The debate "The BLM is necessary to manage our federal lands" was started by
March 31, 2016, 3:46 am.
4 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 4 people are on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
There is a tie in this debate, post your arguments, call some reinforcements and break this tie.
Sosocratese posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Sosocratese, ReadyToBegin, djchivers and 1 visitor agree.
4 visitors disagree.
That's right. I apologize.
You're definitely missing some key pieces of information.
I know it's Wikipedia and it's not a great source, but I didn't wanna compile a list of sources to get the same information. I know the conflict pretty well hand have debated it in the past. These are pretty much the facts surrounding the case.
The Oregon case was much different. That's the one where they arrested some ranchers for arsen on federal lands....
There is alot to sort out there and I shouldn't sound as difinitive on the matter as i did i guess. But the underhandedness for a political deal(if that's what it was for) just assures people that they should question everything.
Right but, obviously they tried land grabs in a few places and now they are shutting it down. I know he owed money in taxes but I have also seen comparisons to him as being a "welfare farmer".The true reason they stated they came after him is that they were destroying federal land via wild fires. As a farmer, strategic burning has to happen to allow the soil to cycle and be fertile. He was supplying large amounts of the dairy products to grocers and doing a service. The land has been in his family for upwards of 100 years. With all the "reasons" which were plenty; i think the Harry Reid deal seems the most realistic. I don't condone however not paying for what you should be.
The tortoise thing you're referring to was a temporary closure of the are for the relocation of the tortoise
The BLM came after the bundy ranch due to debts owed. The bundy ranch let their cattle graze on public lands and didn't pay the grazing fees or get grazing permits. The BLM took the case to court and was given authority to reclaim the debt through seizure of property.... Just like any other debt collection. Bundy still owes about 1.1 million.
The BLM manages federal lands only. They are within the state border, but they are owned by the federal government. In the Oregon standoff for example, the lands the BLM owned was purchased by the federal government as a bailout program. The farms on those lands went into default and the government bailed them out by paying their upside-down mortgages etc... So they paid more than the land was worth in order to protect the financial future of the farmers they bought it from.
Also, I think Public lands are subject to the states therein and not the federal government, unless the state willingly concedes the land(s).
BLM seems to have breached the trust of Americans When they went to Cliven Bundy's Nevada ranch to force him off the land. They claimed several reasons in succession one after another. Two reasons that I can remember right off were some kind of endangeded tortoise that showed proof of BS and that he had owed so much in taxes. It was later found that Nevada Senator Harry Reid Had a deal for a solar/wind farm in the works with China (which if true) may have certainly had something to do with the attempt at the land grab.
The claim here is that the BLM is necessary for land management. That is to say, the BLM is the only entity capable of managing public lands in the US.
CON will have to provide a reasonable alternative to the BLM which could manage public lands, manage conflicting user groups, police public lands, and do so in a manner that is superior to the BLM.