Boondocking and the Bundy Gang

[D Greene]

Originally Posted by Len n Jeanne

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.

[0557]

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.

[B00merang]

I totally agree with Micmul1....so will keep my opinion to myself. Lets focus on AS issues lest we ruin this forum. jon

[kscherzi]

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.

[franklyfrank]

Originally Posted by Zeppelinium

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.

[Zeppelinium]

Originally Posted by B00merang

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

[NWRVR]

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.

[Jaxon]

Originally Posted by Gearheart

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.
.

[Philip498]

I agree with the one commenter who stated that this is probably the wrong forum to post our views about something as political as the Bundy situation and the armed occupancy of the federal buildings in Oregon. However, having said that, I also agree with most of the other commenters in that federal lands should remain under federal management. At the last legislature in Montana, a proposal was put forward to transfer federal lands to the state of Montana. There are several things wrong with that. For one, like others have said, the federal land belongs to all Americans and not just the citizens of Montana. Secondly, the state of Montana, like a lot of western states, does not have the resources to effectively manage all of the federal lands in the state that are currently under federal ownership. There is also a concern that once the land is transferred to the state, those lands could then be sold to private ownership, be it to individuals or corporations. This should be a concern for all who like to recreate on federal lands. As for the land transfer proposal in the last Montana legislature, fortunately it was defeated although I suspect that this issue will rise again someday.

[D Greene]

It is puzzling to me that so many folks seem to think that a state government official is inherently more honest, stable and generally a better leader than a federal official. This certainly has not been my experience.

[gecko]

Gentlemen-

While I initially felt the same way as several here--this is not a forum for political expression--I want to commend everyone who has participated in the political discussion for keeping it civil in an attempt to actually state or illuminate a point of view, instead of just to argue/fight/call names.

It is an issue that affects certain among us more than others, and it is certainly an Airstream related issue to that extent.

And one more thing--as someone suggested, by all means try to read "Cadillac Desert" if you have not done so. Although it is not particularly well written (very repetitive), it does cover the history of the settlement and development of "the West" (that is, everything West of Ohio!) and the issues surrounding bad research/thinking leading to well-inentioned but ultimately bad policy, including the intent of the TVA and dam construction further West. With the drought likely to intensify over the next few decades throughout the West, an understanding of how we got here may prove helpful to some of us as we think through local/state/federal proposals upon which we may be able to have a voice.

Again, thanks for keeping it all civil and informative.

[Zeppelinium]

Originally Posted by NWRVR

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....

What do you mean by surveyed? I look at the USGS 1:24,000 maps and it appears that someone has a pretty good idea of what is where. Maybe not to the inch for platting new building sites (heaven forbid), but good enough for recreating on the land.

Requested more funding for resolving small issues with access or to meet local objectives, or some million acre purchase? Federal, state, and private land is exchanged frequently to resolve local issues. Take a look at land exchanges around Las Vegas in the last 30 years. Sometimes it benefits the feds, but most often it benefits municipalities and even private citizens.

Zep

[dannydimitt]

state control will result in huge fees , restricted access , and ultimately the land being sold to corrupt cronies who will "develop" it , LOL , for a larger tax base for the state to squander .

[xrvr]

Your opinion,not substantiated by fact.

[xrvr]

Originally Posted by D Greene

It is puzzling to me that so many folks seem to think that a state government official is inherently more honest, stable and generally a better leader than a federal official. This certainly has not been my experience.

Might be true but it is easier to change state officials and staff than federal.

[D Greene]

Originally Posted by avionstream

Might be true but it is easier to change state officials and staff than federal.

As you said earlier, "your opinion not substantiated fact". Federal folks are put in office by the state voters same as state folks.

[cameront120]

Originally Posted by avionstream

Your opinion,not substantiated by fact.

You keep disputing peoples comments without offering anything in return. What are the facts?

[B00merang]

Its starting to get outta hand...c'mon, folks...lets focus on our common interest, which is enjoying this God-given earth with our ASs. Lets stop this and re-focus on this year's travel plans, maintenance issues, and especially which TV is the better and should I upgrade to 16" Sentels. xoxoxo jon

[cameront120]

And for those of us who don't believe anything is "God-given"?

[xrvr]

Originally Posted by cameront120

You keep disputing peoples comments without offering anything in return. What are the facts?

See posts number 4,13,20. Just as much fact there as others comments.