Public Lands

[backcountryhunter]

Here you go if you do not think this is a real possibility:

http://cbbc.clubexpress.com/content.asp ... _id=514882

http://www.eastoregonian.com/article/20 ... /150919838

[backcountryhunter]

I did get a chuckle out of our British transplant concerning how "nice" all the private land owners are in England and let everyone walk on the paths. I am just curious how the public hunting and fishing goes on those private lands?

Well it has nothing to do with them being "nice" it's just the law. Also it's not European, in much of Western Europe at least (I don't know about the East) Private means private & no access.

But I am so happy to have provided you with some amusement Tony.

Hey don't take offense it's just our "American" sense of humor!

[windmtnpete]

Think out loud talked to Malheur Refuge survivors, some ideas how to manage public land
http://www.opb.org/radio/programs/think ... ng-future/

The occupation has led to more talking about how to manage federal land which is a good thing

Maybe a third of the people at that meeting had sympathy for Bundy who says all federal land should be turned over to the county or state

The people were generally sympathetic to the local federal employees but were critical of the "corrupt" national leaders

There was some frustration in environmental groups that file lawsuits to prevent some actions. I think maybe that was part of what people though was corrupt about national leaders

There were supposed to be native Americans there but they decided not to come, they thought it was like black people going to a KKK meeting

So, this pollyanna sees some good things about managing public lands, but there are still challenges

I heard this Think-Out-Loud program when it aired on OPB. Interesting that these people were very diverse in their thinking, however they all agreed that social media (FACEBOOK!!) played a very destructive role in this situation. It wasn't until people met (face-to-face) that they began to understand each other and work things out. They are now well informed and looking forward to voting in the next election.

When people feel that they are being heard and understood..... things progress.

[retired jerry]

"It wasn't until people met (face-to-face) that they began to understand each other and work things out."

That is a very good point.

Do you think the same would be true with this discussion? Or any of the other zillions of flame wars so common on the internets?

[windmtnpete]

Do you think the same would be true with this discussion? Or any of the other zillions of flame wars so common on the internets?

Yes..... absolutely!!

I think one of the biggest challenges of our modern world is overcoming the misuse of social media. You just can't get to know people looking at a computer screen. Honestly, I don't know anyone here except Don Nelson when I asked for help clearing Wind Mountain after the big Ice Storm of 2012. Other than that.... it's been really difficult posting here on this forum.

It sounds like Burns is a great community with people who are learning about themselves, learning to get along with each other.... very unlike the community I live in.

[backcountryhunter]

Really? It's been hard posting on this Forum? Wow I think this Forum is pretty tame, pretty helpful with a great group of folks. You wanna get eatin up try posting on the NWHikers Forum.

[Webfoot]

I don't think he was speaking of the forum, but hey maybe I'm the one who misunderstands.

[windmtnpete]

Most of the time I'm not able to post pics..... why is this so difficult? Pics are online in my google cloud, why don't these post?

[retired jerry]

I've posted on nwhikers a few times and got useful info. Mostly I don't because it's Seattle based.

How do you post pics that you have a problem with?

[drm]

So I'm not so busy today so I decided to follow up a bit on this claim that the US promised to extinguish all or most of it's territory in new states, and has not followed that promise for western states.

Part 1

I followed links to the enabling act for Utah, the law passed by Congress allowing Utah to become a state. People on all sides like to quote snippets, so I'm including the entire paragraph that both sides take snippets from:

Second. That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the Congress of the United States; that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without the said State shall never be taxed at a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use; but nothing herein, or in the ordinance herein provided for, shall preclude the said State from taxing, as other lands are taxed, any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of Congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation; but said ordinance shall provide that all such lands shall be exempt from taxation by said State so long and to such extent as such act of Congress may prescribe.

The first sentence is key. Those supporting Federal ownership quote this a lot:

That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof

A website supporting state ownership claimed that this snippet:

and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States

constitutes a Federal promise to extinguish title, i.e. give or sell it to states or private entities. I see no such promise in that language.

Part 2

ALEC, the right wing group that writes laws for states to pass, says that a 1780 resolution adopted by Congress says this:

the unappropriated lands that may be ceded or relinquished to the United States, by any particular states, pursuant to the recommendation of Congress of the 6 day of September last, shall be granted and disposed of for the common benefit of all the United States that shall be members of the federal union, and be settled and formed into distinct republican states, which shall become members of the federal union, and have the same rights of sovereignty, freedom and independence, as the other states: . . . and that upon such cession being made by any State and approved and accepted by Congress, the United States shall guaranty the remaining territory of the said States respectively. . . . That the said lands shall be granted and settled at such times and under such regulations as shall hereafter be agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled, or any nine or more of them

This is particularly weird because there was no US Congress in 1780. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783 and the First US Congress met in 1789. Another website referred to a resolution of the US Congress in October 1780, so the date is not a typo. If the Continental Congress passed this (which is not what the link says), it would not be binding on the US today. So either somebody just made this up or is using something inapplicable. And all these people who claim to cherish the constitution did not even pick up on the obvious error that the US Congress could not have passed this because the US Constitution did not yet exist.