Armed Conk militia group occupies Malheur NWR offices

[JohnStOnge]

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.

If you do anything all that can reasonably be expected to impact the response you have biased the poll. In any case I think what I saw when I looked at the question of polling on this issue is two sides very obviously trying to convince the respondents to answer in favor of their point of view by the way in which they framed the question.

Unfortunately that's not uncommon.

[Ibanez]

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.

Right answer. Just wanted to make sure.

[BDKJMU]

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 If anything, the BLM is too lenient with the ranchers, and the Mining Act of 1872 needs to be repealed.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.

Of course they could if all the $$$ that goes to Washington every year for manages federal lands (via taxpayers) was funneled to the states. Probably less wasted..

[BDKJMU]

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.

On the other hand when you restrict the availability of a product that makes that product more expensive. Because the fed govt owns the majority of the land out west = what's left being more expensive than it otherwise would be if the fed owned less. Thereby less people can afford to buy a decent sized tracts of land to hunt or do whatever on..More availability of a product = more people can afford it.

[AZGrizFan]

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.

On the other hand when you restrict the availability of a product that makes that product more expensive. Because the fed govt owns the majority of the land out west = what's left being more expensive than it otherwise would be if the fed owned less. Thereby less people can afford to buy a decent sized tracts of land to hunt or do whatever on..More availability of a product = more people can afford it.

A concept perfectly illustrated in Texas.

[houndawg]

I expected that would happen. They won't "occupy" anything for long without the help of Piggly Wiggly

And the USPS.

Maybe the USPS will expedite delivery.

[houndawg]

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.

Might be a good idea. I wonder if the people in Louisiana would stop dumping their trash by the side of the road and clean up the smell of piss that permeates most the State if the land was State-owned rather than Fed-owned? John?

[kalm]

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

Of course they could if all the $$$ that goes to Washington every year for manages federal lands (via taxpayers) was funneled to the states. Probably less wasted..

I'm not sure that's true. How many of these states take in more in revenue than they pay out?

The forest fires alone would put the states in financial trouble.

“Calling on states to seize public lands may make for great political theater, but it makes for horrible policy,” said Greg Zimmerman, Policy Director at the Center for Western Priorities. “Each summer, federal firefighters canvass the West, putting their lives at risk to combat increasingly common megafires. If public lands are transferred, states would have to assume the firefighting responsibilities, and the money to pay for this critical service will have to come from somewhere. One bad fire season would risk a state’s financial stability.”

Federal land management agencies – including the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management – spend, on average, $3.1 billion every year protecting communities from wildfire. If state land seizure efforts are successful, this multibillion dollar cost would be transferred onto already-stretched state government budget sheets.

In “The Wildfire Burden,” CWP presents new data showing how much the U.S. Forest Service spent fighting wildfires in each Western state during fiscal years 2011 and 2012. As seen in the chart below, these state-by-state costs often exceed state law enforcement budgets.

http://westernpriorities.org/2014/08/21 ... ire-costs/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then there's spending on things like road construction in national forests that benefit logging operations. They build and maintain a ton of roads. Could the cash strapped states keep up?

Or how about grazing leases on federal lands that the bootstrappers on the Bundy Ranch like so much? States will look for revenue any way they can and might increase these costs.

I like the idea of local control as a concept. Just not sure it's realistic.

We (all of us) own a 13,000 acre place with 8 miles of protected trout stream running through it, several lakes, cool basalt rims and buttes, and critters and wildflower galore. It's one of several near me and it's free for all to use at any time.

I sure as shit don't want access to public lands or their vitality jeopardized.

[Baldy]

Of course they could if all the $$$ that goes to Washington every year for manages federal lands (via taxpayers) was funneled to the states. Probably less wasted..

I'm not sure that's true. How many of these states take in more in revenue than they pay out?

The forest fires alone would put the states in financial trouble.

Probably not.

Most states do control burns to prevent those massive wildfires. The Feds...not so much. You know, greenhouse gasses, militant environmentalists and all that.

[Grizalltheway]

I'm not sure that's true. How many of these states take in more in revenue than they pay out?

The forest fires alone would put the states in financial trouble.

Probably not.

Most states do control burns to prevent those massive wildfires. The Feds...not so much. You know, greenhouse gasses, militant environmentalists and all that.

Controlled burns don't totally prevent massive wildfires, and never will.

[kalm]

Probably not.

Most states do control burns to prevent those massive wildfires. The Feds...not so much. You know, greenhouse gasses, militant environmentalists and all that.

Controlled burns don't totally prevent massive wildfires, and never will.

And the size is limited. Also, the NFS is fairly neutral from an environmental standpoint. The Feds build roads and maintain forests so we can sell timber to China and buy it finished in the Walmart home section.

'Murica!

[89Hen]

Probably not.

Most states do control burns to prevent those massive wildfires. The Feds...not so much. You know, greenhouse gasses, militant environmentalists and all that.

Controlled burns don't totally prevent massive wildfires, and never will.

We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.

[Skjellyfetti]

We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.

With background checks for all gun purchases?

[kalm]

Controlled burns don't totally prevent massive wildfires, and never will.

We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.

Therefore we shouldn't use prescribed burns?

[JoltinJoe]

It's great to see that these Patriots are taking their Second Amendment rights to the next level.

I'm curious to see how it works out for them.

[Baldy]

Controlled burns don't totally prevent massive wildfires, and never will.

We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.

The only thing you left off was a little tear drop...

[JohnStOnge]

Might be a good idea. I wonder if the people in Louisiana would stop dumping their trash by the side of the road and clean up the smell of piss that permeates most the State if the land was State-owned rather than Fed-owned? John?

The trash by the side of the road thing is indeed a problem throughout the State but the smell of piss thing is pretty much a New Orleans thing.

And as you know neither of those things are related to who owns the land.

[JohnStOnge]

You guys all know that the cost thing is just being used as an angle by people who just don't want State ownership for other reasons. Even if one could definitively show that cost is not a prohibiting factor you guys who use that cost argument would still not want to transfer the land.

On the fire thing: I'm sure you guys know that there are people who argue that more money than should be spent on fighting wildfires is spent on fighting wildfires. Though the forest service does to some extent practice "let it burn" management when it can, it hasn't gone "all the way" in that regard by saying they are completely not going to waste their time fighting wildfires except to protect certain specific and relatively limited areas.

Here's an example from an author I disagree with on a lot but who kind of defines the issue:

http://archive.onearth.org/articles/201 ... ire-policy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet the fire industrial complex argues that the solution is to continue spending more money on firefighting—something some of the best forest ecologists and firefighting experts in the country have told me is the equivalent of burning money, and will only make things worse in the future.

“Even with more modern equipment, with airplanes and helicopters, we can’t stop the fires,” says George Wuerthner, a former National Park Service ranger and editor of the book Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. “I’ve had firefighters tell me, ‘It’s like dumping dollars on the fire.’”

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, I am proud to say that though I live in a State that is at risk of hurricane impact every year I live well away from the coastal zone so that, realistically, the biggest thing I have to worry about is having to make it through an extended power outage. Maybe a week to two weeks if it's bad. And I'm set up to get through that. Generator, gas cans, extra little window air conditioners I can use instead of the central system. Etc.

I would not live right on the coast where, during any given year, a 20 foot wall of water could show up and scour my home right off the face of the Earth.

To me people who build their houses in wildfire territory are like people who build their houses right on the coast along the Gulf. They are asking for it and if it were up to me they'd be on their own in terms of recovering from natural disaster. Yes they are free to live there but they shouldn't ask the rest of the country to come bail bail them out when something they should know has a good chance of happening happens.

[kalm]

You guys all know that the cost thing is just being used as an angle by people who just don't want State ownership for other reasons. Even if one could definitively show that cost is not a prohibiting factor you guys who use that cost argument would still not want to transfer the land.

On the fire thing: I'm sure you guys know that there are people who argue that more money than should be spent on fighting wildfires is spent on fighting wildfires. Though the forest service does to some extent practice "let it burn" management when it can, it hasn't gone "all the way" in that regard by saying they are completely not going to waste their time fighting wildfires except to protect certain specific and relatively limited areas.

Here's an example from an author I disagree with on a lot but who kind of defines the issue:

http://archive.onearth.org/articles/201 ... ire-policy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yet the fire industrial complex argues that the solution is to continue spending more money on firefighting—something some of the best forest ecologists and firefighting experts in the country have told me is the equivalent of burning money, and will only make things worse in the future.

“Even with more modern equipment, with airplanes and helicopters, we can’t stop the fires,” says George Wuerthner, a former National Park Service ranger and editor of the book Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy. “I’ve had firefighters tell me, ‘It’s like dumping dollars on the fire.’”

So if the State of Washington took control of all federal lands and maintained the same levels of access and environmental quality, would there be a cost increase to the state? Would the federal government provide grants to the state to offset the cost?

I honestly don't know and that's why I brought it up.

I've made no bones about being fine with the current arrangement because I appreciate how the lands around me have been managed. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[JohnStOnge]

I would hope that there would be no Federal grants because Federal grants mean Federal strings. So there would be some increased cost to the States. Whether the States would spend as much as the Feds do is an unknown but I suspect they would spend less.

There's a bigger issue involved here. What would probably happen in the case we're talking about is that there would be no change in how much the people of those States have to pay the federal government. What I would like to see is the Federal government cut to a nub in all areas except the national defense military. We have this system where the Federal government sucks in money from people in all the States then re-distributes it after processing it through Federal bureaucracy. To me it would be better if all that money never went to the Federal government to begin with. And you wouldn't have stuff like the Federal government coercing States in to something like make laws requiring people to wear seat belts under threat of having funds that were sent by residents of States to the Federal government to begin with withheld.

What's really needed is a radical diminishment of the Federal government accompanied by a radical diminishment in Federal tax collections so that things would be handled on a State by State basis. An increase in State taxes accompanied by a massive decrease in Federal taxes to the point where about the only major spending area funded by Federal tax revenue would be national defense military.

I realize that'll never happen but that's what SHOULD happen. And along with that most of the Federal land would be turned over to the States.

[JohnStOnge]

I'll just mention something about a Federal refuge I like to fish. I don't know whether other Federal refuges are like this but it tells me that at least in this one case there is NO reason for the refuge to be under the control of the Federal government.

Years ago I started calling the Lacassine National Wildlife Refuge during winter to see what their fishery surveys were showing. Right off the bat I was told that they don't do the surveys. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries does. Turns out the biological management of the refuge is all handled by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. They set the limits on fish. They set the limits on ducks when they allow duck hunting there. They stock the refuge with various fish such as bluegill and cross bred Florida/Louisiana subspecies largemouths. Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries agents enforce the fishing and hunting laws and regulations.

The only impact of the Federal government owning it I ever experienced was when they had the last government shutdown and they shut it down to fishing even though there was absolutely no reason to. It's just a big area of freshwater marsh and you hardly ever see anybody from the Fish and Wildlife Service in there. PLUS Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement was on duty anyway because they're "essential" and don't get furloughed during government shut downs. So if for some reason they HAD to do something they were on duty.

The biggest differences in terms of public use is that the Fish and Wildlife Service shuts the refuge down to fishing during October 16 through March 14 every year and also does not allow fishing between sunset and sunrise at any time of year while the State would not have those restrictions. I say that because I fish State Wildlife Management Areas all the time and they don't have such restrictions. There's no biological management reason to have them.

There is NO question in my mind it'd be better if that was a State Wildlife Management Area rather than a Federal Refuge. It's not HORRIBLE as it is. But it'd be better if the State handled it. Like for instance if I wanted to I could bring my kayak out there right now and fish if the State handled it whereas I can't because the Fish and Wildlife Service handles it.

[YoUDeeMan]

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.

Huh?

Californians should not have a say in what happens in places that existed before California became a territory and state...because up until then, they didn't help support the federal and/or state governments that were involved in conquering any of the lands that came before California. Your US "federal participation" should stop at your border...and your votes should not impact the other lands that bravely came before you latecomers decided to join the party.

As far as kalm's issue with costs going up if states took over the land...fvck that.

You can't complain about the 1% controlling things at the expense of the 99% while complaining about the possibility that .001% of people that live in the empty lands of eastern Washington having to pay for the privilege of using that land. Instead, you selfishly want that expense to be distributed to the other 99.999%.

Uh, and 89Hen is whomping on this thread.

[kalm]

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.

Huh?

Californians should not have a say in what happens in places that existed before California became a territory and state...because up until then, they didn't help support the federal and/or state governments that were involved in conquering any of the lands that came before California. Your US "federal participation" should stop at your border...and your votes should not impact the other lands that bravely came before you latecomers decided to join the party.

As far as kalm's issue with costs going up if states took over the land...fvck that.

You can't complain about the 1% controlling things at the expense of the 99% while complaining about the possibility that .001% of people that live in the empty lands of eastern Washington having to pay for the privilege of using that land. Instead, you selfishly want that expense to be distributed to the other 99.999%.

Uh, and 89Hen is whomping on this thread.

No he's not, and Yes I can!

1) Turnbull NWR just down the road from me was visited last year by cars from 39 different states (based on a number I read somewhere years ago and that is partially made up but I'm sure extremely accurate).

2) As Houndawg, mentioned earlier, this guitar kills fascists!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s[/youtube]

[BDKJMU]

Huh?

Californians should not have a say in what happens in places that existed before California became a territory and state...because up until then, they didn't help support the federal and/or state governments that were involved in conquering any of the lands that came before California. Your US "federal participation" should stop at your border...and your votes should not impact the other lands that bravely came before you latecomers decided to join the party.

As far as kalm's issue with costs going up if states took over the land...fvck that.

You can't complain about the 1% controlling things at the expense of the 99% while complaining about the possibility that .001% of people that live in the empty lands of eastern Washington having to pay for the privilege of using that land. Instead, you selfishly want that expense to be distributed to the other 99.999%.

Uh, and 89Hen is whomping on this thread.

No he's not, and Yes I can!

1) Turnbull NWR just down the road from me was visited last year by cars from 39 different states (based on a number I read somewhere years ago and that is partially made up but I'm sure extremely accurate).

2) As Houndawg, mentioned earlier, this guitar kills fascists!

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxiMrvDbq3s[/youtube]

How many were rentals? Because car rental locations, at least airport, will have license plates from numerous different states.