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

To: Redwood71
160 million acres of public lands

There is no reason for the Federal Government to own all that land. They own up to half of several western states.

20 posted on 08/06/2020 12:38:29 PM PDT by aimhigh (THIS is His commandment . . . . 1 John 3:23)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: aimhigh
There is no reason for the Federal Government to own all that land. They own up to half of several western states.

Yup. Do you think people in, for instance, Maine would put up a fuss if the feds and the state government owned and controlled 70 percent of the state? (Think of Nevada.) Somehow I think their attitude about the BLM and where their animals are allowed to graze would change quickly.


34 posted on 08/06/2020 1:43:57 PM PDT by Cinnamontea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: aimhigh

The feds claim 87% of Nevada!
Bundy’s grazing rights predate BLM.
It’s not the simple black/white issue so may want it to be for convenience and rush to judgement.


37 posted on 08/06/2020 2:44:55 PM PDT by Ex gun maker. (Unconstitutional "Law" is void from inception.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: aimhigh

There is no reason that the Federal Government charges anyone, horse, cow or Mike Obama, a fee to graze on PUBLIC LAND!!!!
The ranchers and Barak O should be paid for grass cutting services!


43 posted on 08/06/2020 3:09:50 PM PDT by BatGuano
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: aimhigh

“There is no reason for the Federal Government to own all that land.”

An economic study from Utah in 2012 found that taking over land management would cost the state government a substantial sum: $275 million a year. The states don’t want it either. But these studies have established that there would be substantial administrative costs for states if they took over, not to mention the cost of protecting the land from people like Bundy who uses the land, makes his profit, but pays no fee like everyone else so the land will be protected and the water kept clean for use.

And the federal government transfers a lot of its leasing revenue back to states to compensate for the taxes the states might have collected if the land were in private hands. If they owned the land, the states would have to collect rents and administer permits themselves.

So it turns out that if the states owned it, the ranchers will just be angry at another level of government for basically the same reasons. And if you allow one rancher to freely graze on the land, everyone else will have to be allowed, and no revenue to protect the land and the people will be generated for cattle. And shortly people will start housing developments that will in time take over the grazing land. This is part of the squeezing problem for farmers and ranchers now...space to work. Look at what’s happened to almost all major airports over the years. I’m willing to bet that most of them started out in the open away from people. That got changed.

And, Bundy could have purchased land from the feds as they sell that land all the time. But why should he buy the cow when he gets the milk for free?

rwood


48 posted on 08/07/2020 8:30:15 AM PDT by Redwood71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | 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