Why would he want to own it? If he’s not going to pay to graze his cattle on it, he sure as hell isn’t going to pay to maintain it.
Why should it be granted? Why should 310 million people give 2.3 million people all that land?
Speaking as a Nevada resident, it’s a non-question. To the vast, vast majority of Nevadans, it’s a non-question. Most of the cowboys who were here supporting Mr. Bundy were not Nevadans.
Why do you find federal ownership (and stewardship) of the land “troubling”? What aspect(s) trouble you most?
Pay? It’s pretty much worthless, isn’t it?
Presumably it’s worth something, or the Nevada legislature wouldn’t be trying to call backsies on it. Think about it: if somebody else was paying to administer your worthless land for you, would you ask for it back? Potential mineral exploration, I’m guessing.
One guy.
The Nevada Cattleman’s Association disavows Mr. Bundy, who is not a member, and his actions, although they note that they do “sympathize with Mr. Bundy’s dilemma” (grammar skills aren’t a requirement for membership, it seems). Cite and cite.
Note that the second cite contains the quote from Mr. Bundy: “Range War begins tomorrow.” That seems like plenty of justification for the BLM to show up armed, doesn’t it?
BTW, Bundy claims his family has been on that land since the 1870s, but that’s not true; they moved from Arizona and bought it in 1948.
Eh. 1870, 1970, what’s the dif?
Because the land is within Nevada’s borders, and (aside from military bases and such) not required for any federal purpose.
Perhaps, I’m sure something could be worked out. This points to the problem I have with other posters’ defense of the status quo: if the land is worthless, then there’s no basis to deny it to Nevada, which wants it. If the land is valuable, then Nevada is being deprived of the use of resources within its borders, which are instead either going to waste or being operated for the benefit of all 50 states, 49 of whom have no skin in the proverbial game.
Answered above.
May I ask your basis for that conclusion? The state has voted on at least two occasions to try and take ownership of the land. If the vast majority don’t care (unless you mean something else by “it’s a non-question”), how do you explain that?
That’s what I understand to be the case; this aspect is only tangentially related to the Bundy case, though.
I find it troubling because it’s antithetical to a federal union to have so much of the territory of a few states controlled by the other states, via the federal government. It puts Nevada, Utah, and the others in a subordinate position.
The federal government owns 0.3% of Connecticut, for example. Connecticut is sovereign over 99.7% of its territory, and all 50 states collectively own the other 0.3%. In Nevada’s case, all 50 states collectively own 76% of it. I contend that this is inequitable.
Lastly, there’s this point: use of the federal land, and its attendant economic activity and externalities most directly affects Nevada, by virtue of proximity. Cattle grazed there are likely sold in Nevada, for instance, ranch hands likely spend their paychecks in Nevada, and so on. This means Nevada has only a tiny say (2 of 100 Senators, and 4 of 435 Representatives) in decisions that directly affect it, while other states that don’t stand to be directly affected have a larger say. It’s akin to an absentee landlord, the interests of the landlord don’t necessarily align with the interests of the local population.
This problem isn’t unique to BLM land, of course, but it’s a particularly stark example.
Yeah, not likely. Refer to the General Mining Act of 1872, which makes it rather easy to acquire a mining claim on public land. I mean, you are interested in the silver/copper/platinum/uranium, not the land itself. What rapist wants to marry his victim?
Are we sure that the federal government is the wisest steward of Western lands?
Only by comparison to all other possibilities. Who else is even gonna care about endangered species or long-term sustainable management? Not the State of Nevada and certainly not the ranchers.
Their (collective) government has paid to manage the land for 100 years. That’s some serious skin. If Nevada wants its land back, let them make an offer.
Hardly, but they’re probably better at it than Nevada would be. Anyway, if there were lots of held-up mining claims Congress would simply up the application fee to fund the BLM application process. The fact that they didn’t immediately suggests to me that there are no serious applicants.
I’ve got an idea! Let’s Occupy Wall Street again – but this time, let’s bring guns!
Native Americans might want to have a say in this…
Just a nitpick here - the Endangered Species Act applies to whatever land is designated as habitat regardless of who’s managing it. The threat of lawsuits over desert tortoise habitat may have spurred the BLM to action in this case, but those lawsuits could just as easily be filed against the state of Nevada or Clark County if the land had not been federally managed.
In general, the Nevada Department of Wildlife puts a fair amount of resources into conservation - not just of threatened and endangered species, but of at-risk species that may be listed in the futures. Ranchers are also generally ok with conservation efforts - please don’t think of Bundy as any sort of typical representative of Nevada or Nevada ranchers.
I think it has been pointed out on this thread or the other Bundy thread that the BLM was not some government official’s idea for more bureaucracy, it was created at the behest of the people who were running cattle. They were concerned about overgrazing of rangeland, so they had the government set up this agency to keep things under control.
You see, these ranchers would really rather not own the land: that leads to taxes, maintenance, liability and fences, if you can just send your herd out to pull up the scrub and otherwise not have to worry about the rangeland, that is a net positive for you. So, they rent the grass, and the government agency seeks to avert the tragedy of the commons.
Private ownership is not always the best solution. I mean, if the ranchers had to pay RangeCorp Inc to graze their cattle, the fees would almost certainly be a lot higher, for no particularly good reason.
They never “walked lightly on the land,” you know. The America Columbus discovered was a very different landscape from the America the ancient Siberians discovered.
Is there any particular reason to believe that? Long-term sustainable management surely matters a lot more when the area is in your backyard, and you suffer any and all consequences. It’s a principle-agent problem, where Nevada is the principle, and the federal government is the agent.
Further, I point your attention back to the Bundy case, where the federal government has allowed cattle to graze in areas where no grazing permits have been issued (so as to protect the desert tortoise) for 21 years. I don’t know that it’s possible for the state to do a worse job of protecting endangered species than the federal government has in this case, short of hiring workers to kill the tortoises.
I searched a bit for studies comparing Endangered Species Act successes on federal vs. state lands, but didn’t find any.
That’s reasonable. Recall, what I said was:
I’m not calling for Congress to hand over the land by 5:00 tonight, but some sort of progress and reconciliation on this issue would be welcome. A negotiation over terms would be a fine start. Nevada has a legitimate gripe, and it shouldn’t be ignored because one asshole refuses to pay fees or recognize the federal government.
[QUOTE=Really Not All That Bright]
Anyway, if there were lots of held-up mining claims Congress would simply up the application fee to fund the BLM application process. The fact that they didn’t immediately suggests to me that there are no serious applicants.
[/QUOTE]
Unless there are lobbying efforts from current claim holders to keep out new competition, or political horse-trading to protect some states’ industry, or simple penny-pinching incompetence, or one of a dozen or so other possibilities.
I find it hard to believe that there have been no serious applications for new mining claims on public lands in the last 20 years.
I wasn’t proposing private ownership, but rather state (as opposed to federal) ownership. Though, certainly, if the state of Nevada wished to parcel out and auction some land to private parties, or offer homesteads, they could, same as the federal government.
Fair enough. I’m just saying that I don’t see any evidence that Nevada has tried negotiating. All they’ve done is pass a resolution saying, “give it back!”