Texas joins Texans

[slick4591]

in BLM fight.

 

[Cross-7]

Good to see someone step up and challenge government bureaucrats

 

[slick4591]

Need more states to do the same.

 

[Bigfoot]

Yeah, like every state. The Feds are going to continue to run rough shod, if the states don't step in.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Saw where Utah representatives introduced a bill where only local law enforcement can be used to enforce the law. More of less eleminating the arming of the BLM and forestry. That's a decent start. Put the land in the state's possession and it would eliminate the federal BLM all together. Let the local government manage the whole situation.

 

[JMJ Farms]

Bet Texas wins too :nod:

 

[backhoeboogie]

I like it.

 

[TexasBred]

Saw where Utah representatives introduced a bill where only local law enforcement can be used to enforce the law. More of less eleminating the arming of the BLM and forestry. That's a decent start. Put the land in the state's possession and it would eliminate the federal BLM all together. Let the local government manage the whole situation.

Gonna have to hire some folks. Over 60% of Utah is federal land...over 80% of Nevada.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Saw where Utah representatives introduced a bill where only local law enforcement can be used to enforce the law. More of less eleminating the arming of the BLM and forestry. That's a decent start. Put the land in the state's possession and it would eliminate the federal BLM all together. Let the local government manage the whole situation.

Gonna have to hire some folks. Over 60% of Utah is federal land...over 80% of Nevada.

I believe there is a sheriff's department and highway patrol in pretty much every county. If the state has revenue from ownership, they can pay for any management they deem necessary, no?

How many people are needed to manage your place? Why do you not want to allow people in other states the same equal footing as Texas?

 

[TexasBred]

Saw where Utah representatives introduced a bill where only local law enforcement can be used to enforce the law. More of less eleminating the arming of the BLM and forestry. That's a decent start. Put the land in the state's possession and it would eliminate the federal BLM all together. Let the local government manage the whole situation.

Gonna have to hire some folks. Over 60% of Utah is federal land...over 80% of Nevada.

I believe there is a sheriff's department and highway patrol in pretty much every county. If the state has revenue from ownership, they can pay for any management they deem necessary, no?

How many people are needed to manage your place? Why do you not want to allow people in other states the same equal footing as Texas?

Well we have a sheriff's dept. in every county if that's what you mean but they don't do a lot of land management nor collect grazing or hunting fees as we have very little federally owned land. One or two national parks, a few national forest and a few military bases so there is not much work along that line for the sheriff or HP as these are managed by the feds just like everywhere else. As for the other states I really don't give a dam what they do with their land nor how they do it. None of my business but if they start losing money you can bet you a$$ first thing they'll do is want money out of DC.

 

[backhoeboogie]

The state of Texas granted the deeds to that land 75 years ago. The land didn't cost the BLM one sent. BLM has no claim to that land.

 

[hurleyjd]

From the Texas Tribune

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/28/ ... ted-histo/

 

[Oldtimer]

It'll be ruled unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause... Montana tried to require federal agents to get a sheriff’s permission before making any arrests, or serving any warrants in the State of Montana.... It didn't fly as all the legal testimony was against it as being unconstitutional...
http://offgridsurvival.com/montanasheri ... ralagents/
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-a ... 76770.html

Much the same as Montana's Mandatory Country of Origin Labeling Law (COOL) was ruled unconstitutional and never enforced because the Federal USDA laws/rules superseded it...

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it and treaties made under its authority, constitute the supreme law of the land. It provides that state courts are bound by the supreme law; in case of conflict between federal and state law, the federal law must be applied.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Well we have a sheriff's dept. in every county if that's what you mean but they don't do a lot of land management nor collect grazing or hunting fees as we have very little federally owned land. One or two national parks, a few national forest and a few military bases so there is not much work along that line for the sheriff or HP as these are managed by the feds just like everywhere else. As for the other states I really don't give a dam what they do with their land nor how they do it. None of my business but if they start losing money you can bet you a$$ first thing they'll do is want money out of DC.

Not saying they should be tasked with managing land. EVERY county has a sheriff, that is the point and they are already paid to be the executive arm to enforce constitutional law in their jurisdiction. Talk about government waste... Why the need to militarize federal agencies that as you say are to manage land and collect grazing fees?

Military bases... It's one of the very few Constitutional reasons for federally owned land in a state and I've never said a word contrary to that. Funny that the "military" is being demilitarized as service men and women have been disarmed on military bases (constitutionally federally owned land), but the grazing fee collector is armed to the teeth. Seems odd to me...

Why is there a need for national parks and national forests? Give me a good reason why you think the feds should oversee a park in a sovereign state, when the state could do the job? If it's a national treasure, wouldn't it even more so be a state treasure?

If the feds are so much better at managing these things from afar, it would only make sense that the UN could do an even better job. The more bureaucracy the better right TB? What do borders mean anyway?

As for the other states I really don't give a dam what they do with their land nor how they do it.

Yet, you took the time to post a comment about the situation. ;-)

None of my business but if they start losing money you can bet you a$$ first thing they'll do is want money out of DC.

[/quote] Is that common core math? You'd rather support a multitude of bureaucracy with money that DC has co-opted from the tax payer.... wait for it..... because if you don't, you are afraid some states MIGHT come asking for money out of the tax payer by way of DC. :help: Do you believe in spending yourself out of debt also? :lol2:

 

[Oldtimer]

Back in the early 70's when I first started in Law Enforcement, the BLM and Forest Service did contract most of their patrol and enforcement thru the local Sheriff's Office's.... But as rules and laws pertaining to public lands got more complex - they began dedicating more full-time federal officers to the agencies...

This is a good article on BLM/Forest law enforcement- showing that federal laws over land go way back into the early 1800's...The most enforcement fell to local authorities, but federal agencies were granted limited enforcement powers over certain laws (timber laws)... It wasn't until later (mostly the 1970's) when Congress passed law after law (Antiquities Act, Wild Free-roaming Horse and Burro Act, Taylor Grazing Act, etc) that it was deemed they needed more of their own enforcement powers-- which Congress authorized in the mid- 70's... Since then, like every other federal bureaucracy they have grown as Congress pass's more and more regulations...

http://landmanagementle.com/LE/blm.cfm

 

[TexasBred]

[

As for the other states I really don't give a dam what they do with their land nor how they do it.

Yet, you took the time to post a comment about the situation. ;-) Never confuse making a comment with giving a dam !!!

None of my business but if they start losing money you can bet you a$$ first thing they'll do is want money out of DC. Is that common core math? No it's elected official math. Look around you. Your state is full of it. You'd rather support a multitude of bureaucracy with money that DC has co-opted from the tax payer.... wait for it..... because if you don't, you are afraid some states MIGHT come asking for money out of the tax payer by way of DC. :help: Do you believe in spending yourself out of debt also? :lol2:

Isn't that the way states have historically done it. Anytime you get in a bind you get your reps. to go to congress for a handout. How do you guys handle all the "indian" lands in your state?? I seriously curious.

 

[cmay]

Indians can handle their own lands. They have their own law enforcement. The state highway patrol handles most of the law enforcement on the highways going through the tribal land.

 

[TexasBred]

Indians can handle their own lands. They have their own law enforcement. The state highway patrol handles most of the law enforcement on the highways going through the tribal land.

A state within a state with a casino at every crossroads. :nod:

 

[Commercialfarmer]

As for the other states I really don't give a dam what they do with their land nor how they do it.

Never confuse making a comment with giving a dam !!!

How do you guys handle all the "indian" lands in your state?? I seriously curious.

:) Surely you can see that's funny.


Indian lands are Indian lands, and they aren't Federally owned lands and they aren't owned by the state. That is very apparent by a multitude of court decisions and acts and treaties. What is interesting is that statehood of Oklahoma and how the Indian lands were handled actually supports my position of equal footing of states upon entry into the union and inability for the Federal government to Constituationally retain ownership.

From "wikid pedia", but it will due for a brief explanation:

In preparation for Oklahoma’s admission to the union on an “equal footing with the original states” [3] by 1907, through a series of acts, including the Oklahoma Organic Act and the Oklahoma Enabling Act, Congress unilaterally dissolved all sovereign tribal governments within the state of Oklahoma, transferred all tribal lands by land patent (or first-title deed) to either individual tribal members, sold to non-tribal members on a first-come basis (typically by land run), or was held in trust by the Federal government for the benefit of the members of the tribes.

By 1936 the federal government had changed its policy with regards to Indian tribes, and Indian nations within the state of Oklahoma were reinstated by the Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act. However, by that time, the State of Oklahoma was a sovereign state and the powers and authorities that other non-Oklahoma reservations possess could not be taken back from the State of Oklahoma.

So it seems that yes, the further we get away from the corner stone of our foundation- the constitution, the feds screw things up. What you'll see in any of the legal cases is that the Federal government did not retain ownership of any lands in Oklahoma- ownership went to either an individual, the state or was retained by a tribe- none being the federal government.

 

[TexasBred]

Very good. That's what I wanted to know.