How did the Federal Government aquire much of the land in Utah and Neveda?

[CrusaderFrank]

'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.' -- Milton Friedman

 

[Camp]

No.. actually it is not... the federal government, unless it is making an owned federal park or using the land for a specific task like a military base or an office building, has no business being a land baron... that land was not intended to remain in federal hands

Federal Parks are what I was talking about.

Here's the problem: the EPA treats the ENTIRE UNITED STATES as though it is a national park for the preservation of endangered species (except when the feds allow their cronies to kill said endangered species with a green energy project).

The EPA does not dictate how the BLM manages our real estate. There are all kinds of commercial and public uses being enjoyed on our real estate. These include 4WD, ATV and dirt bike areas that are sometimes turned into waste lands in regards to animal life and nature in general. These parcels are set aside and made available to the public to help protect other parcels from being abused, and because these kinds of uses have been requested by the public. Other areas are set aside for hunting and fishing, hiking and other outdoor sports use.

 

[Camp]

'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.' -- Milton Friedman

I'm having difficulty believing the numbers I am seeing in regards to cost of maintaining our real estate and returned revenue. Maybe someone can help us figure this out. It appears to me we spend about a billion dollars a year on the BLM budget. It also appears our revenue from our real estate that they manage for us is over 6 billion dollars a year. How is it possible that a big government agency is making a profit for us?

 

[oldfart]

Correct me if I am wrong. The federal government, either through conquest or purchase, obtained most of the land. Then they opened land for people in the form of homesteads. We all have seen the pictures of people lining up to race onto federal land to stake a claim. So all the land once belonged to the federal government, WE the people. The Bundy farm is no exception it was made claim to through homesteading. In other words they were given the land. The federal government can also do as they did first at Yellowstone and put federal land as a national park. Private land is bought at prices that usually seem to be low but none the less as far as I know land ownership is recognized.

I'm on the fly here, so let me know if I garble anything. The Homestead Act of 1862 limited homesteads to 640 acres, so if people like Bundy's forebears utilized the Homestead Act, it was only for the small area they built a house on. Mining and timber interests and ranchers could not effectively own large amounts of land (local taxes for one would kill them) so they preferred leaving most western land public but built into the law provisions for mandatory water, grazing, timber exploitation and mineral exploitation rights of all public land not otherwise set aside as National parks, forests, or other designations. In other words, absent a set-aside, the government could not refuse a rancher, mining company, timber company or farmer the right to use public land. Government could only regulate use for the preservation of the land itself and the benefit of the nation and charge regulated (and deeply discounted compared to private transactions) fees for use of grazing land, water, timber, and minerals.

Now all of these rights were sold very cheaply, but they never created an ownership right in the land itself, nor any responsibility to repair the damages of overgrazing, deforestation, water diversion, or mineral extraction. Since accessing public lands was a profoundly political process, it tended to favor large and wealthy interests such as the largest timber companies and mining enterprises. When competing interests clashed, the small rancher usually got the short end of the deal. Timber companies, for example (including in the area cited in the OP) so deforested water sheds that the ability of the ecosystem to sustain grasslands for grazing was compromised. The great "land barons" of the West usually didn't own most of the land they exploited (the Bonanza storyline was a fiction), they just controlled access to the resources of public land.

In short, actual ownership of the land was largely irrelevant the further west one went. Wealth came from exploiting public land held in trust for the American people from the time the land became part of the United States. If ownership resided with anyone, it was with the First Nations, and we all know how well their rights were protected.

 

[oldfart]

Conservation is an important job for the government. No other entity could enforce the law or protect the land like a state or federal government can. Creating the National Park system was among Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement.

No.. actually it is not... the federal government, unless it is making an owned federal park or using the land for a specific task like a military base or an office building, has no business being a land baron... that land was not intended to remain in federal hands

Historically untrue. Read the Homestead Act of 1862.

 

[Freewill]

Conservation is an important job for the government. No other entity could enforce the law or protect the land like a state or federal government can. Creating the National Park system was among Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement.

So 85% of Nevada is national park land?

85% + of Nevada no one wants.

 

[oldfart]

'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.' -- Milton Friedman

I haven't seen that Uncle Milty quote before (I collect them). Can you source it for me and give an idea of the context? I appreciate it!

 

[Freewill]

Correct me if I am wrong. The federal government, either through conquest or purchase, obtained most of the land. Then they opened land for people in the form of homesteads. We all have seen the pictures of people lining up to race onto federal land to stake a claim. So all the land once belonged to the federal government, WE the people. The Bundy farm is no exception it was made claim to through homesteading. In other words they were given the land. The federal government can also do as they did first at Yellowstone and put federal land as a national park. Private land is bought at prices that usually seem to be low but none the less as far as I know land ownership is recognized.

I'm on the fly here, so let me know if I garble anything. The Homestead Act of 1862 limited homesteads to 640 acres, so if people like Bundy's forebears utilized the Homestead Act, it was only for the small area they built a house on. Mining and timber interests and ranchers could not effectively own large amounts of land (local taxes for one would kill them) so they preferred leaving most western land public but built into the law provisions for mandatory water, grazing, timber exploitation and mineral exploitation rights of all public land not otherwise set aside as National parks, forests, or other designations. In other words, absent a set-aside, the government could not refuse a rancher, mining company, timber company or farmer the right to use public land. Government could only regulate use for the preservation of the land itself and the benefit of the nation and charge regulated (and deeply discounted compared to private transactions) fees for use of grazing land, water, timber, and minerals.

Now all of these rights were sold very cheaply, but they never created an ownership right in the land itself, nor any responsibility to repair the damages of overgrazing, deforestation, water diversion, or mineral extraction. Since accessing public lands was a profoundly political process, it tended to favor large and wealthy interests such as the largest timber companies and mining enterprises. When competing interests clashed, the small rancher usually got the short end of the deal. Timber companies, for example (including in the area cited in the OP) so deforested water sheds that the ability of the ecosystem to sustain grasslands for grazing was compromised. The great "land barons" of the West usually didn't own most of the land they exploited (the Bonanza storyline was a fiction), they just controlled access to the resources of public land.

In short, actual ownership of the land was largely irrelevant the further west one went. Wealth came from exploiting public land held in trust for the American people from the time the land became part of the United States. If ownership resided with anyone, it was with the First Nations, and we all know how well their rights were protected.

I agree with what you posted and I think it was put in a more intelligent way then I did but you basically said the same thing.

As to the first Nation, land through out history has been taken through conquest. The west was no different. The native Americans had no problem taking land from someone else if no more then the deer and the birds. It was time for their way of life to end and move on. Sadly maybe but civilization move on. No way that civilization could move west with a few native americans controlling large tracks of land.

Since when is 640 acres small?

 

[oldfart]

'If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand.' -- Milton Friedman

I'm having difficulty believing the numbers I am seeing in regards to cost of maintaining our real estate and returned revenue. Maybe someone can help us figure this out. It appears to me we spend about a billion dollars a year on the BLM budget. It also appears our revenue from our real estate that they manage for us is over 6 billion dollars a year. How is it possible that a big government agency is making a profit for us?

Most of the revenue is from the sale of water rights, timber cutting rights, grazing rights, and mineral royalties. Most of this is at less than 20% of what private land owners get for similar rights on their lands, often adjacent property.

I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but some folks may have missed the subtle humor in your post, a common problem in posting compared to verbal expression.

 

[bendog]

Conservation is an important job for the government. No other entity could enforce the law or protect the land like a state or federal government can. Creating the National Park system was among Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement.

No.. actually it is not... the federal government, unless it is making an owned federal park or using the land for a specific task like a military base or an office building, has no business being a land baron... that land was not intended to remain in federal hands

you need to work on amending the constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Regreening of Cache Valley

Cache Valley was settled by Mormon pioneers in the early 1860s. When they arrived in the area they found rich soil, clear running streams, wild game, and abundant lumber and grazing resources. From 1860–1900, in their efforts to grow their faith communities and turn profits in the national economy, Mormon settlers exploited the natural resources found in Cache Valley and the nearby Bear River Range. During the 1870s and 1880s loggers removed entire forests, and from 1890–1900 thousands of cattle and sheep overgrazed the range. Wherever settlers went they transformed the landscape, hunted wild game, and introduced nonnative plant and animal species.

By the turn of the 20th Century, Cache Valley and the Bear River Range looked substantially different. Where there had once been forests, burned and scarred lands remained. In areas where native grasses had flourished, timothy, sagebrush, and juniper now dominated. Wild game that once roamed the hills had been replaced with cattle and sheep. The compounded effects of resource exploitation ultimately resulted in watershed damage. Mountain streams, which provided water for both townspeople and farmers living in Cache Valley, experienced serious decline.

In 1902, unable to get the water they needed, residents petitioned the federal government to have much of the Bear River Range set aside as a forest reserve. During July 1902 chief grazing officer Albert F. Potter surveyed the Bear River Range on behalf of the federal government. Potter took photos of the area and recorded the general environmental condition of the Bear River Range. On May 29, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a proclamation creating the Logan Forest Reserve. During the decade following the creation of the Logan Forest Reserve (later renamed Cache National Forest), forest managers and settlers worked to restore, or “re-green” Cache Valley and the Bear River Range.

This is but one example of many where the local people petitioned the Federal Government to take over the land for the protection of the residents of the land.

And another rightist myth is exposed, the myth of a capricious Federal government "stealing" private land.

 

[regent]

Conservation is an important job for the government. No other entity could enforce the law or protect the land like a state or federal government can. Creating the National Park system was among Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement.

No.. actually it is not... the federal government, unless it is making an owned federal park or using the land for a specific task like a military base or an office building, has no business being a land baron... that land was not intended to remain in federal hands

you need to work on amending the constitution.

Interesting thread. So many posters start from their political leanings and then quote the law, government policies, Constitution, history, all from those leanings. Wonder what the truth is of this whole incident? To poster's credits, however, few have brought into the debates Obama-care, communism, dental floss, or George Washington. Though I have to admit I had Washington on the ready, but only with his influence to get the seat of government next to Mount Vernon.

 

[Old Rocks]

Correct me if I am wrong. The federal government, either through conquest or purchase, obtained most of the land. Then they opened land for people in the form of homesteads. We all have seen the pictures of people lining up to race onto federal land to stake a claim. So all the land once belonged to the federal government, WE the people. The Bundy farm is no exception it was made claim to through homesteading. In other words they were given the land. The federal government can also do as they did first at Yellowstone and put federal land as a national park. Private land is bought at prices that usually seem to be low but none the less as far as I know land ownership is recognized.

I'm on the fly here, so let me know if I garble anything. The Homestead Act of 1862 limited homesteads to 640 acres, so if people like Bundy's forebears utilized the Homestead Act, it was only for the small area they built a house on. Mining and timber interests and ranchers could not effectively own large amounts of land (local taxes for one would kill them) so they preferred leaving most western land public but built into the law provisions for mandatory water, grazing, timber exploitation and mineral exploitation rights of all public land not otherwise set aside as National parks, forests, or other designations. In other words, absent a set-aside, the government could not refuse a rancher, mining company, timber company or farmer the right to use public land. Government could only regulate use for the preservation of the land itself and the benefit of the nation and charge regulated (and deeply discounted compared to private transactions) fees for use of grazing land, water, timber, and minerals.

Now all of these rights were sold very cheaply, but they never created an ownership right in the land itself, nor any responsibility to repair the damages of overgrazing, deforestation, water diversion, or mineral extraction. Since accessing public lands was a profoundly political process, it tended to favor large and wealthy interests such as the largest timber companies and mining enterprises. When competing interests clashed, the small rancher usually got the short end of the deal. Timber companies, for example (including in the area cited in the OP) so deforested water sheds that the ability of the ecosystem to sustain grasslands for grazing was compromised. The great "land barons" of the West usually didn't own most of the land they exploited (the Bonanza storyline was a fiction), they just controlled access to the resources of public land.

In short, actual ownership of the land was largely irrelevant the further west one went. Wealth came from exploiting public land held in trust for the American people from the time the land became part of the United States. If ownership resided with anyone, it was with the First Nations, and we all know how well their rights were protected.

I agree with what you posted and I think it was put in a more intelligent way then I did but you basically said the same thing.

As to the first Nation, land through out history has been taken through conquest. The west was no different. The native Americans had no problem taking land from someone else if no more then the deer and the birds. It was time for their way of life to end and move on. Sadly maybe but civilization move on. No way that civilization could move west with a few native americans controlling large tracks of land.

Since when is 640 acres small?

When it takes that much land to support one cow. And that is exactly the case in much of the high desert of Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada.

 

[OKTexas]

Conservation is an important job for the government. No other entity could enforce the law or protect the land like a state or federal government can. Creating the National Park system was among Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement.

No.. actually it is not... the federal government, unless it is making an owned federal park or using the land for a specific task like a military base or an office building, has no business being a land baron... that land was not intended to remain in federal hands

Hate to tell ya but parks are not a constitutionally authorized federal land use. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 for the specifics on how the feds are to obtain land and for what purposes.

 

[OKTexas]

Regreening of Cache Valley

Cache Valley was settled by Mormon pioneers in the early 1860s. When they arrived in the area they found rich soil, clear running streams, wild game, and abundant lumber and grazing resources. From 1860–1900, in their efforts to grow their faith communities and turn profits in the national economy, Mormon settlers exploited the natural resources found in Cache Valley and the nearby Bear River Range. During the 1870s and 1880s loggers removed entire forests, and from 1890–1900 thousands of cattle and sheep overgrazed the range. Wherever settlers went they transformed the landscape, hunted wild game, and introduced nonnative plant and animal species.

By the turn of the 20th Century, Cache Valley and the Bear River Range looked substantially different. Where there had once been forests, burned and scarred lands remained. In areas where native grasses had flourished, timothy, sagebrush, and juniper now dominated. Wild game that once roamed the hills had been replaced with cattle and sheep. The compounded effects of resource exploitation ultimately resulted in watershed damage. Mountain streams, which provided water for both townspeople and farmers living in Cache Valley, experienced serious decline.

In 1902, unable to get the water they needed, residents petitioned the federal government to have much of the Bear River Range set aside as a forest reserve. During July 1902 chief grazing officer Albert F. Potter surveyed the Bear River Range on behalf of the federal government. Potter took photos of the area and recorded the general environmental condition of the Bear River Range. On May 29, 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt signed a proclamation creating the Logan Forest Reserve. During the decade following the creation of the Logan Forest Reserve (later renamed Cache National Forest), forest managers and settlers worked to restore, or “re-green” Cache Valley and the Bear River Range.

This is but one example of many where the local people petitioned the Federal Government to take over the land for the protection of the residents of the land.

You ever bothering reading the history books before posting?

Utah was Mexican territory when the first pioneers arrived in 1847. Early in the Mexican-American War in late 1846, the United States had captured New Mexico and California, and the whole Southwest became U.S. territory upon the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848. The treaty was ratified by the United States Senate on March 11. Learning that California and New Mexico were applying for statehood, the settlers of the area (originally having planned to petition for territorial status) applied for statehood with an ambitious plan for a State of Deseret.
Utah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You beat me to it.
I was going to say that the Feds owned the land before there was any States.

Once the states were given sovereignty all land with in their borders should have gone to the states.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Conservation is an important job for the government. No other entity could enforce the law or protect the land like a state or federal government can. Creating the National Park system was among Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement.

No.. actually it is not... the federal government, unless it is making an owned federal park or using the land for a specific task like a military base or an office building, has no business being a land baron... that land was not intended to remain in federal hands

The Constitution of the State of Nevada disagrees with you.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

You ever bothering reading the history books before posting?

You beat me to it.
I was going to say that the Feds owned the land before there was any States.

Once the states were given sovereignty all land with in their borders should have gone to the states.

The State of Nevada gave up any claim to the land in their state Constitution...

 

[tyroneweaver]

the Mormons were factor in the border between nevada and Utah. Utah had about half of Nevada territory but the gov thought Utah and the Mormons would become to powerful with all that nevada gold and changed the boundary.

btw: I'm going to cache valley aka Logan tomorrow. think I'll go thru Pocatello and see all that famland and avoid the downtown logan traffic

 

[JakeStarkey]

Conservation is an important job for the government. No other entity could enforce the law or protect the land like a state or federal government can. Creating the National Park system was among Teddy Roosevelt's greatest achievement.

No.. actually it is not... the federal government, unless it is making an owned federal park or using the land for a specific task like a military base or an office building, has no business being a land baron... that land was not intended to remain in federal hands

Hate to tell ya but parks are not a constitutionally authorized federal land use. See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 for the specifics on how the feds are to obtain land and for what purposes.

You are wrong, as you know full well.

Read your Constitution so you can amend it as you wish on federal lands.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You ever bothering reading the history books before posting?

You beat me to it.
I was going to say that the Feds owned the land before there was any States.

Once the states were given sovereignty all land with in their borders should have gone to the states.

In your mind, but that is not what happened.