Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-11-2016, 12:12 PM   #15
2 Rivet Member
 
Barretta2's Avatar
 
2013 23' Flying Cloud
Naples , Florida
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 58
Bundy

Quote:
Originally Posted by micmul1 View Post
I'd suggest you all find a different venue to express your political views. I don't believe they belong on this forum.

I completely agree... this is not a political forum.
__________________

__________________
Barretta2 is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:23 PM   #16
3 Rivet Member
 
2015 16' Sport
Pineola , North Carolina
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barretta2 View Post
I completely agree... this is not a political forum.
You are correct. However those of us who enjoy camping in forest service campgrounds, BLM ares , and even National Parks could be out of luck if these anti government Bundy types get their way.
__________________

__________________
"Certainty on any matter is not one of the human attitudes the Gods admire or tolerate."
A. Cross
D Greene is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:33 PM   #17
Rivet Master
 
Gearheart's Avatar

 
1973 Argosy 24
Kitchener , Ontario
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 853
Images: 1
As a foreigner i really don't have a dog in this fight,but a similar situation (less the Bundy factor) here in Ontario the provincial government sold off a freeway / toll road to private concerns, now foreign, to raise some extra funds. The funds are long spent and the source of income is lost. A Dutch consortium now runs the toll road 407 Hwy.
Currently the province is looking to sell off Ontario Hydro, a power generating operation to private enterprise, again to raise immediate funds already spent, and another source of income will be lost.
Should the BLM lands be transferred to the State level they will soon be sold, likely to foreign investors, and fees charged will be leaving the country. Said fees will probably be higher than any now in place. One might not like the concept of Federal Gov't daddy but it sure beats State Gov't pimp.
__________________
Gearheart is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:34 PM   #18
Len and Jeanne
 
Len n Jeanne's Avatar
 
2005 16' International CCD
2015 19' Flying Cloud
Creston Valley , British Columbia
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,466
Just a quick history lesson: the federal government owned the BLM land as "the public domain" prior to settlement. It is incorrect to think that the ranchers got there first in many cases. The federal government got the land through treaties with foreign governments and native people (hey, its right to make treaties is in the Constitution.)

The government essentially gave away or sold large chunks of its territories to homesteaders through a series of acts passed by Congress, like the Homestead Act. The BLM was established by Harry Truman in 1946 on the desert grazing lands that nobody had claimed by then. The BLM through act of Congress permits all kinds of uses under its "multiple use" clause, many of them economic: grazing, mining, hunting, backcountry recreation, wildlife and bird conservation, watershed management, &c.

So if Nevada is predominantly BLM land, it is because nobody claimed these lands prior to 1946.

Also, prior to 1946 desert ranchers (but not many, at that) had claimed home ranch lands in the few locations with water. But they grazed extensively on the public domain, basically on the public's dime. After 1946 their grazing precedents were generally honoured with a series of permits that regulated when and where ranchers could graze their livestock, and how many animal-units. This was done to preserve the vegetation on which the grazing depended. Much of the West was badly overgrazed by the 1930s.

The Bundys and a few other rural westerners don't see it this way, and are effectively stealing from the public when they graze their animals on public land and refuse to pay their grazing fees.

It is important to recognize that the American public owns the land: not a government in Washington, DC. The BLM (Department of the Interior) is charged with managing the land according to principles of good stewardship. (We could debate how well they achieve this.)

The American public owns the land: not small numbers of ranchers who flaunt the law.

By and large state governments have done a good job of managing state lands, but let's face it. Most of the states' populations are urban, not rural. Even most rural people no longer make their living from agriculture. So sure: turn Nevada's or Oregon's BLM lands over to the states, and it will be the folks in Las Vegas or the folks on the "Left Coast" who call the shots, because that's where the populations who elect state legislatures live.

I don't recommend local management if that means people like the Bundys get their way. We can kiss the legitimate concerns and uses of urban people good bye. And why should the few control the resource of the many, and for self-interest, at that?

What kind of a bad management job of stewardship do people actually think the BLM has committed? Most of the flack they get is from preservationists who want more regulation, not from ranchers.
__________________
Len n Jeanne is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:40 PM   #19
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Nowhere , Somewhere
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,417
Blog Entries: 2
So much fact misinterpreted with incorrect assumptions.
__________________
avionstream is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:44 PM   #20
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Nowhere , Somewhere
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,417
Blog Entries: 2
Interesting discussion with the old arguments. Those of us in the south and west believe in states rights. The rest of the country wants Washington to tell them what to do. This is true for personal property rights, medical insurance and of course immigration issues. Good to here differing opinions.
__________________
avionstream is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:46 PM   #21
3 Rivet Member
 
2015 16' Sport
Pineola , North Carolina
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Len n Jeanne View Post
Just a quick history lesson: the federal government owned the BLM land as "the public domain" prior to settlement. It is incorrect to think that the ranchers got there first in many cases. The federal government got the land through treaties with foreign governments and native people (hey, its right to make treaties is in the Constitution.)

The government essentially gave away or sold large chunks of its territories to homesteaders through a series of acts passed by Congress, like the Homestead Act. The BLM was established by Harry Truman in 1946 on the desert grazing lands that nobody had claimed by then. The BLM through act of Congress permits all kinds of uses under its "multiple use" clause, many of them economic: grazing, mining, hunting, backcountry recreation, wildlife and bird conservation, watershed management, &c.

So if Nevada is predominantly BLM land, it is because nobody claimed these lands prior to 1946.

Also, prior to 1946 desert ranchers (but not many, at that) had claimed home ranch lands in the few locations with water. But they grazed extensively on the public domain, basically on the public's dime. After 1946 their grazing precedents were generally honoured with a series of permits that regulated when and where ranchers could graze their livestock, and how many animal-units. This was done to preserve the vegetation on which the grazing depended. Much of the West was badly overgrazed by the 1930s.

The Bundys and a few other rural westerners don't see it this way, and are effectively stealing from the public when they graze their animals on public land and refuse to pay their grazing fees.

It is important to recognize that the American public owns the land: not a government in Washington, DC. The BLM (Department of the Interior) is charged with managing the land according to principles of good stewardship. (We could debate how well they achieve this.)

The American public owns the land: not small numbers of ranchers who flaunt the law.

By and large state governments have done a good job of managing state lands, but let's face it. Most of the states' populations are urban, not rural. Even most rural people no longer make their living from agriculture. So sure: turn Nevada's or Oregon's BLM lands over to the states, and it will be the folks in Las Vegas or the folks on the "Left Coast" who call the shots, because that's where the populations who elect state legislatures live.

I don't recommend local management if that means people like the Bundys get their way. We can kiss the legitimate concerns and uses of urban people good bye. And why should the few control the resource of the many, and for self-interest, at that?

What kind of a bad management job of stewardship do people actually think the BLM has committed? Most of the flack they get is from preservationists who want more regulation, not from ranchers.
Thank you.
__________________
"Certainty on any matter is not one of the human attitudes the Gods admire or tolerate."
A. Cross
D Greene is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 12:54 PM   #22
3 Rivet Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 248
Images: 3
Boondocking and the Bundy Gang

None of us are Ranchers on this forum, so giving an opinion is null and void, and everyone has an opinion
Driven by the mass media narrative.
Don't be a sucker for false talking points.
Us Airstreamers can expect higher fees to camp and more environmental extremism in the future if we don't put the brakes on the control freaks running a dysfunctional Federal Gov't.
There are so many people on the Federal payroll in positions of authority that should be in prison.
__________________
0557 is online now  
Old 01-11-2016, 01:07 PM   #23
4 Rivet Member
 
B00merang's Avatar
 
2010 20' Flying Cloud
Hailey , Idaho
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 390
I totally agree with Micmul1....so will keep my opinion to myself. Lets focus on AS issues lest we ruin this forum. jon
__________________
B00merang is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 01:15 PM   #24
Rivet Master
 
kscherzi's Avatar
 
2013 27' FB International
El Dorado Hills , California
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,137
Images: 24
Ranching, as is popularized, is a doomed industry for several reasons. Financially its a marginal enterprise. The push to cut greenhouse gas emissions may push it over the edge. One of the biggest things a person can do in support is cut personal consumption of meat, especially beef. Not only do cattle emit large quantities of methane, the energy consumed, and water needed, to grow their feed amplifies those emissions. Several states have already enacted a carbon tax. Once the federal government does the same and imposes carbon costs onto the ranchers I suspect many will abandon their herds and move away.
__________________
kscherzi is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 01:21 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
2017 30' Classic
Anna Maria , Florida
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeppelinium View Post
All you boondockers better take head. Bundy isn't the only activist who would like to see Federal land transferred to the states. There is a growing push by miners, loggers, and mostly ranchers to get more benefits from the federal land around them. This has been many years in the making, partly due to in some cases not so great management by BLM and Forest Service, but also due to the feeling of locals that they've used the land for years and they almost believe (maybe they do believe) that they are entitled to it. But they aren't. We own the land, they don't. They get to use it only in so far as the rules allow, just like us.

If they want to know why their access is being gradually restricted, all you have to do is look at the population. It's growing. It's not the government's fault that preservation of the land for all requires additional restrictions in the face of increased population pressure.

Land use policy in the West has obscured the fact that it's almost impossible to make a living on 160 or 240 acres of arid land. So the lease of BLM land has deluded the ranching community into thinking (1) they can hack it in the desert and (2) that it's a right. Well, they are wrong. (Read Cadillac Desert if you doubt this.)

The bottom line for us, however, is to get politically active and stop any notion that BLM land should be transferred to the states.

Zep
I would rather see more control of everything especially land, in the hands of the States instead of the Federal Government. It has become overwhelming and oppressive.
__________________
franklyfrank is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 01:29 PM   #26
Rivet Master
 
Zeppelinium's Avatar

 
1975 31' Sovereign
1973 27' Overlander
1977 23' Safari
Palmer Lake , Colorado
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,908
Send a message via Skype™ to Zeppelinium
Quote:
Originally Posted by B00merang View Post
I totally agree with Micmul1....so will keep my opinion to myself. Lets focus on AS issues lest we ruin this forum. jon
Boondocking is an issue for many on this forum. State control of BLM land would risk our losing access to the open spaces.

And you don't have to be a rancher (or miner or logger) to have a valid opinion. If you've ever camped on BLM land, or you ever intend to, your opinion is as valid as any. And a citizen in Maine has just as much right to use federal land in Nevada as a Nevada resident. Thank Dog that we didn't give it all to the railroads or the states.

Speaking of access, have any of you noticed how easy it is to access BLM land in Utah and Nevada (maybe other states), but how hard it is in Wyoming? Wyoming doesn't seem to have gates along the highways, at least not as obvious as in other states. There are places in Utah where you can get off the Interstate Highway where there is no exit, just a gate in the fence!

And for those who think there are no ranchers on this forum, I, for one, have loaded a lot of hay under the burning sun of Utah.

Zep
Zeppelinium is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 01:30 PM   #27
4 Rivet Member
 
NWRVR's Avatar
 
2015 30' Classic
Sherwood , Oregon
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 357
Blog Entries: 2
The federal government currently owns over 30% of this country and has surveyed less than 10%. They don't even know what they have yet recently requested funding to acquire more land. I believe the feds need to manage what they have and leave the remainder to the individual states to manage. The voters have more say at the state level than at the federal level so have a better chance to be represented on land use in their own backyard.
__________________
2015 Classic 30A, Blue OX Sway Pro, 2016 F350 4x4 Ultimate Lariat crew cab SRW, LWB, 6.7 PSD, 20" wheels, Ingot Silver Metallic, DiamondBack tonneau cover, TrailFX wheel-to-wheel step bars.
Sold: 2014 25FB International Serenity
NWRVR is offline  
Old 01-11-2016, 01:32 PM   #28
E Pluribus Aluminus
 
Jaxon's Avatar
 
2008 34' Classic S/O
1967 22' Safari
2005 30' Classic
Rockport , Texas
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,214
Images: 10
Send a message via AIM to Jaxon Send a message via Yahoo to Jaxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gearheart View Post
As a foreigner i really don't have a dog in this fight,but a similar situation (less the Bundy factor) here in Ontario the provincial government sold off a freeway / toll road to private concerns, now foreign, to raise some extra funds. The funds are long spent and the source of income is lost. A Dutch consortium now runs the toll road 407 Hwy.
Currently the province is looking to sell off Ontario Hydro, a power generating operation to private enterprise, again to raise immediate funds already spent, and another source of income will be lost.
Should the BLM lands be transferred to the State level they will soon be sold, likely to foreign investors, and fees charged will be leaving the country. Said fees will probably be higher than any now in place. One might not like the concept of Federal Gov't daddy but it sure beats State Gov't pimp.
.
Agreed and lets not forget those yellow golden arches, buckets 'o chicken, row upon row of hotels, etc. littering the view once our public lands have been sold off to the corporation that bought the most state legislators.
.
__________________

__________________
Jaxon is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2 gang wall box under 2 inches deep ? Zstream Electrical - Systems, Generators, Batteries & Solar 1 08-24-2013 05:04 PM
Boondocking and waste Iver Boondocking 97 07-19-2012 09:42 PM
Polish Not Gang Distantdrummer Cleaning, Stripping & Polishing 49 01-29-2009 12:40 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.