Another Ruby Ridge type of attack about to take place in Nevada.

It seems that the Bureau of Land Management had the right to change the terms of the contract...

"Congress enacted the FLPMA, which instructs the Secretary of the Interior to manage through the BLM the public lands under the principles of multiple use and sustained yield.
43 U.S.C. § 1732(a)

"Multiple use"requires managing the public lands and their resources so that they "best meet the present and future needs of the American people," and taking into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including recreation, timber,wildlife and fish and scientific values.
43 U.S.C. § 1702(c)

. "Sustained yield" is defined as "the achievement and maintenance in perpetuity of a high-level annual or regular periodic output of the various renewable resources of the public lands consistent with multiple use."
Id.§ 1702(h)"

"The BLM has authority under the FLPMA to place restrictions on grazing when the forage declines to a level that would defeat the goals of multiple use and sustained yield."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/218116757/...st-LEXIS-23835
Click to expand...
 
Just a couple of questions.
Assuming a rancher has the right to overgraze and destroy his own pastures, does he also have the right to overgraze land that he does not own? If he does not own the land, should he not be willing to pay some kind of recompense to the owner/custodian of the land and agree to the conditions laid down by the owner?

If (all) the people own the land, should the rancher not pay a fair rent to (all) the people for using the land? How else can this be done except by paying the appointed agent of (all) the people, which must of necessity be an agency of government?

Or should the national parks be opened to whoever wants to profit from them, rent free, and let whoever wins the range war be the one who decides who shall have access and who shall be excluded?

IMO, in any civilised country rule of law is essential to overall good order. Ultimately that means that law enforcement is also essential.
There will always be mavericks who try to beat the system. When their case is strong we label them heroes but when they are just self serving individuals with no regard to their responsibilities as citizens they are merely criminal dissidents.
 
No Warri, he doesn't have the right to overgraze on land that he doesn't own, and he must pay grazing fees for his cattle on that land like everyone else does. We've enjoyed the use of national forest lands and BLM lands over the years when we were camping. The national parks are absolutely beautiful, and one must pay a fee to enter them and another to camp overnight. I agree that there must be laws to protect and maintain these lands, and we should all abide by them for our own benefit and that of the country. Well said about the mavericks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top