[marktwain]

Under Clinton, the policy became one of gradually running people with private property out in areas where they were surrounded by federal land. They just ignored the law and packed the agencies such as BLM and the National Forest Service with Deep Ecology fanatics that think that there should be no trace of man on federal land.

It appears that Norton may be trying to change this, and enforce property rights, but it is very hard for an agency to back off once it has committed to an action.

[Dudoight]

For a hundred years this guy's family has worked this land. How has it comopromised the ecology? England is not the same place it was when the Roman's occupied it. Nor is Europe. Man does make changes in the land. Nature itself makes changes. We spend all this gov't money to put this man on trial and imprison him. He sure wasn't living high.

If industrial agriculture doesn't get the little guy, the government will. Maybe I don't know all the facts but this is wrong.

[EBUCK]

It appears that Norton may be trying to change this, and enforce property rights, but it is very hard for an agency to back off once it has committed to an action.

Especially when backing off would mean loosing funding and power.

[Iconoclast2]

No it's not. It's easy. It's the "stroke of the pen, law of the land". President Bush or Secretary Norton could issue an order effortlessly. Why do we let them get away with not issuing such orders and living the oppression? WHY ON EARTH SHOULD WE VOTE FOR PEOPLE WHO CONTINUE TO WAGE WAR ON US?

I know, I know. We are supposed to see the Bush Administration as the lesser of two evils. Outside the West, and oblivious to the War on the West, this calculus may make more sense, I suppose.