Don't Mess with Texas?

[earlycuyler]

Hm. As a person who lives and plays in Texas, more BLM land means more places for me to recreate and hunt without having to look at exotic animals through a 16 foot fence. Fuck them. Im with the BLM on this.

 

[percysunshine]

Hm. As a person who lives and plays in Texas, more BLM land means more places for me to recreate and hunt without having to look at exotic animals through a 16 foot fence. Fuck them. Im with the BLM on this.

Heh...remember when the Department of Interiors National Park Service spent over budget in order to shut down all access to National Parks to save money? It was not very long ago. Last October.

 

[RKMBrown]

Hm. As a person who lives and plays in Texas, more BLM land means more places for me to recreate and hunt without having to look at exotic animals through a 16 foot fence. Fuck them. Im with the BLM on this.

I call BS. What BLM land in TX are you "recreating and hunting in?" What exotic animals?

 

[Mushroom]

Hm. As a person who lives and plays in Texas, more BLM land means more places for me to recreate and hunt without having to look at exotic animals through a 16 foot fence. Fuck them. Im with the BLM on this.

I call BS. What BLM land in TX are you "recreating and hunting in?" What exotic animals?

Maybe Ibex if he lives around El Paso.

 

[percysunshine]

Hm. As a person who lives and plays in Texas, more BLM land means more places for me to recreate and hunt without having to look at exotic animals through a 16 foot fence. Fuck them. Im with the BLM on this.

I call BS. What BLM land in TX are you "recreating and hunting in?" What exotic animals?

Maybe Ibex if he lives around El Paso.

Holy Guacamole.... the only known picture of a push-me-pull-you.

.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Ahem.

.

Love me some Lovett!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No. In my two minutes...I learned that the BLM does not want 90,000 acres and denies that they are even seeking any new land. They are looking to protect 140 acres that have always been federal property. I learned that the Texas-Oklahoma border area has been the subject of decades of lawsuits and that any case generated by this grandstanding candidate will not likely solve the matter.

Here is the official BLM statement on the matter:

BLM Red River (OK/TX) Statement

The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River. The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not party to any litigation between the landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.

Questions should be addressed to Paul McGuire at 405-790-1009.

Any comment on that?

I also learned that the State of Texas has done some nifty land grabbing while this dude has been AG. Got any comment on that?

Let me put in 2 cents that are very relevant to this topic.

One thing that is unique about Texas is that the "Public Lands" that fall within that state do not belong to the BLM.

Every state that joined the Union with the exception of one upon statehood deeded over all of their public lands to the United States, except for one.

Yep, Texas.

So unlike Nevada or Idaho or California or Alaska or any other state, such lands belong to either individuals, or the State of Texas.

And has been shown over and over, the changing of the course of a river does not change the ownership of the land.

So the statement by the BLM is actually factual, if not accurate. A court ruling in 1986 may have indeed stated that this land in question was "Public Land".

But Public Land in Texas does not belong to the BLM, it belongs to the State of Texas.

That is a mighty broad claim

I would like to see a link

There is a shitload of federal land in Texas

94% Of Texas is privately owned.

 

[jillian]

94% Of Texas is privately owned.

because the federal government got nothing from texas when it became a state after the was.

wasn't the case with other states.

 

[RKMBrown]

94% Of Texas is privately owned.

because the federal government got nothing from texas when it became a state after the was.

wasn't the case with other states.

The 1% or so of Texas that the USG owns is 1% to much.

 

[jillian]

94% Of Texas is privately owned.

because the federal government got nothing from texas when it became a state after the was.

wasn't the case with other states.

The 1% or so of Texas that the USG owns is 1% to much.

that's nice.

 

[Howey]

When Texas was annexed to the United States in 1845 by a joint resolution of Congress, Texas retained both its debts and its public land. Texas was the only state, other than the original 13 colonies, to enter the Union with control over its public land.

That explains it all. The federal government should has a right to the land for breach of contract.

 

[Mushroom]

because the federal government got nothing from texas when it became a state after the was.

wasn't the case with other states.

Actually, it did get something.

We call it New Mexico, parts of Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.

Texas actually gave up about 1/3 of their territory directly to the Federal Government as a condition to becoming a state.

I would say that is pretty impressive if you ask me. More or less like say if California in exchange to keeping everything south of Sacramento for itself gave the country everything North of Sacramento.

 

[Mushroom]

The 1% or so of Texas that the USG owns is 1% to much.

Actually, that 1% is almost exclusively either National Parks, or military bases.

And that land was given or sold to the Government. If they choose to give it or sell it, that is the right of the state of Texas.

 

[RKMBrown]

The 1% or so of Texas that the USG owns is 1% to much.

Actually, that 1% is almost exclusively either National Parks, or military bases.

And that land was given or sold to the Government. If they choose to give it or sell it, that is the right of the state of Texas.

Yeah well it was a mistake. We should've figured that the democrats would turn to communism and welfare and then turn DC in to a shit pile.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

No. In my two minutes...I learned that the BLM does not want 90,000 acres and denies that they are even seeking any new land. They are looking to protect 140 acres that have always been federal property. I learned that the Texas-Oklahoma border area has been the subject of decades of lawsuits and that any case generated by this grandstanding candidate will not likely solve the matter.

Here is the official BLM statement on the matter:

BLM Red River (OK/TX) Statement

The BLM is categorically not expanding Federal holdings along the Red River. The 140-acres in question were determined to be public land in 1986 when the U.S. District Court ruled on a case brought by two private landowners, each seeking to adjust boundary lines for their respective properties. The BLM was not party to any litigation between the landowners. The 140-acres were at no time held in private ownership.

Questions should be addressed to Paul McGuire at 405-790-1009.

Any comment on that?

I also learned that the State of Texas has done some nifty land grabbing while this dude has been AG. Got any comment on that?

Let me put in 2 cents that are very relevant to this topic.

One thing that is unique about Texas is that the "Public Lands" that fall within that state do not belong to the BLM.

Every state that joined the Union with the exception of one upon statehood deeded over all of their public lands to the United States, except for one.

Yep, Texas.

So unlike Nevada or Idaho or California or Alaska or any other state, such lands belong to either individuals, or the State of Texas.

And has been shown over and over, the changing of the course of a river does not change the ownership of the land.

So the statement by the BLM is actually factual, if not accurate. A court ruling in 1986 may have indeed stated that this land in question was "Public Land".

But Public Land in Texas does not belong to the BLM, it belongs to the State of Texas.

That is a mighty broad claim

I would like to see a link

There is a shitload of federal land in Texas

How can there be a "shitload" of federal land in Texas when it's 94% privately owned?

 

[Care4all]

Let me put in 2 cents that are very relevant to this topic.

One thing that is unique about Texas is that the "Public Lands" that fall within that state do not belong to the BLM.

Every state that joined the Union with the exception of one upon statehood deeded over all of their public lands to the United States, except for one.

Yep, Texas.

So unlike Nevada or Idaho or California or Alaska or any other state, such lands belong to either individuals, or the State of Texas.

And has been shown over and over, the changing of the course of a river does not change the ownership of the land.

So the statement by the BLM is actually factual, if not accurate. A court ruling in 1986 may have indeed stated that this land in question was "Public Land".

But Public Land in Texas does not belong to the BLM, it belongs to the State of Texas.

That is a mighty broad claim

I would like to see a link

There is a shitload of federal land in Texas

How can there be a "shitload" of federal land in Texas when it's 94% privately owned?

It's all relative I suppose.....? Texas has nearly 3 million (2.9 million) acres of federal land, about 1.8% of it's total land which is nothing...

However 3 million acres is about the size of the entire state of Connecticut and I think about 4 times the size of the entire state of Rhode Island....Twice the size of the entire state of Delaware....so if you are from the New England Region or the Northeast, nearly 3 million acres of Federal land is a "shitload".....

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nutters are using the states rights argument as a form of protest against the current administration. But they think we don't realize it.

Silly nutters.

 

[OKTexas]

Nutters are using the states rights argument as a form of protest against the current administration. But they think we don't realize it.

Silly nutters.

Evidently you mistake people for someone who would give a shit about what you may realize or not. Makes you the silly nutter.

 

[Mushroom]

It's all relative I suppose.....? Texas has nearly 3 million (2.9 million) acres of federal land, about 1.8% of it's total land which is nothing...

However 3 million acres is about the size of the entire state of Connecticut and I think about 4 times the size of the entire state of Rhode Island....Twice the size of the entire state of Delaware....so if you are from the New England Region or the Northeast, nearly 3 million acres of Federal land is a "shitload".....

Fort Bliss alone is over 1 million acres, most of that is "nothing", scattered among training ranges, rifle ranges, tank ranges, and the main base itself. And that is not even counting the huge section that runs all the way up into the middle of New Mexico, mostly as the White Sands Missile Range.

If you look at any military base, most of it is "nothing". It is largely kept that way for training purposes.

Camp Lejeune NC is over 26,000 acres, and Camp Pendleton CA is over 135,000 cares. And Fort Hood TX is over 640,000 acres.

Just taking Forts Bliss and Hood alone, that is almost half of the "Federal Land" all by itself.