A New Sagebrush Rebellion?

A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Zonie63 -> A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:04:27 AM)
I thought this was interesting: Another "sagebrush rebellion" is spreading through legislatures in Arizona and other Western states with a series of formal demands that the federal government hand over title to tens of millions of acres of forests, ranges and other public lands. Arizona could claim as much as 25 million acres -- all federal land in the state except military bases, Indian reservations, national parks and some wilderness areas. If the federal government fails to comply by the end of 2014, the states say they will begin sending property-tax bills to Washington, D.C. While the original sagebrush rebellion grew out of conflicts over management of federal lands, often as specific as keeping a forest road open, the new takeover movement owes more to "tea party" politics, with a strong focus on reducing the scope of federal influence and opening land to more users. Supporters say federal agencies have mismanaged the land and blocked access to natural resources, depriving the states of jobs and revenue from businesses ready to develop those resources. With the state in control, the backers say, loggers could return to forests where endangered species halted work decades ago and miners could regain access to ore outside the Grand Canyon. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/23/20120323arizona-federal-land-takeover.html#ixzz1qEctapER --- It's not surprising, since many Western states have most of their land under some form of Federal jurisdiction, a phenomenon which isn't as common in states back east. The maps linked below show quite a disparity. Of course, the other side of the issue is that if these lands come under state control, it's not clear what the environmental impact might be. I'd also like to see what the response is when the states start sending property tax bills to the Feds for all this land. [image]http://rockyweb.cr.usgs.gov/outreach/mapcatalog/images/land/federallands.jpg[/image] http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg http://robbishop.house.gov/UploadedFiles/All_US_Public_Lands.jpg

Musicmystery -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:09:06 AM)
Theater. Nothing more.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:21:11 AM)
Yes, so not going to happen. I do know what my state gov. would do if it did, though. They are logging every stick of wood in the state forest near my house (soon to be ex house). It is an endless parade of log trucks with loads of small diameter timber. The State is selling it to china in a desperate attempt to plug the holes in the state budget. So, if the housing industry ever comes back, expect lumber to be really expensive. At this point, the Feds are better stewards.

Zonie63 -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:26:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Yes, so not going to happen. I do know what my state gov. would do if it did, though. They are logging every stick of wood in the state forest near my house (soon to be ex house). It is an endless parade of log trucks with loads of small diameter timber. The State is selling it to china in a desperate attempt to plug the holes in the state budget. So, if the housing industry ever comes back, expect lumber to be really expensive. At this point, the Feds are better stewards. Yeah, the article stated that it's not going to happen, as previous attempts by states to take over federal land have failed. However, if the Feds are better stewards, how does this explain how so little land is under federal control in the Eastern states? Why would there be such a disparity? Are the Feds implying that Eastern state governments are more responsible than Western state governments?

LaTigresse -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:28:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Theater. Nothing more. Indeed.

Owner59 -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:35:49 AM)
As long as the spaces remain undeveloped....I see nothing wrong with this. Set up a harsh penalty for every acre developed and enforce it. When are these "independent minded" states going to give up the federal welfare they receive? Ya get back in federal dollars what you put in.....revenue neutral. I`d be ok with that too.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:36:00 AM)
Part of that has to do with history, of course. The Feds owned all the land in the west at one point, but granted a lot of it to the railroads and to settlers. The gov kept the land that wasn't farmable. In addition, there are far more natural resources in the west that the Feds make money off of, like timberland and rangeland. That doesn't really exist in the east, at least not in such large parcels. quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Yes, so not going to happen. I do know what my state gov. would do if it did, though. They are logging every stick of wood in the state forest near my house (soon to be ex house). It is an endless parade of log trucks with loads of small diameter timber. The State is selling it to china in a desperate attempt to plug the holes in the state budget. So, if the housing industry ever comes back, expect lumber to be really expensive. At this point, the Feds are better stewards. Yeah, the article stated that it's not going to happen, as previous attempts by states to take over federal land have failed. However, if the Feds are better stewards, how does this explain how so little land is under federal control in the Eastern states? Why would there be such a disparity? Are the Feds implying that Eastern state governments are more responsible than Western state governments?

Zonie63 -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 9:05:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Part of that has to do with history, of course. The Feds owned all the land in the west at one point, but granted a lot of it to the railroads and to settlers. The gov kept the land that wasn't farmable. In addition, there are far more natural resources in the west that the Feds make money off of, like timberland and rangeland. That doesn't really exist in the east, at least not in such large parcels. One thing that strikes me when looking at the maps is that the states with the largest percentages of federally-owned land were admitted to the Union after the Civil War. It does seem unfair that other states get to keep most of their public lands and derive the revenue from mining, gas, timber, and other such operations, whereas the Western states are treated more like colonies to be exploited for the benefit of the Eastern states. It seems that not all states were created equal.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 10:20:41 AM)
Yes zone, that is true. The history of the western states is that they were managed for the benefit of the robber barons. The English ranchers in Wyoming, the carnegies in Montana, all the timber barons. Of course , that is not to say that those states don't own tremendous amounts of land

Musicmystery -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 11:26:45 AM)
New England could fit inside some of these states.

LaTigresse -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 12:47:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery New England could fit inside some of these states. Quite a few New Englands with a few Iowas tossed in for good measure.

Edwynn -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 5:31:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Part of that has to do with history, of course. The Feds owned all the land in the west at one point, but granted a lot of it to the railroads and to settlers. The gov kept the land that wasn't farmable. In addition, there are far more natural resources in the west that the Feds make money off of, like timberland and rangeland. That doesn't really exist in the east, at least not in such large parcels. One thing that strikes me when looking at the maps is that the states with the largest percentages of federally-owned land were admitted to the Union after the Civil War. It does seem unfair that other states get to keep most of their public lands and derive the revenue from mining, gas, timber, and other such operations, whereas the Western states are treated more like colonies to be exploited for the benefit of the Eastern states. It seems that not all states were created equal. My guess is that the Eastern territory being significantly more densely populated than the West (aside CA) and otherwise well established early on would account for the situation. The Western states should count their lucky stars that they weren't so stupid as to make cotton the only economic game in town back in the day, unlike another region we know of. quote: If the federal government fails to comply by the end of 2014, the states say they will begin sending property-tax bills to Washington, D.C. Maryland already tried taxing the federal govenment almost 200 years ago, McCulloch v. Maryland. The ruling was not in their favor. It looks as though Arizona is constantly auditioning for 'American Idol; State Government.'

erieangel -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/26/2012 8:27:32 PM)
It also has to do with the fact that most of the federal lands, federally owned nature preserves and parks, came into being under Roosevelt. By 1901, when Roosevelt became president after McKinley's assassination, most of the land east of the Rockies had already been settled or was in state hands. Roosevelt must be rolling in his grave today. His conservation methods gave us Yosemite National Park, Glacier National Park and many other areas that were set aside for public use into the future. He was a true Conservative. In contrast, today's conservatives would have us believe that it would be beneficial for us today and for the people of the future for these lands to exploited, used and raped of their natural beauty. My, how the Republican party has changed.

mnottertail -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/27/2012 6:59:32 AM)
Let them have it for market value. We paid for it at the fed, nobody wants this kind of marxist communistic socialism here in the United States, we real americans aint GIVING them shit.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/27/2012 7:55:08 AM)
The Feds actually paid for a lot of this land. Louisiana Purchase, remember? So yes, sell it to the states at current market value. Why do they believe they should get it for free? As nearly as I can tell, Arizona is wall to wall snowbirds and dumb fucks.

LaTigresse -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/27/2012 7:55:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet The Feds actually paid for a lot of this land. Louisiana Purchase, remember? So yes, sell it to the states at current market value. Why do they believe they should get it for free? As nearly as I can tell, Arizona is wall to wall snowbirds and dumb fucks. I think that is probably a fairly accurate assessment.

Owner59 -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/27/2012 8:05:26 AM)
My guess is some folks see huge dollar signs.....and want the land to rape. I`d bet money that handshakes and pre-arrangements have been made by the rapists and the politicians who`ll deliver the victim(get the land sale/lease approved).

Iamsemisweet -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/27/2012 8:09:07 AM)
What land sale? It ain't gonna happen. Just more sagebrush lunacy.

Owner59 -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/27/2012 8:16:41 AM)
Just a hunch.

Zonie63 -> RE: A New Sagebrush Rebellion? (3/27/2012 9:52:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet The Feds actually paid for a lot of this land. Louisiana Purchase, remember? So yes, sell it to the states at current market value. Why do they believe they should get it for free? As nearly as I can tell, Arizona is wall to wall snowbirds and dumb fucks. Hey, I resemble that remark! [;)] Actually, though, Arizona (north of the Gila) was acquired in the Mexican Cession in 1848, and then the Feds acquired the portion south of the Gila in the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. Land acquisition in this country hasn't always been on the up and up, though. The Native American tribes were supposed to get much more land than they eventually ended up with. But as they say, the land doesn't belong to us, we belong to the land. Geronimo liked to stick it to the Feds when he could, so I'd like to think that his spirit is watching and having a good laugh over this.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

7.617188E-02