Who Gets to Own The West?

[Steppenwolfe]

I understand that. You have to take anything that could be opinion with caution because they are going to slant it if they can.

But, the fact that a very few ultra wealthy individuals are buying up the open land at an amazing pace is what I am interested in opinions about.

Foreigner's are also buying up our country at alarming rates.

Our principles encourage the belief that people can purchase property and that the right to do pretty much as you wish with it are inalienable. That includes excluding others, non owners, from possession of it.

Just wondering how most TBN'ers look at the situation.




.

I don't want people on my measly 95 acres; walking, driving, hunting or using it to get across to other land. It's mine, I paid for it, and that is that...

 

[lilranch2001]

wow, for once I agree with ole steppe

 

[drssg]

Buy 300,000 acres which allows you to have exclusive access to bukos more which is owned by all of us?

I’m not convinced that that’s true. The article references a single 38 acre public fishing area that has that issue. That sounds more like a small area of public land that wasn’t worth the investment to ensure public access.

Most of the article was dedicated to people whining that they could no longer use private property.

 

[Jstpssng]

I don't want people on my measly 95 acres; walking, driving, hunting or using it to get across to other land. It's mine, I paid for it, and that is that...

There's a big difference between your 95 acres which you occupy and use, and 300,000 acres. Although that's puny compared to what a real major landowner has... probably why they still have that trailer park attitude even though they have money.

I am not sure how old you are, but one thing I have learned about life, is that it is not always fair.
Get used to it

I'm not sure what my age has to do with it. With your attitude why don't you tell just everybody to stop posting?

I understand that. You have to take anything that could be opinion with caution because they are going to slant it if they can.

But, the fact that a very few ultra wealthy individuals are buying up the open land at an amazing pace is what I am interested in opinions about.

Foreigner's are also buying up our country at alarming rates.

Our principles encourage the belief that people can purchase property and that the right to do pretty much as you wish with it are inalienable. That includes excluding others, non owners, from possession of it.

Just wondering how most TBN'ers look at the situation.




.

We're seeing the exact opposite up here. Most of the northern part of the state has always been owned by large landowners yet for the most part we've been allowed non consumptive use including hunting, fishing and trapping. Yet there is a current push to turn the 3.2+ million acres that's supported many of us for years into a "National Park". One woman even bought up 87,000 acres for "seed" toward that goal, blocking roads and greatly reducing the way people were allowed to use it. Then she slowly started allowing controlled use, even allowing a snowsled trail again where it had been for decades. During the waning years of the ***** administration she donated the land to the feds, and a lot of people wowed and thanked her for letting us use it again. Meanwhile some of us are scratching our heads wondering how it's any different now than it was before; it's actually more restricted now than when it was in private hands.

I believe that as you go farther west attitudes toward land ownerships change, following the same pattern which shaped the colonization of the country in the first place.
The first settlers came over in part to escape the elitism which they faced in England; as the nation grew and people started moving west, utilizing large tracts of land; and those attitudes are reflected today.

 

[ovrszd]

In my County the largest land owner is the most lenient regarding access.

The Count Assessor is my Cousin. She told me a few years ago that we have land owners from 11 different Countries in this County.

 

[houstonscott]

Why do you vote for people who would strip you of property rights....huh.

 

[Steppenwolfe]

Why do you vote for people who would strip you of property rights....huh.

Why are you trolling off Friendly Politics?

 

[kenmac]

Well, No body really owns any land. Stop paying taxes and you'll find out you don't.
You lease it from the government, as long as you pay taxes, they will pretty you do pretty much what you want (in some areas that is)

 

[oosik]

It's the same old "saw". "He who has the gold makes the rules".

 

[Larry Caldwell]

That one has me scratching my head... who owns the BLM land? Aren't "the Feds" you and me?

O&C lands are managed by the BLM in trust for counties and schools. They have a long and convoluted history, starting in the 19th century when every other section was given to the Oregon and California Railroad as payment for building a N-S rail line in the West. Every other section is private/public in a checkerboard pattern. The railroads were supposed to sell the land to settlers for $1/acre, but reneged on the deal, so the feds threw them out and dedicated the land to support of counties and schools.

The land is quite rugged, and roads go where they have to go, not where they lay out on the map. The BLM tried to close the roads across O&C lands, which made many 640 acre parcels accessible only by air. Landowners didn't put up with it. If the BLM built a barricade, the landowners bulldozed it out. If they removed the road, landowners put it back. Then the BLM said, "OK, but you have to give us six months notice if you want to use the roads." Timber is a commodity, and when prices are up you can't wait six months for the paperwork to clear. Eventually a federal judge told the BLM to STFU and be a good neighbor.

If you think that's bad, you should hear about what the USFS does to inholdings in national forests. The feds have tried to drive private owners out for decades by denying public access to federal lands.