About damned time!

(Scott Sommerdorf | The Salt Lake Tribune) Utah Speaker of the House Becky Lockhart, right, and other western lawmakers speak about their private conversations on transfering federal land to the states, Friday, April 18, 2014. From left to right: House Speaker Mark Blasdel of Montana, Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, Montana Sen. Jennifer Fielder, Idaho House Speaker Scott Bedke, and Lockhart


It's time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah's Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.
It's time for Western states to take control of federal lands within their borders, lawmakers and county commissioners from Western states said at Utah's Capitol on Friday.

More than 50 political leaders from nine states convened for the first time to talk about their joint goal: wresting control of oil-, timber -and mineral-rich lands away from the feds.

I agree the time is right.  I immediately pictured 9 Thomas Jefferson's forming a plan to wrest responsibility away from 'the New Paris', I.E. modern-day DC.  Jefferson didn't really have a problem with Spain during the mulling of the Louisiana Purchase, but said this about the Napoleon Administration:

" Spain might have retained it (New Orleans, and lands west) quietly for years. Her pacific dispositions, her feeble state, would induce her to increase our facilities there, so that her possession of the place would be hardly felt by us, and it would not perhaps be very long before some circumstance might arise which might make the cession of it to us the price of something of more worth to her. Not so can it ever be in the hands of France. The impetuosity of her temper, the energy and restlessness of her character, placed in a point of eternal friction with us... "

Quote from: kit saginaw on April 20, 2014, 12:42:56 AM
I agree the time is right.  I immediately pictured 9 Thomas Jefferson's forming a plan to wrest responsibility away from 'the New Paris', I.E. modern-day DC.  Jefferson didn't really have a problem with Spain during the mulling of the Louisiana Purchase, but said this about the Napoleon Administration:

" Spain might have retained it (New Orleans, and lands west) quietly for years. Her pacific dispositions, her feeble state, would induce her to increase our facilities there, so that her possession of the place would be hardly felt by us, and it would not perhaps be very long before some circumstance might arise which might make the cession of it to us the price of something of more worth to her. Not so can it ever be in the hands of France. The impetuosity of her temper, the energy and restlessness of her character, placed in a point of eternal friction with us... "

Yep.
The whole plan was to expand the united STATES, not the Fed, and now that the Nation is secure, it's time for the Fed to relinquish and cede power to the States in the form of land.
I doubt it was ever thought that this land would be held as collateral for power over the states, yet that's exactly what has happened.
The states West, are being held hostage, or black mailed with the threat of reduced Fed tax dollars, and Jefferson is probably rolling over in his grave for not placing a timed treatise on the Feds ability to hold land.

As usual, the left has taken and used the carrot and the stick power approach, either states take the carrot of tax money, or be abused with the stick, it's become a lose, lose situation.

The Federal Government is the largest landholder in the country, holding in excess of one-quarter of the land of the US.  Since in seems that those in power in Washington do not understand that the citizens of the United States are the ones who own that land, and not people like Harry Reid and his son,  it is time that the states demanded that the land be turned over to the individual states to do with as their citizens wish, which is likely development of oil resources, etc.
This dictatorship of the Federal Government where it is taking control of every facet of American life, health care, diet, land, etc. must end.

I believe that a majority of thinking Americans see no reason that the Federal Government should own this land and those who do not think, do not count.  Let them live on their food stamps and talk to each other on their free cell phones and let the rest of us go ahead with our lives and contribute toward the prosperity of the country, and not be controlled by the members of the Senate, House and Executive Branch.

I truly believe that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim who is trying with his every action to diminish the ecomomic and social wellbeing of the United States in order to establish his long-held goal, and that of the Muslim Brotherhood to which he bows, a world-wide Caliphate.  I believe that members of the Senate and the House, i.e. Harry Reid, et al, have as their goal merely their own enrichment and that of their families at the expense of the wellbeing of the country and it's citizens.  It must be stopped.

Why didn't those territories revert to the state once it stop being a territory?

Quote from: mdgiles on April 20, 2014, 10:24:31 AM
Why didn't those territories revert to the state once it stop being a territory?

We had to establish an American presence first.  And there was no way to verify that the Missouri River didn't somehow 'flow through' the Rockies to the Pacific.  The Feds intended to 'control' the mouth of that potential trade-route, if it existed.  Lewis and Clark brought-along a medical expert to scope-out any 'miracle plants' they might find. 

Then came the distractions of Britain and Canada, Little Turtle and Tecumseh.  The Government probably became comfortable in merely 'coveting' its holdings rather than relinquishing them to the States for their use. 

Quote from: kit saginaw on April 20, 2014, 05:16:50 PM
We had to establish an American presence first.  And there was no way to verify that the Missouri River didn't somehow 'flow through' the Rockies to the Pacific.  The Feds intended to 'control' the mouth of that potential trade-route, if it existed.  Lewis and Clark brought-along a medical expert to scope-out any 'miracle plants' they might find. 

Then came the distractions of Britain and Canada, Little Turtle and Tecumseh.  The Government probably became comfortable in merely 'coveting' its holdings rather than relinquishing them to the States for their use.

The question I'm asking is, once the state of - let's say Nevada - becomes a state, why didn't all the unorganized areas, revert to the state government. Why does the federal government own any land inside the states that isn't a military base? Or a national park? They can use eminent domain to acquire the land to build any dams or roads they need to, so why do they still own any other land?

Quote from: mdgiles on April 21, 2014, 08:29:02 AM
The question I'm asking is, once the state of - let's say Nevada - becomes a state, why didn't all the unorganized areas, revert to the state government. Why does the federal government own any land inside the states that isn't a military base? Or a national park? They can use eminent domain to acquire the land to build any dams or roads they need to, so why do they still own any other land?

I think in a nutshell, money.
The states have been getting fed money to preserve the land as well as Forest Service fire stations dotted across the land, alleviating the burden to the state.
I know here in Ca, the govt holds about half the state in forest land, and the USFS has several districts in all the counties, with several thousand employees, mostly fire fighters.

That was the past, now with the EPA choking state lands with restrictions, the people see the Fed as a cancer that needs removed, immediately.

Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2014, 10:13:30 AM
I think in a nutshell, money.
The states have been getting fed money to preserve the land as well as Forest Service fire stations dotted across the land, alleviating the burden to the state.
I know here in Ca, the govt holds about half the state in forest land, and the USFS has several districts in all the counties, with several thousand employees, mostly fire fighters.

That was the past, now with the EPA choking state lands with restrictions, the people see the Fed as a cancer that needs removed, immediately.

So they get some money from the Feds, you think they couldn't sell off theses lands and the resources on - or under - them and get even more money. Not to mention tax payers, living on these lands.

Great thread you started here Solar.  Hopefully the states will get together and amend the laws so that any land in their state that they want to control is automatically transferred to their control with no restrictions.  I guess some land for future bases or national monuments might be in order but 25 percent is beyond the pale.   

I feel my comments add little to this as virtually every post voiced an opinion that I found to be very well stated and very informative so thanks to everyone for informing me on an issue that I have never really gave much thought.

Quote from: mdgiles on April 21, 2014, 11:38:36 AM
So they get some money from the Feds, you think they couldn't sell off theses lands and the resources on - or under - them and get even more money. Not to mention tax payers, living on these lands.

In many states, the land is arid, or simply worthless, here in Ca, much of it is way above the snowline, or pure wilderness.
So not sure the mkt is there, as opposed to free money compliments of the taxpayer.

Quote from: raptor5618 on April 21, 2014, 11:40:13 AM
Great thread you started here Solar.  Hopefully the states will get together and amend the laws so that any land in their state that they want to control is automatically transferred to their control with no restrictions.  I guess some land for future bases or national monuments might be in order but 25 percent is beyond the pale.   

I feel my comments add little to this as virtually every post voiced an opinion that I found to be very well stated and very informative so thanks to everyone for informing me on an issue that I have never really gave much thought.

This is a growing issue, one that may even become part of the political campaigns come Nov.
Check out this story. Things are really heating up, and the Dims have their hands full already with all the corruption under Husein's watch.

The Oklahoma Militia says it is made up of nearly 50,000 volunteers.

Members say they are taking Bundy's side and fear this practice could spread to the Sooner State.

Scott Shaw said, "Evidently in America we don't actually own the property anymore, if you ever did."

Shaw says Oklahoma Militia members are ready to take up arms against the federal government if needed.

He said, "It's up to the feds, the balls in their court! You can do this legally or if you want to try to do a land grab violently, you can do that. We're going to resist you!"

Shaw says the militia has not had to defend Oklahoma from the government yet but members are becoming concerned.
http://kfor.com/2014/04/20/oklahoma-militia-gears-up-to-fight-with-feds/

After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM's focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas. 

"In Texas," Miller says, "the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn't pay him one cent."

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson's land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/21/The-Eyes-of-the-BLM-are-on-Texas

Quote from: redbeard on April 21, 2014, 01:54:50 PM
After the recent Bundy Ranch episode by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Texans are becoming more concerned about the BLM's focus on 90,000 acres along a 116 mile stretch of the Texas/Oklahoma boundary. The BLM is reviewing the possible federal takeover and ownership of privately-held lands which have been deeded property for generations of Texas landowners.

Sid Miller, former Texas State Representative and Republican candidate for Texas Agriculture Commissioner, has since made the matter a campaign issue to Breitbart Texas. 

"In Texas," Miller says, "the BLM is attempting a repeat of an action taken over 30 years ago along the Red River when Tommy Henderson lost a federal lawsuit. The Bureau of Land Management took 140 acres of his property and didn't pay him one cent."

Miller referred to a 1986 case where the BLM attempted to seize some of Henderson's land. Henderson sued the BLM and lost 140 acres that had been in his family for generations. Now the BLM is looking at using the prior case as a precedent to claim an additional 90,000 acres.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/04/21/The-Eyes-of-the-BLM-are-on-Texas

Quote from: Solar on April 21, 2014, 11:54:29 AM
In many states, the land is arid, or simply worthless, here in Ca, much of it is way above the snowline, or pure wilderness.
So not sure the mkt is there, as opposed to free money compliments of the taxpayer.

So what, it should still belong to the state it's in to do with as the government of that state sees fit. I'll bet that none of the state governments would have shut down the parks the last time we had some type of a shut down. Besides I'm guessing that the locals have a better idea of how to use the land - as opposed to some bureaucrat in DC, who is busy sucking up to his/her EnviroNut buddies.