I came across this quote in an email today, and wondered what y'all thought of it.

"The federal government owns nearly 33 percent of all the land in the United States.... Socialists, progressives...and environmental organizations have no problem with federal ownership of land. In fact, in recent years, they have sponsored legislation and programs to buy more and more private property to expand the federal inventory. These people forgot, or choose to reject, a fundamental principle recognized by America's founders: prosperity arises from private enterprise, and private enterprise arises from private property. This nation's prosperity is tied directly to private enterprise. As the misguided policy of government ownership and control of land expands, prosperity, inevitably, must diminish. Even more important is the loss of individual freedom, as government expands the scope of its control. ... There is nothing the federal government does with its land that could not be done better by the states, or by private owners within the states. It's time for Uncle Sam to get out of the real estate business, and return its land to the states, and to the private owners who hold the key to our nation's future." --Henry Lamb

I don't care of the gov't owns some, but technically that means WE THE PEOPLE own it, so it should be managed according to the majority, not special interests

The less land they own, the better. And I say that because every foot of land the federal or state government owns is land taken off local property tax rolls. Thus, local government must PROVIDE services to these properties without getting a dime in revenue to help pay for the services provided... meaning the populace NOT on federal or state lands are paying for those who are.

And that means higher property taxes for most of us, and nonexistent property taxes for the rest.

I don't think it's a question of what land the government owns, but how the government uses it; like the high quality coal in southern Utah or ANWR in Alaska? As it stands, a lot of the US owned land just benifits photographers and tree-huggers. :wacko

I don't care of the gov't owns some, but technically that means WE THE PEOPLE own it, so it should be managed according to the majority, not special interestsIMHO "technically" doesn't mean squat when 99.9 % of "the people" aren't allowed on it.

The concept of "We The People" being one and same as "The Government" Is an archaic concept left over from the days before "Judicial Activism" and "Bureaucratic Fiat" ... but that's another discussion.

The question I'm asking is "should one third (or more) on the nations resources be forever set aside and protected from developement". Especially in the light of rising population, urban crowding, high cost of home ownership, and so-called "lack of opportunity".

If businesses had the option of moving operations into small town areas where the logging, or farming industry (for example ) had collapsed, there would be a home grown work force, a contiuity of generations remaining in one place reinforcing local behavioral mores, and a reinvigorated local economy with the growth of support businesses. As they say, "a rising tide floats all boats"

Unfortunately, many of these smaller population centers are surrounded by government land, making future growth difficult if not impossible. Even if the original industry sites of a town are available, the growth of support industries is made problematic in the light of limited proprty availability.

To further clarify, the second "no" reason is that the amount of federal land rarely, if ever, decreases... instead, increasing every year, no matter the budget deficit or wars or whatever... there ALWAYS seems to be money available to take over land... while the amount of land available never seems to increase... leading to an inevitable point where government will own more land, paid for by our dollars and restricted from our use, then there will be private land owners.


IMHO "technically" doesn't mean squat when 99.9 % of "the people" aren't allowed on it.

The concept of "We The People" being one and same as "The Government" Is an archaic concept left over from the days before "Judicial Activism" and "Bureaucratic Fiat" ... but that's another discussion.

The question I'm asking is "should one third (or more) on the nations resources be forever set aside and protected from developement". Especially in the light of rising population, urban crowding, high cost of home ownership, and so-called "lack of opportunity".

If businesses had the option of moving operations into small town areas where the logging, or farming industry (for example ) had collapsed, there would be a home grown work force, a contiuity of generations remaining in one place reinforcing local behavioral mores, and a reinvigorated local economy with the growth of support businesses. As they say, "a rising tide floats all boats"

Unfortunately, many of these smaller population centers are surrounded by government land, making future growth difficult if not impossible. Even if the original industry sites of a town are available, the growth of support industries is made problematic in the light of limited proprty availability.

I'd like to change my answer!

95 made some great points I had not thought of.

Got this in an email today

August 17, 2004

NOTE: Posted at Free Republic: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1193642/posts

Nevada Live Stock Association

For Immediate Release

Contact: Ramona Morrison
775.424.0570
rhmorrison@sbcglobal.net

Nye County, Nevada - According to Nye County Sheriff, Tony DeMeo, the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), in the midst of finalizing post-trial briefs in a thirteen-year old lawsuit with Nye County rancher, Wayne Hage, and in a move of apparent direct defiance of the several recent court decisions, are preparing to confiscate Hage's cattle on his ranch in Nye County, Nevada. Hage was notified Friday, August 13, 2004, by Sheriff DeMeo, that Bob Abbey, Nevada BLM Director, had told him that, despite ongoing litigation, the BLM could move forward with the confiscation unless they receive a cease and desist order from the Court.

Alf Brandt, Interior Department Solicitor, and one of the Government's attorneys in the May Hage v. U.S. compensation trial in Reno, Nevada stated in a July 30, 2004, letter to Sheriff DeMeo that the, "BLM actions may result in Mr. Hage's appearance in federal court, which may provide him the opportunity to again present his legal theories and allow the federal court to adjudicate these issues." Brandt's letter also contained thinly veiled threats to arrest Hage.

Thursday, the U.S. Forest Service hand-delivered a three-day notice to Hage to remove livestock from the lands the U. S. Court of Federal Claims determined in its 2002 Final Decision and Finding of Fact to be "fee lands" to which Hage holds title. ("Fee" means the inheritable right to use.)

Sheriff DeMeo commented on the governments actions, "It is inexplicable to me why, after thirteen years of litigation, the BLM and Forest Service seem so anxious to go after Hage now. But there definitely seems to be an intensity building in this county and I expect them to try something. I have instructed my deputies to protect Constitutional rights of the citizens of Nye County, even if the perpetrator is the federal government," he added.

Concerned about a Ruby Ridge-style government "arrest", today, Hage forwarded a letter to Sheriff DeMeo stating that he believes the government's efforts to create a "confrontation" with him is a move of desperation on the part of the agencies as a result evidence that surfaced at his trial in Reno in May.

The U.S. Forest Service, BLM, and southern Nevada water interests were implicated in a "conspiracy", according to court transcripts, to bankrupt the Hages in order to obtain the abundant Pine Creek Ranch water for the benefit of Southern Nevada interests.

In his letter, Hage stated that, "....I believe Alf W. Brandt, as solicitor for the BLM Department of Interior, would like to find a way to eliminate me at the hands of some (federal) 'Law Enforcement' personnel."

In the thirteen-year Fifth Amendment of the Constitution "takings" lawsuit in the U. S. Court of Federal Claims between the Hage family and the federal government, Hage has prevailed in all court rulings to date.

In 1991, the federal government, in an attempt to derail Hage's civil "takings" case, attempted to prosecute him for destruction of government property. The case was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Nevada Live Stock Association Director, Ramona Morrison, remarked about the May trial. "The government's case faltered dramatically during the compensation trial. Every government witness was roundly impeached or discredited during cross examination. Facing the potential of incurring enormous damages in a ruling expected after the October closing arguments in Reno -- and numerous "takings" cases brought by other ranchers who have found themselves in similar circumstances as Hage -- the U. S. Forest Service and BLM have little chance at damage control. They may be acting in desperation to intimidate other ranchers from similar attempts to seek compensation when federal government takes their property."

Government Solicitor, Alf Brandt, justifies his actions in his letter to Sheriff DeMeo by stating that Hage is failing to keep his cattle on the forage of the 50-foot right-of-ways. Hage commented from his ranch, "The government argues that I must contain my cattle on 50 feet of either side of my 1866 ditch rights-of-ways, some of which are natural creeks. I defy anyone to show me where the Court has said that in any of the three published Decisions or in the one court Order. Yet this is their justification for seeking my arrest. The government refuses to recognize that I am not a trespasser on my own ranch."

Only one of the many cases. Here's another one.

TUE 03.16.2004 2.46 PT
Las Vegas SUN
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - Federal officers arrested a New Mexico rancher whose cattle have been ordered seized in a long-running battle with the government over grazing rights in the Gila National Forest.

Kit Laney, 43, was arrested Sunday and jailed on charges of assaulting a peace officer, obstructing a court order and intimidation.

Forest Service spokesman Jim Payne would not release details about the arrest.


Here's another example. All in the name of the Desert Tortoise and the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.
BLM targets two more NV counties (http://www.sierratimes.com/02/03/25/arnv032502.htm)

Or check out Effects of "Heritage Area" policies (http://www.newriverfriends.org/)

Do a google search on "National Heritage Areas Act" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=%22National+Heritage+Areas+Act%22&btnG=Search) or Land Seizure (http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&cof=AWFID%3A7f1c345f3473c2d1%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fww w.sierratimes.com%2Fimages%2Fstbug2.jpg%3BLH%3A42% 3BLW%3A200%3BAH%3Acenter%3B&domains=sierratimes.com&q=land+seizure&btnG=Google+Search&sitesearch=sierratimes.com). If you're not shocked or concerned, then you're not thinking.

Here's another case of abused property rights:

Government asks for HUGE penalties for minor wetlands violation, including loss of proprty and millions in fines. (http://www.pacificlegal.org/view_Commentaries.asp?iID=135&sTitle=How+%91Wetlands%92+Bureaucrats+Crush+Privat e+Property+Rights)

And another closure of public use lands. (http://www.mountainstateslegal.org/press_releases.cfm?pressreleaseid=387)

In November 1991, the U.S. Forest Service closed the lands, which lie within the Pike and Arapaho National Forests, by creating the Hoosier Ridge Resource Natural Area (RNA) claiming the lands were virgin and unmodified, even though they had been used for mining for decades. After a challenge by local miners, the Forest Service withdrew the designation. In December 1995, the area was again designated as an RNA. That designation was challenged with an administrative appeal to the Forest Service in January 1996, which was denied in March 1996. In August 1996, the miners filed a lawsuit challenging the closure; then discovery was conducted by the parties.

In November 1997, the Colorado federal district court ruled in favor of the Forest Service, concluding that even though the lands are not “virgin and unmodified,” they could be managed, in the future, as if they were “virgin and unmodified,”

Short version... NO!

funny how the government an own land without having any money.

PEOPLE have money.

the government spends it for them.

next time you wonder exactly what you're worth, take the federal deficit, divide it by the popultion of the US, multiply it by -1, and add your personal assets. you're still nowhere close.

a balanced budget is NOT healthy. it means we are overtaxed.