The BLM back after Bundy's cattle.

[Kurdawg]

There are thousands of hunters that hunt and fish that land. Look at how many hunters here from this site enjoy the small amount of federal land we have here in Texas. I respectfully disagree.

Yes I agree with part of this. I enjoy hunting and fishing the national forest. But here in Texas they don't own 86% of the land and charge you grazing rights to use it. Look up the history of the BLM, you'll find a lot of disturbing stuff, including foreign involvement.

If the land was transferred to the states it is in things would be a lot better IMO.

[Landrover]

He's been stealing from the citizens of the United States, destroying public lands and failing to pay grazing fees for years. He's also been charged with assaulting federal officers.

"Bundy and his sons — Ammon and Ryan Bundy — as well as Montana resident Ryan Payne and Ohio conservative Internet radio show host Pete Santilli were charged with a total of 16 felonies.

The charges were:

1 count of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States
1 count of conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer
4 counts of using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence
2 counts of assault on a federal officer
2 counts of threatening a federal law enforcement officer
3 counts of obstruction of the due administration of justice
2 counts of interference with interstate commerce by extortion
1 count of interstate travel in aid of extortion."

http://www.opb.org/news/series/burns-oregon-standoff-bundy-militia-news-updates/bundy-family-supporters-face-16-federal-felonies-for-2014-standoff/

"As a result, Cliven Bundy’s cattle have been illegally grazing on federal land for 20 years. Over these 20 years, Cliven Bundy has racked up over $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, and has actually expanded his cattle’s grazing further into federal lands. He has been taken to court (and defeated) both in 1998 and 2013."

"Because it’s often portrayed as such, it bears mentioning that no one was trying to remove Cliven Bundy from his land/home. No one was trying to “take his land away.” After 20 years of Bundy not paying for his cattle’s grazing fees, the BLM was there to remove cattle that were grazing on federal lands near his ranch."

http://www.factandmyth.com/conspirac...eral-land-grab

Thanks Dave!
It is NOT a perfect system but the tactics employed by the ranchers over 20 years is unacceptable. Odd when other ranchers in multiple western states rejected his families input into their issues with the Feds'. YES, there is a better way to work thru your grazing issues.

[DavidH44]

Yes I agree with part of this. I enjoy hunting and fishing the national forest. But here in Texas they don't own 86% of the land and charge you grazing rights to use it. Look up the history of the BLM, you'll find a lot of disturbing stuff, including foreign involvement.

If the land was transferred to the states it is in things would be a lot better IMO.

I'll check out that history on BLM that you mentioned. Maybe 86% is too much, it's probably hard to grow as a state when you don't have much land. But is it possible that the feds do a better job of managing the land than some of the states do?

[Dan T]

If the land was transferred to the states it is in things would be a lot better IMO.

What if the state then needed some money? Do you not think the state would sell the land? The land would then be completely private and cut of access to millions that use it. Some of those states do not have the money to run state parks, or lands in the way Texas does.

[JustinJ]

Yes I agree with part of this. I enjoy hunting and fishing the national forest. But here in Texas they don't own 86% of the land and charge you grazing rights to use it. Look up the history of the BLM, you'll find a lot of disturbing stuff, including foreign involvement.

If the land was transferred to the states it is in things would be a lot better IMO.

Better how? States won't let you camp most of the time. States charge more for grazing rights. States like Colorado make people pay to lease the land to hunt. How will it be better if the states own the land? How will it be better when the state doesn't have the money to maintain roads and fight fires? Not to mention the ability of the states to sell the land and make it private.

This is OUR land, and you want to give it away so we have less access.

Are there problems with how the Fed runs some land? Sure. But that doesn't mean the states will run it better. Compare state owned land in the west to fed land now.

[DavidH44]

What if the state then needed some money? Do you not think the state would sell the land? The land would then be completely private and cut of access to millions that use it. Some of those states do not have the money to run state parks, or lands in the way Texas does.

Exactly.

Great post as well Justin

[Froggy]

I dealt with several land encroachment and cattle trespass issues during my career with the Forest Service.

It always amazed me how some neighbors would over graze their land and then open the gate or cut the fence onto the FS land. In one instance it took almost two years to get a neighbor to remove his cows and keep them off. It was in a remote unit and after several citations were issued, he would still turn his herd back in on the gov't land.

We also had an old man try to claim about 200 acres on the Texas side of the Red River with a quitclaim deed from Oklahoma. He had even built a road and a small cabin near the river.

The history of federal land ownership is interesting. We are blessed as a nation to have so much public land to enjoy.

[Kurdawg]

Better how? States won't let you camp most of the time. States charge more for grazing rights. States like Colorado make people pay to lease the land to hunt. How will it be better if the states own the land? How will it be better when the state doesn't have the money to maintain roads and fight fires? Not to mention the ability of the states to sell the land and make it private.

This is OUR land, and you want to give it away so we have less access.

Are there problems with how the Fed runs some land? Sure. But that doesn't mean the states will run it better. Compare state owned land in the west to fed land now.

Well luckily we don't have to deal with any BLM managed properties in Texas.


But the BLM manages a lot of Federal land and guess what they can sell it also. I wasn't meaning to actually give the land to the state, I worded it incorrectly. What I meant was give CONTROL of the land to the state it belongs in. You can read here on the BLM's website where they control land and how the can sell land also.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/selling_public_land.print.html

[VarmintRod]

thanks for being the voice of reason here.

you and i rarely agree, but you are spot on here.

Bundy and his sons created their own problems.

he recognized the federal govt from reagan til '93 by paying grazing fees, but when the law changed he refused to comply.

he is a criminal and so are his sons now. and since they are all vacationing behind bars for years to come, no one can take care of the cattle.

the govt must seize the cattle or let them die.

Well said.....

[JustinJ]

Well luckily we don't have to deal with any BLM managed properties in Texas.





But the BLM manages a lot of Federal land and guess what they can sell it also. I wasn't meaning to actually give the land to the state, I worded it incorrectly. What I meant was give CONTROL of the land to the state it belongs in. You can read here on the BLM's website where they control land and how the can sell land also.



http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/mor...and.print.html

Sure they can sell land. But states actively sell public land because they need the money. The chances of state land being sold is much higher than BLM land.

And why do you want the state to control our land? What makes the state running the land better? Grazing prices are higher, access is reduced, chances of a sell off are higher, and less money is available to maintain the land and fight fires. What benefit comes from state ownership/control?

[systemnt]

Sure they can sell land. But states actively sell public land because they need the money. The chances of state land being sold is much higher than BLM land.

And why do you want the state to control our land? What makes the state running the land better? Grazing prices are higher, access is reduced, chances of a sell off are higher, and less money is available to maintain the land and fight fires. What benefit comes from state ownership/control?

I will admit, I don't know all the intricate ins and outs of how this works..but I would venture a guess that one of the main reasons the having the public land fall under state control is the state can be controlled...by the people living in it.
When its under Federal jurisdiction, the state citizens have no say, no recourse (that works), and no avenues (that work without major $$) of getting the Fed's to comply with what the citizens of the state the land resides in want or need.
Federal Government is a broad sword approach when it comes to governing anything and isn't specific to locale.
Plus, have you seen any program in which the Federal Government is involved in the management of, actually work?

[JustinJ]

I will admit, I don't know all the intricate ins and outs of how this works..but I would venture a guess that one of the main reasons the having the public land fall under state control is the state can be controlled...by the people living in it.
When its under Federal jurisdiction, the state citizens have no say, no recourse (that works), and no avenues (that work without major $$) of getting the Fed's to comply with what the citizens of the state the land resides in want or need.
Federal Government is a broad sword approach when it comes to governing anything and isn't specific to locale.
Plus, have you seen any program in which the Federal Government is involved in the management of, actually work?

Not many. I am a huge opponent of Government sticking their nose where it doesn't belong and a huge proponent of states rights. But our public lands are a unique and wonderful part of our country that most people around the world don't have the luxury of enjoying in their respective countries.

I'm not saying they're aren't problems with the management of federally owned lands, but that doesn't mean the solution is to give it to the states.

I also understand the viewpoint that those residing in the state should have some say about how the land is managed, but it's not just their land. Its every citizen of the United States' land. We all own the land, not just the people who reside in the state it's in.

If you owned half of a piece of property in Colorado along with a Coloradan who owned the other half, would you give it to him to manage as he saw fit without any input from you just because he lives closer?

[systemnt]

true statements... hard to argue.

[BrianL]

Federal lands belong to everyone in the country, not just the people of the state. I have gone to many national forest and national parks, and I think they are doing a pretty good job. The government screws up a lot of stuff, but they do OK in the national park and lands.

[JustinJ]

true statements... hard to argue.

It's a very complex issue, and I'm not saying all my beliefs are absolutely true in every case. There's tons of gray areas, as with all problems, without a clear cut black and white answer.

I'm just hesitant to give my land away with no recourse as to it's management.