[Ben Ficklin]

"Be specific"

Using words like grab, seized, stole make good copy but of course no land was grabbed, seized, or stolen.

They are complaining because they don't like the way the federal govt is managing the lands that the federal govt owns. For example: the land in Utah was re-designated with a higher level of protection, and it could no longer be mined for coal. If land gets designated as wilderness, monument, park, etc that land receives more protection.

This misconcept flows from the notion that when govt imposes land use restrictions on private land, it is considered to be a "partial taking". The second part of the misconception is the confusion between land rights and property rights. If the govt re-designates land and won't let me mine the coal, they haven't violated my property rights because I didn't own the land, but they have infringed on my rental rights. Of course all landlords impose use restrictions on the renters.

[Sherman Logan]

Thanks for wording my point better than I could.

I assume you’ll agree that the question of whether the decisions the government makes about managing its land are wise is an entirely separate one.

[null and void]

This misconcept flows from the notion that when govt imposes land use restrictions on private land, it is considered to be a "partial taking".

Private ownership with government control is the very definition of fascism.

[Carry_Okie]

They are complaining because they don't like the way the federal govt is managing the lands that the federal govt owns.

The Federal government exercises no Constitutionally enumerated use for that land.

This misconcept flows from the notion that when govt imposes land use restrictions on private land, it is considered to be a "partial taking".

It is no misconception. The split estate in law has been established on "Federal lands."

Of course all landlords impose use restrictions on the renters.

Not when the "landlord" (interesting choice of words for a statist like you) does not have legitimate title.