Posted on 02/19/2016 1:04:30 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz promised Nevada voters he will transfer control of federally-held lands back to the states if he's elected.
"If you trust me with your vote," Cruz says in a new ad revealed Thursday. "I will fight day and night to return full control of Nevada's lands to its rightful owners, its citizens." Cruz criticizes fellow GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump for his reluctance to champion state control of federal land.
The ad begins by lamenting the fact that the federal government currently controls 85 percent of the land in Nevada, including the Lake Mead National Recreation Area on the Colorado River, Great Basin National Park, the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and Basin and Range National Monument.
Conservationists have criticized such transfer proposals in the past, calling them financially irresponsible and terrible for the environment.
"I can't help but think that if Theodore Roosevelt could see the current scam being peddled to American sportsmen he'd be fighting mad," wrote Field & Stream editorial director Anthony Licata last year.
He added: "Simply put, state treasuries cannot afford to manage these lands...These game-rich areas that currently belong to all of us will be developed or sold to large corporations, degrading critical habitat and locking out millions of sportsmen."
Such criticisms are unfounded, proponents of state control of land say, because the expense would not be more than that borne by the federal government.
Chris Edwards, director of federal and state tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation Cruz's views regarding state ownership of public land is notable. There's no reason to believe state governments can't more efficiently control their own land, he told TheDCNF.
"To say that state governments could not afford to manage federal lands is nonsense. Indeed, state governments generally manage their own grazing, timber, and recreational lands to earn a positive net return for taxpayers," Edwards said.
He added: "By contrast, federal land is so poorly managed it loses money for taxpayers. So transferring land from the federal to state governments would be a win-win as land would be better managed and taxpayers would gain."
It's just as expensive for the federal government to use the National Park Service to wrangle more land under federal control, press secretary for House Committee on Natural Resources Elise Daniel said Friday.
"The Park Service is falling behind about $300 million annually on deferred maintenance and the total backlog among all land-management agencies is around $20 billion - yet the Obama Administration keeps trying to acquire more land," Daniel told TheDCNF's Andrew Follett.
Most of the candidates jockeying for the GOP presidential nomination share Cruz's sentiments.
Ohio Gov. John Kasich's presidential campaign is promoting an ad promising Kasich will transfer land management back to Nevada from Washington, D.C., and assures Nevada's conservative voters that "John Kasich says this land should be your land."
In January, as a militia was holding up a wildlife facility in Oregon for land management purposes, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio echoed Cruz and Kasich’s sentiments during an interview with the Des Moines Register's editorial board.
"I most certainly believe that the federal government controls far too much land in the Western parts of the United States especially," he said. "The state of Nevada is an example - it's almost entirely owned by the federal government. And it goes well beyond the legitimate need of land ownership for defense purposes, for example."
The White House classified three new national monuments earlier this month, all of which are located in California's desert.
The designations of the Mojave Trails National Monument, Sand to Snow National Monument and Castle Mountains National Monument, according to the White House website, appropriate nearly 1.8 million acres of desert sand underneath the yoke of federal rule.
Anything else simply invites favoritism and fraud. Exactly what do you have against Capitalism and preventing fraud? Would you prefer the EPA choosing who gets what, and at what price? SMH
Rock on, Ted!
Natelson says:
http://constitution.i2i.org/2016/02/
But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
* In the process of disposal, the federal government must follow the rules of public trust. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for the feds to simply grant all of its surplus property to state governments. Each tract must be disposed of in accordance with the best interest of the American people. For example, natural wonders and environmentally sensitive areas (such as those now encompassed by the national parks) might be conveyed under strict conditions to state park authorities or (as in Britain) to perpetual environmental trusts. Land useful only for grazing, mining, or agriculture should be sold or homesteaded, with or without restrictions. The restrictions might include environmental protections, public easements, and protection for hunters and anglers
The federal government has NO right to own these lands. The feds may BUY land for “needful” buildings, with state permission, but their wholesale taking of most of the land in the West is just plain wrong.
Look into some of the incredible abuses that prompted the armed standoff in Oregon. The feds have been playing very dirty with “our” land.
Difference is that there is already a bill passed for a wall to be built.
Trump can just enforce it.
And the states can do that - they are better conservators and guardians - and they can use money from the parks for their citizens (since it’s their land) and make decisions about sale or lease.
And this would through a wrench into the idea that the Feds can lock up land.
Compared to the great many political promises that Trump has delivered on...
Hint: The entire conservative movement ha been a dismal failure in delivering anything that we want. I guess you're all for abandoning the entire movement then... as clearly demonstrated by the support for Trump.
Won’t be the first impact area that gets cleaned up.
Cruz is great at promising things. However, when it comes to actually delivering something he is a complete failure
Where is the law suit Trump promised if Cruz didn’t pull his ad?
Trump is all talk
Yet another parallel with a fledgling senator from the same Uniparty—like Obama, using the senate as a stepping stone.
Elected in 2013, Cruz really hasn’t done much but campaign and grandstand, again, like Obama filibustering conservative judges, making a name for himself, duping the desperate, and now this extravagant promise from Rafael “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” Cruz.
I don’t know, but strongly suspect one of Trump’s favorite sayings may be, “Money talks, BS walks.”
I’m going with someone who can actually deliver on his proposals: Donald Trump.
We’ve suffered for seven years with a `wunderkind’ who promised to lower the Earth’s ocean levels and temperature, and other fantastic bullshit, when in fact his real goal was simply to win the WH, then golf-around-the-clock while rubber-stamping destruction of the country vis a vis his stooges and his feckless disengagement from leading.
We can’t go on like this. It’s time to put a grown up behind the wheel.
There goes plans for my lakeside retreat...
Senators are all talk. By definition.
Aint the federal governments in the first place.
That land is held and managed under a trust.
BTW, quite a lot of that land in southern NV/UT and N AZ is contaminated from the NV test site.
The cast and crew of the movie about the mongols staring John Wayne? 90% died of cancer. They filmed near St George UT.
I don’t know .... It’s not an issue I’ve seen him address. Has he addressed it?
Why he'll do it the same way Trump will bill the wall and send all the illegals home and everything else he promises? What Truthful Trump wouldn't make promises he can't keep he's not a, no that's not right, he used to not be a politician. I know we don't question Trump because he says we should just trust him, he has a plan.
I’m trying to remember Teddy saying any of this at the debates.
“Like how is he going to do that anyway?”
Defund BLM to start. If the traitorous Congress won’t defund BLM, President Cruz can order BLM to knit socks and not interfere with the states taking control of BLM land.
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.