Idaho wants its land back from the Feds

[sailingaway]

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/download-1-e1365018082592.jpg


The Idaho state Senate passed a resolution that demands the federal government cede the state about 16 million of acres of public lands, arguing that federal control over large portions of the state has hindered the local economy.

State senators voted 21-13 to approve the resolution, which was already passed by the state House, advancing the argument that the state can better manage the lands than the federal government can. Lawmakers also argued that it would help the state’s economy.

“If we were to get some of those acres of timber… and utilize that biomass that is going to waste, we could generate jobs and electricity that we could then sell out of state,” said Republican state Sen. Marv Hagedorn. “There are some good reasons why we should do this, and putting people back to work is a great reason.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/idaho-wants-its-land-back/#ixzz2PQHRLf2K

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/idaho-wants-its-land-back/

[HOLLYWOOD]

I hope Idaho can get their land back, but I'm sure the totalitarian lawyered-up Washington, will inflict their racketeering authoritarian judicial rulings to keep all of it.

Yeah, western states have been screwed by Washington DC... 86% of Nevada's land is owned ruled by various jurisdictions of the U.S. federal government.

[oyarde]

Good .

[mad cow]

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-
Article One,Section Eight.

The Constitution says nothing about National Parks,Wilderness Areas,Forests,Monuments,Historic Sites,Battlefields,Seashores,Etc.,Etc.
The federal Government 'owns' 1/3 of the land area,all the 'navigable' waters (basically,anything more than a heavy dew)and all of the oceans out to 200 miles offshore.

All of this is unconstitutional,the States should start demanding their propery back.

[Origanalist]

Another good reason for me to move to Idaho. The list keeps growing.

[S.Shorland]

GOOD!

[lib3rtarian]

Good. Any attempt to wrest power and control away from the federal leviathan is something to cheer about.

[Republicanguy]

Nevadans only live in a small portion of the dry state, yet the land not owned or in Jurisdiction by governor Sandoval, could it not be given back, and solar panels used to power the rest of the state, creating almost an equal state...well for electricity.

[Matthew5]

The Federal response: "LOL"

[jclay2]

So who are the fedcoats who voted against this in their own state.

[osan]

While I agree Idaho should get "their" land back, the comment about biomass "going to waste" is unforgivably ignorant. It is not going to waste. It is sustaining the cycle of life in those places. When people go into these places and make "good use" of these supposedly wasted resources the results are most often catastrophic for everything that lives there. So the state gets its lands back, leases them to the highest bidders and those lands turn to shit for the next 5,000 years. Once again, nicely done.

[Danan]

While I agree Idaho should get "their" land back, the comment about biomass "going to waste" is unforgivably ignorant. It is not going to waste. It is sustaining the cycle of life in those places. When people go into these places and make "good use" of these supposedly wasted resources the results are most often catastrophic for everything that lives there. So the state gets its lands back, leases them to the highest bidders and those lands turn to shit for the next 5,000 years. Once again, nicely done.

It's not profitable to destroy your own property for short term gain. Especially with renewable resources like forests. You'd make more money selling the property to someone working sustainable than by cutting down all trees at once.

The only reason the rain forests were disappearing is because they weren't really owned by anyone, or owned by the government and rent out for a limited period of time. They had no incentive to sustain the forest.

The market value of your property is the estimated sum of all discounted future profits. There is a reason forests that are private property have existed for centuries or millenia. It's not because people were more responsible back then. It's because it's economically stupid to deforest your profitable property.

[VBRonPaulFan]

It's not profitable to destroy your own property for short term gain. Especially with renewable resources like forests. You'd make more money selling the property to someone working sustainable than by cutting down all trees at once.

The only reason the rain forests were disappearing is because they weren't really owned by anyone, or owned by the government and rent out for a limited period of time. They had no incentive to sustain the forest.

The market value of your property is the estimated sum of all discounted future profits. There is a reason forests that are private property have existed for centuries or millenia. It's not because people were more responsible back then. It's because it's economically stupid to deforest your profitable property.

Unfortunately, the article says nothing about taking the land back to give to private individuals.

The only difference is a state bureaucracy would be in charge of the land instead of a federal one. Will they manage it any better? Maybe, but probably not.

[ninepointfive]

While I agree Idaho should get "their" land back, the comment about biomass "going to waste" is unforgivably ignorant. It is not going to waste. It is sustaining the cycle of life in those places. When people go into these places and make "good use" of these supposedly wasted resources the results are most often catastrophic for everything that lives there. So the state gets its lands back, leases them to the highest bidders and those lands turn to shit for the next 5,000 years. Once again, nicely done.


hmmm - that's not entirely true. there can be a good balance of forestry and sustainable practices which actually enhance the land. think of it this way - unless aspens and lodgepole pines are clearcut - the stands just decay and turn to shit over time. (due to wildland fire suppression)


also - unless fire sweeps through some forests, they will grow too dense and alter the ecology and changes everything. So its better to manage the stand and rotate the cuts on a period of time dependant on species and conditions.

[Matt Collins]

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341bfae553ef014e87f3e653970d-800wi

[Matt Collins]

http://www.strangecosmos.com/images/content/145203.jpg

[ninepointfive]

I'm fine with the state owning the land - so long as I get to ride my dirtbike over the lands and go explore.

[Matthew5]

Can we ship Washington D.C. off to Nevada?

[Republicanguy]

Nevadans have potential for electricity generation using the sun in the dry parts of their state, surely it must of crosses Sandoval's mind...when I watched this guy's inauguriation clip late last year, he almost had a kind of evil laughter/ breather muttering under his breath after pausing. Sort of like a snickering hehehehehehe I own all of you...