Western states debate retaking control of federal lands

posted at 5:01 pm on April 19, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

It’s going to sound as if this story is some sort of reflexive reaction to the showdown at the Bundy ranch, but it’s apparently been in the works for a while. A number of officials from nine different states got together to discuss ways to retake control of poorly managed federal lands. One can only imagine the kind of firestorm this is going to kick off in DC if it moves forward.

Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said it was in the works before this month’s standoff…

“What’s happened in Nevada is really just a symptom of a much larger problem,” Lockhart said, according to The Salt Lake Tribune.

The Legislative Summit on the Transfer of Public Lands, as it was called, was organized by Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory and Montana state Sen. Jennifer Fielder. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, addressed the group over lunch, the Tribune reported.

“It’s simply time,” Ivory told reporters. “The urgency is now.”

Fielder said federal land management is hamstrung by bad policies, politicized science and severe federal budget cuts.

This has some interesting possibilities, though it’s unclear what the prospects for success are were it to come down to a court battle at the federal level. It would be useful to highlight precisely how much “federal land” there is in the United States, and how much of it is actually being put to productive use. Further, how much land should the federal government legitimately control?

A really strict interpretation of just how much land that would be could be found in Article I, Section 8.

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

The origin of national park lands is a bit more hazy, but dates back to the life and activism of John Muir. But at the time, the idea of establishing national parks was frequently referred to as a radical one, and it took a lot of salesmanship to bring it to pass. There is also a long standing debate over the number of abandoned military bases scattered around the country which represent eyesores and lost tax revenue. When the federal government needs land for an active base in support of our military, then sure… no problem. But what about when they shut one down? Shouldn’t that land immediately revert back to the control of the state?

It seems, however, that even if we accept all of the above examples, there is still an argument to be made that public lands which are not being dutifully maintained to serve some valid purpose of the public would be better classified as state lands. There used to be a lot of state land, even where I grew up in rural New York. The state maintained control of such lands and could preserve it or sell it to residents as they saw fit. The same could doubtless apply to things like grazing rights, tourism and what have you.

There may be something to this idea. But we’ll have to wait and see what, if anything, they come up with and how Washington responds. I doubt it would be resolved in my lifetime, however.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

So now we know why Hussein needs his own armed thugs civilian national security force .

burrata on April 19, 2014 at 5:08 PM

I have a school teacher buddy that thinks private ownership of large tracts should be outlawed. And no, he doesn’t define large he just thinks land should be available for him to camp on, fish, hunt or whatever he wants to do.

DanMan on April 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

What about the right of states to maintain some amount of territorial integrity? Theoretically, the Federal government could acquire all of the land of a given state and drive everyone out of it if the Supremacy Clause carries the day. Taken to the logical extreme, it seems like states should have more of a say in this matter.

blammm on April 19, 2014 at 5:16 PM

I have a school teacher buddy that thinks private ownership of large tracts should be outlawed. And no, he doesn’t define large he just thinks land should be available for him to camp on, fish, hunt or whatever he wants to do.

DanMan on April 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

Ask your friend if that includes large tracts of land that have been saved from future development by conservation trusts.

Also ask your friend if he has any conception of how large a 10 acre parcel of land really is. He will not have a clue, I assure you.

And finally, tell your friend that on a single larger (say, 100 acres) tract of land, he could camp out for every night for the rest of his life and never camp in the same place twice.

Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2014 at 5:17 PM

It will be next to impossible to do, but God bless them for trying. I hope they succeed.

ImmigrantsWife on April 19, 2014 at 5:20 PM

The only land the federal govt should own is that with military base of a government building on it and then only the barest amount needed for it.

Warner Todd Huston on April 19, 2014 at 5:22 PM

An issue very similar to that in Cliven Bundy’s situation was at the heart of a Supreme Court case of Pollard’s Lessee v. Hagan, decided in 1845. Justia provides a short, helpful summary of the events:

Pollard’s Lessee involved conflicting claims by the United States and Alabama of ownership of certain partially inundated lands on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico in Alabama. The enabling act for Alabama had contained both a declaration of equal footing and a reservation to the United States of these lands.

Rather than an issue of mere land ownership, the Court saw the question as one concerning sovereignty and jurisdiction of the States. Inasmuch as the original States retained sovereignty and jurisdiction over the navigable waters and the soil beneath them within their boundaries, retention by the United States of either title to or jurisdiction over common lands in the new States would bring those States into the Union on less than an equal footing with the original States.

This, the Court would not permit.

“Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law, to the same extent that Georgia possessed it, before she ceded it to the United States.

To maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states, the constitution, laws, and compact, to the contrary notwithstanding….

[T]o Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them, in controversy in this case, subject to the rights surrendered by the Constitution to the United States; and no compact that might be made between her and the United States could diminish or enlarge these rights.” [Emphasis added.]

So, regardless of the BLM’s — and by extension, the Obama administration’s — insistence that Nevada’s land was ceded to the federal government when Nevada became a state in 1864, the Constitution, common law, and relevant Supreme Court rulings have found otherwise.

The bottom line, then, is that Nevada owns the land where Cliven Bundy’s cattle fed, and Bundy — who has preemptive rights for his cattle to feed there — has faithfully and fully paid that landlord the rent he owed it.

oscarwilde on April 19, 2014 at 5:28 PM

If there’s a Constitutional Convention, this might be one of the things that emerges as a proposed Amendment.

Steven Den Beste on April 19, 2014 at 5:28 PM

They want urban population centres (sic) so they can get equal justice and stuff.

Key West Reader on April 19, 2014 at 5:29 PM

As the accompanying map graphically demonstrates, there is a striking difference between the federal government’s claim to physical real estate in the states of East and the Midwest versus those of the West. In Maine, for instance, federal agencies occupy only 1.1 percent of the state’s land area; in New York it’s a mere 0.8 percent. The federal government claims only 1.8 percent of Indiana, 1.6 percent of Alabama, and 1.7 percent of Ohio. But in the Western states, the federal footprint covers from nearly one-third to over four-fifths of the area of the states.

Here are the ugly facts of the federal government’s ownership of the lands in the Western states:

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent
Colorado: 36.6 percent
Washington: 30.3 percent
Montana: 29.9 percent

Amjean on April 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM

The Latest BLM Land Grabby:

Retweeted by BLMNational
Sally Jewell ‏@SecretaryJewell Apr 15

Thank you @tpl_org for 6,000 acres of CA coast & redwoods which are now @BLMNational public lands! SJ pic.twitter.com/A8MF4ucgOp

https://twitter.com/SecretaryJewell/status/456122046947131392/photo/1
=====================================================================

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 5:31 PM

Hip Hip Hooray! Three cheers for Cliven Bundy. The modern day David vs Goliath.

The most interesting thing about this is he never had an attorney, an famous actor or skin color to drive the most powerful story into the main stream in the last decade…

katy on April 19, 2014 at 5:35 PM

Further, how much land should the federal government legitimately control?

None. They are the peoples tenets, not the peoples owners.

VorDaj on April 19, 2014 at 5:43 PM

American Indians on reservations have to be cracking up at this.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Me thinks Hopey/Changey the Land Grabber is trying to One-Up the Clintons!

From the Clinton Library:
*************************

CHAPTER
TWO:

LAND
AND
MINERALS
MANAGEMENT
===========
BLM

The Clinton Administration has protected more acreage in the conlenninous United States than any other administration.
========================================================

http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/storage/Research%20-%20Digital%20Library/ClintonAdminHistoryProject/1-10/Box%2010/1225030-interior-2.pdf.pdf

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 5:45 PM

In Maine, for instance, federal agencies occupy only 1.1 percent of the state’s land area;

Amjean on April 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Well, that Maine stat is not a real barometer of the “Far East”, because Maine is so huge compared to the other eastern states.

But right next door in (much smaller) New Hampshire, the Feds own over 10% of the state’s land area; most of that is National Forest.

Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2014 at 5:47 PM

The land is not the federal government’s. It belongs to The People. And as such, it needs to be managed locally, by local people, for local benefit.

Period.

KMC1 on April 19, 2014 at 5:47 PM

Land Grabbers:

Celebrating 40 years of creating parks and protecting land for people

http://www.tpl.org/
====================

TrustforPublicLand
TrustforPublicLand Verified account
@tpl_org

We conserve land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and other natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come.

San Francisco, CA · tpl.org

https://twitter.com/tpl_org

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 5:48 PM

American Indians on reservations have to be cracking up at this.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Aren’t you supposed to be calling them Native Americans?

Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Speaker 1: But it’s my land!
Speaker 2: Tough poop, I want it, now move or I’ll use my greater strength on you.
Speaker 1: Waaaaaah, this sucks!

Prompt: Does this little play dramatize the Bundys versus the federal government or Andrew Jackson against the Cherokee?

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Here are the ugly facts of the federal government’s ownership of the lands in the Western states:

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent
Colorado: 36.6 percent
Washington: 30.3 percent
Montana: 29.9 percent

Amjean on April 19, 2014 at 5:30 PM

Seems like promising to give/sell some of it back would be a powerful motivator for states to vote for a particular party.

Let Hilary explain to the people of New Mexico/Colorado/Oregon/Nevada why she doesn’t trust them with their own land.

ChrisL on April 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Hmmmmmm,…:

Eugene 洪 ‏@iaurmelloneug Apr 17

YES!!!!! Great work, @SaveCoyoteHills @tpl_org!!!!! “Deal could preserve 510 acres of Fullerton hills” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/land-609975-public-chevron.html … (@ocregister)
==========================================

Deal could preserve 510 acres of Fullerton hills as open space

After years of disputes, a massive parcel slated for development could go to a conservation group.
Published: April 15, 2014 Updated: April 16, 2014 8:45 a.m.
***********************************************************

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/land-609975-public-chevron.html

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 5:53 PM

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:52 PM

Why do you hate the Cherokee?

Or are you saying you side with the Bundys?

notropis on April 19, 2014 at 5:54 PM

Aren’t you supposed to be calling them Native Americans?

Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Not based upon what I see discussed Native people I have met in my life. There seems to be an interchangeability between Native American and American Indian. Some folks do have a preference, but I do not believe either is patently offensive. Kind of like African-American or black. We know which words are verboten when referring to people of African descent, and there are a similar set of words for Native people. And yes one is also the name of a football team and we know because the very owner of that football team decline to call Native Americans “Redskins” when he made his outreach efforts to Native communities during a recent upsurge in media coverage of that controversy. Why didn’t he call people redskins, because doing so would make him look like a d*ck, even conservatives can agree to that. So why a team logo is acceptable to have a d*ckish name makes zero sense. But I digress.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Hmmmm,..connected to Harry Reid eh:

Obama nominates Nevada’s Neil Kornze to be BLM director …
washingtonexaminer.com/obama-nominates-nevadas…blm…/2538727‎
Nov 8, 2013 – (AP) — President Barack Obama has nominated Neil Kornze to become … Kornze joined the BLM in 2011 as a senior adviser to the director, …
=================

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — President Barack Obama has nominated Neil Kornze to become director of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Kornze was raised in Elko and is a former senior adviser to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-nominates-nevadas-neil-kornze-to-be-blm-director/article/2538727
=============================

BLM Information Directory

Washington Office Directories

Director: Neil Kornze
Deputy Director (Operations): Steve Ellis
Deputy Director (Policy): Linda Lance
Chief of Staff: Janet Lin

For all of the above, please use:

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/directory.html

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 5:59 PM

Geeze 500k acres taken after his re-election.. What for?

Key West Reader on April 19, 2014 at 5:27 PM

Key West Reader: It appears a Land War is shaping up!:0

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Key West Reader: It appears a Land War is shaping up!:0

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Again? Gee willikers, I wonder if the forces backed by the federal state will win again. I guess it’s 50-50! Sure should be interesting!

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:06 PM

To protest against a state controlling the territory within it’s boundary, seem to me a very extreme form of statism.

Rebar on April 19, 2014 at 6:07 PM

Not based upon what I see discussed Native people I have met in my life. There seems to be an interchangeability between Native American and American Indian. Some folks do have a preference, but I do not believe either is patently offensive. Kind of like African-American or black. We know which words are verboten when referring to people of African descent, and there are a similar set of words for Native people. And yes one is also the name of a football team and we know because the very owner of that football team decline to call Native Americans “Redskins” when he made his outreach efforts to Native communities during a recent upsurge in media coverage of that controversy. Why didn’t he call people redskins, because doing so would make him look like a d*ck, even conservatives can agree to that. So why a team logo is acceptable to have a d*ckish name makes zero sense. But I digress.

libfreeorgan on April 19, 2014 at 5:55 PM

how many Native people do you know?…you’re full of shit!…have you had a concussion lately?…or have you been out all this time…for unsuccessful brain surgery?

KOOLAID2 on April 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

No one tell libfreeordie that Johnson was part of the federal government.
Or that federal policies regarding native Americans has an even more deleterious affect on them than even black Americans.
And now exactly to black people get a pass for living off land that supposedly isn’t theirs either?

gwelf on April 19, 2014 at 6:11 PM

American Indians on reservations have to be cracking up at this.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Indeed. They learned the lesson the hard way-don’t let the government have too much power, or take away your arms.

questionmark on April 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM

Yeah – Redskin is so offensive that native high schools use it.
Just as Lieawatha Warren about it. As Harvards lauded first woman native on the faculty she’s highly qualified.

gwelf on April 19, 2014 at 6:14 PM

Is a state truly a state when 80% of its land is owned by the federal government? I say no. It’s outrageous that The land in Nevada is 80% owned by this government and I do hope these western states try to take back som of their rights and land.

sadsushi on April 19, 2014 at 6:17 PM

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM

Again? Gee willikers, I wonder if the forces backed by the federal state will win again. I guess it’s 50-50! Sure should be interesting!

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:06 PM

libreeordie:

Your talking about,…

……..Hopey Custard, in Changeys Little BigHorn!!

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 6:19 PM

And as usual libfreeordie can’t even stay on topic. Even he knows this is indefensible

gwelf on April 19, 2014 at 6:21 PM

Not based upon what I see discussed Native people I have met in my life. There seems to be an interchangeability between Native American and American Indian. Some folks do have a preference, but I do not believe either is patently offensive. Kind of like African-American or black. We know which words are verboten when referring to people of African descent, and there are a similar set of words for Native people. And yes one is also the name of a football team and we know because the very owner of that football team decline to call Native Americans “Redskins” when he made his outreach efforts to Native communities during a recent upsurge in media coverage of that controversy. Why didn’t he call people redskins, because doing so would make him look like a d*ck, even conservatives can agree to that. So why a team logo is acceptable to have a d*ckish name makes zero sense. But I digress.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:55 PM

Oh, c’mon. Now you’re just being “bossy”.

Ruckus_Tom on April 19, 2014 at 6:25 PM

Where is this “I love Weed” guy?

I was out gardening today……And I missed out new troll…:(

Electrongod on April 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Here are the ugly facts of the federal government’s ownership of the lands in the Western states:

Nevada: 84.5 percent

If the feds own 84% of your land, are you really a state?

xblade on April 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM

I don’t think I’d trust the state of Colorado with the land right now. Feds are closing up access to much of our wilderness as it is all at the suggestion of the enviros here.

COgirl on April 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM

Is “redskin” racist?

davidk on April 19, 2014 at 6:38 PM

how many Native people do you know?…you’re full of shit!…have you had a concussion lately?…or have you been out all this time…for unsuccessful brain surgery?

KOOLAID2 on April 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

What are you on now? Strike 7?

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Is “redskin” racist?

davidk on April 19, 2014 at 6:38 PM

If redskin isn’t racist, why doesn’t Dan Snyder refer to actual Native American people as “redskins?”

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:39 PM

American Indians on reservations have to be cracking up at this.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:44 PM

Thanks for making the point for us. Didn’t know you were conservative.

itsspideyman on April 19, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Harry Reid’s great-grandfather, Polecat Reid, and his sons told many lies for each other. They drove off a great many of our cattle. Some branded our young cattle so they could claim them later. Harry Reid and his sons are just like them only even more greedy.

Hinmahtooyahlatkek on April 19, 2014 at 6:43 PM

Thanks for making the point for us. Didn’t know you were conservative.

itsspideyman on April 19, 2014 at 6:41 PM

Oh you poor thing. You look at the Bundy case as another example of the corruption of state power. Yet you know from a wide range of issues, most critically the inevitable coming immigration reform, the the federal government is but the tool of capital. Being angry at “the state” for its treatment of the Bundy’s is like being angry at the iron if your spouse purposefully burned a hole in your shirt.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:45 PM

How does Chine beef taste?

‘Cause it looks like America Exceptionalism is something of the past…

Electrongod on April 19, 2014 at 6:46 PM

Just the idea of indians is quaint and archaic. Like wars of aggression and individual liberty and such.

Murphy9 on April 19, 2014 at 6:48 PM

She has huge……tracts of land!

tdarrington on April 19, 2014 at 6:48 PM

If redskin isn’t racist, why doesn’t Dan Snyder refer to actual Native American people as “redskins?”
libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:39 PM

To prevent confusion from others thinking he’s talking about his football team?

anuts on April 19, 2014 at 6:48 PM

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Oh my goodness, you know all these things about me?

Sorry honey, you’ve been reading the wrong palm. Go back to entrails, they’re your speed.

itsspideyman on April 19, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Is “redskin” racist?

davidk on April 19, 2014 at 6:38 PM

If redskin isn’t racist, why doesn’t Dan Snyder refer to actual Native American people as “redskins?”

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:39 PM

First, how do you know he doesn’t? Or are you just trying to make stuff up?

Second, my question was a yes or no question. You a woman?

davidk on April 19, 2014 at 6:57 PM

‘I’m a single mother who has raised him for 18 years by myself,’ said Tina Hernandez, parent of Topeka High School senior Dauby Knight. ‘I’ve told him education is the only way out. This is one of the biggest days of their lives. They’ve taken the glory and shine from the children and put on Mrs. Obama. She doesn’t know our kids.’

‘I really would like it to have a peaceful solution, but there is so much misinformation going on,’Gifford said. [Emphasis added.]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2607817/Kansas-speech-Michelle-Obama-draws-complaints.html

davidk on April 19, 2014 at 7:00 PM

If redskin isn’t racist, why doesn’t Dan Snyder refer to actual Native American people as “redskins?”

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:39 PM

You just did.

Tens of thousands of fans use it. Including a lot of black people. There are also native American’s who like the team and use the name.

It’s no more racist than “Viking”.

Or are you going to tell us that Oklahoma is also racist?

gwelf on April 19, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Oh you poor thing. You look at the Bundy case as another example of the corruption of state power. Yet you know from a wide range of issues, most critically the inevitable coming immigration reform, the the federal government is but the tool of capital. Being angry at “the state” for its treatment of the Bundy’s is like being angry at the iron if your spouse purposefully burned a hole in your shirt.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:45 PM

Your time away hasn’t made you any more coherent.

gwelf on April 19, 2014 at 7:09 PM

If redskin isn’t racist, why doesn’t Dan Snyder refer to actual Native American people as “redskins?”

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:39 PM

nowhere near as offensive as letting a KKK Grand Wizard be a U.S, Senator until he died. Would that have happened had Sheets Byrd been a Repub?

8 weight on April 19, 2014 at 7:10 PM

how many Native people do you know?…you’re full of shit!…have you had a concussion lately?…or have you been out all this time…for unsuccessful brain surgery?

KOOLAID2 on April 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

If lib free knows anything about native Americans is that they don’t want any jobs outside of Casino’s. It would be a tragedy for them if natural resources were used and good jobs were created. It would make mother earth cry.

gwelf on April 19, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Key West Reader: It appears a Land War is shaping up!:0

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM

More like a states’ rights war.

crankyoldlady on April 19, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Key West Reader: It appears a Land War is shaping up!:0

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 6:01 PM

More like a states’ rights war.

crankyoldlady on April 19, 2014 at 7:11 PM

crankyoldlady: Good point!:)

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM

Being angry at “the state” for its treatment of the Bundy’s is like being angry at the iron if your spouse purposefully burned a hole in your shirt.
libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:45 PM

That analogy is improper and inapplicable.
Treatment is defined by behavior.
Irons do not behave (states do).
Therefore, irons cannot treat anyone in any way.

That analogy would be better applied when the next leftist wants to blame guns for someone’s behavior.

anuts on April 19, 2014 at 7:17 PM

The state maintained control of such lands and could preserve it or sell it to residents as they saw fit.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. The real reason there are people pushing for the monotonic expansion of federal lands is that it forever puts it beyond the ability of local or state governments to do anything with land that said people want undeveloped.

Count to 10 on April 19, 2014 at 7:22 PM

crankyoldlady: Good point!:)

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM

I always make good points. (surprised look)

crankyoldlady on April 19, 2014 at 7:22 PM

how many Native people do you know?…you’re full of shit!…have you had a concussion lately?…or have you been out all this time…for unsuccessful brain surgery?

KOOLAID2 on April 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

We had such high hopes, but our vacation only lasted what, maybe 20 days?

slickwillie2001 on April 19, 2014 at 7:22 PM

You just did.

Tens of thousands of fans use it. Including a lot of black people. There are also native American’s who like the team and use the name.

It’s no more racist than “Viking”.

Or are you going to tell us that Oklahoma is also racist?

gwelf on April 19, 2014 at 7:08 PM

To say nothing of “Pirates” or “Raiders”.

Count to 10 on April 19, 2014 at 7:25 PM

Its not just the nine western states that have problems with the feds taking over lands. Its pretty much a problem in every state in the union.
I can’t think of that doesn’t have a problem with the feds. They could stat by waiting until we take over the Senate in Nov. and then just defund half the federal govt. That would be a great start.

rodguy911 on April 19, 2014 at 7:42 PM

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 7:16 PM

I always make good points. (surprised look)

crankyoldlady on April 19, 2014 at 7:22 PM

crankyoldlady: Lol,..why yes, ..yes you do—-:0

canopfor on April 19, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Again? Gee willikers, I wonder if the forces backed by the federal state will win again. I guess it’s 50-50! Sure should be interesting!

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 6:06 PM

No contest. With Obama’s level of incompetence he could probably lose in record time. Had he been president in 1860 Richmond would most likely be the capitol of the U.S today.

Ya know fer a kollege perfesser you don’t spell real good.

Gee willikers

Oldnuke on April 19, 2014 at 8:05 PM

Nevada: 84.5 percent
Alaska: 69.1 percent
Utah: 57.4 percent
Oregon: 53.1 percent
Idaho: 50.2 percent
Arizona: 48.1 percent
California: 45.3 percent
Wyoming: 42.4 percent
New Mexico: 41.8 percent
Colorado: 36.6 percent
Washington: 30.3 percent
Montana: 29.9 percent

We in the west have been up in arms about this for some time. Just take a look at the maps that show government ownership of land. The east isn’t even close to the west in federal ownership of their lands, and the east is about all anyone in Washington, or the media, really truly cares about.

There is no way on earth that the feds should own 1/2 or 1/3 or even 1/100th of any state. Sure they can have a couple of National Parks, but there’s no need for any National Parks to take up that much land. It’s completely ridiculous. The states need to start “repatriating” their own land.

Annielou on April 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Indeed. They learned the lesson the hard way-don’t let the government have too much power, or take away your arms.

questionmark on April 19, 2014 at 6:13 PM

And in the words of an Imdian chief ” Watch your immigration laws”

katy the mean old lady on April 19, 2014 at 8:53 PM

I have a school teacher buddy that thinks private ownership of large tracts should be outlawed. And no, he doesn’t define large he just thinks land should be available for him to camp on, fish, hunt or whatever he wants to do.

DanMan on April 19, 2014 at 5:11 PM

I agree with your buddy. A handful of billionaires can basically buy up millions of acres and then lock out anyone else. That’s what Ted Turner did in Montana. Except for legacy ranches, people should be limited on how much acreage they can own. The wealthy can be every bit as big a problem as the Govt., since they often work together.

cimbri on April 19, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Annielou on April 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM

Where are your Reps, Senators, Governors on this?

ChrisL on April 19, 2014 at 9:18 PM

More and more, the “answer” seems to be turning to states’ rights and states’ sovereignty. We need to amplify the effort.

Dan_NV on April 19, 2014 at 9:28 PM

how many Native people do you know?…you’re full of shit!…have you had a concussion lately?…or have you been out all this time…for unsuccessful brain surgery?

KOOLAID2 on April 19, 2014 at 6:10 PM

I’m not sure which part you are blasting here. The Native vs Indian comment or the WA Redskins part?

Regarding Native American: I have been taught a perspective over the last 35 years working in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, remote Nor Cal and growing up in Wyoming. Indians think of themselves as Lakota, Nez Pierce, Coeur ‘d Alene, Hoopa, Yurak, Karuk, Modoc, Shoshone, Arapaho, etc.

They do not without exception, in my experience, consider themselves NATIVE AMERICANS even though some of their political leaders may use the language. Americans are an occupier I’m told, after all they were here first. Ok I’ll by that.

So, regarding the term Indian: A highly skilled, patient, tough as nails 60 year old timber faller explained it this way. I am not a native American, I am Karuk. If you don’t want to call me Karuk call me Indian because – we were here before America was. Besides (with a grin) it reminds me of how stupid some white people are.

For fun regarding Elizabeth Warren: She constantly refers to herself as a Native American and rarely as Cherokee. In my experience she has proved she is neither.

old school on April 19, 2014 at 10:05 PM

Western lands are just pawns in political pay offs to either parties constituents concerning land use. Management, of any kind is a joke. The states, ie. local control is where the land belongs.

Used to be you would go into a USFS or BLM office in the morning, 90% of the folks had muddy or dusty boots on and were heading out to the brush. Today oh, might be one or two, the rest have cute little tassels on their shoes. They move from the desk to the toilet and back to the desk.

Frankly I can see any reason why any state, eastern, southern, northern, western would not endorse getting their land back from the Feds.

The problem is going to be the “Think Globally, Act Locally” lying, enviro-cult and their San Francisco lawyers. Fed regulation favors the enviro-cult. Heck, the taxpayer pays for them to bring suit, yeah really.

old school on April 19, 2014 at 10:23 PM

Frankly I can see

Should be can’t

old school on April 19, 2014 at 10:46 PM

This issue is just like everything else the government gets involved in. It starts out like a good idea and the people involved are in it for good. However, once you get politicians and bureaucrats involved, for any length of time, the whole thing becomes distorted. When we first started taking over land it was to preserve it and protect it. We got national parks out of it, and forests. Then came the politicians who allowed environmentalists to completely distort the meaning of preserving and protecting. By not doing proper forest management, we have more severe wild fires. By protecting the Delta Smelt, we have less farming. We need to live in harmony with nature, but we also have to see if nature can live in harmony with us. One of the complaints about the Alaska Pipeline was how it was going to affect the Caribou. Well, how has it affected them? They seem to be thriving.

Perhaps it’s time for the states to take the land back and throw the feds out for their mismanagement. In fact, that should be a campaign issue. Elect me and I’ll vote to force the feds to give our land back. Get enough politicians willing to do that, and the government will either back-off or be out of the land management business.

bflat879 on April 19, 2014 at 11:22 PM

Aren’t you supposed to be calling them Native Americans?

Del Dolemonte on April 19, 2014 at 5:49 PM

Not based upon what I see discussed Native people I have met in my life. There seems to be an interchangeability between Native American and American Indian. Some folks do have a preference, but I do not believe either is patently offensive. Kind of like African-American or black. We know which words are verboten when referring to people of African descent, and there are a similar set of words for Native people. And yes one is also the name of a football team and we know because the very owner of that football team decline to call Native Americans “Redskins” when he made his outreach efforts to Native communities during a recent upsurge in media coverage of that controversy. Why didn’t he call people redskins, because doing so would make him look like a d*ck, even conservatives can agree to that. So why a team logo is acceptable to have a d*ckish name makes zero sense. But I digress.

libfreeordie on April 19, 2014 at 5:55 PM

What code words do you avoid?

And shouldn’t you also be directing your race-obsessed faux anger at the Cleveland Indians baseball team, who have a team logo much more offensive? Of course not, because Cleveland is a solid Democrat City.

F-

Likewise, you seem to have no problem with the incumbent NHL Stanley Cup Champion Chicago Blackhawks, who have a team logo remarkably similar to that of the Evil Washington Redskins, but are also named after a weapon. Of course, they are also from a Democrat City, so they also get a pass.

F-

What about the Atlanta Braves? They were for a very long time owned by Far-Left Racist Ted Turner, and Democrat pResident Jimmy Carter was an honored guest at their games, and still is. They still do the Tomahawk Chop there!

F-

Next you’ll tell us the team name “White Sox” is bad…

Del Dolemonte on April 20, 2014 at 2:02 AM

Why can’t the states charge them tax on the land the federal government owns? If they choose to allow it to sit on it then that’s OK but they’ll be taxed for it.

DFCtomm on April 20, 2014 at 2:31 AM

…and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be…

The US Constitution recognizes that the state legislature is the sovereign over the control of land in their State.

A sovereign can consent to land being used.

And a sovereign can change its mind and revoke that consent.

All that is required is a bill to pass through a state legislative body. Period. No law is needed nor necessary.

Any time any state wishes to end federal oversight and control of lands inside its borders all a state must do is have the legislature pass a bill revoking their consent.

If it was a purchase a legislative body could do an eminent domain via the same process as they are the sovereign and have eminent domain.

ajacksonian on April 20, 2014 at 7:41 AM

Return to the states all land other than that designated for legitimate federal purposes such as active military bases.
With one exception.
Preserve a few acres somewhere as a retirement village for the Obama administration, the Dems in Congress and the Media.
Maybe a nice island setting.
Rikers comes to mind.

justltl on April 20, 2014 at 7:53 AM

Ken Ivory (R-West Jordan) has been working on this for close to 2 years now. I think what spurred action was the government shut down last year. A lot of Utahns were hurt when half of the state (ie national parks and forests) was shut down out of spite. Utah has a large portion of our budget tied up in tourism and when the parks closed, a lot of folks were out of work. We weren’t the only state but since we had already started looking into it, the other western states looked to us for leadership.

And I suspect there are still a lot of hard feelings after President Clinton’s land grab that created Grand Staircase/Escalante NP.

LL

Lady Logician on April 20, 2014 at 9:38 AM

Queen Barry of the Bathhouse is a goose stepping twit.

mcgilvra on April 20, 2014 at 12:18 PM

The government closest to the people is most responsive to the people.

Do you desire government that serves you or government that rules you?

This goes to the basics of living in freedom or servitude.

Conservatives desire government that is limited and administered by those who are local whenever possible.

Liberals desire government that controls from a centralized redoubt where the populace can be controlled for the “common good” as perceived by elites.

I have chosen and I choose freedom. Why does the left use the slogan “power to the people” when that statement is exactly the opposite of the collectivist dream?

Meremortal on April 20, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Stop letting that fool sideline you with the same tired racism argument. It’s all they have left.

Meremortal on April 20, 2014 at 12:44 PM

I don’t think I’d trust the state of Colorado with the land right now. Feds are closing up access to much of our wilderness as it is all at the suggestion of the enviros here.

COgirl on April 19, 2014 at 6:35 PM

This, for better or for worse, is nevertheless how our system is supposed to be operating. Federalism at its finest.

Note, also, who is actually closing access to the wilderness – it’s the Fed.

Lance Corvette on April 20, 2014 at 1:48 PM

Perhaps the states can use the Kelo v. City of New London decision in some fashion to take back state lands owned by the federal government.

RJL on April 20, 2014 at 4:56 PM

I agree with your buddy. A handful of billionaires can basically buy up millions of acres and then lock out anyone else. That’s what Ted Turner did in Montana. Except for legacy ranches, people should be limited on how much acreage they can own. The wealthy can be every bit as big a problem as the Govt., since they often work together.

cimbri on April 19, 2014 at 8:57 PM

Also happening in Maine by Roxanne Quimby and family, the prior owners of Bert’s Bees. They are kicking everyone off including hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers etc. all of which contribute a lot to the local economy in rural ME. Locals are very unhappy to see their livlyhoods destroyed.

JLyons on April 20, 2014 at 6:39 PM

how much land should the federal government legitimately control?

None.

earlgrey on April 21, 2014 at 12:58 PM