Not exactly. After the US govt. Took over vast areas of the West from the original indigenous occupants (usually via bogus treaties) the land was offered to white settlers. The settlers took the best land and left the mountains, deserts, etc. in federal hands. BLM, USFS, etc. manage those lands under a multiple-use mandate. Those lands belong to all of us and ranchers, farmers, timber companies, etc. should pay us fair market value to use them for commercial purposes. The occupants were in the WRONG.

2 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by RogerTheShrubber

Juneau, AK

Member since Jan 2009

266138 posts

Posted on 10/27/16 at 9:08 pm to islandtiger

quote:

Not exactly. After the US govt. Took over vast areas of the West from the original indigenous occupants (usually via bogus treaties) the land was offered to white settlers. The settlers took the best land and left the mountains, deserts, etc. in federal hands. BLM, USFS, etc. manage those lands under a multiple-use mandate. Those lands belong to all of us and ranchers, farmers, timber companies, etc. should pay us fair market value to use them for commercial purposes

Federal land managers are the worst neighbors a man could have.

BTW: They are talking native groups into signing over land into "trusts" for money. The tan man once again falls prey to the federal govt.

2 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Turbeauxdog

Member since Aug 2004

23514 posts

Posted on 10/28/16 at 6:48 am to islandtiger

quote:
Not exactly. After the US govt. Took over vast areas of the West from the original indigenous occupants (usually via bogus treaties) the land was offered to white settlers. The settlers took the best land and left the mountains, deserts, etc. in federal hands. BLM, USFS, etc. manage those lands under a multiple-use mandate. Those lands belong to all of us and ranchers, farmers, timber companies, etc. should pay us fair market value to use them for commercial purposes. The occupants were in the WRONG.

The occupants claim blm intentionally failed to meet the land maintenance duties under the agreement in an underhanded attempt to get them to sell.

Should the occupants pay for service/usage they aren't receiving?

Then charges are pressed over a fire that was started to protect the land?

I'm more likely to believe these ranchers than some heavy handed federal agency every day of the week.

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

O-T Lounge - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board