[marron]

I realize that, but I don’t believe the federal government should be the owner of vast swathes of western lands. Yes, as long as they do, they need a BLM. That is the problem that I would like to see resolved.

[bert]

I have traveled extensively several times over vast areas of BLM managed land in Utah including much of the recently declared as a National Monument. Generally it is extremely undesirable. It is however amazingly beautiful

We like to recite history in terms of people and events but in fact US History is the tale of what happened to the land. If the land controlled by the BLM was worth a damn, it would be private. The fact it is not is testimony to the lack of worth. I acknowledge some BLM land is leased for grazing and perhaps other uses but bottom line is that if it had any value it would be private.

I would cite a little known series of events that began simultaneously with the founding of the nation that illustrates the keen interest in the founders in the acquisition and disposition of private lands. I will not argue what is constitutionally legal vs what is. What is ..... is

For reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Grant_Deed

[ridesthemiles]

The Feds are NOT the owners-—The STATES own these properties—The Feds have run over the states-—just like Obama deciding a couple of weeks ago that he was setting up 2 more national Monuments against the wishes of the people in Nevada & Utah.

ALso—this week—the BLM decided that over 16 MILLION acres needed to be off limits for any kind of mining to protect the Sage Grouse. That is the kind of mischief the BLM is doing.

There already are permitted & accredited mines inside those 16 MILLION acres-—so how would you like to hold stock in those companies??? or be an employee??