hotfudgedetroit.com

The guy who was shot paid about $1000 a year to graze 17,000 acres. He was also paid over $100K to foster kids (who presumably worked his farm). He was a welfare queen. His dispute centered around whether or not he could graze out of season, which suggests it's important to actually manage federal land rather than have private businesses destroy it.

jmy wrote:The guy who was shot paid about $1000 a year to graze 17,000 acres. He was also paid over $100K to foster kids (who presumably worked his farm). He was a welfare queen. His dispute centered around whether or not he could graze out of season, which suggests it's important to actually manage federal land rather than have private businesses destroy it.

I saw that in '09 he collected $115K for caring for foster kids. Dunno if he put them to work, but this is representative of the hypocrisy of these states-first guys: to hell with central government until it does something that I can exploit. That $115K came from the state, or was there federal grant money in there? I'm not aware of any of the states that has ALWAYS given more to the federal government than it has gotten in return.

frank - up in grand blanc wrote:

jmy wrote:The guy who was shot paid about $1000 a year to graze 17,000 acres. He was also paid over $100K to foster kids (who presumably worked his farm). He was a welfare queen. His dispute centered around whether or not he could graze out of season, which suggests it's important to actually manage federal land rather than have private businesses destroy it.

I saw that in '09 he collected $115K for caring for foster kids. Dunno if he put them to work, but this is representative of the hypocrisy of these states-first guys: to hell with central government until it does something that I can exploit. That $115K came from the state, or was there federal grant money in there? I'm not aware of any of the states that has ALWAYS given more to the federal government than it has gotten in return.

In his own words, the kids were a source of income and labor on the ranch.

Mad Max wrote:People whose way of life is dependent on the largese of the federal government complaining that the terms aren't favorable enough. I'm having flashbacks to May 2014...

higgs1634 wrote:There can be a legitimate discussion about why the US owns 80% of Nevada, but the fact of the matter is the feds own all that land because they got it in the first place through a treaty with Mexico. Then they set about removing the Shoshone and Paiute indians and eventually carved three states out of it. The feds still own it because they never sold it off. contrary to cliven's claims, Nevada never had any sovereignty over the lands. And again, a huge bit of irony here is that Cliven's appeals to justice and ancestral claims seem to omit the Shoshone and Paiute that were removed from the land where Bundy wants to graze his cows for free. Unless I missed the part about how he'd rather pay the indians than the feds...but somehow I think his opinion is the injun is better off on the reservation.

http://hotfudgedetroit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3021&start=15

Right....and if you read the next post down from what you re-posted, you'll see that I agreed with everything that higgs posted. But the question I ultimately asked still remains. Why does the Fed own so much land out west, and is that necessary?

Take the politics out of this............

D-Day wrote:

Mad Max wrote:People whose way of life is dependent on the largese of the federal government complaining that the terms aren't favorable enough. I'm having flashbacks to May 2014...

higgs1634 wrote:There can be a legitimate discussion about why the US owns 80% of Nevada, but the fact of the matter is the feds own all that land because they got it in the first place through a treaty with Mexico. Then they set about removing the Shoshone and Paiute indians and eventually carved three states out of it. The feds still own it because they never sold it off. contrary to cliven's claims, Nevada never had any sovereignty over the lands. And again, a huge bit of irony here is that Cliven's appeals to justice and ancestral claims seem to omit the Shoshone and Paiute that were removed from the land where Bundy wants to graze his cows for free. Unless I missed the part about how he'd rather pay the indians than the feds...but somehow I think his opinion is the injun is better off on the reservation.

http://hotfudgedetroit.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3021&start=15

Right....and if you read the next post down from what you re-posted, you'll see that I agreed with everything that higgs posted. But the question I ultimately asked still remains. Why does the Fed own so much land out west, and is that necessary?

Take the politics out of this............

Huh? The next post down in that old thread is The Beav making a Gannon joke. (Unless you're referrring to some sock puppet that I don't know is your's)

Higgs' synopsis from 2 years back explains how the feds came to own that land.

As far as the states owning the land, I don't see how that works. Most of the states of the interior west take more money from the federal government than they pay into it, so how are they going to take on more responisibility?

Despite all the ranchers' bitching, I'm sure it'll just be worse if they can't take their herds across state lines without having to adjust to each state's regulations.

Take politics out of it? How we're governed is always the result of politics. A state with 500,000 people gets just as many senators as a state with 25,000,000; so people dependant on the federal goverment that don't live in cities were largely untouched by the welfare reform debate, and weren't confronted with any harsh truths.