https://www.washingtonexaminer...s-to-hunters-anglers

Good for him. He's also eliminating 7,500 regulations for more access to federal lands.

Jim

The term "Federal Land" always annoys me. Land in this country can only be 'private' (i.e. owned by an individual or individuals) or 'public' (maintained by the government for the use of 'all'). The idea the federal government can hold land unto itself and refuse to allow the public access and use of it should be viewed as completely unacceptable to everyone.

Good for President Trump from at least chipping away at this.

Not for the use of all, but for the benefit of all. Military bases are not public federal land, as one easy example, and they shouldn't be. If you want to add some nuance and say they should have to justify why they are restricting the use of such property I could agree with you, but just saying all government owned land should be public is a bit much.

The Federal government owns (controls) about 640 million acres nation wide, so the 1.4 million is a small portion but it's a start.

Here is a startling graphic showing how much of western states that the feds own.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.6c393b462410

Jim

When the government bought or seized (from Mexico) the land that became the west, it was largely empty. So they owned it (hold title by essentially establishing the title), and still do. They been releasing some if it to private ownership / development. But make no mistake, the government very clearly owns the land they haven't released.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
The term "Federal Land" always annoys me. Land in this country can only be 'private' (i.e. owned by an individual or individuals) or 'public' (maintained by the government for the use of 'all'). The idea the federal government can hold land unto itself and refuse to allow the public access and use of it should be viewed as completely unacceptable to everyone.

Good for President Trump from at least chipping away at this.

Must be that Apple computer thingy you use. Linky workied for me.

Not going to do us all that much good in Florida. Feds don't own much here, and the only use change is some wider hunting rights at the St. Mark's NWR in the Big Bend area.

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:

Must be that Apple computer thingy you use. Linky workied for me.

And now it's working. Must have been a slight disturbance in the . . .

I'l remove my "Linky no worky" post.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
But make no mistake, the government very clearly owns the land they haven't released.

And pray tell, who is the 'government'? I seem to remember it this way...Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

So who is this unique 'government' you're referring to that 'owns' all of this 'public' land? Here's hint. It's us. Unfortunately we've allowed layers upon layers of garbage in Washington to convince us otherwise. We can exist without government, but government damn sure cannot exist without us.

The organization that can lay and collect taxes, the organization that can pass and enforce laws. It's supposed to draw it's legitimacy from, and act in the best interest of the people of the country. But make no mistake, is very much an organization in it's own right (as are the state and local governments, BTW.)

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
But make no mistake, the government very clearly owns the land they haven't released.

And pray tell, who is the 'government'? I seem to remember it this way...Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

So who is this unique 'government' you're referring to that 'owns' all of this 'public' land? Here's hint. It's us. Unfortunately we've allowed layers upon layers of garbage in Washington to convince us otherwise. We can exist without government, but government damn sure cannot exist without us.

Good to see that it is "officially" open, but fed land around here has always been open.

What’s that red chunk in NE Oklahoma ? Looks like the Osage Hills area. Used to Osage Indians up that way when I was a kid.

I wish Texas would open up some land.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
But make no mistake, the government very clearly owns the land they haven't released.

And pray tell, who is the 'government'? I seem to remember it this way...Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.

What does the Gettysburg Address have to do with the legal rights of the federal government?

What a BS article! The only Federal Lands I couldn't access were locked up by the private sector or individuals e.g. CUT lands outside Gardner MT, Flying A ranch near Bozeman MT, the closing of public roads in Idaho by cattle boys from Texas and the list goes on and on. NOTE: after the lands were taken or stolen from the native americans they were "opened" or invaded by seekers of fortunes, settlers etc. There is a lot of 'history' regarding land access dating back through the centuries and this 'article' is typical of the 'feel good' reporting that beguiles the media.
Fishing at a fish hatchery, really?

quote:

Originally posted by LoungeChair:
What does the Gettysburg Address have to do with the legal rights of the federal government?

You're talking about the government as if it were an individual. Government has no 'rights'. None. The Constitution recapped the rights of individuals and the the responsibilities and limitations of government. Government derives its very existence and scope from 'us' the people. The Gettysburg address reminded Americans that their government only existed and had legitimacy because those same Americans allowed it. In today's world a majority of this country either no longer realizes that reality or they've completely ceded their god given rights to government. That's at the very core of everything that's wrong in this country.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
When the government bought or seized (from Mexico) the land that became the west, it was largely empty. So they owned it (hold title by essentially establishing the title), and still do. They been releasing some if it to private ownership / development. But make no mistake, the government very clearly owns the land they haven't released.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
The term "Federal Land" always annoys me. Land in this country can only be 'private' (i.e. owned by an individual or individuals) or 'public' (maintained by the government for the use of 'all'). The idea the federal government can hold land unto itself and refuse to allow the public access and use of it should be viewed as completely unacceptable to everyone.

Good for President Trump from at least chipping away at this.

Bought. Not seized. Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. We could have seized it as spoils of war but that would have collapsed the rest of Mexico and plunged her into decades of civil struggle. We paid Mexico a healthy sum for the day so she could recover. We were good neighbors. They have proven unworthy of our gesture.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
You're talking about the government as if it were an individual. Government has no 'rights'. None. The Constitution recapped the rights of individuals and the the responsibilities and limitations of government. Government derives its very existence and scope from 'us' the people.

Certainly.

As it pertains to the article-- about land held by the United States government-- what do YOU propose is the answer?

Wholesale distribution? Cool. I'd like Yellowstone, please. Great scenery and natural features. 'Course, if we do this Rhodesia-style, when we redistribute parcels to the "veterans" all of those great features will cease to exist because of depredation, harmful use, property-rights-trumping-access-by-the-public, etc.

Universal access and use while the .gov retains stewardship? Also cool. Please step aside for my strip-mining. What, wait... the rights of all the "other owners" are infringed by this? Tough.

I'm not sure what other solution you'd favor over these straw-man arguments, short of time-travel and doing it differently 150 years ago.

quote:

Originally posted by DennisM:

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
You're talking about the government as if it were an individual. Government has no 'rights'. None. The Constitution recapped the rights of individuals and the the responsibilities and limitations of government. Government derives its very existence and scope from 'us' the people.

Certainly.

As it pertains to the article-- about land held by the United States government-- what do YOU propose is the answer?

Wholesale distribution? Cool. I'd like Yellowstone, please. Great scenery and natural features. 'Course, if we do this Rhodesia-style, when we redistribute parcels to the "veterans" all of those great features will cease to exist because of depredation, harmful use, property-rights-trumping-access-by-the-public, etc.

Universal access and use while the .gov retains stewardship? Also cool. Please step aside for my strip-mining. What, wait... the rights of all the "other owners" are infringed by this? Tough.

I'm not sure what other solution you'd favor over these straw-man arguments, short of time-travel and doing it differently 150 years ago.

Really? Many of your comments are just silly and a bit condescending. What do I believe? I believe the federal government should divest itself of all public land (short of military establishments) to the respective states, who will act as the steward of the land for the citizens of that state. All public land will be open to public use. And no, the land is to be maintained as is with 'any' proposed changes (i.e. mining, etc) going through a state approval process before it can undergo further impact analyses. None of this is rocket science.
Its about power and the wielding of it by the federal government.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimineer:
What’s that red chunk in NE Oklahoma ? Looks like the Osage Hills area. Used to Osage Indians up that way when I was a kid.

I wish Texas would open up some land.

I think it is BLM Osage Indian Reservation.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
Really? Many of your comments are just silly and a bit condescending. What do I believe? I believe the federal government should divest itself of all public land (short of military establishments) to the respective states, who will act as the steward of the land for the citizens of that state. All public land will be open to public use. And no, the land is to be maintained as is with 'any' proposed changes (i.e. mining, etc) going through a state approval process before it can undergo further impact analyses. None of this is rocket science.
Its about power and the wielding of it by the federal government.

I wasn't shooting for "condescending" and I apologize if that's how it comes across. But I'm dead serious about the question, and if the examples are silly, it's because I think the premise of getting the government out of the land-ownership business is silly.

For big chunks of that land, the state legislatures voluntarily ceded legislative jurisdiction-- not just ownership, but the core authority to legislate or govern in those areas-- to the United States. In some areas, the states ceded legislative jurisdiction but reserved specific rights. None of that strikes me as an overbearing "wielding of power." It's precisely the kind of state grant of power to the federal government envisioned in and allowed by the Constitution.

For the lands not under exclusive federal jurisdiction-- where the .gov is merely the landholder-- I might agree with your view that the states are more appropriate custodians absent a clear, legitimate federal interest. If your argument is that the federal government HAS no legitimate interest in controlling land for non-military use, well, then it's my turn to call something silly.