|
|
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
  
| foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:27 AM
I do believe the 'Government Teat' federally speaking anyways would eliminated with this concept. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands  Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville on April 7, 2014. A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal file ) Buy PhotoBy SEAN WHALEY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU CARSON CITY — A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says. The preliminary draft report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force was prepared with the assistance of a consultant and will be reviewed Thursday by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands when it meets in Tonopah. The task force was created by the 2013 Legislature to evaluate the feasibility of the state taking control of some of the federally controlled public lands in Nevada. A final report is due from the task force by Sept. 1. The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM. Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher and chairman of the task force, said the analysis by Intertech Services Inc. shows that a transfer is not only economically feasible but even beneficial to Nevada. “The way those numbers turned out it looks like we can surely afford it,” he said. “Not only afford it but the state could make a lot of revenue having the land and managing it ourselves.” The revenues would come from the sale and lease of the resources on the lands, including through mining and grazing, Dahl said. In recent comments U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he supports the work of the task force. But not everyone is on board with the effort. In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada. He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production. According to the draft report, 81.1 percent of Nevada is under the control of various federal agencies. The analysis looked at the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah where federal lands make up less of the total, from 34.7 percent in New Mexico to 66.5 percent in Utah. The analysis looked at acres of “state trust lands” controlled by the states. Nevada has only 3,000 acres of such lands, while Arizona has more than 9 million acres and New Mexico has nearly 9 million trust land acres. State trust lands were granted to states upon statehood and were set aside primarily to support public schools. Dahl said Nevada just didn’t do a good job of evaluating the potential benefits of statehood back in 1864 and so ended up with few trust lands. “The state was controlled by mining interests that did not reside in the state,” he said. “They saw an advantage to statehood and went into it blind.” But von Seggern noted in his testimony that Nevada originally received 4 million acres in trust lands for the public schools. It is difficult to trace the benefit of the now disposed trust lands to the state school system, he said in his presentation. Jim Lawrence, who works for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada did receive about 4 million acres of random sections of land upon statehood. The state’s congressional delegation in 1880 persuaded Congress to let Nevada officials instead designate which lands they wanted in exchange for reducing the total acreage by half. The trust lands were then sold off to private individuals as a way of trying to entice people to move into the state, he said. According to the task force report, the five-year average net revenues to the four states from 2008 to 2012 from the trust lands ranged from $518.8 million in New Mexico to $41.9 million in Idaho. In 2012 the state of New Mexico distributed $544 million from the trust land revenues to its public school system, $9 million to the University of New Mexico and nearly $3 million to New Mexico State University, among other beneficiaries. Looking at the four state models, the analysis came up with the range of $31 million on the low end to $114 million with a transfer of the 4 million BLM acres to the state of Nevada. The task force is recommending a phased-in transfer of public lands, starting with lands in the original railroad corridor across Northern Nevada and lands already identified for disposal by federal agencies. Other priorities are lands designated by the secretary of Interior as solar energy zones, land designated by the BLM as suitable for geothermal leasing but not yet leased, and lands authorized for disposal in current federal legislation. The task force is not supportive of transferring lands controlled by the U.S. Departments of Energy or Defense, current wilderness areas, national conservation areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the National Park Service. Dahl said it will likely take action by Congress to allow for the transfer of public lands on such a scale. Nevada is working with Utah officials on the issue. “I think if we can get enough states to pass legislation saying we want our land, and we all go together to Congress, I think we can get it done,” he said. Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at [email protected] or 775-687-3900. Follow him on Twitter @seanw801.
Transferring Federal land to State land has a lot of pros and cons for a state, but I don't think anyone can argue that it will be better for the ranchers to increase their fees from $1.35 to $12 /AUM on land that remains state owned. Probably most will be sold off to private industry. Cliven Bundy was alway just an excuse to raise a ruckas and elicit sympathy, which he did until he kept talking, and to give the public the idea this was about Freedom and the cowboy way of life. As with everything else, this is really about money and power, which Musikmaker (who says he is into oil and hotels) laid out in a prior comment. I have attached a little piece that outlines some of same points that FH's news story does, but gives a little more indepth look at who will benefit from the transfer. If politicians and business people want the land to develop and try to improve their economy, just say it, and don't try to pretend it is about preserving the ranching way of life.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/25/the-money-behind-foxs-promo...
The Money Behind Fox's Promotion Of Cliven Bundy's Battle With The Feds
Blog››› April 25, 2014 4:24 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL
1550
Right-wing media have been rushing to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher they've spent weeks championing after Cliven Bundy revealed his racist worldview, but two of Bundy's biggest cheerleaders -- Sean Hannity and Fox News -- have vested corporate, financial, and political interests in the promotion of Cliven Bundy's anti-government land ownership agenda.
Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy became Fox News' favorite folk hero after he refused to comply with court orders directing him to remove his trespassing cattle from public land. Hannity and many other right-wing media rallied around Bundy and his armed supporters as they threatened violence against federal law enforcement officials attempting to impound Bundy's cattle and collect the $1 million he owes in fines and fees after decades of noncompliance with the law.
Bundy has said he doesn't recognize the existence of the federal government nor its authority over the land and has attacked the federal ownership of lands as subverting Nevada's "state sovereignty."
Hannity has promoted Bundy's anti-government rhetoric, arguing that the federal government owns far too much land and pushing Bundy's claim that not only does the federal government not have land-ownership authority but that they don't need or use the land they claim to own. On the April 23 edition of his show, Hannity attacked the government for owning too much land, agreeing with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano that they do not have the constitutional authority to own any of the land. Throughout the land battle, Hannity continuously argued that the government is irresponsibly fighting for land they have no intended use for -- such as building hospitals, schools, or roads -- and should focus their efforts elsewhere to rapists, murderers, criminals, and pedophiles.
Bundy and Hannity's promotion of state ownership of federal lands gives airtime to an issue that conservatives have long been campaigning for but have had difficulty getting voters excited about -- an issue in line with the land interests of the Koch brothers. Slate reported on April 23 that the Fox News corporate, financial, and political interests being served by Hannity's promotion of Bundy lie in the network's connection to the Koch brothers:
Bundy's anti-federal agenda is closely aligned with that of Charles and David Koch, major Republican donors who have been pushing for states to gain control over federal lands - so they can be sold or leased to people like the Koch brothers in deals.
Fox News Network and Sean Hannity have a particular interest in the promotion and realization of such Koch interests because their funding depends on it -- Hannity receives major funding and large ad buys from Koch-affiliated Heritage and Tea Party Patriots.
Hannity's Koch-affiliated funders have a long history of promoting the privatization of public lands and condemning the federal ownership of land. Tea Party groups have supported local efforts to transfer federal lands. Heritage has advocated shrinking the U.S. government's control by selling its physical assets such as "huge swaths of land (especially out west)." Heritage was also a loyal promoter of the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013, advocating for the transfer of federal land management to state regulators for energy resource development.
Giving airtime to an issue that is obscure but significant to his conservative funders makes perfect sense for Hannity. Politico reported that Heritage began sponsoring Hannity in 2008 and in 2013 Hannity began advertising for the Tea Party Patriots, "lending his name to fundraising drives, hosting its leaders on his radio and Fox News shows, and even using the Fox airwaves to promote the Tea Party Patriots website."
The Koch brothers have been covertly funding right-wing organizations such as Heritage Action and the Tea Party Patriots through the non-profit business league Freedom Partners whose tax code status as a trade association allows the organization to conceal its donors. Freedom Partners is one of the largest donors of conservative groups and its board has deep ties to the Koch brothers with many of its members being longtime employees of Koch Industries and the Charles G. Koch Foundation.
The Koch-funded Freedom Partners made grants of $236 million in 2011; among many conservative groups its recipients include Heritage as well as the Tea Party Patriots. Heritage Action received $500,000 in 2011 from the Koch brothers through Freedom Partners and additional funds from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. In 2012, the Tea Party Patriots received $200,000 from Freedom Partners.
The legislative efforts of such groups to transfer control of federal lands to states are "nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools" initiated by conservative groups like the Koch-affiliates. Such efforts are rooted in the interests of the Kochs and other conservative groups to use the land in whichever way is most profitable to them such as mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.
| |
| | |
 Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 11:00 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:27 AM I do believe the 'Government Teat' federally speaking anyways would eliminated with this concept.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands
Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands
Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville on April 7, 2014. A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal file )
Buy Photo
By SEAN WHALEY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY — A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer.
A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says.
The preliminary draft report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force was prepared with the assistance of a consultant and will be reviewed Thursday by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands when it meets in Tonopah.
The task force was created by the 2013 Legislature to evaluate the feasibility of the state taking control of some of the federally controlled public lands in Nevada. A final report is due from the task force by Sept. 1.
The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM.
Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher and chairman of the task force, said the analysis by Intertech Services Inc. shows that a transfer is not only economically feasible but even beneficial to Nevada.
“The way those numbers turned out it looks like we can surely afford it,” he said. “Not only afford it but the state could make a lot of revenue having the land and managing it ourselves.”
The revenues would come from the sale and lease of the resources on the lands, including through mining and grazing, Dahl said.
In recent comments U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he supports the work of the task force.
But not everyone is on board with the effort.
In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada.
He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production.
According to the draft report, 81.1 percent of Nevada is under the control of various federal agencies. The analysis looked at the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah where federal lands make up less of the total, from 34.7 percent in New Mexico to 66.5 percent in Utah.
The analysis looked at acres of “state trust lands” controlled by the states. Nevada has only 3,000 acres of such lands, while Arizona has more than 9 million acres and New Mexico has nearly 9 million trust land acres.
State trust lands were granted to states upon statehood and were set aside primarily to support public schools.
Dahl said Nevada just didn’t do a good job of evaluating the potential benefits of statehood back in 1864 and so ended up with few trust lands.
“The state was controlled by mining interests that did not reside in the state,” he said. “They saw an advantage to statehood and went into it blind.”
But von Seggern noted in his testimony that Nevada originally received 4 million acres in trust lands for the public schools. It is difficult to trace the benefit of the now disposed trust lands to the state school system, he said in his presentation.
Jim Lawrence, who works for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada did receive about 4 million acres of random sections of land upon statehood. The state’s congressional delegation in 1880 persuaded Congress to let Nevada officials instead designate which lands they wanted in exchange for reducing the total acreage by half.
The trust lands were then sold off to private individuals as a way of trying to entice people to move into the state, he said.
According to the task force report, the five-year average net revenues to the four states from 2008 to 2012 from the trust lands ranged from $518.8 million in New Mexico to $41.9 million in Idaho.
In 2012 the state of New Mexico distributed $544 million from the trust land revenues to its public school system, $9 million to the University of New Mexico and nearly $3 million to New Mexico State University, among other beneficiaries.
Looking at the four state models, the analysis came up with the range of $31 million on the low end to $114 million with a transfer of the 4 million BLM acres to the state of Nevada.
The task force is recommending a phased-in transfer of public lands, starting with lands in the original railroad corridor across Northern Nevada and lands already identified for disposal by federal agencies. Other priorities are lands designated by the secretary of Interior as solar energy zones, land designated by the BLM as suitable for geothermal leasing but not yet leased, and lands authorized for disposal in current federal legislation.
The task force is not supportive of transferring lands controlled by the U.S. Departments of Energy or Defense, current wilderness areas, national conservation areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the National Park Service.
Dahl said it will likely take action by Congress to allow for the transfer of public lands on such a scale. Nevada is working with Utah officials on the issue.
“I think if we can get enough states to pass legislation saying we want our land, and we all go together to Congress, I think we can get it done,” he said.
Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at [email protected] or 775-687-3900. Follow him on Twitter @seanw801.
Transferring Federal land to State land has a lot of pros and cons for a state, but I don't think anyone can argue that it will be better for the ranchers to increase their fees from $1.35 to $12 /AUM on land that remains state owned. Probably most will be sold off to private industry. Cliven Bundy was alway just an excuse to raise a ruckas and elicit sympathy, which he did until he kept talking, and to give the public the idea this was about Freedom and the cowboy way of life. As with everything else, this is really about money and power, which Musikmaker (who says he is into oil and hotels) laid out in a prior comment. I have attached a little piece that outlines some of same points that FH's news story does, but gives a little more indepth look at who will benefit from the transfer. If politicians and business people want the land to develop and try to improve their economy, just say it, and don't try to pretend it is about preserving the ranching way of life. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/25/the-money-behind-foxs-promo... The Money Behind Fox's Promotion Of Cliven Bundy's Battle With The Feds Blog››› April 25, 2014 4:24 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL 1550 Right-wing media have been rushing to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher they've spent weeks championing after Cliven Bundy revealed his racist worldview, but two of Bundy's biggest cheerleaders -- Sean Hannity and Fox News -- have vested corporate, financial, and political interests in the promotion of Cliven Bundy's anti-government land ownership agenda. Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy became Fox News' favorite folk hero after he refused to comply with court orders directing him to remove his trespassing cattle from public land. Hannity and many other right-wing media rallied around Bundy and his armed supporters as they threatened violence against federal law enforcement officials attempting to impound Bundy's cattle and collect the $1 million he owes in fines and fees after decades of noncompliance with the law. Bundy has said he doesn't recognize the existence of the federal government nor its authority over the land and has attacked the federal ownership of lands as subverting Nevada's "state sovereignty." Hannity has promoted Bundy's anti-government rhetoric, arguing that the federal government owns far too much land and pushing Bundy's claim that not only does the federal government not have land-ownership authority but that they don't need or use the land they claim to own. On the April 23 edition of his show, Hannity attacked the government for owning too much land, agreeing with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano that they do not have the constitutional authority to own any of the land. Throughout the land battle, Hannity continuously argued that the government is irresponsibly fighting for land they have no intended use for -- such as building hospitals, schools, or roads -- and should focus their efforts elsewhere to rapists, murderers, criminals, and pedophiles. Bundy and Hannity's promotion of state ownership of federal lands gives airtime to an issue that conservatives have long been campaigning for but have had difficulty getting voters excited about -- an issue in line with the land interests of the Koch brothers. Slate reported on April 23 that the Fox News corporate, financial, and political interests being served by Hannity's promotion of Bundy lie in the network's connection to the Koch brothers: Bundy's anti-federal agenda is closely aligned with that of Charles and David Koch, major Republican donors who have been pushing for states to gain control over federal lands - so they can be sold or leased to people like the Koch brothers in deals. Fox News Network and Sean Hannity have a particular interest in the promotion and realization of such Koch interests because their funding depends on it -- Hannity receives major funding and large ad buys from Koch-affiliated Heritage and Tea Party Patriots. Hannity's Koch-affiliated funders have a long history of promoting the privatization of public lands and condemning the federal ownership of land. Tea Party groups have supported local efforts to transfer federal lands. Heritage has advocated shrinking the U.S. government's control by selling its physical assets such as "huge swaths of land (especially out west )." Heritage was also a loyal promoter of the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013, advocating for the transfer of federal land management to state regulators for energy resource development. Giving airtime to an issue that is obscure but significant to his conservative funders makes perfect sense for Hannity. Politico reported that Heritage began sponsoring Hannity in 2008 and in 2013 Hannity began advertising for the Tea Party Patriots, "lending his name to fundraising drives, hosting its leaders on his radio and Fox News shows, and even using the Fox airwaves to promote the Tea Party Patriots website." The Koch brothers have been covertly funding right-wing organizations such as Heritage Action and the Tea Party Patriots through the non-profit business league Freedom Partners whose tax code status as a trade association allows the organization to conceal its donors. Freedom Partners is one of the largest donors of conservative groups and its board has deep ties to the Koch brothers with many of its members being longtime employees of Koch Industries and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The Koch-funded Freedom Partners made grants of $236 million in 2011; among many conservative groups its recipients include Heritage as well as the Tea Party Patriots. Heritage Action received $500,000 in 2011 from the Koch brothers through Freedom Partners and additional funds from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. In 2012, the Tea Party Patriots received $200,000 from Freedom Partners. The legislative efforts of such groups to transfer control of federal lands to states are "nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools" initiated by conservative groups like the Koch-affiliates. Such efforts are rooted in the interests of the Kochs and other conservative groups to use the land in whichever way is most profitable to them such as mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.
I am woman. Lol.
To be honest we have a lot invested in our properties, money & otherwise! It would NOT be in our personal favor for the land surrounding our 900 acres to become available to the public, however, it's the right thing to do. We currently enjoy nearly full control of our end of the county...my support of the transfer of land has nothing to do with my finances, power or anything other than my patriotism.
Concerning the fear of oil compainies, mining etc...just this last year the BLM stopped a deal in Utah of 100k acres being put into oil production ...at the very last minute! After years of negotiation & with no real reasoning (excepting big $$ from the environmental corner). The land in question is not part of any wilderness study area or anything 'special'. It's part of the 1% that the Clinton administration deemed useless to the public. It would have provided many jobs & a good tax base.
The media & the left loves to accuse the right of being 'anti-government' when the truth is most of us simply want them to stay within their perimeters that our Constitution set forth. You're right, though, when people (on both sides) see an opportunity for money & power it's often too tempting to resist...this is why we need to limit the powers of the gov't....state, local AND fed.
The agencies in question were to be a temporary answer to a short term issue...the fact that the United States bought land! Our nation was founded on the premise that the people would own property...not the government (limited to what was necessary for them to fulfill their role of protecting our borders...the fed...all other gov't roles "not given to the fed specifically" would be handled by the states).
The dept of Interior is not answerable to the people in any way. They make their own policy of which strictly goes against the very fabric of our Nation! The BLM is under the Dept of Interior. The Secretary of Interior is appointed by the president, though not necessarily answerable to him.
Someone...find out who signs the checks...careful now...you might wake up dead.
Of course big corporations are going to invest in things that make money! Duh!
I'm a little fish...in a little puddle. I have nothing to gain from the land transfer except the knowledge that my grandkids might have a fighting chance to maintain their freedom & liberty...
It's a dog eat dog world...but, when the gov't becomes the enemy to the people we have to stand up and prevent it.
Who will benefit if we don't tranfer the land to the rightful owners?
And...I've yet to hear anyone deny that the states want to be on equal footing so we may be economically independent. This has never been about the cattle or the tortoise or the rancher way of life.
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| musikmaker - 2014-04-27 1:34 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 11:00 AM foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:27 AM I do believe the 'Government Teat' federally speaking anyways would eliminated with this concept.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/report-nevada-would-benefit-transfer-federal-lands
Report: Nevada would benefit from transfer of federal lands
Contractors for the Bureau of Land Management round up cattle belonging to rancher Cliven Bundy with a helicopter near Bunkerville on April 7, 2014. A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer. (John Locher/Las Vegas Review-Journal file )
Buy Photo
By SEAN WHALEY
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY — A new report analyzing the financial ramifications of a takeover of some of Nevada’s millions of acres of federal lands suggests the state would benefit from such a transfer.
A transfer of 4 million acres of U.S. Bureau Land Management land could bring in anywhere from $31 million to $114 million a year, based on a review of four Western states that have significant amounts of trust lands under their control, the report says.
The preliminary draft report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force was prepared with the assistance of a consultant and will be reviewed Thursday by the Legislative Committee on Public Lands when it meets in Tonopah.
The task force was created by the 2013 Legislature to evaluate the feasibility of the state taking control of some of the federally controlled public lands in Nevada. A final report is due from the task force by Sept. 1.
The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM.
Demar Dahl, an Elko County rancher and chairman of the task force, said the analysis by Intertech Services Inc. shows that a transfer is not only economically feasible but even beneficial to Nevada.
“The way those numbers turned out it looks like we can surely afford it,” he said. “Not only afford it but the state could make a lot of revenue having the land and managing it ourselves.”
The revenues would come from the sale and lease of the resources on the lands, including through mining and grazing, Dahl said.
In recent comments U.S. Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., said he supports the work of the task force.
But not everyone is on board with the effort.
In a presentation to the task force in November, David von Seggern, chairman of the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club, asked how the state would replace the hundreds of federal workers now working in Nevada.
He questioned whether Nevada has the financial resources needed to meet the demands for firefighting or assisting in activities that would support mining, grazing and energy production.
According to the draft report, 81.1 percent of Nevada is under the control of various federal agencies. The analysis looked at the states of Arizona, Idaho, New Mexico and Utah where federal lands make up less of the total, from 34.7 percent in New Mexico to 66.5 percent in Utah.
The analysis looked at acres of “state trust lands” controlled by the states. Nevada has only 3,000 acres of such lands, while Arizona has more than 9 million acres and New Mexico has nearly 9 million trust land acres.
State trust lands were granted to states upon statehood and were set aside primarily to support public schools.
Dahl said Nevada just didn’t do a good job of evaluating the potential benefits of statehood back in 1864 and so ended up with few trust lands.
“The state was controlled by mining interests that did not reside in the state,” he said. “They saw an advantage to statehood and went into it blind.”
But von Seggern noted in his testimony that Nevada originally received 4 million acres in trust lands for the public schools. It is difficult to trace the benefit of the now disposed trust lands to the state school system, he said in his presentation.
Jim Lawrence, who works for the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said Nevada did receive about 4 million acres of random sections of land upon statehood. The state’s congressional delegation in 1880 persuaded Congress to let Nevada officials instead designate which lands they wanted in exchange for reducing the total acreage by half.
The trust lands were then sold off to private individuals as a way of trying to entice people to move into the state, he said.
According to the task force report, the five-year average net revenues to the four states from 2008 to 2012 from the trust lands ranged from $518.8 million in New Mexico to $41.9 million in Idaho.
In 2012 the state of New Mexico distributed $544 million from the trust land revenues to its public school system, $9 million to the University of New Mexico and nearly $3 million to New Mexico State University, among other beneficiaries.
Looking at the four state models, the analysis came up with the range of $31 million on the low end to $114 million with a transfer of the 4 million BLM acres to the state of Nevada.
The task force is recommending a phased-in transfer of public lands, starting with lands in the original railroad corridor across Northern Nevada and lands already identified for disposal by federal agencies. Other priorities are lands designated by the secretary of Interior as solar energy zones, land designated by the BLM as suitable for geothermal leasing but not yet leased, and lands authorized for disposal in current federal legislation.
The task force is not supportive of transferring lands controlled by the U.S. Departments of Energy or Defense, current wilderness areas, national conservation areas, lands managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the National Park Service.
Dahl said it will likely take action by Congress to allow for the transfer of public lands on such a scale. Nevada is working with Utah officials on the issue.
“I think if we can get enough states to pass legislation saying we want our land, and we all go together to Congress, I think we can get it done,” he said.
Contact Capital Bureau reporter Sean Whaley at [email protected] or 775-687-3900. Follow him on Twitter @seanw801.
Transferring Federal land to State land has a lot of pros and cons for a state, but I don't think anyone can argue that it will be better for the ranchers to increase their fees from $1.35 to $12 /AUM on land that remains state owned. Probably most will be sold off to private industry. Cliven Bundy was alway just an excuse to raise a ruckas and elicit sympathy, which he did until he kept talking, and to give the public the idea this was about Freedom and the cowboy way of life. As with everything else, this is really about money and power, which Musikmaker (who says he is into oil and hotels) laid out in a prior comment. I have attached a little piece that outlines some of same points that FH's news story does, but gives a little more indepth look at who will benefit from the transfer. If politicians and business people want the land to develop and try to improve their economy, just say it, and don't try to pretend it is about preserving the ranching way of life. http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/25/the-money-behind-foxs-promo... The Money Behind Fox's Promotion Of Cliven Bundy's Battle With The Feds Blog››› April 25, 2014 4:24 PM EDT ››› OLIVIA KITTEL 1550 Right-wing media have been rushing to distance themselves from the Nevada rancher they've spent weeks championing after Cliven Bundy revealed his racist worldview, but two of Bundy's biggest cheerleaders -- Sean Hannity and Fox News -- have vested corporate, financial, and political interests in the promotion of Cliven Bundy's anti-government land ownership agenda. Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy became Fox News' favorite folk hero after he refused to comply with court orders directing him to remove his trespassing cattle from public land. Hannity and many other right-wing media rallied around Bundy and his armed supporters as they threatened violence against federal law enforcement officials attempting to impound Bundy's cattle and collect the $1 million he owes in fines and fees after decades of noncompliance with the law. Bundy has said he doesn't recognize the existence of the federal government nor its authority over the land and has attacked the federal ownership of lands as subverting Nevada's "state sovereignty." Hannity has promoted Bundy's anti-government rhetoric, arguing that the federal government owns far too much land and pushing Bundy's claim that not only does the federal government not have land-ownership authority but that they don't need or use the land they claim to own. On the April 23 edition of his show, Hannity attacked the government for owning too much land, agreeing with Fox News legal analyst Andrew Napolitano that they do not have the constitutional authority to own any of the land. Throughout the land battle, Hannity continuously argued that the government is irresponsibly fighting for land they have no intended use for -- such as building hospitals, schools, or roads -- and should focus their efforts elsewhere to rapists, murderers, criminals, and pedophiles. Bundy and Hannity's promotion of state ownership of federal lands gives airtime to an issue that conservatives have long been campaigning for but have had difficulty getting voters excited about -- an issue in line with the land interests of the Koch brothers. Slate reported on April 23 that the Fox News corporate, financial, and political interests being served by Hannity's promotion of Bundy lie in the network's connection to the Koch brothers: Bundy's anti-federal agenda is closely aligned with that of Charles and David Koch, major Republican donors who have been pushing for states to gain control over federal lands - so they can be sold or leased to people like the Koch brothers in deals. Fox News Network and Sean Hannity have a particular interest in the promotion and realization of such Koch interests because their funding depends on it -- Hannity receives major funding and large ad buys from Koch-affiliated Heritage and Tea Party Patriots. Hannity's Koch-affiliated funders have a long history of promoting the privatization of public lands and condemning the federal ownership of land. Tea Party groups have supported local efforts to transfer federal lands. Heritage has advocated shrinking the U.S. government's control by selling its physical assets such as "huge swaths of land (especially out west )." Heritage was also a loyal promoter of the Federal Land Freedom Act of 2013, advocating for the transfer of federal land management to state regulators for energy resource development. Giving airtime to an issue that is obscure but significant to his conservative funders makes perfect sense for Hannity. Politico reported that Heritage began sponsoring Hannity in 2008 and in 2013 Hannity began advertising for the Tea Party Patriots, "lending his name to fundraising drives, hosting its leaders on his radio and Fox News shows, and even using the Fox airwaves to promote the Tea Party Patriots website." The Koch brothers have been covertly funding right-wing organizations such as Heritage Action and the Tea Party Patriots through the non-profit business league Freedom Partners whose tax code status as a trade association allows the organization to conceal its donors. Freedom Partners is one of the largest donors of conservative groups and its board has deep ties to the Koch brothers with many of its members being longtime employees of Koch Industries and the Charles G. Koch Foundation. The Koch-funded Freedom Partners made grants of $236 million in 2011; among many conservative groups its recipients include Heritage as well as the Tea Party Patriots. Heritage Action received $500,000 in 2011 from the Koch brothers through Freedom Partners and additional funds from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. In 2012, the Tea Party Patriots received $200,000 from Freedom Partners. The legislative efforts of such groups to transfer control of federal lands to states are "nothing more than corporate-backed messaging tools" initiated by conservative groups like the Koch-affiliates. Such efforts are rooted in the interests of the Kochs and other conservative groups to use the land in whichever way is most profitable to them such as mining, drilling, and other resource extraction.
To be honest we have a lot invested in our properties, money & otherwise! It would NOT be in our personal favor for the land surrounding our 900 acres to become available to the public, however, it's the right thing to do. We currently enjoy nearly full control of our end of the county...my support of the transfer of land has nothing to do with my finances, power or anything other than my patriotism.
Concerning the fear of oil compainies, mining etc...just this last year the BLM stopped a deal in Utah of 100k acres being put into oil production ...at the very last minute! After years of negotiation & with no real reasoning (excepting big $$ from the environmental corner). The land in question is not part of any wilderness study area or anything 'special'. It's part of the 1% that the Clinton administration deemed useless to the public. It would have provided many jobs & a good tax base.
The media & the left loves to accuse the right of being 'anti-government' when the truth is most of us simply want them to stay within their perimeters that our Constitution set forth. You're right, though, when people (on both sides) see an opportunity for money & power it's often too tempting to resist...this is why we need to limit the powers of the gov't....state, local AND fed.
The agencies in question were to be a temporary answer to a short term issue...the fact that the United States bought land! Our nation was founded on the premise that the people would own property...not the government (limited to what was necessary for them to fulfill their role of protecting our borders...the fed...all other gov't roles "not given to the fed specifically" would be handled by the states).
The dept of Interior is not answerable to the people in any way. They make their own policy of which strictly goes against the very fabric of our Nation! The BLM is under the Dept of Interior. The Secretary of Interior is appointed by the president, though not necessarily answerable to him.
Someone...find out who signs the checks...careful now...you might wake up dead.
Of course big corporations are going to invest in things that make money! Duh!
I'm a little fish...in a little puddle. I have nothing to gain from the land transfer except the knowledge that my grandkids might have a fighting chance to maintain their freedom & liberty...
It's a dog eat dog world...but, when the gov't becomes the enemy to the people we have to stand up and prevent it.
Who will benefit if we don't tranfer the land to the rightful owners?
And...I've yet to hear anyone deny that the states want to be on equal footing so we may be economically independent. This has never been about the cattle or the tortoise or the rancher way of life.
Oh course it hasn't been about the rancher. However, the people who the conservative media targeted were led to believe it was about the rancher because it doesn't sound good if you tell the truth about what it's really about, does it? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 1:17 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 1:34 PMI am woman. Lol.
To be honest we have a lot invested in our properties, money & otherwise! It would NOT be in our personal favor for the land surrounding our 900 acres to become available to the public, however, it's the right thing to do. We currently enjoy nearly full control of our end of the county...my support of the transfer of land has nothing to do with my finances, power or anything other than my patriotism.
Concerning the fear of oil compainies, mining etc...just this last year the BLM stopped a deal in Utah of 100k acres being put into oil production ...at the very last minute! After years of negotiation & with no real reasoning (excepting big $$ from the environmental corner). The land in question is not part of any wilderness study area or anything 'special'. It's part of the 1% that the Clinton administration deemed useless to the public. It would have provided many jobs & a good tax base.
The media & the left loves to accuse the right of being 'anti-government' when the truth is most of us simply want them to stay within their perimeters that our Constitution set forth. You're right, though, when people (on both sides) see an opportunity for money & power it's often too tempting to resist...this is why we need to limit the powers of the gov't....state, local AND fed.
The agencies in question were to be a temporary answer to a short term issue...the fact that the United States bought land! Our nation was founded on the premise that the people would own property...not the government (limited to what was necessary for them to fulfill their role of protecting our borders...the fed...all other gov't roles "not given to the fed specifically" would be handled by the states).
The dept of Interior is not answerable to the people in any way. They make their own policy of which strictly goes against the very fabric of our Nation! The BLM is under the Dept of Interior. The Secretary of Interior is appointed by the president, though not necessarily answerable to him.
Someone...find out who signs the checks...careful now...you might wake up dead.
Of course big corporations are going to invest in things that make money! Duh!
I'm a little fish...in a little puddle. I have nothing to gain from the land transfer except the knowledge that my grandkids might have a fighting chance to maintain their freedom & liberty...
It's a dog eat dog world...but, when the gov't becomes the enemy to the people we have to stand up and prevent it.
Who will benefit if we don't tranfer the land to the rightful owners?
And...I've yet to hear anyone deny that the states want to be on equal footing so we may be economically independent. This has never been about the cattle or the tortoise or the rancher way of life.
Oh course it hasn't been about the rancher. However, the people who the conservative media targeted were led to believe it was about the rancher because it doesn't sound good if you tell the truth about what it's really about, does it?
I'm not following you...??? The desire for equal footing & state sovereignity isn't anything to be ashamed of!
So if hire a manager for say...my cafe...it still belongs to me & I have the option of firing this person if he/she doesn't do things according to our agreement. That's all this issue is about...the BLM does NOT own the public land...they are managers & they failed. I don't know how else to express it where everyone would comprehend.
| |
| | |
  Semper Fi
 
Location: North Texas | Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land! | |
| | |
 BHW's Lance Armstrong 
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up.
Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
| |
| | |
Elite Veteran
Posts: 962
| foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore. | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | Judge Jeanine connects the dots of the Bundy Ranch invasion to 'Dirty Harry' Reid.
http://www.tpnn.com/2014/04/27/judge-jeanine-connects-the-dots-of-t...
Judge Jeanine Connects the Dots of the Bundy Ranch Invasion to 'Dirty Harry' Reid
Judge Jeanine Pirro had an epic takedown of Harry Reid on Saturday’s edition of her show on FOX News, Justice with Judge Jeanine. (WATCH VIDEO BELOW) In...
tpnn.com
I think this is good! | |
| | |
| foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:25 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
"When ignorant people want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let'um talk" President Obama, regarding Clippers coach, but;
Seems quite appropriate to insert here. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-27 6:25 PM FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days. And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land! Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore. Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll? Here I'll define it: sub·si·dy /'s?bside/ noun noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies 1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. "a farm subsidy" Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat! This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts. Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it! You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it! Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
Finney...I'm pretty sure that the 'state' lease varies state to stae...it's not like a federal lease. Besides, grazing rights are 'owned'. Not leased.
Please, get over thinking everybody wants something for nothing! My very first reply to this post was something about ignorant opinions aren't real opinions...we ALL have the opportunity to learn, to educate ourselves...to get on the same page & support one another. Your refusal to contemplate something foreign to your mind isn't doing anyone any good, especially you...now....let's do get down to brass tacks & figure out how we're going to help save this country! It's in the palm of our hands...
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | IB1UKNO - 2014-04-27 9:34 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:25 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
"When ignorant people want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let'um talk" President Obama, regarding Clippers coach, but;
Seems quite appropriate to insert here.
Hey BHW Newbie! Have You ever studied economics? Ever leased anything? Land maybe? What did You have for Yourself at the end of that land lease? Any real estate to show for that land lease? Simple Economics.
I see you support The Current Elected Leader. With that said, I have to believe that you would not recognize Leadership if Leadership walked up to You and slapped You upside Your head!
How many Government Subsidies would You care to partake of? Keep supporting BHO and see what You and Your Cronies can leech off the Working Man/Woman!
Yes, I said leech, as in a sucking insect! Cause that is exactly what The Liberal Left is attempting to do! | |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | IB1UKNO - 2014-04-27 9:34 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 7:25 PM
FinneyQuarterHorses - 2014-04-27 6:24 PM
foundation horse - 2014-04-27 3:24 PM
Hey FinneyQtrHorses, how about a Rural Ranching Course in Reading Comprehension? Would You be able to comprehend what cow and horse manure looks around a oh say An Active Oil Well? An Active Wind Turbine? Cause I certainly see saw both cows and horses as well as the manure around both on my travels the last couple days.
And I am confident these devices were on Public as well as Private Land!
Your comment makes no sense. Now, read slowly and let this message sink in. Federal grazing fees are $1.35 per AUM. State grazing fees are $12 per AUM. If ranchers with a federal lease lose that lease and it becomes a state lease or a private property lease which will be more like $35 to $50 per AUM, that will add an enormous burden to their operating costs. Now, do you follow that or should I type more slowly? While turning federal land into state and private land opens up business opportunity for those who can afford it, like, say the Koch Bros., it will limit the opportunities for ranchers, because some of the lease holders will not allow cattle. Not that they can't graze under a windmill or oil rig, just that some owners will restrict that practice. Ted Turner is one that comes to mind that terminated a lot of leases on purchases in Montana. Now, if you can't understand that, I can't help you anymore.
Here is something for You and Others who feel the same You do to chew on Ya'll Minds. Does the word subsidy mean anything to Ya'll?
Here I'll define it:
sub·si·dy
/'s?bside/
noun
noun: subsidy; plural noun: subsidies
1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive.
"a farm subsidy"
Which is exactly what You are describing and requesting! Now I know why You started this Thread in regards to "The Government Teat"! You are jealous because you could not get in on 'this' teat!
This is at least the third (and perhaps fourth ) post you have complained about NOT getting a Subsidy and accused (perhaps accurately ) of Cliven Bundy getting something that You and Others did not. Now, You are definitely jealous per Your typed out Posts.
Your idea of Someone Else (The Federal Government ) taking care of You is what the Difference is between Liberal/Lefties like Yourself and Others and those who oppose You Folks! This Subsidy You have continued to WHINE about absolutely proves it!
You A ) either do not understand Free Enterprise or B ) disagree, either way You and The Liberal/Left are dead set against it!
Some have called my behavior towards You, 'ugly', I believe my behavior towards You has been from discernment and these post in regards to the lease rates in relationship to subsidies proves my discernment. No wonder I refuse to do business w/ The Left when I know who I am dealing with. "They" (The Left ) are taking money both ways I.E. Frontwise from my hand as I pay them and backwise from my wallet via The Federal Government!
"When ignorant people want to advertise their ignorance, you don't have to do anything, you just let'um talk" President Obama, regarding Clippers coach, but;
Seems quite appropriate to insert here.
Well via the fact you support Obama, you are doing the talking about being ignorant ain't ya? | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
I have questions!!!! I thought I was pretty educated about our Constitution and such...but, history is complex...the intent and the application of laws. So...has anyone checked out the possibility that the citizens of the past 'territories' were not protected by our Constitution? It makes sense...the United States of America...territories were not states, the citizens had no such protection under our Constitution...so, IF certain agencies of the federal government now insist that the public land is still under 'territorial law' then guess what...the majority of land in Nevada & other western states provide absolutely nothing when it comes ot our rights. This is important. This is why the Bundy's are saying no...we do not recognize the 'federal' government's 'power' or ownership...because they do not represent the 'United States of America'. I know it seems beyond comprehension, however, when you consider the actions of these agencies...it fits. Like the 'First Amendment Zones'...
| |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
And someone 'dislikes' this why? Could you please stand up & be counted?
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
| |
| | |
Semper Fi
Location: North Texas | musikmaker - 2014-04-27 11:48 PM
musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
MM, I suspect You have garnered a similar 'following' to yourself, that I have. There are certain individuals on this forum who dislike any and everything I have post. I have finally learned to discount that dislike feature from the aspect that some people are going dislike I.E. whine about ALL I have to say.
Those people are beyond reaching and therefore I pay no attention to them. | |
| | |
Nicknameless
Posts: 4565
Location: I can see the end of the world from here! | foundation horse - 2014-04-28 6:49 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 11:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
MM, I suspect You have garnered a similar 'following' to yourself, that I have. There are certain individuals on this forum who dislike any and everything I have post. I have finally learned to discount that dislike feature from the aspect that some people are going dislike I.E. whine about ALL I have to say. Those people are beyond reaching and therefore I pay no attention to them.
Lol...I'm sure I have a dislike stalker! I must have hurt someones little feelers. I can forgive them for being wrong...they just can't forgive me for being right..so sad, too bad...lol. It was just an invitation to join the convo!
Anyhow I really am curious about the question of territorial citizens rights or lack of.
| |
| | |
 Googly Goo
Posts: 7053
| musikmaker - 2014-04-27 10:57 PM I have questions!!!! I thought I was pretty educated about our Constitution and such...but, history is complex...the intent and the application of laws. So...has anyone checked out the possibility that the citizens of the past 'territories' were not protected by our Constitution? It makes sense...the United States of America...territories were not states, the citizens had no such protection under our Constitution...so, IF certain agencies of the federal government now insist that the public land is still under 'territorial law' then guess what...the majority of land in Nevada & other western states provide absolutely nothing when it comes ot our rights. This is important. This is why the Bundy's are saying no...we do not recognize the 'federal' government's 'power' or ownership...because they do not represent the 'United States of America'. I know it seems beyond comprehension, however, when you consider the actions of these agencies...it fits. Like the 'First Amendment Zones'...
I'm not really following you here, Musik.
Whether it's territorial land or other federal property, it still falls under the authority of congress.
| |
| | |
BHW's Lance Armstrong
Posts: 11134
Location: Somewhere between S@%&# stirrer and Saint | foundation horse - 2014-04-28 7:49 AM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 11:48 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 9:57 PM musikmaker - 2014-04-27 5:17 PM Douglas J Gordon - 2014-04-27 2:41 PM My nephew called the BLM about using Google earth to search for places to gold mine. BLM told him it was trespassing to use Google earth and they wanted to know who he was and where he was from and he told them ot Eff off and hung up. Before the recent happenings I would've had a hard time believing this attitude of the BLM was common amongst them. I no longer have any doubts.
Here's something very educational...only for those who want to claim an opinion by way of knowledge...he even said some things that 'I' didn't know about the Territories!!! Lol. Yes, it's Ryan Bundy answering questions...but, it's very interesting for those who seek the truth & want to know 'why' we're in the mess we're in & what we can do about it, regardless of your feelings about the Bundy's this is how most of us feel out west.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GLC9oDHUaYI
Did you dislike that I asked or ??? You make absolutely no sense.
MM, I suspect You have garnered a similar 'following' to yourself, that I have. There are certain individuals on this forum who dislike any and everything I have post. I have finally learned to discount that dislike feature from the aspect that some people are going dislike I.E. whine about ALL I have to say. Those people are beyond reaching and therefore I pay no attention to them.
Totally agree! Some people at noon day you can say it is sunshinning and they would say it was midnight. | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line