Men With Guns Are Also Active Elsewhere.

[Barrister]

The locals are so damn tired of not being able to do dick without the BLM saying so. This is how Harry Reid made his money. BLM says no to X project. Reid's son's company magically gets permission after some senator applies pressure. Business as usual.

Oh, I understand the frustration.  I don't think the US government should be in the land-managing business (per se) at all.  It should sell off all that Western land* at auction and use the proceeds to pay down debt.

You'd need to manage the sales so that megacorps don't just buy it all for pennies on the mineral rights dollar asnd so that locals get the first crack at it, but that should be doable.

*not, obviously, to inclue national parks.

I don't know.  Here in Canada probably over half of the country is "Crown land", that is land owned by the government.  Here it's owned by the provincial government, not Federal, but in the end (and despite what Bundy thinks) it really makes no difference - it'd be managed the same way.

The trouble is that the land is not agricultural land.  If it was, someone would have already have homesteaded it (and it's still quite possible to do so).  So it's unclear who would ever buy such land.  If you price it low enough, sure someone will buy, but since the land is also very important wildlife habitat it doesn't seem to make sense to sell it on a pennies for the acre basis.

[Razgovory]

A bigger issue than these fees though is the unfortunate environmentalist tactic now of using lawsuits to close off perfectly productive Federal lands. They make BS claims about animals that are dispersed through the entire West being threatened by productive commercial activity on BLM lands, and with the Obama White House being responsible for defending these suits, they just immediately settle and cave to the environmental groups. It's been a "back door" way for environmentalists and the White House to essentially close off access to public lands. It's for no legitimate environmental reason, but just because of  that vein of environmentalists who believe any profit from natural resources is immoral. I've always considered myself a conservationist and do donate to conservationist causes, but the people trying to stop all productive commerce west of the Mississippi due to endangered quail or something are a blight on mankind.

No that's a non-issue, it doesn't matter if it's because of erosion from over grazing or because it scares away the unicorn population, it's not his land and he doesn't have a right to it.

[grumbler]

I don't know.  Here in Canada probably over half of the country is "Crown land", that is land owned by the government.  Here it's owned by the provincial government, not Federal, but in the end (and despite what Bundy thinks) it really makes no difference - it'd be managed the same way.

The trouble is that the land is not agricultural land.  If it was, someone would have already have homesteaded it (and it's still quite possible to do so).  So it's unclear who would ever buy such land.  If you price it low enough, sure someone will buy, but since the land is also very important wildlife habitat it doesn't seem to make sense to sell it on a pennies for the acre basis.

I think that a key difference is that, in the US, we consider government to be a necessary evil, and not an asset to be cherished.  You don't see the US government owning anything like such a huge percentage of the land in the US east of the Mississippi, and yet that area isn't void of wild life, so I don't think you can justify Federal ownership of western land as a need based on wildlife concerns. 

In the end, the US federal government owns so much land because it hasn't tried to sell the land that it owns.  Bundy would be better off either buying the land or renting it from someone else who buys the land, and so would everyone else.

I rather suspect that Bundy would need to learn Chinese to talk directly to his new landlords, but they would hire an English-speaking manager, so Bundy would talk to that person.

[KRonn]

I rather suspect that Bundy would need to learn Chinese to talk directly to his new landlords, but they would hire an English-speaking manager, so Bundy would talk to that person.

[Razgovory]

I think that a key difference is that, in the US, we I consider government to be a necessary evil, and not an asset to be cherished.  You don't see the US government owning anything like such a huge percentage of the land in the US east of the Mississippi, and yet that area isn't void of wild life, so I don't think you can justify Federal ownership of western land as a need based on wildlife concerns. 

In the end, the US federal government owns so much land because it hasn't tried to sell the land that it owns.  Bundy would be better off either buying the land or renting it from someone else who buys the land, and so would everyone else.

I rather suspect that Bundy would need to learn Chinese to talk directly to his new landlords, but they would hire an English-speaking manager, so Bundy would talk to that person.

Fixed it for you.

[derspiess]

I feel sorry for you, Raz

[Ed Anger]

I feel sorry for you, Raz

Grumbler is gonna rip him a new one. Which should be entertaining.

[OttoVonBismarck]

A bigger issue than these fees though is the unfortunate environmentalist tactic now of using lawsuits to close off perfectly productive Federal lands. They make BS claims about animals that are dispersed through the entire West being threatened by productive commercial activity on BLM lands, and with the Obama White House being responsible for defending these suits, they just immediately settle and cave to the environmental groups. It's been a "back door" way for environmentalists and the White House to essentially close off access to public lands. It's for no legitimate environmental reason, but just because of  that vein of environmentalists who believe any profit from natural resources is immoral. I've always considered myself a conservationist and do donate to conservationist causes, but the people trying to stop all productive commerce west of the Mississippi due to endangered quail or something are a blight on mankind.

No that's a non-issue, it doesn't matter if it's because of erosion from over grazing or because it scares away the unicorn population, it's not his land and he doesn't have a right to it.

I think you misunderstand--I don't view the environmental issue as relevant to the Bundy case. Bundy refused to pay grazing fees and after 20 years there was a court order that barred him from ever grazing again because of this and also required him to repay $1m in unpaid fees. That's not really disputable based on any legal means.

But BLM land isn't supposed to be held as a nature preserve, where it can be put to use by the public it should be. This isn't medieval England where the King can deny use of the land just because he doesn't want the peasants hunting in it. Sham environmental causes absolutely should not be used to halt large scale oil/gas drilling and ranching that generate billions of dollars in economic value for the country.

[derspiess]

Apparently the fedrul gubmit declared that grazing land to be a habitat for the desert tortoise in 1993 and imposed more restrictions or requirements on Bundy for using the land and that's when he stopped paying. 

[OttoVonBismarck]

I don't know.  Here in Canada probably over half of the country is "Crown land", that is land owned by the government.  Here it's owned by the provincial government, not Federal, but in the end (and despite what Bundy thinks) it really makes no difference - it'd be managed the same way.

The trouble is that the land is not agricultural land.  If it was, someone would have already have homesteaded it (and it's still quite possible to do so).  So it's unclear who would ever buy such land.  If you price it low enough, sure someone will buy, but since the land is also very important wildlife habitat it doesn't seem to make sense to sell it on a pennies for the acre basis.

I think the only buyers would be natural resource speculators who'd buy up huge swathes, although I expect the Trust for Public Land (a conservation charity I donate to that buys land for nature preservation purposes) and the Nature Conservancy along with Ted Turner types would probably buy large swathes as well.

Most Westerners would love it if the BLM land had been turned over to the States instead of the Federal government. Most States are not anti-business as the EPA is. I'm someone that recognizes a need for environmental regulation, but when you have a situation where an animal that is genuinely not in any danger can pre-empt things like farmers getting water for their land or people being allowed to graze I think you have a problem. The "sue and settle" tactic I mentioned above is particularly onerous when you have a government that is derelict in its duty to vigorously defend against such suits. Congress doesn't want this to happen, but since private concerns can sue the government over environmental claims, and the executive branch has full discretion to just settle those cases immediately in favor of the plaintiff you're seeing lots of productive land being shut down by specious concerns over again, environmentalists that object to the concept of any land being used to generate economic value.

[CountDeMoney]

Livestock does pose environmental concerns, though.  The animals are not in any danger;  they are the danger.  They're in the food chain.

[grumbler]

I feel sorry for you, Raz

Grumbler is gonna rip him a new one. Which should be entertaining.

Sorry to disappoint, but homie stopped playing that game long ago.  Raz does enough damage to himself by posting what he thinks are clever comments.  He doesn't need me when he wants a new asshole ripped, he just has to post.

[Ed Anger]

 

[OttoVonBismarck]

Right, I'm fine with BLM / EPA doing legitimate land management where there are true environmental risks to genuinely endangered species, and prohibiting large scale agriculture in those select cases.

But the problem with sue and settle is two fold:

-The environmentalists can actually sue to compel the Feds to fast track species onto the endangered species list. This is something that should only be done through scientific study, not through a lawsuit.

-One that is complete, they can sue the Feds to require them to restrict usage in certain parcels of land or broad swathes of land.

If the Feds were willing to vigorously defend from such suits we wouldn't have a problem as they'd probably prevail in court as Federal agencies have a lot of leeway in how they choose to exercise discretion in their regulatory efforts. But a compliant Federal bureaucracy that actually wants these lawsuits because it lets them expand their reach without needing congressional approval or even a formal internal process are a concern.

I believe there is a case pending that would see a type of grouse added to the ESA that basically inhabits the entire West, and all of the major oil and gas fields. Theoretically it could mean the end of all resource extraction in the West, which is why I suspect the Obama Administration will draw a line on that one. I'm not sure Obama has any genuine opinions on the environment because it doesn't involve poor urbanites, but his relationship with the environmental lobby is best described as "feed them shit I don't care about whenever I can to keep them happy, but avoid giving them anything major that might hurt the economy or my approval ratings." Keystone XL is basically the only exception where he's drawn a line in the sand on the environmental side where it conflicts with a very large business interest, but it is also the only environmental lobby that environmentalist billionaires have pumped a mount of money and effort into.

[Jacob]

Sham environmental causes absolutely should not be used to halt large scale oil/gas drilling and ranching that generate billions of dollars in economic value for the country.

I read a post elsewhere from someone local to Nevada, and that person claimed that cattle ranching in that area is growing increasingly less economically viable in large part due to decreasing rainfall.

It wasn't a for or against argument, but merely a note that cattle ranching is under increasing economic pressure in that part of Nevada (or perhaps the whole state?)