Forest Service, BLM could lose law enforcement units under new bill

[AreWeLostYet]

Read it while it's hot!

Story at Federal News Radio
"Forest Service, BLM could lose law enforcement units under new bill"

https://federalnewsradio.com/legisl...vice-blm-lose-law-enforcement-units-new-bill/



Article at The Journal:
Sportsmen take aim at law enforcement bill

https://the-journal.com/articles/721

So what would be next? Locking gates to public lands because of absence of personnel to patrol it?
Turn over law enforcement responsibilities to states, local counties, towns? I doubt they would be any more lenient than federal agencies.

 

[DannyB1954]

Here out West there was a big deal about a rancher using public land to graze cattle without paying for a permit. His position was the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from owning land, so why should he pay someone who does not own it for it's use.
Two things could happen if this is true. The land could get transferred to the State that it is in, or with a 2/3rds vote the Constitution could be changed.
The problem that I see is the land is locally controlled the rules could be different at each location. Maybe the Feds could set guidelines like they do for drivers licenses.

 

[bob91yj]

That link is over two years old.

 

[AreWeLostYet]

Here out West there was a big deal about a rancher using public land to graze cattle without paying for a permit. His position was the Constitution prohibits the Federal Government from owning land, so why should he pay someone who does not own it for it's use.
Two things could happen if this is true. The land could get transferred to the State that it is in, or with a 2/3rds vote the Constitution could be changed.
The problem that I see is the land is locally controlled the rules could be different at each location. Maybe the Feds could set guidelines like they do for drivers licenses.

You're talking about Cliven Bundy. He treated that land like he owned it. What if some other rancher showed up claiming he had a right to graze his stock there. That's how range wars got started and why the govt started to manage who grazes. And that grazing was profitable for the stock owners and there's no reason they shouldn't pay some fee for the exclusive privileged to graze their stock there. After the armed standoff Bundy exposed himself as baldly racist in a few interviews and all the press disassociated from him.

 

[John61CT]

Duplicates the topics of at least two threads already running.

We get your point and don't disagree, but no need to keep flogging that dead hobby horse?

 

[QinReno]

Duplicates the topics of at least two threads already running.

Ummm, I think you meant to say ... "8" or maybe "17" threads already running, and all started just in the past day alone, and all on the self same and interminably repetitive topic ... anti-govt ranting.

My advice (for everyone) is to go outside, get the heck out of town, take an actual trip somewheres, anywheres, check if the sky has been darkened by drones, and if not, come back to this forum, and tell everyone where you went and what a good time you had. And wear a hat so you don't get sunstroked.

 

[lenny flank]

I'm definitely investing in tinfoil futures.

 

[John61CT]

I doubt they would be any more lenient than federal agencies.

They would be to locals, to outsiders not so much.

These loonies say the Feds are constitutionally forbidden from owning land.

Lot like the Sovereign Citizen scammers. . .

 

[B and C]

And yet these threads keeps getting posted to. I had hoped they would have died out by now.

 

[DesertRose]

Some of us don't hang out here every day like some others do. I for one was grateful to see the link to this article on this particular thread. I am in the process of catching up after being otherwise occupied for the past couple of months (including the time the forum was down).

 

[DannyB1954]

You're talking about Cliven Bundy. He treated that land like he owned it. What if some other rancher showed up claiming he had a right to graze his stock there.

I wasn't defending his position, just Stating that according to him the Constitution says the Federal Government should not hold land. I don't know if this is true or not.
For all those whining about the topic, Nobody is forcing you to read this thread. You think you have the right to determine what someone wants to talk about?  Either address the topic adding something of value and stop criticizing others, or list the person that gave you the right to run editorial on everybody else.

 

[AreWeLostYet]

I wasn't defending his position, just Stating that according to him the Constitution says the Federal Government should not hold land. I don't know if this is true or not.
For all those whining about the topic, Nobody is forcing you to read this thread. You think you have the right to determine what someone wants to talk about?  Either address the topic adding something of value and stop criticizing others, or list the person that gave you the right to run editorial on everybody else.

Well, the US government made the Louisiana Purchase (Louisiana to Montana and everything in between), The Gadsden Purchase (southern Arizona and New Mexico), Alaska Purchase. The US govt took the rest of west from Mexico then paid $15 million compensation for the physical damage of the war and an additional $3.25 million of debt already owed earlier by the Mexican government to U.S. citizens. So it's not like the government hasn't paid for a whole lot of land. But the US government "administers" the non privately owned land in America as a trust all American citizens are supposed to have a stake in. Someone like Bundy just decides some land is his for his cattle to graze for his profit and without some authority stepping in, you will have others grazing their cattle there or trying to homestead - whatever - and you will have range wars breaking out over land access and resource usage all over the country the way they did in the wild west. Bundy is an ignorant old codger and the vigilantes who ran to his rescue are just looking for their chance to become the far right's next idol of some imaginary past that happened only in their booze fueled imaginations.

 

[John61CT]

But the US government "administers" the non privately owned land in America as a trust all American citizens are supposed to have a stake in.

Supposed to being the key phrase there.

Dream on, that has never been the case.

Not even in theory, the Founders paid lip service to such ideals, but the actual intention has always been that government primarily represents the tiny percentage of commercial traders and large property owners.

Our semi-democratic republic does have mechanisms to allow the common (poor) people to occasionally get their way, but in reality that only happens when a critical percentage get highly motivated, vote en masse, set and organize around clear concrete goals, and maintain that high energy long enough for legislation to pass and effective institutions put in place to regulate and enforce the public interest.

The root cause of these problems is wages and housing policy, increasing homelessness despite a "healthy" economy.

We know how to solve these problems, just that the current mainstream isn't willing to consider it, bottom line, not enough people care enough to get activist about it.

 

[John61CT]

A great longread on ethics and homelessness

https://longreads.com/2018/06/29/pay-the-homeless/

Best not to give a hot take without actually reading it.

 

[QinReno]

We know how to solve these problems, just that the current mainstream isn't willing to consider it, bottom line, not enough people care enough to get activist about it.

The theme of ALL of these recent threads that are being created by one guy is flaming the wrong problem. He is turning this forum into bad politics. This forum is supposed to be about helping people learn to how to live a simple and frugal lifestyle, not preaching politics. This is a bad trend.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

I also do not see the point of this thread.  This bill was introduced under the last (114th) congress, under the previous administration.  It obviously failed, as do 95% of bills introduced.  If there is a current bill winding its way through congress please cite.  A bill that failed in a previous congress is irrelevant.

 

[John61CT]

Another good piece on the root causes if the problem, along with rational solutions

https://www.wired.com/story/big-tech-isnt-the-problem-with-homelessness-its-all-of-us/

Feel free to just ignore if you're nor interested, and if mods think somehow too controversial let them make the call.

 

[AreWeLostYet]

I also do not see the point of this thread.  This bill was introduced under the last (114th) congress, under the previous administration.  It obviously failed, as do 95% of bills introduced.  If there is a current bill winding its way through congress please cite.  A bill that failed in a previous congress is irrelevant.

I don't see what the article (BIG TECH ISN’T THE PROBLEM WITH HOMELESSNESS. IT’S ALL OF US) has to do with my point that law enforcement is in danger of being defunded on the federal level of public lands which would lead either to closures because of lack of manpower to patrol or of automation such as drone surveillance. I also note that public opinion is turning (being turned) against nomads for a variety of reasons I've stated. Legislation will follow when public opinion reaches a certain level.

Also note that those working for the publication you cite - WIRED are part of the "digitrati" class that is popularly blamed for gentrifying all of San Francisco, making it unafordable for anyone who can't afford at least $3k/month rent for a rabbit hutch room. The authors of the article are defending their own actions. Just ask Bob's friend Carolyn. She left the bay area and visited it recently on her way to Alaska and commented on how it's changed - not for the better.

 

[QinReno]

Unfortunately, the same person is starting MULTIPLE new threads every damn day fanning the same flame. But the finger is pointing in the wrong place.

The sociological problems are well known and have been around decades. One guy in a sleeping bag in a park is old news. Rents for 1BR apartment are currently $2500/month in SF. I lived in Boulder CO for 25-years, and the homeless come there because it's one of the most liberal cities in America, just like San Francisco. Free handouts for the poor and the terminal lazy. The homeless shelter in Boulder on No. Broadway is a helluva lot nicer than where I lived. 
https://bouldershelter.org/

The War on Poverty has made a total of $25-trillion in handouts since 1964, and the problem is worse than ever. The politicians haven't a clue. And endlessly fanning the wrong flames will not solve the problem. (integrate the area under the curve = $25-trillion):
https://atlassociety.org/sites/default/files/total-welfare-spending-obama.jpg

The issues are being conflated (meaning mixed up) on this forum, and people need to learn how to UN-conflate it.

 

[QinReno]

Big cities are all a wasteland anymore for low-income people. That's not the govts fault. 

And Carolyn has not seen even one govt drone on her journey either, the skies are clear, sonofagun, what's with that!