cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Malheur

So what are the opinions. Patriots, law breakers, virtuous, vile, right, wrong?

 

Was Theodore Roosevelt wrong when he made this area a National Reservation at Malheur and also started National Parks? Really the issue is, should there be any National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Historic Sites, National Monuments, National Battlefields, National Forests, National Grasslands, or for that matter National anything? Should it all be private and those who can pay can enter and those who are forbidden exiled by those who can afford to buy the land? Should the state of preservation and access be left up to whoever can afford to buy it, be it some owner in China, Europe or the US? Maybe China would buy Mount Rushmore and add Mao. Are you prepared for that, to live within your anti-government principals, or do you think maybe the Department of the Interior just might be OK?

 

Should it all be erased and those who can afford a visit can pay a private owner, like or current private resorts, and those who cannot pay need to be satisfied with their city park or museum? Be prepared for international interests to buy up all Federal lands and be prepared to see things you don't like near as much as what we lareday have. Want to Pay $1,000 or more to hunt for an elk on what used to be National Forest or a fee to hunt anything? It would be all privete property and up to the owner to allow you access or any use whatsoever, even fishing or just visiting.

 

This isn't just about a few ranchers. It certainly is not. Either the land is up for grabs, or it remains open to every visitor. We have a great nation and our public lands are a big part of it no matter how much you hate our government.

11 Replies
Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Malheur

The congress of Roosevelts day said yes to National parks and that is the answer to that....  I don't think this congress is going to overturn it... Nor should it.

 

That was 120+ years ago.  

 

The government was too kind in their rental practices..... So kind that the renter believes he is entitled to what he rents.....

How does rented land stay in ones posession if he fails to pay his rent.????

 

Is it more complicated than that??

 

Or is it just another citizen trying to steal from the other citizens ??

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Malheur

SW, I`m not a lawyer but it sounds like this is about federal or state control of land.  Some say according to the Constitution that the federal government can own no more than 10 square miles in a state and "ports and forts" if the state allows it.

 

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/05/does-the-constitution-permit-federal-government-to-own-...

 

Now liberals will spin this as "ranchers are deadbeats not paying their rent" and yada yada yada.  Well they hate ranchers that are probably white, Christian and own guns.  I can see where the have to pay the state of Nevada or Oregon, but not the federal government.  The same outfit that sued a California man for saving his property by discing so a wild fire didn`t burn his home.  It was said a Kangaroo Rat habitat was destroyed by the disc....nevermind the fact a fire would`ve also destroyed the nest..if I was a kangaroo rat, I`d take my chances with the 9" spacing of the disc blades over a fire, but that`s just me. Smiley Happy 

 

That`s the example of the nuttiness that goes on with top down management in a repressentative democracy.   And it`s hard to get unbiased reporting on these stories, I don`t think that guns are the answer though.

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Your Personal Decision

 I wrote...."Really the issue is, should there be any National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, National Historic Sites, National Monuments, National Battlefields, National Forests, National Grasslands, or for that matter National anything? Should it all be private and those who can pay can enter and those who are forbidden exiled by those who can afford to buy the land?"

 

I asked..... Should there be these places held in the public trust or do you favor it all to be private? Many are over 10 sq. mi. Pretty much all National Parks and National Monuments meet that criteria. In other words, there should be no government ownership of land except maybe the Capitol and White House. I suppose we should also have to rent our military bases and training grounds from private sources and turn over all those locks, dams, rivers, lakes etc. It's a freakin' Socialist web and I am guessing you might think it all needs to go to the highest bidder. The list is HUGE.

 

Where do you draw the line BA? Should we even own the Capitol and DC lands and monuments? In aggregate, they may be over the limit you mentioned. How do you decide where to draw the line?

 

Maybe most of it is pretty good and in our interest. Maybe you want the highest bidder to own our public lands? Decide.

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Your Personal Decision

Knapper, I favor and enjoy the nation`s parks even the unconstitutional one`s and I`m a huge Teddy Roosevelt fan. However, there are ranchers whose families made their livellihood off of these lands since before Teddy Roosevelt in some cases.  

 

Grazing their cattle is benneficial to controlling the wildfire burn risk, fertilizing the soil and a revenue source of otherwise economically dead land.  I just look at the rancher`s enemies in these cases...liberals that call them "deadbeats" oh yah they got to drag "racists" in there too.  So why is it that this usually civil conflict between ranchers and the government now reached a near violent climax in just the last handful of years?  I don`t support the way the ranchers are protesting with guns, however, thankfully I`ve never been in their Tony Lamas.

 

I do know personally, federal agencies such as the EPA have been stacked with appointed bureaucrats that want to re-create the country into their version of a "utopia".  Getting accurate, reliable, unbiased news about these ranchers is impossible, so all I can go on is the negative comments made about them and take into account the low character of those making the charges.

 

As I have said on other occassions, 1982 is my happy place, my baseline, it seemed this "rancher issue" is one of the many that we didn`t have a problem with back then.

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Malheur

You should read this opposing view on federal land.  Do you know where in the Constitution it says "no more than 10 acres..."?

 

 

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/andrew-napolitano/napolitano-washington-...

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Malheur

Article 1 section 8 clause 17 of the constitution...and it`s 10 square miles NOT "10 acres".   I provided a perfectly good link, try reading something other than your socialist slanted entertainment sites, I rate them "10 pants and peckers on fire" lying....but if ya`ll believe something that isn`t true but "feels good" perhaps it doesn`t met the requirements of lying...if you eat a orange and believe it to be a apple...maybe you really are eating a "apple" who am I to judge?

Highlighted
Senior Contributor

Re: Your Personal Decision

 

 

Sorry pal but when the terrorists in Oregon have lost  sympathy and support of everyone in the country.

 

The LOLs Smiley Very Happy  they provide are priceless, but they are playing a dangerous game that will only end in their demise or lenghty incarceration.

 

Stealing a skidsteer, destroying govt property by cutting that ranchers fence, even lying about his permission to do so is incrediblbly stupid and criminal..

 

The fence is repaired and the rancher has warned them not to set foot on his property again. Period.

 

The terrorsits like many of the right wing seem to be mentally unstable or so incredibly inept ( see any  trump gathering )  that it can not even be measured - as demonstrated by their threat to arrest ( kidnap ) a government official by order of their pretend court.

 

 

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/whiny-oregon-militants-vow-to-arrest-county-officials-who-are-trying...

Highlighted
Veteran Advisor

Re: Malheur

This is Article 1 section 8 not sure where you got clause 17 because the paragraphs weren't numbered on Heritage.org but it says NOTHING about ownership of land here.

 

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

If the federal govt could not purchase more than ten square miles, how did we buy Alaska, the Louisiana purchase, Manhatten, the Southwest?????

Highlighted
Honored Advisor

Re: Malheur

All those "purchases" that you mention became soverign states.  Here is the constitution including clause 17 of section 8 article 1

 

http://americasfreedom.com/us-constitution/article1.html 

 

"not to excede 10 square miles"

 

The federal government has no business messing with agreements between ranchers and the states.  This "Waters of the US" is another bunch of crap, congress repealed it and Obama vetoed their repeal.  I`m not defending the Bundys and Hammonds and taking over government buildings and wrestling with a 79yr old man.  But I`m sure not defending a unconstitutional administration that`s  practicing overreach.