-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Latest in Clark County Nevada
- Thread starter Bill Larson
- Start date
Man has to pay his bills. It was the deal NV struck years ago when became a "Battle Born" state. Everyone is losing their minds... Including the Feds. They need to come to a reasonable concession, before anyone gets hurt.
For Western states it is a much bigger issue than Bundy. When he majority of the land in a state is locked up and under Fed control - not able to be utilized for economic gain, you shift the tax burden to the much smaller portion of privately owned land and force that segment to service ALL debts.
The land needs to returned to states and the states need to do with it as they see fit. Otherwise, the tax burden of such Federal lands needs to spread across the remainder of the US.
What so we can become like Texas where the whole state is privately owned and you have to pay a fee to the owner. No thanks.
I don't agree with the Feds but at least I can still use the land.
Agreed. Moving from Montana, which had plenty of BLM land to use and shoot on, to Texas, where its all private was a HUGE downgrade.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk
If I am not mistaken, the citizens of the territories that would become Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada and Utah knew at the time of joining the USA as states, that the federal government would remain the dominant land holder in the states. This is fortunate, as any deficits that come with federal ownership and supervision are far less than the restrictions most of us who are not land barons would experience if the states owned the land and had the opportunity to sell the land off to developers, buddies and girl friends in sweetheart deals. For instance, look at the State of Utah, where the government is actively tilting at windmills trying to take federal land from the USA so they can run ATV trails over any and all wilderness type lands. States do not have a good track record in preservation for future generations; even worse than the federal government.
Mike, I would think that the financial and lifestyle benefits of having vast amounts of open range land near one's home in Denver or Tucson or St. George probably outweigh any tax burden spread on the citizens of those states; these are the very places people like to go to vacation and the tourist economy of most of these states is huge. Who wants to go see lands that one can not walk upon but can only covet from a distance because the lands were sold off three generations ago.
Mike, I would think that the financial and lifestyle benefits of having vast amounts of open range land near one's home in Denver or Tucson or St. George probably outweigh any tax burden spread on the citizens of those states; these are the very places people like to go to vacation and the tourist economy of most of these states is huge. Who wants to go see lands that one can not walk upon but can only covet from a distance because the lands were sold off three generations ago.
Yes that is kind of one down side, you hear all the people in the north and west talking about these endless expanses of open land they can just show up and shoot on, kind of sounds like a dream from here where there is pretty much no such thing for the most part.
Say what you will about Texas being majority private ownership but I would prefer for the land to be in hands of private ownership than in the control of the Federal government or even the State government. The pride of personal ownership and actually owning something is more important to me than hoping that the Federal or State Land Lords allow you to play on their lands. Land prices in Texas have ebbed and flowed over the years. Prior to fracking the Eagle Ford/Burnett Shales and hunting explosion land in south Texas was less than $1000 an acre. As was previously stated, all of these private lands are helping the tax base and an annual economic impact of over $3.6 Billion dollars for Texas. Pennsylvania ranks number two at $2.2 Billion. Montana only had $422 Million and Nevada $246 Million in economic impact for the State(http://www.fishwildlife.org/files/Hunting_Economic_Impact.pdf). Imagine the economic gains for these states if these lands were privatized. I know first hand that their are people spending large sums of money to hunt in Texas that live in States with vast amounts of "public land" evidently they see a benefit. I would much rather land be in the hands of private ownership than the government.
Trapshooter is is that what I wrote? Or is that what you want to argue?
To reiterate - When the majority of the land in a state is locked up and under Fed control - not able to be utilized for economic gain, you shift the tax burden to the much smaller portion of privately owned land and force that segment to service ALL debts.
The land needs to returned to states and the states need to do with it as they see fit. Otherwise, the tax burden of such Federal lands needs to spread across the remainder of the US.
Seems to me you assume that if Fed land is turned over to the State it will be sold. Why? B/c you have a crooked Senator that sells Fed land in your state to the Chinese? I suggest to you, it can be different. Public land can revert to the respective state, and be managed by the state to serve the best interest of the citizens of that state.
As a direct result of the Fed's ownership of 54% of the land in Oregon, the timber industry is a hollow shell of what it once was, every timber sale on public land comes with a lawsuit, pissfir willy is not your friend and is only in charge long enough to execute a test management plan that effectively equates to no logging, meanwhile they are just treading water until they are promoted in a few years and the game starts all over with a new head. Rural Oregon has lost tremendous numbers of family wage jobs as a result of the industry decline. Several rural counties are on the verge of bankruptcy. School funding - which was largely predicated on timber has been eviscerated leaving Oregon in the bottom 1/3 of the nation. Ranchers have been kicked off the land, driving food prices higher. Tens of thousands of acres have been declared roadless and off limits to most any use. Meanwhile rural Oregon still needs to fund schools, LE, FD, public transit, transportation infrastructure, libraries, airports, and every other publicly funded amenity or service. However, in addition to not being able to generate economic value from the Fed land, the tax burden to provide such services and amenities is shifted to @ 40% of the real property which is privately held (I say @ 40% b/c you still need to net out all other property owned or leased by non profits or other forms of government which are tax exempt).
Again the land should be the state's and the people of the state should be able to recognize an economic benefit from that land. Otherwise, the Fed Gov - ie the rest of the nation should pay the taxes to the respective a states of these lands.
Last edited:
Similar threads
