BlueBear
Trail Wise!
@GoBlueHiker
Posts: 3,224
|
Post by BlueBear on Jul 16, 2015 7:05:44 GMT -8
As well they should. Most counties know they don't have the resources to adequately manage the federal lands within their borders by themselves, and they acknowledge the value of their citizens having public access to that land. These are simply the latest iteration of an age-old "land-grab" where the writers of these bills intend to grab the land and sell it immediately to the highest bidder, to be fenced off and exploited at will.
It's a horrible, horrible idea, and anyone that values access to public lands needs to oppose such measures. They're just profit-driven land grabs dressed up in Sagebrush Rebellion clothes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 10:18:06 GMT -8
I'm glad the High Country News article uses the term "federal land transfer" instead of the erroneous nonsense about "giving back" to the states. I'll say as I've said before that never in history has that land belonged to those states. It was never their land, so there is no "giving back" what the states never ever possessed in the first place. As BlueBear indicates above, the entire notion of federal-lands transfer is an attempted land-grab by corrupt politicians with no legal foundation. The entire idea of states possessing all or even most of the land within their borders is alien to our long-standing notion of land possession. When territories became states, they had no right to claim ownership of the private land within their border, so neither do they have right to claim federal land. States borders never did indicate ownership of land — whether that land is private or held by all citizens of the country through the federal government. The normal process of statehood involved the requirement that Western states "forever disclaim" the federal land within their borders. Such renunciation of claim to federal land was commonly incorporated into state constitutions, petitions for statehood, or enabling acts. That disavowal was not merely "optional." It was a mandatory requirement for statehood imposed by Congress. Below are examples from various Western state constitutions. The language is comparable in each according to a formula required by Congress: Utah State Constitution, Article 3, §2Wyoming Constitution, Article 21, §26: Nevada State Constitution, Initial Ordinance, §3: Arizona Constitution, Article 20, §4: Idaho State Constitution, Article 21, §19: Washington State Constitution, Article 26, §2New Mexico State Constitution, Article 21, §2. (Page 190 at link.) Colorado, Proclamation 230 - Admission of Colorado Into the Union: Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Washington State. Statehood Enabling Act, 50th Congress, Session II, Chap. 180, P. 677, 1889, §4, Second: [/a]: [/ul] Alaska Constitution, Article 12, §12:
|
|
BigLoad
Trail Wise!
Pancakes!
Posts: 13,527
Member is Online
|
Post by BigLoad on Jul 16, 2015 12:06:51 GMT -8
As well they should. Most counties know they don't have the resources to adequately manage the federal lands withing their borders by themselves, and they acknowledge the value of their citizens having public access to that land. These are simply the latest iteration of an age-old "land-grab" where the writers of these bills intend to grab the land and sell it immediately to the highest bidder, to be fenced off an exploited at will. It's a horrible, horrible idea, and anyone that values access to public lands needs to oppose such measures. They're just profit-driven land grabs dressed up in Sagebrush Rebellion clothes. I totally agree on all counts.
|
|