Where is the Clark County sheriff on the Bundy ranch thing

sudden valley gunner · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
If 80% of Washington was totally empty and the state had no money to maintain public lands then yes I would support that. "DC politicians" are the people elected in districts comprising the country as a whole. When the BLM was formed decades ago nevada had already declared that 80% to be publically owned and at the time nevada did not have the funding or resources for effective management! and to the best of my knowledge Nevadas congressional delegation has made no real attempt to bring the lands back under state ownership....

Why wouldn't you support putting those lands into the hands of individuals?

Why do you support a centralized government contrary to the constitution?

mikeyb · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
If 80% of Washington was totally empty and the state had no money to maintain public lands then yes I would support that. "DC politicians" are the people elected in districts comprising the country as a whole. When the BLM was formed decades ago nevada had already declared that 80% to be publically owned and at the time nevada did not have the funding or resources for effective management! and to the best of my knowledge Nevadas congressional delegation has made no real attempt to bring the lands back under state ownership....

What do you mean "maintain public lands"? Put a fence around it and charge admission?

1. The Federal Government should not be in the business of land ownership. Land ownership does not equal government.
2. Have you seen Nevada? There's nothing to manage outside of the cities. It's a crappy desert.

The Big Guy · Apr 17, 2014

The desert managed and maintained itself for untold time without unconstitutional Bureaucratic intervention.

TBG

The Big Guy · Apr 17, 2014

Nightmare said:
The American Bison ('buffalo') population is estimated at 60 million before modern man arrived, taking only 400 years to reduce the population to a mere thousand, now recovered to ~500,000 with ~500 purebreds.

And that has what to do with the NV desert?

TBG

marshaul · Apr 17, 2014

The Big Guy said:
And that has what to do with the NV desert?

Well...

The Bundy ranch is right on the edge of the speculated historical range of the bison.

http://www.turtletrack.org/Issues04/Co02212004/CO_02212004_BuffaloCommons.htm

The Big Guy · Apr 17, 2014

Nightmare said:
The Great Basin, that includes most of Nevada, is technically a desert, but lush compared to stereotypical deserts, and supports considerable wildlife. The Madison Buffalo Jump, Gallatin, Montana is on the verge of the Great Basin.

And, again, what has that got to do with the present situation with the Bundy ranch, and federal intervention into the business of the people of the State of NV???

TBG

EMNofSeattle · Apr 17, 2014

sudden valley gunner said:
Why wouldn't you support putting those lands into the hands of individuals?

Why do you support a centralized government contrary to the constitution?

Because it is tyranny of an extreme minority if open lands not used for residences are put in the hands of a handful of people who can close them off at will. The entire point of the constitution was to create a strong central government, after the articles of confederation failed miserably.

You want to own land to live on, great, open land should be public ownership by default. When all the land is owned by an oligopoly then you have enclosures, farm rents, hunting illegal by anyone except nobility, not to mention private owners with no regulation will do whatever they want, dump trash in the water, over graze, etc.

EMNofSeattle · Apr 17, 2014

The Big Guy said:
And that has what to do with the NV desert?

TBG

Without regulation and management people will ruin the environment and drive the native species to extinction for a quick buck......

marshaul · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
the articles of confederation failed miserably.

Yeah. That didn't happen.

marshaul · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
Without regulation and management people will ruin the environment and drive the native species to extinction for a quick buck......

Which people, now?

There's a strong argument that proprietors are trustworthy stewards, provided they are actively using/maintaining/improving their property. (Consider that whatever profit there may have been to private owners of buffalo-containing land would disappear along with the buffalo, thus creating an incentive to maintain buffalo populations at a sustainable point.)

Remember that the buffalo were killed off what was public land. You've made the case that unbridled access to public land leads to overuse, but you haven't come close to making the argument that proprietorship (under the conditions I stipulated above) inevitably has the same consequence.

The Big Guy · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
Because it is tyranny of an extreme minority if open lands not used for residences are put in the hands of a handful of people who can close them off at will. The entire point of the constitution was to create a strong central government, after the articles of confederation failed miserably.

You want to own land to live on, great, open land should be public ownership by default. When all the land is owned by an oligopoly then you have enclosures, farm rents, hunting illegal by anyone except nobility, not to mention private owners with no regulation will do whatever they want, dump trash in the water, over graze, etc.

You read the revised history no doubt. The history I learned was that the founding fathers detested a strong central government and wanted power to reside in the hands of the several states and of the people. They would have met the federal goons in the same way that they were met here in NV.

This control and regulation you crave, why can't it be accomplished by the people who live here? What is the difference between the feds controlling our lands or our firearms? Control is control and it's all about power and control.

TBG

EMNofSeattle · Apr 17, 2014

The Big Guy said:
You read the revised history no doubt. The history I learned was that the founding fathers detested a strong central government and wanted power to reside in the hands of the several states and of the people. They would have met the federal goons in the same way that they were met here in NV.

This control and regulation you crave, why can't it be accomplished by the people who live here? What is the difference between the feds controlling our lands or our firearms? Control is control and it's all about power and control.

TBG

Firearms are a personal property that one can create, barter, sell, etc. Land is pre existing. Glock can always make more pistols, there ain't gonna be more land created, at least of the kind we can use.

The founders, or at least the ones who won out, wanted a strong central governmental limited by constitutional powers. As far as meeting federal goons, maybe you need to brush up on the whiskey rebellion, and shays rebellion. As soon as they established the country they had no problem using government force to maintain the authority of the government.

marshaul · Apr 17, 2014

The Big Guy said:
You read the revised history no doubt. The history I learned was that the founding fathers detested a strong central government and wanted power to reside in the hands of the several states and of the people. They would have met the federal goons in the same way that they were met here in NV.

He's right to a degree. The disgusting, statist Federalists (Hamilton et al) were dissatisfied with the Confederation government's inability to appropriate money to spend on their own aims (the claim was that this was needed to fund an army, despite our somehow having just beaten the British with a combination of regular and irregular troops, and no strong Federal government), and to generally push the anti-Federalist states around.

marshaul · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
As far as meeting federal goons, maybe you need to brush up on the whiskey rebellion, and shays rebellion. As soon as they established the country they had no problem using government force to maintain the authority of the government.

Very true.

Firearms Iinstuctor · Apr 17, 2014

Young minds full of mush. Drinking the kool aid. People bad mother earth good.

One reads and believes the envro wacko stuff that is but out in the public education system.

OC for ME · Apr 17, 2014

Mr Bundy et al paid his fees for ~60 years and stopped paying after the tortoise was "protected" and his heard "allotment" reduced to no more than 150. He offered to pay the county, offer refused.

The sheriff should have been the LEA to enforce the judges order, not BLM.

EMNofSeattle · Apr 17, 2014

marshaul said:
Which people, now?

There's a strong argument that proprietors are trustworthy stewards, provided they are actively using/maintaining/improving their property. (Consider that whatever profit there may have been to private owners of buffalo-containing land would disappear along with the buffalo, thus creating an incentive to maintain buffalo populations at a sustainable point.)

Remember that the buffalo were killed off what was public land. You've made the case that unbridled access to public land leads to overuse, but you haven't come close to making the argument that proprietorship (under the conditions I stipulated above) inevitably has the same consequence.

Except that proprietors dont often have the same ideas for what makes them money...... If you buy 10000 acres to grow wheat then buffalo are a detriment to your land and not a benefit.

Improving the land is also in the eyes of the beholder, the native Americans lived a lifestyle in the wetlands of californians Central Valley and did pretty well, then when the whites took over, they said it as badlands, they drained the wetlands to create a semi arid mass of land with warm temperatures little humidity and then irrigated with massive aquaducts, clearly they made profit by doing so, but the environment was permanently changed.

The other issue with private ownership, is that it is difficult to make thousands of different people follow a uniform set of guidelines for land use...... And for effective environmental conservation, a set of guidelines needs to apply over a larger area then one person can own.

Plus there's the interests of people who want to recreationally hunt, sport fish, shoot, motocross, etc most of these people will never have the financial resources to own that much land.

EMNofSeattle · Apr 17, 2014

OC for ME said:
Mr Bundy et al paid his fees for ~60 years and stopped paying after the tortoise was "protected" and his heard "allotment" reduced to no more than 150. He offered to pay the county, offer refused.

The sheriff should have been the LEA to enforce the judges order, not BLM.

What legal authority exists for the county to collect his grazing fees?

marshaul · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
Except that proprietors dont often have the same ideas for what makes them money...... If you buy 10000 acres to grow wheat then buffalo are a detriment to your land and not a benefit.

A clever dodge, but not clever enough.

If growing wheat had been so valuable, then why weren't all those unregulated frontiersmen growing wheat instead of killing of the bison? Hmm?

Improving the land is also in the eyes of the beholder, the native Americans lived a lifestyle in the wetlands of californians Central Valley and did pretty well, then when the whites took over, they said it as badlands, they drained the wetlands to create a semi arid mass of land with warm temperatures little humidity and then irrigated with massive aquaducts, clearly they made profit by doing so, but the environment was permanently changed.

That's always going to be the case. The only escape would to declare that your values are factually correct.

Such is life, my friend. And government doesn't avoid this. Do you imagine that Native Americans would love building solar plants on untrammeled desert?

If anything, government makes it worse, by forcing one set of preferences on more people, rather than leaving folks to experiment with their own preferences and having a patchwork of results.

The other issue with private ownership, is that it is difficult to make thousands of different people follow a uniform set of guidelines for land use...... And for effective environmental conservation, a set of guidelines needs to apply over a larger area then one person can own.

I don't think this argument holds water.

While the US has plenty of public property, we have plenty of private property. Even on the East Coast, where the latter is prevalent, there have been numerous successful conservation efforts.

Plus there's the interests of people who want to recreationally hunt, sport fish, shoot, motocross, etc most of these people will never have the financial resources to own that much land.

True, but for two things:

1. Private property owners could provide these things in accordance with market demands.

2. I for one am not in favor of eliminating all common lands, merely the Federal holding of 10s of percents of state lands.

sudden valley gunner · Apr 17, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
Because it is tyranny of an extreme minority if open lands not used for residences are put in the hands of a handful of people who can close them off at will. The entire point of the constitution was to create a strong central government, after the articles of confederation failed miserably.

The point of the federalist were to create a stronger central government they did in some manner, they failed in most because the anti federalist and other state union representatives shunned the proposals and altered it tremendously.
Please learn some history.
I noticed you lacked in providing a cite. Of course.

You want to own land to live on, great, open land should be public ownership by default. When all the land is owned by an oligopoly then you have enclosures, farm rents, hunting illegal by anyone except nobility, not to mention private owners with no regulation will do whatever they want, dump trash in the water, over graze, etc.

How can you own land but open land should be public? You can't have it both ways.

Please cite when this has been true for private citizens owning land.

Where is the Clark County sheriff on the Bundy ranch thing

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member