Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

National Park Service has new land-grabbing tool
Washington Examiner ^ | 12/29/11 | Ron Arnold

Posted on 12/30/2011 5:22:06 AM PST by markomalley

Big Green has an unlikely new sales pitch to convince Congress to fund ever-expanding land grabs by the National Park Service -- save wildlife migration. A map overlay showing all the U.S. wildlife migration paths would blot out nearly half the nation -- a very clever diagram for empire-building bureaucrats. The obscure but well-heeled Wildlife Conservation Society (2010 assets $764 million) unveiled the idea last week in "Spectacular Migrations in the Western U.S.," a 45-page report on the purportedly urgent need for a widespread network of wildlife migration corridors to avert countless extinctions.

The WCS is a consortium of zoos ("urban wildlife parks") and global conservation programs that uses science, according to its mission statement, to "change attitudes towards nature." Its Spectacular Migrations report looks suspiciously like the expansion agenda of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the NPS's boss.

There's a good reason: WCS staff recently conducted a migration workshop for the NPS, which produced a new framework for conserving migrations in or near national parks.

The Hewlett Foundation has already funded demonstration corridors using the NPS framework in the U.S. Southwest and Mexico.

National parks can legally swallow up federal lands as well as private property. You can find national parks that contain wilderness, recreation areas, historic sites, scenic highways and many more, all within one big boundary.

"Connectivity corridors" such as migration paths are the perfect instrument for drawing lines between a number of protected areas, then drawing a single boundary line around the whole group -- Big Park.

Property owners and avid hunters are already taking to the email grapevine with alarms over the WCS report. The NPS management culture is notoriously hostile to both groups, which are ready to gird for battle.

The New York Times reported on Spectacular Migrations in lockstep with its debut, rhapsodizing over the dazzling beauty of a hummingbird "which weighs about as much as a penny, braves high winds and bad weather" to migrate from Canada to Mexico and back each year.

One of the report's authors, Keith Aune, a Montana-based WCS scientist, evoked the bison to make the point, "Long-distance migrations as a whole are rapidly disappearing," But there is no mention that his employer promotes programs that could cost property owners their land and hunters their access.

Aune said of spreading the migration gospel, "We have to have something the public can grasp. Spectacular migrations have great storytelling power." The story of dispossession and exclusion would be just as easy to grasp, but not as dreamy as a tiny bird that migrates 4,000 miles each year. His whole focus for the Times readership was how to frame the debate to be a more compelling sales pitch.

Although Spectacular Migrations covers only the West, the idea would be perfectly at home on the eastern seaboard. Its related concept -- land bundling -- is already at work in West Virginia.

A local green group is campaigning to create a High Allegheny National Park by bundling pieces of a national forest, two wilderness areas, several civil war sites, portions of a national scenic byway and a substantial amount of private property - Big Park. Migration corridors would easily fit in.

The High Allegheny idea gained traction when Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WVa, asked the NPS to perform a reconnaissance survey and report back to him on its feasibility.

Instantly, the West Virginia Outdoors News took him to task for spearheading "a potential threat to thousands of acres of hunting land and hundreds of miles of fishing streams."

Manchin responded last week that as an avid hunter himself he would never support anything that might impair the hunting and fishing tradition in West Virginia.

Emphasizing the economic benefits of national park tourism, he promised he would block any High Allegheny park bill without "ironclad protections" for hunting and fishing.

Outdoorsmen were not impressed. They've seen too many places put off limits. And it's still possible that wildlife migration corridors will creep into the High Allegheny proposal.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: agenda21; federallands; ganggreen; heritageprogram; landgrab; nationalparksvc; nps; npslandgrab; wildlifemanagement; wildlifemigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

1 posted on 12/30/2011 5:22:10 AM PST by markomalley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: markomalley; Carry_Okie; Jeff Head; editor-surveyor; marsh2

Wonderful.


2 posted on 12/30/2011 5:28:31 AM PST by sauropod (Ann Coulter does NOT choose my presidential candidate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
I dug this up the other day. Its part of a 100+ page land use report for my county (Jackson Michigan). This is only the "Greenways" plan. When you start adding in bike paths, hiking trails, buffer zones etc, it doesn't leave much for the people.

Photobucket
3 posted on 12/30/2011 5:30:33 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
The US government already owns 30% of the land in the country. Eventually we are going to have to mortgage that stuff to pay Social Security ~

BTW, here we have a problem with beavers. They live along the Potomac just 2 miles away. They cross two 16 lane Interstate highways to get here.

There is no need for a corridor.

We also shut down the BEAR corridor through the simple expedient of having every homeowner in Northern Virginia build a fence. Even bears get tired of tearing through enough fences.

4 posted on 12/30/2011 5:37:30 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Agenda 21


5 posted on 12/30/2011 5:40:42 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

These migration corridors will not cost the govt one stinking penny. They will simply place so many land use restrictions on the private property they covet that it will become useless to the owner. Govt does it all of the time. No reason to think that they won’t do it for this project.


6 posted on 12/30/2011 5:42:54 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Having grown up in that county, does not surprise me. The tax base makes it such that if you have preserve/non-farm land, the local government will deem some portion usable home sites and tax accordingly.
That is what happened to a family friend with 200+ acres. They zoned 5 water front lots on the edge of his property. the property tax was more on these lots then the rest. They gave that land away.... Their private lake became public. Was great bass fishing.
7 posted on 12/30/2011 5:45:36 AM PST by Quick Shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Quick Shot

If I had to give up a good private lake like that,
you can be guaranteed the “good fishing” would be a thing of the past before I turned it over.

Also, there is a recent set of rules deeming the Muscovy duck, a domesticated breed since the 1500’s, a “migratory bird”, and making it almost impossible to own them legally.


8 posted on 12/30/2011 5:51:48 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

A migration corridor is a target rich environment


9 posted on 12/30/2011 5:51:48 AM PST by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Much of my township (Norvell in the lower right corner) is already part of the Sharonville state recreation area. That in itself I don’t mind but our broke ass state is still buying land that will be removed from the tax base and further impoverish us. They’re looking at paying $2 million for another 2000 acres of farmland just south of me.

Another group in operation in this area is the Raisin Valley Land trust. They don’t buy land, instead they convince little old ladies to sign legally binding contracts that gives them control. The owner still pays taxes but can’t do anything with the land and if sold the contract still stands (which makes the land unsalable).


10 posted on 12/30/2011 5:53:58 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

It never ends, I imagine that there is a whole lot of farmland that is effected too. They will use these ‘corridors’ to show the need to confiscate everything in them to protect Bambi and the Ducks.


11 posted on 12/30/2011 5:59:53 AM PST by The Working Man (The mantra for BO's reign...."No Child Left a Dime")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quick Shot
That is what happened to a family friend with 200+ acres. They zoned 5 water front lots on the edge of his property. the property tax was more on these lots then the rest. They gave that land away.... Their private lake became public. Was great bass fishing.

The state is buying another 2000 acres of farmland near me. The farmers say they're selling because its become uneconomical to farm it due to the taxes and fees associated farming near wetlands (Michigan is primarily wetland).
12 posted on 12/30/2011 6:02:36 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

This government favors politicians and other wildlife over human beings.


13 posted on 12/30/2011 6:04:36 AM PST by RoadTest (There is one god, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
From the land use plan for my county.

Photobucket

Welcome to the soviet union comrade. Where your land use, trade, travel, health, and poopin schedule will be managed for maximum efficiency.
14 posted on 12/30/2011 6:11:19 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

This is nothing new (surprise, surprise). The ganggreens have been working this for a long time with their “Earth Island” institute and using those wonderful ngo’s have already managed to grab up lots of “corridor” lands. They talk about the great turtle and how wonderful it will be to have land that is off limits to humans. Can’t find the maps they have out there but it basically herds us into population centers and they have buffer zones that some folks can go to but the vast majority of these corridors are totally off limits so as not to interfere with animal migration. Slippery slope stuff for sure aligned with Agenda 21 and the Bio-sphere projects. Sad that these few have managed to gain so much control while the rest of us work to support our families. Their “job” is to enact these goals of migratory paths probably controlled by blue helmets. I’m sure there will be plenty of money for those fences.


15 posted on 12/30/2011 6:11:37 AM PST by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB
I raised Muscovy's and Pekin domesticated ducks.

Great animals. Magnificent.

They'd get up with the Sun and fly around the neighborhood, then return home to eat, breed and lay incredible eggs.

Wild mallard ducks would land occasionally and try to edge out the alpha Pekin ~ which really didn't work because our ducks had a friend called a bantum rooster ~ who we also let fly around.

You have to keep at the pens ~ we didn't use cages ~ because ducks really generate tremendous quantities of guano.

With government allowing wild geese to fly all over the place they really ought to relent on their urban restrictions on keeping ducks and chickens.

16 posted on 12/30/2011 6:12:47 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
The US government already owns 30% of the land in the country.

Part of the problem is the geographic maldistribution of federal land holdings. In the east, beginning in the early federal period, federal lands were rapidly privatized to accommodate homesteaders. As settlement moved into the semi-arid western plains, it was found that larger and larger acreages were needed to support each farmer/rancher. By the time we reached the desert and mountain west, the land really wasn't suited to agriculture and the primary value was logging and mining. Congress eventually (the 1880's?) changed the law, and the feds kept title to most of the land. We are left with massive federal landholdings in the west and tiny bits and pieces in the east. Fast forward to the 21st century, and this is a very poor solution for national park needs.

The obvious solution is to privatize federal lands in the west and use the proceeds to expand park holdings in the east. (I'd also use proceeds from the closure of military bases for the same purposes, instead of just giving these often very valuable properties to local governments.) IMHO, this would be a good strategy for the park system. It would also help with the politics of land preservation by reducing the resentment factor in the west, where the feds too often are an abusive landlord, and by increasing park accessibility in the crowded east, where it is needed.

Last but not least, I would place an emphasis on urban and near-urban parks, and try to make these big enough to be a real respite from urban sprawl and suitable for mixed use. Historic sites and waterfronts are obvious places to begin. The total federal acreage doesn't need to increase if it were appropriately redistributed. This isn't something that can be done overnight, but if one drew appropriate boundaries for future parks, one could set about the long process of land accumulation as properties came onto the market.

17 posted on 12/30/2011 6:13:04 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I agree with public sewer systems. Some don’t.


18 posted on 12/30/2011 6:14:08 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

I agree with public sewer systems. Some don’t.


19 posted on 12/30/2011 6:14:24 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Oops! I totally forgot about the “world heritage sites” that fall under Agenda 21. Once designated, under the guidelines, fall under UN oversight. Most folks think “how wonderful” that places like the everglades are placed in to this program. Biding their time to take over control if needed. WTF is wrong with us?????????


20 posted on 12/30/2011 6:24:05 AM PST by rktman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Here’s a map of federal ownership by state
http://strangemaps.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/map-owns_the_west.jpg


21 posted on 12/30/2011 6:28:18 AM PST by Lurkina.n.Learnin (The democratic party is the greatest cargo cult in history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

My little town of 150 people has no need of a public sewer system but that doesn’t stop them from trying to force one on us.

The village of Grass lake to the north of us spent big bucks 10 or 15 years ago for a new sewer system and treatment plant in anticipation of growth that never came. Today they’re broke and growing a debt so naturally they want to push the sewer lines into our township and corral another 2000 taxpayers into paying for their folly.

At the state level we have a push to eliminate these pesky townships all together. That way an entire county can vote to take what they want.


22 posted on 12/30/2011 6:28:47 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: rktman

” Oops! I totally forgot about the “world heritage sites” that fall under Agenda 21. Once designated, under the guidelines, fall under UN oversight. Most folks think “how wonderful” that places like the everglades are placed in to this program. Biding their time to take over control if needed. WTF is wrong with us?????????”

The parks can join the world heritage sites and the biosphere reserve programs without an OK from congress. It is up to the individual park management. That’s what they did here at the Redwood National Park.


23 posted on 12/30/2011 6:35:07 AM PST by Lurkina.n.Learnin (The democratic party is the greatest cargo cult in history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: rktman

Yeah I remember seeing a map of the entire great lakes basin being proposed as part of a world heritage park. That’s an area larger than Texas almost totally depopulated aside from a few of the larger cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago etc.


24 posted on 12/30/2011 6:36:26 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

World Heritage Center interactive map.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/254


25 posted on 12/30/2011 6:50:11 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; sauropod; GladesGuru
Your prison walls are now under construction.

I have been doing native plant habitat restoration for twenty years. Our property contains the most purely native restored grasslands (including small forbs), possibly in all of North America. Where once there were but 60 plant species there are now 357, on a piece of land that has suffered from exotic introductions since August 1791 with continuous animal traffic, agriculture, and abandonment thereafter. No, I'm not kidding. I am in the process of preparing an article for a technical journal on that very topic. What the greenies could not do, they are now realizing we have done.

You see, it's hard work. They think "Nature" is self-optimizing. It isn't. This was an anthropogenic landscape for thousands of years. They don't realize that "Nature" doesn't care what it becomes, even if it looks like Mars.

The Wildlands Project is, without a doubt, the most disastrous ecological management plan ever devised. This emphasis upon fauna without fixing the botanical basis for their survival will backfire. Exotic species will spread without constraint into ever more decadent niches with native plant seed long exhausted. One might as well try to build a new house on a rotting wooden foundation. The entire foundational biological relationship between soils and annual post-disturbance plants will then be gone. If you want extinctions, this is a great plan.

26 posted on 12/30/2011 7:15:25 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Morning. The grey wolf seems to have made it to Siskiyou County.


27 posted on 12/30/2011 7:36:35 AM PST by sasquatch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: sasquatch
My guess is that it will take about 3-4 years for it to make it our way.
28 posted on 12/30/2011 7:46:52 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sasquatch
On that CD there are two picture books that are pertinent: Living Sheepishly and Death by Natural Causes.
29 posted on 12/30/2011 7:48:55 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The only ‘refuges’ we need to establish are a sufficient number of Gulags to inter these evil people.


30 posted on 12/30/2011 7:49:15 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
The obvious solution is to privatize federal lands in the west and use the proceeds to expand park holdings in the east.

Federal management of National Parks has been little short of disastrous. Why would you want it?

Privatize all of it. You'd see a "park industry" in short order and it would be better maintained because they would have to compete for customers. There is really no need for a socialized land entertainment and wildlife management entreprise.

31 posted on 12/30/2011 7:53:56 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: markomalley; forester; sauropod; cripplecreek
Big Green has an unlikely new sales pitch to convince Congress to fund ever-expanding land grabs by the National Park Service -- save wildlife migration.

Unlikely? This is a comment unworthy of Ron Arnold. I was in Salt Lake City at the Freedom21 Conference in 2001. Ron Arnold was there to hawk his book Undue Influence. Dr. Robert Coffman's Wildlands Project map was prominently displayed in the foyer complete with color coded "wildlife corridors."

I know he saw it.

In that I was there to hawk my book, Natural Process and he is a publisher, I talked with him for quite a while. At the time, he wasn't buying the Agenda21, calling it a "conspiracy theory." He knows better now but he's still offering crap like this. I guess he needs to know mo-better.

Forester, you might want to gander post 26 as it is a better condensation than my usual.

32 posted on 12/30/2011 8:16:11 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

The townships still have a useful purpose. BTW, if you have 2000 potential sewer customers in your township did you ever do an ammonia check?


33 posted on 12/30/2011 8:17:49 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin

The map has some errors ~ National Forest lands seem to be missing from the computation.


34 posted on 12/30/2011 8:23:12 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Under what Constitutional clause does the federal government get to own State lands or any land outside of DC at all?


35 posted on 12/30/2011 8:24:10 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurkina.n.Learnin
So the government in the name of the people takes the lands as its own,limits the peoples' access to that land, and then eventually when the Greens gain enough influence, ban people from the land.

Sounds like another version of feudalism, except that the socialist intelligentsia will rule.

Socialism with its dictators (hereditary or not) has always sounded like the age old policy of might makes right. The exact thing our founding fathers wished to avoid.

36 posted on 12/30/2011 8:24:15 AM PST by Yulee (Village of Albion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Instead of “Big Green”, I use the term “Gang Green”.

More descriptive.


37 posted on 12/30/2011 8:25:03 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
You can't be serious.

"Section. 3.

Clause 1:

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Clause 2:

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State."

What you have here is a problem in logic. As we all recall the various states that agreed to form the Confederation known as the United States of America agreed to ceed their "territorial claims" to the federal government. When the Constitution of 1790 was adopted, the federal government came into possession of a great deal of land ceeded by the states, or, in some cases, taken from England as previously unorganized territory.

The Constitution refers to this territory when it comes to forming new states. At the same time it does not prohibit the federal government from continuing to do what it had been doing ~ to wit, owning public lands.

The Founders themselves bought and sold public lands and knew the difference between unorganized territories and states. They started the system ~ before this Constitution was created ~ and continued it.

Jefferson had some critics who thought he'd overspent on the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. However, he had some inkling of the value ~ as well as where it was located.

Just looking at an old Spanish boundary stone that the DAR had mutilated by grinding it down and carving their inscription in it about the Santa Fe Trail. Pretty obviously this was a Spanish boundary stone erected between the Louisiana Territory AND Spanish Territory to the West ~ presumably before Napoleon conquered Spain and took the territory.

I thought it interesting that Spain had already marked the bounds. No doubt they had some ideas in mind themselves!

38 posted on 12/30/2011 8:42:03 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Territories are not States. Once a territory has become the land of a State where does the federal government get the right to take State lands?

A State is sovereign. It is not willy-nilly of the federal government to take and give as it pleases.

Nothing in the Constitution grants the right of the federal government to take State lands.

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem.

The federal govenrment has the right to administer territories but not States. Try looking up the word “prejudice”.


39 posted on 12/30/2011 8:51:54 AM PST by CodeToad (Islam needs to be banned in the US and treated as a criminal enterprise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
You'd see a "park industry" in short order and it would be better maintained because they would have to compete for customers.

We'd have Steinwehr Avenue.

I live in DC. Northern Virginia's idea of historic preservation is a sign in a mall parking lot ... and that's only if someone else pays for the sign.

40 posted on 12/30/2011 9:01:28 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
You'd see a "park industry" in short order and it would be better maintained because they would have to compete for customers.

We'd have Steinwehr Avenue.

I live in DC. Northern Virginia's idea of historic preservation is a sign in a mall parking lot ... and that's only if someone else pays for the sign.

41 posted on 12/30/2011 9:02:03 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Interesting ~ one of my ancestors was the land agent who sold almost all the land in Indiana for Lee, Clark and the US government ~ and the state government.

The territory was created about 1804 ~ by the FOUNDERS ~ and United States land patents authorized to pay Revolutionary War soldiers were purchased from those soldiers and their heirs, consolidated into large tracts, and approved for sale by the Confederation Congress ~ and that practice continued on through Statehood. The last public lands (owned by the United States and the State of Indiana) in Indiana were located in the Limberlost region (a massive wetland South of Fort Wayne).

They were surveyed and sold in the early 1900s, nearly a century later!

The clauses I just cited for you secured the United States ownership of its own lands (which for all you knew might have already been pledged to somebody else, e.g. a Revolutionary War vet) and also the ownership of state lands.

42 posted on 12/30/2011 9:06:41 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Most of the Western United States were property of the United States via the Louisiana Purchase and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The United States also purchased Alaska.


43 posted on 12/30/2011 9:10:09 AM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
Northern Virginia's idea of historic preservation is MOUNT VERNON, etc. There's a lot of great river front where I could live but it's tied up in "historic preservation".

Several other colonial mansions are preserved, even a Frank Loyd Wright usonian house. Then there's Bull Run Park (which protects the flanks of the Manassas Battlefield).

Arlington National Cemetery is in northern Virginia, as are Fort Belvoir and Fort Myer, the Pentagon, National Airport's main concourse building, ............

44 posted on 12/30/2011 9:10:52 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
BTW, when a state is admitted to the union under the provisions of a law passed by Congress there are clauses that protect federal lands ~ Alaska, the last state admitted, had clauses preserving various sorts of federal property, native property, existing civilian property, and future state property.

Your argument leads off into a state being created and all other land titles being extinguished. I'm sorry ~ that just doesn't happen. Not now. Not then. Not ever if we can help it.

45 posted on 12/30/2011 9:17:05 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: sphinx; GladesGuru
We'd have Steinwehr Avenue.

I'll see your Steinwehr Avenue and raise you Deseret Ranch (275,000 acres of the best land management you'll probably never see).

Your apparent preference of stewardship is forcing others to pay for your idea of it at gunpoint. And of course, you'll make sure that said "stewardship" is in fact effective, won't you? If you really understood the disastrous consequences of such "management" in the National Parks (and not the National Geographic agitprop) you wouldn't be so flippant. I have numerous examples of it in the West, but I'm pinging GladesGuru to tell you how that works in Florida.

The very existence of greed like yours is why there is no economic value in historic or environmental management. I suggest a little light reading.

46 posted on 12/30/2011 9:19:08 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

A lot of the state land around here was property that was foreclosed on during the depression according to the old timers. Lots of old house and barn foundations all over the place out there.

There are even a few abandoned roads out there. The old timers say they just closed them 30 or 40 years back and they became overgrown. I only knew about them because I found a few old road signs standing out in the middle of nowhere.


47 posted on 12/30/2011 9:19:26 AM PST by cripplecreek (Stand with courage or shut up and do as you're told.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

"Land, see 'Snatch'"

48 posted on 12/30/2011 9:22:39 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
BTW, when a state is admitted to the union under the provisions of a law passed by Congress there are clauses that protect federal lands ~

Which is a complete violation of the Equal Footing Doctrine.

Equal-Footing Doctrine is a principle of Constitutional law that mandates that new states be admitted to the Union as equals of the existing states, in terms of power, sovereignty, and freedom. States must be admitted on an equal footing in the sense that Congress may not exact conditions solely as a tribute for admission, but it may, in the enabling or admitting acts or subsequently impose requirements that would be or are valid and effectual if the subject of congressional legislation after admission.

How is a State equally sovereign if 90% of ITS land belongs to the national government? They are forced to police it and deal with its liabilities without compensation.

Your contention is also adverse to the very principal of a United STATES in FEDERATION. Gad what an obsessive self-interest you express!

The acceptance of federal lands as a condition of admission is an illegal contract entered into under duress. The elements of contracts that are illegal are void.

Your argument leads off into a state being created and all other land titles being extinguished. I'm sorry ~ that just doesn't happen. Not now. Not then. Not ever if we can help it.

First of all, this claim of consequence is patently and historically false, which is why so many States admitted after the Constitution was ratified and before the Civil War have very little in the way of "Federal Lands."

And just whom would be this royal "we" besides your usual load of statist crap.

49 posted on 12/30/2011 9:33:45 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The Federal government bought the land ~ it made a contract with somebody else ~ usually with a treaty.

The Treaty is the Supreme Law of the Land, Contracts are Sacred, states are erected WITHIN some territory, or even another state, land titles are always secured in the United States because we are not some Ottoman satrapy out in the Gobi, etc.

The "doctrine" you argue about is of lesser consequence than treaties, land titles, and property rights of individuals already there.

On the other hand, that means you get Senators and Representatives on an equal basis with other states. NOBODY ever said Rhode Island should also have as much land as Texas!

50 posted on 12/30/2011 9:39:54 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson