Federal Land Give-Away Starts - Page 2 - Mountain Buzz
 



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 01-09-2017   #11
 
Park City, Utah
Paddling Since: 1982
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. compassionate View Post
So you're against allowing grazing and energy extraction on the land but if the feds want to sell you want to take into consideration said value? The land is only costing the federal govt money if we don't allow use on it. Why not sell and use the money to pay down debt. No reason the feds should own almost 90% of NV or any other state.
Read the article, mr. c. Bishop and his crowd don't to sell it, they want to GIVE it away.

"Many Republicans, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), have been pushing to hand over large areas of federal land to state and local authorities, on the grounds that they will be more responsive to the concerns of local residents."

So much for reducing the debt.

tmacc is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 01-09-2017   #12
 
Western Slope, CO, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2009
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 97
Our country is upside down in debt. Me, You, Pension Funds, Obamacare, Social Security, FDIC, the Local Governments, the State Governments, the Federal Government and all its' Senators. The list goes on and on.

How can we ever say we can't pay that debt if we are holding a jewel ?

When rates rise, all the jewels will need to be sold.
ColoradoDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017   #13
 
Park City, Utah
Paddling Since: 1982
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 546
Who could disagree with you on the debt. It's worrisome for sure, but you don't give the land away in the hopes that someday the federal government will get a little pocket money from tax revenue.

I read where economists at U of U looked at whether the state of Utah could make as much money from managing the lands owned by the feds as they receive from Payments in Lieu Of Taxes (Billions) and they determine that the only way to do it was to start selling it to private interests. So, giving the land to Utah or other states does little to reduce federal dept.
tmacc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2017   #14
 
Western Slope, CO, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2009
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 97
Define Private...

My definition is anything other than a formal fiduciary government entity.

And the terms of each party are negotiable and can play out many ways.
ColoradoDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017   #15
 
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoradoDave View Post
Our country is upside down in debt. Me, You, Pension Funds, Obamacare, Social Security, FDIC, the Local Governments, the State Governments, the Federal Government and all its' Senators. The list goes on and on.

How can we ever say we can't pay that debt if we are holding a jewel ?

When rates rise, all the jewels will need to be sold.
One important correction: Social Security is absolutely NOT in debt. Neither is "Obamacare", which is a law, not an institution or an account. But there is a great deal of public and private debt. The problem with your sell the jewels idea is that nobody is BUYING. They all want the jewels for free. Utah wants free federal land and the revenue that can be generated from them. And they'll want the federal government to follow up with some block grants to support costly things like recreation. There is no promise at all to sell public lands to pay down debt.

Now, are there deals that can be made in isolated cases to sell or more often trade lands, for example, to resolve inholding issues? Already happens.
markhusbands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017   #16
SarahofTheWaves
 
FoCo,NoCo, Colorado
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 286
The focus on National Debt is a smoke screen. The debt value that matters is the percent of debt as it relates to GDP. It has been much higher. It was higher during the Reagan administration. Under Clinton, prior to Bush Jr. the debt to GDP ratio was actually negative.

The fees for using public lands should be higher. We give away our land by not charging enough for extraction and grazing privileges. And, yes, that means we pay more. Under local and/or private ownership we all lose access, protection, and management.
sarahkonamojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017   #17
 
mvhyde's Avatar
 
Technology Partner, Littleton, Colorado
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 644
Send a message via AIM to mvhyde
Not many ideas on this thread are sane or useful

It is truly funny to me the number of people on here who do not understand why ranchers lease grazing rights from the feds or understand that if one makes the grazing fees really high, that it is going to impact not just the ranchers, but those of us who eat the meat from whatever animal was grazed on said lands.

Insofar as the references to President-elect Trump as the "orange haired dictator", all I can say is wow, really? While I was not happy with President Obama all of the time, I never thought to disrespect the man or the office.

Yeah, yeah.. you can claim it is your right to free speech, etc. Big deal. Disrespect is still disrespect. Grow the fuck up.

With regard to the the Feds leasing and/or selling lands, why is that a problem? They have far too much land as it is, most of which is never used and never visited or trod upon.
__________________
And the Lord said, let there be whitewater. So on Friday, the 13th day of the month....
mvhyde is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017   #18
SarahofTheWaves
 
FoCo,NoCo, Colorado
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 286
The soon to be ranter-in-chief has not shown much respect for others or for the office. The depth of his disrespect is endless. How does the birther attack on President Obama show any respect for the office he will inherit? His entire campaign was based on debasing others: lock her up, etc. Cross him and you are threatened. How are you supposed to respect a leader like that...

We produce super cheap beef on lands that are super cheap to graze. And that makes us great? We would be showing respect for our land if we didn't give it away.

Where is this land that is never used or trod upon? And again, where are those cattle grazing?
sarahkonamojo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017   #19
 
Denver, Colorado
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 177
"It is truly funny to me the number of people on here who do not understand why ranchers lease grazing rights from the feds....

I do. It's an historical artifact of the homesteading and grazing policies of the 19th and early 20th century. I personally do not disagree with this use in whole, although I often disagree with particular positions and behaviors of these very fortunate users of the public estate.

"...or understand that if one makes the grazing fees really high, that it is going to impact not just the ranchers, but those of us who eat the meat from whatever animal was grazed on said lands."

Higher prices, which may well represent a more economically-efficient use of resources.

"With regard to the the Feds leasing and/or selling lands, why is that a problem? They have far too much land as it is..."

Plainly a normative perspective that is not universally shared. Federal policy allowed Americans to homestead 160, 320, and eventually 640 acres - free - for purposes like ranching, AND obtain grazing rights on surrounding public land, so if large percentages of certain states (e.g., Nevada) remain federal today it is due to lack of private interest in those lands prior to around 1920, when the era of federal land disposal largely ended.

"...most of which is never used and never visited or trod upon."

Often the best use is to maintain these lands in an undeveloped state, for valuable purposes such as wildlife habitat, watershed management, and recreation. And, in my opinion, there is no particular reason to believe that states have a better vision for the best use of public land than the federal government. They certainly have a narrower view of who their constituents are. And they certainly don't seem to have more robust budgets for land management, or any intent to actually buy federal land.
markhusbands is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2017   #20
 
NE, Oregon
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 63
Beef from public lands represents an insignificant amount to the overall whole. I doubt very much that raising of grazing permits fees or even the loss of that grazing would impact the cost of beef in this country.
BLM Public Lands Grazing Accounts for Only 0.41% of Nation’s Livestock Receipts | The Wildlife News

I would encourage anyone that doesn't understand why the Federal government owns so much public land in the West to investigate the original acquisition of those lands. Then the States enabling acts and finally the management of federal lands starting in the 1800's right up to 1976 when the Homestead Act was finally superceded. It's all there and it makes perfect sense.

I have yet to see a credible article/study that believes the states could afford to manage all of that newly acquired land. Which would lead to that land being sold.

An interesting article on the private management of public land. Spoiler alert it doesn't work out well. An experiment in privatizing public land fails after 14 years — High Country News
Willie 1.5 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tales of Federal Weirdness JohnR Whitewater Rafting 9 07-15-2013 12:48 PM
Federal budget myths gh The Eddy 4 08-03-2012 10:18 PM
Help Abolish the Federal Reserve blutzski The Eddy 50 11-25-2008 01:55 PM
Public Land Give-Away chadmckenzie26 Whitewater Kayaking 0 11-22-2005 09:18 AM

» Classified Ads
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.