Armed Conk militia group occupies Malheur NWR offices

[kalm]

Racial injustice is overblown but there are legitimate gripes.

You mean something can be similar without being the exact same? Or does that only apply to stuff you believe. This has been your worst thread ever Kalm. You OK?

Huh? Desperately grasping for anything now. Sad, Hen...sad.

[89Hen]

You mean something can be similar without being the exact same? Or does that only apply to stuff you believe. This has been your worst thread ever Kalm. You OK?

Huh? Desperately grasping for anything now. Sad, Hen...sad.

Clear you're on a fishing expedition now.

[kalm]

Huh? Desperately grasping for anything now. Sad, Hen...sad.

Clear you're on a fishing expedition now.

Dude, it's the afterglow where I've caught so many pigs I'm just sittin' back chillin' and enjoying the moment...

[Chizzang]

Here's an interesting update:
The armed militia has stated that "they will leave if the community wants them to leave"
Community response:
"We've been asking them to leave since the day they got here.."

Militia:
"But there are all these supportive protesters here.."

Community:
"You brought them with you, none of them live here... please leave.."



Why is it that Fundamentalists ( in this case Mormon Fundies) are so ridiculous and myopic..?

[dbackjon]

I don't think they have any chance but I do think there should be a massive reduction in land area owned and/or controlled by the Federal government. Especially out West. It should look much more like the East if not even less than that. There's no reason to allow the Federal government to own and control all that land. It should be controlled by the States it's in or transferred to private ownership.

Why shouldn't the Federal Government own that land?

The Federal Government either bought it in the first place, fought wars over it, etc. The states came in under the auspices of the Federal Government, knowing that the Federal Government owned all of the land.

And the Federal Government TRIED to give/sell it away - opened it up for homesteading, mining, logging, etc. Most of the lands the Fed owns now were lands that no one claimed in the first place. Yes, some prime land has been reserved for recreation - think national parks, wildlife refuges, etc.

We in the west like the fact that the land is owned by the people and for the people. Not all fenced off with no trespassing signs.


BTW - the map is misleading, since it includes Indian Reservations as Federal Land.


It also (at least in Arizona) doesn't show state lands - 9.2 million acres the state owns (about 12% of the state)

[JohnStOnge]

Why shouldn't the Federal Government own that land?

Because control of the land should be by the People who live in the area. If it's going to be government land it should be State land. To me the Arctic National Wildlife oil drilling controversy is an example. The question of whether or not oil drilling should go on there should be up to the people who actually live around there. It should be up to the people in Alaska. We shouldn't have a situation where a bunch of nut jobs from places like California who are never even going to see the place prevent the people who actually live up there from enjoying the potential benefit of utilizing an available natural resource. Control in this country is way too centralized and the Federal lands thing is part of that. If it's owned by the State it's still owned by "the People." But it's owned by the People who are more directly impacted by the decisions pertaining to it.

BTW - the map is misleading, since it includes Indian Reservations as Federal Land.

Ok below is a map separating Indian Reservations from other Federal lands. I don't think it changes the basic impression much. The Federal government owns too much land.

[dbackjon]

Why shouldn't the Federal Government own that land?

Because control of the land should be by the People who live in the area. If it's going to be government land it should be State land. To me the Arctic National Wildlife oil drilling controversy is an example. The question of whether or not oil drilling should go on there should be up to the people who actually live around there. It should be up to the people in Alaska. We shouldn't have a situation where a bunch of nut jobs from places like California who are never even going to see the place prevent the people who actually live up there from enjoying the potential benefit of utilizing an available natural resource. Control in this country is way too centralized and the Federal lands thing is part of that. If it's owned by the State it's still owned by "the People." But it's owned by the People who are more directly impacted by the decisions pertaining to it.

BTW - the map is misleading, since it includes Indian Reservations as Federal Land.

Ok below is a map separating Indian Reservations from other Federal lands. I don't think it changes the basic impression much. The Federal government owns too much land.

But it is in control of the people that use it - majority of people in the west favor Federal Control, because that guarantees the best access. Just because some ranchers want to tie up the land for themselves doesn't mean they have broad support from the rest of the populace.


You think Federal ownership is a problem. The majority of westerners don't. Are there improvements that could be made? Sure. If anything, the BLM is too lenient with the ranchers, and the Mining Act of 1872 needs to be repealed.

It isn't the nutjobs from California. it is the locals that appreciate and treasure the opportunities that the Forest Service and the BLM provide.

[Grizalltheway]

Because control of the land should be by the People who live in the area. If it's going to be government land it should be State land. To me the Arctic National Wildlife oil drilling controversy is an example. The question of whether or not oil drilling should go on there should be up to the people who actually live around there. It should be up to the people in Alaska. We shouldn't have a situation where a bunch of nut jobs from places like California who are never even going to see the place prevent the people who actually live up there from enjoying the potential benefit of utilizing an available natural resource. Control in this country is way too centralized and the Federal lands thing is part of that. If it's owned by the State it's still owned by "the People." But it's owned by the People who are more directly impacted by the decisions pertaining to it.



Ok below is a map separating Indian Reservations from other Federal lands. I don't think it changes the basic impression much. The Federal government owns too much land.

But it is in control of the people that use it - majority of people in the west favor Federal Control, because that guarantees the best access. Just because some ranchers want to tie up the land for themselves doesn't mean they have broad support from the rest of the populace.


You think Federal ownership is a problem. The majority of westerners don't. Are there improvements that could be made? Sure. If anything, the BLM is too lenient with the ranchers, and the Mining Act of 1872 needs to be repealed.

It isn't the nutjobs from California. it is the locals that appreciate and treasure the opportunities that the Forest Service and the BLM provide.

But, as usual, St. Wronge himself acts like he knows areas better than the people who actually live there.

[kalm]

Because control of the land should be by the People who live in the area. If it's going to be government land it should be State land. To me the Arctic National Wildlife oil drilling controversy is an example. The question of whether or not oil drilling should go on there should be up to the people who actually live around there. It should be up to the people in Alaska. We shouldn't have a situation where a bunch of nut jobs from places like California who are never even going to see the place prevent the people who actually live up there from enjoying the potential benefit of utilizing an available natural resource. Control in this country is way too centralized and the Federal lands thing is part of that. If it's owned by the State it's still owned by "the People." But it's owned by the People who are more directly impacted by the decisions pertaining to it.



Ok below is a map separating Indian Reservations from other Federal lands. I don't think it changes the basic impression much. The Federal government owns too much land.

But it is in control of the people that use it - majority of people in the west favor Federal Control, because that guarantees the best access. Just because some ranchers want to tie up the land for themselves doesn't mean they have broad support from the rest of the populace.


You think Federal ownership is a problem. The majority of westerners don't. Are there improvements that could be made? Sure. If anything, the BLM is too lenient with the ranchers, and the Mining Act of 1872 needs to be repealed.

It isn't the nutjobs from California. it is the locals that appreciate and treasure the opportunities that the Forest Service and the BLM provide.

I'm not even sure the states could afford to manage all the federal lands.

[andy7171]

All that yellow area is where the hills have eyes!!!

[JohnStOnge]

Do you have some kind of poll to support the Statement that the majority of the people in the West, if given the choice, would prefer to have all that land under the control of the Federal government rather than under the control of their State government?

Or really, I wouldn't ask about the "majority of the people in the West" because the majority of the people in the West might be accounted for by one State (California). I would ask, for instance, if the majority of the People in Utah, if given a vote, would vote to have all that land indicated on the map above as controlled by the United States bureau of land management or to have it owned and controlled by the State of Utah.

I have my doubts that the majority of people in each State would prefer that all that land be owned by the Federal government as opposed to being owned by the government of their State.

[dbackjon]

And JSO - in Arizona, the Indian Reservations take up over 25% of the state and Defense lands take up another 5%.

[dbackjon]

Do you have some kind of poll to support the Statement that the majority of the people in the West, if given the choice, would prefer to have all that land under the control of the Federal government rather than under the control of their State government?

Or really, I wouldn't ask about the "majority of the people in the West" because the majority of the people in the West might be accounted for by one State (California). I would ask, for instance, if the majority of the People in Utah, if given a vote, would vote to have all that land indicated on the map above as controlled by the United States bureau of land management or to have it owned and controlled by the State of Utah.

I have my doubts that the majority of people in each State would prefer that all that land be owned by the Federal government as opposed to being owned by the government of their State.

Google is your friend.

And why shouldn't someone in California have a say in the lands we all own?

These lands have never belonged to the state, and the states don't have a claim on them, never did.

[dbackjon]

Here is a quick link to sportsmen supporting federal ownership...

http://sportsmensaccess.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


They know that without federal oversight, the hunting and fishing they love would be off limits to all but the wealthy.

[Wedgebuster]

Here is a quick link to sportsmen supporting federal ownership...

http://sportsmensaccess.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


They know that without federal oversight, the hunting and fishing they love would be off limits to all but the wealthy.

[Ibanez]

Do you have some kind of poll to support the Statement that the majority of the people in the West, if given the choice, would prefer to have all that land under the control of the Federal government rather than under the control of their State government?

Or really, I wouldn't ask about the "majority of the people in the West" because the majority of the people in the West might be accounted for by one State (California). I would ask, for instance, if the majority of the People in Utah, if given a vote, would vote to have all that land indicated on the map above as controlled by the United States bureau of land management or to have it owned and controlled by the State of Utah.

I have my doubts that the majority of people in each State would prefer that all that land be owned by the Federal government as opposed to being owned by the government of their State.

Google is your friend.

And why shouldn't someone in California have a say in the lands we all own?

These lands have never belonged to the state, and the states don't have a claim on them, never did.

Not disagreeing with you, but how do you view the (few) federal-owned lands in the 13 colonies?

[BDKJMU]

----------------------------------

[BDKJMU]

Do you have some kind of poll to support the Statement that the majority of the people in the West, if given the choice, would prefer to have all that land under the control of the Federal government rather than under the control of their State government?

Or really, I wouldn't ask about the "majority of the people in the West" because the majority of the people in the West might be accounted for by one State (California). I would ask, for instance, if the majority of the People in Utah, if given a vote, would vote to have all that land indicated on the map above as controlled by the United States bureau of land management or to have it owned and controlled by the State of Utah.

I have my doubts that the majority of people in each State would prefer that all that land be owned by the Federal government as opposed to being owned by the government of their State.

Google is your friend.

And why shouldn't someone in California have a say in the lands we all own?

These lands have never belonged to the state, and the states don't have a claim on them, never did.

Thats not what he said. He was saying the people in CA should have a say in CA lands. And the people in UT should have a say in UT lands (whether to be state or fed controlled).Etc, etc for each state.

[dbackjon]

Google is your friend.

And why shouldn't someone in California have a say in the lands we all own?

These lands have never belonged to the state, and the states don't have a claim on them, never did.

Not disagreeing with you, but how do you view the (few) federal-owned lands in the 13 colonies?

Apples and Oranges. Land was mostly already claimed. What Federal Land there is was bought.

But, The Federal Government did own most of the Northwest Territories (Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan) and allowed homesteaders to claim that land over time. Fact is the western lands were farmable, and most was not claimed for homesteading while that was still allowed.

[dbackjon]

Google is your friend.

And why shouldn't someone in California have a say in the lands we all own?

These lands have never belonged to the state, and the states don't have a claim on them, never did.

Thats not what he said. He was saying the people in CA should have a say in CA lands. And the people in UT should have a say in UT lands (whether to be state or fed controlled).Etc, etc for each state.

Why? It belongs to you and me. The people of Utah didn't conquer the land, buy it from Mexico, defend it, provide the development tools (railroads, etc) - the Federal Government did. The lands belong to ALL of us.

[JohnStOnge]

Well I did google polls and what I found is that you've got competing poll results and that both sides worded the polling questions so as to bias the results towards what they wanted to get. You can gather that by first going to http://endfedaddiction.org/blog/2014/10 ... education/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and seeing what it says about the polls then clicking on the word "poll" where it references the Center for American Progress poll.

What's needed is a poll that just asks, "Would you support transferring Federal lands in your State to State ownership" without elaboration designed to make people think about what you want them to think about before answering the question. That way you get their honest opinion based on what they've already thought about or not thought about on their own.

[89Hen]

What's needed is a poll that just asks, "Would you support transferring Federal lands in your State to State ownership" without elaboration designed to make people think about what you want them to think about before answering the question. That way you get their honest opinion based on what they've already thought about or not thought about on their own.

Reminds me of Maryland question on redistricting a couple years ago:

Question 5
Referendum Petition
Congressional Districting Plan (Ch. 1 of the 2011 Special Session)

Establishes the boundaries for the State’s eight United States Congressional Districts based on recent census figures, as required by the United States Constitution.

For the Referred Law
Against the Referred Law

I mean who doesn't want to uphold the Constitution?

[dbackjon]

John - but you can't just ask that question. You have to know what the state intends to do with the land.


In Arizona, the state Constitution MANDATES that all state trust land be managed for the greatest possible return, and made available for sale when market conditions justify it.

If I wanted to buy some state land, the state land department is required to evaluate the proposal, and only under a very narrow exception could they then refuse to put it up for auction. Then, at the land auction, I could obtain it if I had the highest bid.

Even the State Parks department can't take land from the state land trust - they have to BUY it.

And in a state like Arizona, where many of the state GOP support things like taking over and Privatizing the Grand Canyon, you have to include that in the polling question.

[AZGrizFan]

Thats not what he said. He was saying the people in CA should have a say in CA lands. And the people in UT should have a say in UT lands (whether to be state or fed controlled).Etc, etc for each state.

Why? It belongs to you and me. The people of Utah didn't conquer the land, buy it from Mexico, defend it, provide the development tools (railroads, etc) - the Federal Government did. The lands belong to ALL of us.

Yeah. They didn't build that.

[dbackjon]

Why? It belongs to you and me. The people of Utah didn't conquer the land, buy it from Mexico, defend it, provide the development tools (railroads, etc) - the Federal Government did. The lands belong to ALL of us.

Yeah. They didn't build that.

You live in a foreign country - your opinion is invalid