Just A Number
Well-Known Member
- Dec 13, 2010
- 157
- 16
The land was leased from the Federal government, just because these guys have had long term leases does not make them the owners. They were making their living by renting land and then trying to act like they owned it. This is a tenant vs owner argument writ large. This isn't the hill to plant a flag on, certainly not by these people and in the manner in which they are doing it. And if john taxpayer wants to use the property he is paying for, what happens then?
If you take all of the problems that the locals have had with the feds over the decades, in this case the BLM, whether real or imagined, and the overall mentality of your stereotypical freedom loving resident of the United States, the BLM is a real easy target and as we can see here, it doesn't take much anymore for a small group of folks to go swinging at windmills where the BLM is involved. Do they have a real bitch? Yeah, probably so. Have they picked an appropriate place, time and people to put up on the pedestal as example of BLM stupidity? Um no.
I don't understand is the sense of entitlement to use the public lands for gain that these folks seem to have. Perhaps it's a necessary aspect of surviving in that region, a need to use the lands to feed their herds, but why are they more entitled to benefit than I? Proximity? I mean I have no opportunity to use that land, and no chance of "profiting" from it. I can't roll up to the nearby National Park and graze my herd, I can't start fires, I can't dig wells, I can't divert run-off, and I can't hold an off road race. Like ever. I can't go to the Federal Courthouse and hold a birthday party... Why, then are the western holdings different? "Because...shut up!" they explained.
One of the reasons the federal government is holding the land tracts in the west is to prevent the type of over-parceling that has been experienced in the Eastern half of the US. The government is under no obligation that I can see to offer the land for use as it does, but clearly sees a benefit to the economy and overall productivity of the region by doing so. It is an acknowledgment of the reality of the harshness of life in that region.
Certainly there is no "right" to have exclusive access to government-owned, public land to graze cattle. It is practical that the government does this, as it helps control the land use by assigning responsibility to it through the lease terms, which effectively limits overuse, or should by providing exclusive lease rights which keep others from using it. The land in question was acquired by the Federal government through war, annexation, and purchase agreements with other nations. It was then divided into territories and eventually made into states. To me it is interesting that the Federal Government in essence created these states and invited the population in, often with sweet land deals. Contrast that to the original colonies, which agreed to join the Union and were never owned by the Federal Government. This is a reason the land holdings are so much larger in the west...they were not privately-owned to start with.
If you take all of the problems that the locals have had with the feds over the decades, in this case the BLM, whether real or imagined, and the overall mentality of your stereotypical freedom loving resident of the United States, the BLM is a real easy target and as we can see here, it doesn't take much anymore for a small group of folks to go swinging at windmills where the BLM is involved. Do they have a real bitch? Yeah, probably so. Have they picked an appropriate place, time and people to put up on the pedestal as example of BLM stupidity? Um no.
I don't understand is the sense of entitlement to use the public lands for gain that these folks seem to have. Perhaps it's a necessary aspect of surviving in that region, a need to use the lands to feed their herds, but why are they more entitled to benefit than I? Proximity? I mean I have no opportunity to use that land, and no chance of "profiting" from it. I can't roll up to the nearby National Park and graze my herd, I can't start fires, I can't dig wells, I can't divert run-off, and I can't hold an off road race. Like ever. I can't go to the Federal Courthouse and hold a birthday party... Why, then are the western holdings different? "Because...shut up!" they explained.
One of the reasons the federal government is holding the land tracts in the west is to prevent the type of over-parceling that has been experienced in the Eastern half of the US. The government is under no obligation that I can see to offer the land for use as it does, but clearly sees a benefit to the economy and overall productivity of the region by doing so. It is an acknowledgment of the reality of the harshness of life in that region.
Certainly there is no "right" to have exclusive access to government-owned, public land to graze cattle. It is practical that the government does this, as it helps control the land use by assigning responsibility to it through the lease terms, which effectively limits overuse, or should by providing exclusive lease rights which keep others from using it. The land in question was acquired by the Federal government through war, annexation, and purchase agreements with other nations. It was then divided into territories and eventually made into states. To me it is interesting that the Federal Government in essence created these states and invited the population in, often with sweet land deals. Contrast that to the original colonies, which agreed to join the Union and were never owned by the Federal Government. This is a reason the land holdings are so much larger in the west...they were not privately-owned to start with.
