Has the government of the state of Nevada given any indication that they wish to take on this responsibility? Have the great majority of rancher that use this land given any indication that they wish ownership be transferred from the federal government to state control?
That could be, though we’re not privy to all the goings-on in Washington or Carson City. That said…voila! A summit of Western states to pursue joint action toward the goal of gaining control over federal land within their borders. So, it may yet happen.
Indeed they have, and are working to secure it:
Nevada Senate resolution from 1995
Act Relating To Public Lands, passed in 2013.
That I don’t know, and it doesn’t particularly affect my argument. I support the transfer of control not as a sop to the ranchers, but because it seems to me to be the right and proper thing to do.
I find it more that slightly amusing that Utah commissioned a study to determine if it could manage its own land after passing a resolution demanding that the land be returned.
(bolding mine)
This is inaccurate at best; the federal government has not at all “allowed” Mr. Bundy to graze his cattle in the Gold Butte area. They have, in fact, been trying through legal methods to stop him from grazing his cattle for 21 years.
In light of that fact, your supposition re: the job that the feds are doing protecting endangered species, is laughably ridiculous. The feds are utilizing every legal means to stop Mr. Bundy’s illegal grazing and have been since this started 21 years ago.
ETA: Your earlier reply to me had some issues I’d like to touch on, but I’m not sure I can do it properly while I’m at work (and using my iPad). Thanks for your reply and I will try and get to my response today, if possible.
I meant “allowed” in the sense of “to permit by neglect or oversight”, sorry that was unclear. I’m aware that they’ve taken Bundy to court, and in fact secured a court order to remove the cattle in 1998. And yet the cattle remained. It took suits from private organizations to get the federal government to finally try impounding the offending cattle (same cite).
To my point: if the mighty power of the federal government couldn’t stop this guy from endangering the desert tortoise for 21 years and counting, why should we suppose that the state of Nevada would automatically do a worse job at it?
Good question. Are there any cites you could show us where state and/or local governments did the job better than the Feds in regards to protecting a species? Usually I hear of state and local officials wanting to take on such jobs in an effort to loosen protection for a particular species, not tighten it.
I would point you to quotes from Gov. Brian Sandoval, Rep. Dean Heller and other Nevada elected officials to see why I, and many others, think that Nevada would do a worse job than the federal government at protecting endangered species: they don’t care. They would rather enable a thieving traitorous jackass than protect a species that was on this land thousands of years before this country or the state of Nevada existed.
What evidence do we have that the states would do a better job than the federal government at protecting endangered species?
And if the State of Nevada were to charge Mr. Bundy grazing fees in the event the state ever takes over the land, why should we suppose that he would submit payment, as opposed to arguing that counties are the only legitimate government that he recognizes? That’s the actual issue here.
This, and statements by public officials, does not tell me that they want to take on the responsibility-It tells me they want to grab the land and abandon the responsibility.
The Endangered Species Act is administered by two agencies, both federal, so I don’t know that sub-federal jurisdictions are permitted to enforce it. As I said earlier, I looked for studies that compared how well endangered species did on state vs. federal lands, and didn’t find any.
It’s not up to them, the ESA is enforced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, regardless of who owns the land in question.
And also, Bundy’s not a traitor. A cheat, a bully, a liar, arguably a thief; but not a traitor.
I don’t suppose that at all, my view on this matter isn’t meant to appease Bundy or solve the current strife. He’s a crank, nothing more, and his claim to ancestral grazing is a ready-made defense against any all levels of government other than his pappy. That doesn’t mean he’s wrong about everything, one kernel of validity in his views is that Nevada ought to manage its land for itself.
Can you tell me what statements contained in those bills lead you to conclude that they want to grab the land and abandon the responsibility?
But there’s no constitutional principle at stake here, which vests states with a right to control land within their borders. We know this because courts have laughed at Bundy again and again. This assertion that Nevada should control its own land is solely a matter of opinion, like whether traffic lights should be mounted vertically or horizontally – and the debate about whether it should be state or federal land is about as important as that.
Why should the Federal government defer to a state for control of land which has been under Federal control for longer than the state has existed? Seems like this is the sort of issue that should have been settled during debate on statehood.
Senator Heller said, “I told him [BLM Director Neil Kornze] very clearly that law-abiding Nevadans must not be penalized by an over-reaching BLM.” This implies that Bundy was doing the correct thing by using public lands to the detriment of others.
Agreed, I just think it’s sound policy. I already noted that it wasn’t unconsitutional.
It seems rather more important than that to the state involved; see also the joint summit I linked to earlier. It’s a matter of opinion, sure (though Utah’s case is built on a legal argument that I’m not at all expert on), but so is most of public policy.
Well, that was 1864. I see no compelling need for us to forever wash our hands of the issue because of the language of an act of Congress from 150 years ago. And there’s precedent for it, the states of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama and Florida received title to federal lands within their borders in 1828.
As for why, I’ve written about that already: it’d place the states on a more equal footing, eliminate problems of principle-agent conflict, and ensure accountability for those who controlled the land to those affected by its use.
This isn’t the same issue, but I’m curious – do you think national parks should be turned over to states?
I disagree. He has turned his back on his country, denying the validity of their authority. He has directly violated the constitution of the state he lives in and professes to acknowledge as having authority over him. He has refused to pay taxes to the federal government for over 20 years. He has betrayed the trust of the federal government and encouraged others to aid him in doing so. He is a traitor.
The argument for local control of the territory is laden with pitfalls. In a recent example, one might find it buried under a pile of mud, along with 39 possible dissenters.
In the case of the land up the Stillaguamish river valley, there was plenty of evidence that building homes around a particular lovely and isolated bend in the river was a bad idea. If the federal government had had the final say in the matter, chances are that neighborhood would not have been developed/rebuilt, based on the local geology. But the local government gets revenue from development, so they are willing to overlook the risks.
Those people involved might possibly have preferred not to be dead, even if it meant living somewhere less idyllic. Whether federal management of that area would have prevented ill-advised development is uncertain, but given the dynamic of the local tax base, I would guess that a disinterested agency would have been more likely to advise/enforce caution.
So, no, local control of the land is often not better than remote control.
Do you have any context for that quote? It’s hard to draw a firm conclusion otherwise; in a vacuum, it’s not a controversial statement at all, of course law-abiding Nevadans should be penalized by a government agency.
No, not in any general sense; there may be specific instances where’d I’d support a state asking for control of a national park, but none that I’m presently aware of.
To whom did he betray his nation?
On the other hand, federal flood programs in the Mississippi valley create perverse incentives to develop flood-prone areas. Remote control is often not better than local control, it’s a case-by-case basis.
But, let’s say that remote, centralized control could be shown to produce superior outcomes. Why should only a small band of Western states enjoy this advantage? If the federal hand wisely steers 76% of Nevada better than the Nevadans could, what does that mean for Connecticut, which would only enjoy federal stewardship of 0.3% of its territory? My home state of Kentucky would only get this boon over 4% of its territory. Perhaps that explains our poverty. So, again, I must propose that the states be put on an equal footing with one another, regardless of accidents of history or geography.
In the bits of reading I’ve done, and without chasing down the source, I suspect that Ravenman did indeed use that quote out of context. I’m pretty sure that by “law-abiding Nevadans” Senator Heller was referring to the effort to contain protestors to designated “free-speech zones” and to other tactics to control the situation that he deemed heavy-handed. I don’t think he was referring to Bundy as law-abiding.
http://www.heller.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ID=c12f95bd-6872-4c3e-99bc-12fca2f4debf
So he’s also implying that BLM is infringing on Nevadans’ constitutional rights. Which, of course, is BS.
voltaire – no, in Heller’s own press release he does not mention First Amendment zones. He comments are “regarding land closures” that BLM “has initiated due to the ongoing, court-ordered roundup of rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle.”
Which still sounds to me like he’s referring to the BLM restricting access to public lands by protestors and the public at-large, and not necessarily to the access of Bundy and his trespassing cattle. But I’ll allow that he may have been intentionally ambiguous, so as to play both sides of the fence. (heh)