article 1, section 8 Clause 17: "The congress shall have 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;"

Notice that all the structures mentioned are defensive in nature. Have recent federal governments been defending the country -- REALLY defending this place??

That clause has been twisted by decades of liberal congresses and allowed by a quiescent government school indoctrinated public just like they've twisted and we have also allowed, for example, the welfare, interstate commerce and other clauses to sweep into federal control just about every human activity in this formerly free nation.

Several really smart freedom lovers saw this coming 2 centuries ago! "...the natural tendency of things is for government to gain Ground and for liberty to yield...let no more be heard of Confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution." Thomas Jefferson

"(centralized government) will destroy the state government, and swallow the liberties of the people." Patrick Henry

May I be so bold as to suggest that millions do something that would scare the hell out of these ignorant, power-grabbing politicians and petty bureaucrats? That would be to READ and UNDERSTAND the approximately 4,400 words in OUR national charter, the Constitution? It's available FOR FREE ON-LINE EVERYWHERE!

You'd need to explain it to them as most of them NEVER HAVE!!

Oh yeah -- one more thing: While I still support Trump because he's probably the only guy with the cajones to muck that fetid stable on the Potomac, he REALLY NEEDS TO BETTER EXPLAIN HIS SEEMINGLY UNQUALIFIED SUPPORT FOR "EMINENT DOMAIN" which is more and more being applied in an UNJUSTIFIABLE MANNER to enrich connected developers and entities.

[Mariner]

It's like having your finger on the trigger of the Louisiana Purchase, and never pulling the trigger.

No, I take it back.

It is exactly that.

[MarMema]

Agenda 21. Single family homes are now a threat to the planet in Seattle, Portland, and San Fran.

Ranchers now. Homes coming right behind, because land owners are unjust, create social injustice.

Fight back now or consign yourself to a future as a stackandpacker.

[Paladin2]

Dude, it's already yours.....

[berdie]

That is a great idea!

But I wonder by what means the Feds acquired the land to begin with. I’ll bet there was minimal investment.

[Original Lurker]

I think they should have to sell every damn acre save legitimate areas.
Let’s start with Yellowstone and Yosemite.

No, I’m not joking.

[Duchess47]

Yes it will.

[volunbeer]

The Federal government purchased the land for the nation prior to these states even existing. Following the purchase there was the Westward expansion when the Federal government removed the Native Americans from most of the land by force or threat of force and through the use of treaties.

I generally support turning over most of these lands to be managed locally for the benefit of everyone. That fits my 10th Amendment smaller government desires nicely. However, any ranchers who believe they would be happier/wealthier with state management vs federal management might end up regretting it. Ranchers would likely pay far more for grazing and possibly have fewer rights than they enjoy now. On top of that there are big agricultural and timber interests that might end up owning what theoretically belongs to everyone.

BLM is about as popular as diaper rash in some communities, but there are some rural areas where they are the largest employer (large enough to control local politics) and BLM and the public lands are pretty popular with the liberal cities that control the politics in most Western states.

The issues with Western lands are not as cut and dried as some around would have you believe.

[Scrambler Bob]

but there are some rural areas where they are the largest employer (large enough to control local politics)

Can you give an example, please. My local BLM is 15 employees (down from 45) for a town of about 25,000. Not rural really, but they don’t control local politics.

[volunbeer]

When I said they I meant the Federal government - not just BLM. Idaho County (in Idaho obviously) is a good example. Population of 15000 in one of the large counties in America that has 4 national forests within it (I believe two exclusively). Would be safe to say the Forest Service (and retired USFS employees) are probably the biggest group in that county.

The other issue for Western States (like other states) is that politics at the state level are controlled by the big cities/metro areas that promote environmentalism. Washington is controlled by Seattle and the I-5 corridor - Oregon - Portland and same. Colorado politics have been overtaken by metro politics and even Montana is beginning to change. Idaho seems to be solidly red for the time being, but county politics are becoming interesting (look at Moscow, Idaho (university town) and Sandpoint (retirement destination for Californians). If the Boise area continues to grow the politics in that state will shift also. Those are the ones I am most familiar with.

Part of me feels sorry for the Bundy’s (even as I don’t agree with their argument) because they are clinging to a way of life (ranching) that is dependent on government subsidies (government graze is incredibly cheap) that is becoming harder to do each year (much of that because of government at all levels). Agri-business to include ranching is becoming a corporate endeavor - look no further than the Washington State apple industry and wheat farms and what has happened there. Looking at the state budgets of Oregon and Washington for example there is NO WAY the state would give ranchers the same deal on grazing that BLM provides.

It’s been a good run recently with the price of beef and this has allowed many smaller ranchers (like my neighbor who grazes my land) to be profitable, but when the price of beef drops again it will be harder for the little guys in some states to remain profitable. I believe the state of Washington has more regulations than the Fed government for ranchers! The prices for grazing on private land with good grass are far more costly than BLM land. The other trend is that affecting my area - in a county with large city. Property taxes are growing and many folks are selling the farms for nice houses on acreage. Bundy might want to be careful about what he wishes for others because ranchers in Oregon get a better deal from BLM than they would from the state.