4 ms·

> Ranchers in general get a pretty sweet deal from the feds. See, this is the problem mindset, and the reason people are protesting. The mindset should not be

> Ranchers in general get a pretty sweet deal from the feds. See, this is the problem mindset, and the reason people are protesting. The mindset should not be "oh, it's all owned by the federal government, and everything they choose to give you you should be grateful for" The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time.

blackguardx 10y ago
> The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ The BLM doesn't make a profit. Actually they (rather, the Dept. of the Interior) don't charge enough for things like mineral extraction. Think of it this way. You and I and everyone else owns those minerals. The US should make sure that we as taxpayers are getting our fair share of their value. It is the same thought process behind the FCC and spectrum auctions. When there is a public good involved, the government needs to make sure it is being put to the best use for all of the citizens. Not just the first people in the door or the well connected. >Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time. This is an erroneous statement. Where did you read this? More people are using BLM land, especially in the Bears Ears area than ever before. This is because of population growth and increased awareness of BLM land. In the past, it was just ranchers and hunters using the land. Now people go hiking, ride ATVs, ride horses (for fun, not work like in the past), etc.
twobyfour 10y ago
What about "oh, it's all owned by the federal government as a proxy for your fellow citizens, and every shared resource your fellow citizens let you use for private gain instead of public good you should be grateful to them for"?
rocqua 10y ago
There is a major difference here between publicly held renewable resources and non-renewable resources. For renewable resources, all that needs to be done is preventing a 'tragedy of the commons' and keeping the land open to most people. However, for non-renewable resources, whomever gets it is effectively taking it from the public. It is then important that the public is compensated for this loss.
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. I'm not sure where it says it has to be free to use. In fact, the Supreme Court has stated numerous times that the authority of the Federal government over public lands is "without limitations." http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con30.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con30.htm
mcguire 10y ago
BLM grazing fees for 2017 are $1.87 per "animal unit" per month. An AU is a cow and calf, a horse, or five sheep or goats. That is roughly 1 acre in terms of area. https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-announce-2017-grazing-fee https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-ann...

blackguardx 10y ago

> The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. The BLM prevents abuse, but it's not supposed to be making a profit from the public. For the vast majority of the country's history, fees to use public lands were token, because it was land owned _collectively by the people_ The BLM doesn't make a profit. Actually they (rather, the Dept. of the Interior) don't charge enough for things like mineral extraction. Think of it this way. You and I and everyone else owns those minerals. The US should make sure that we as taxpayers are getting our fair share of their value. It is the same thought process behind the FCC and spectrum auctions. When there is a public good involved, the government needs to make sure it is being put to the best use for all of the citizens. Not just the first people in the door or the well connected. >Now that a small minority of the country actually uses the land, because people have moved to the cities, nobody notices that this contract is being slowly changed, to the detriment of people who have relied on this public access for a long time. This is an erroneous statement. Where did you read this? More people are using BLM land, especially in the Bears Ears area than ever before. This is because of population growth and increased awareness of BLM land. In the past, it was just ranchers and hunters using the land. Now people go hiking, ride ATVs, ride horses (for fun, not work like in the past), etc.

twobyfour 10y ago

What about "oh, it's all owned by the federal government as a proxy for your fellow citizens, and every shared resource your fellow citizens let you use for private gain instead of public good you should be grateful to them for"?

rocqua 10y ago

There is a major difference here between publicly held renewable resources and non-renewable resources. For renewable resources, all that needs to be done is preventing a 'tragedy of the commons' and keeping the land open to most people. However, for non-renewable resources, whomever gets it is effectively taking it from the public. It is then important that the public is compensated for this loss.

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>The land is literally supposed to be held in trust for the public, and free to use. I'm not sure where it says it has to be free to use. In fact, the Supreme Court has stated numerous times that the authority of the Federal government over public lands is "without limitations." http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con30.htm http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con30.htm

mcguire 10y ago

BLM grazing fees for 2017 are $1.87 per "animal unit" per month. An AU is a cow and calf, a horse, or five sheep or goats. That is roughly 1 acre in terms of area. https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-announce-2017-grazing-fee https://www.blm.gov/press-release/blm-and-forest-service-ann...