The Land Grab Out West

[68 Bronco]

This debate is heating up and may effect our public lands and resources substantially:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/27/op...an-region&_r=0

Your thoughts?

[sayak]

Exactly the kind of bias I would expect from the New York Times.
Most people are smart enough to realize that the land should not end up in the hands of large corporations. Still, many want state control over the huge tracts of land that the feds hold for no real reason other than that they have not conveyed the land as mandated to.

[68 Bronco]

Exactly the kind of bias I would expect from the New York Times.
Most people are smart enough to realize that the land should not end up in the hands of large corporations. Still, many want state control over the huge tracts of land that the feds hold for no real reason other than that they have not conveyed the land as mandated to.

There - we have the 'kill the messenger' piece behind us, already. roud:

"Most people......" - adjusted for Citizens United.
Convey or privatize ? Devils in the details of how this may develop.

[iofthetaiga]

Convey or privatize ?

Oh...is there a difference?

[68 Bronco]

Oh...is there a difference?

That frames it.

"Welcome to Roosevelt Unit # _ _ Brought to you by the State of _ _ in partnership with _ _ _ Corp.
Please deposit $$$$ Good Hunting!
Important Notice:
Unit closed from May to Oct. due to public safety concerns whilst we are fracking. We need the money."

[Cohoangler]

It is a fair question to ask what would happen to these lands if they were transferred to State ownership. But that's not a question I want answered. The current ownership is just fine.

True story: I took my family to one of our National Parks several years ago. We were looking at an incredible vista with mountains, a major river, a green carpeted forest, and snow capped peaks. The view was nothing short of breathtaking. My 7-year-old son said to me: "This is incredible! Who owns all this land?" I looked him straight in the eye and said: "You do! All of it. It's yours. And everyone else in this country. The Federal government is the caretaker of this land, but they don't own it. You do. It belongs to the people of the United States. So never let anyone convince you that it is your interest to take this away." He was shocked. His response: "I own this?". My response: "Yes. And don't ever forget it!".

Trust me, he won't.

[sayak]

Ha ha! Thats a pretty good story right there. I wonder if you could say the same to the miners who lost their claims in the Kantishna field, or the guides and outfitters who lost their vocation when the NPS took over the Wrangells.
The fact of the matter is that the Constitution has a very short list of what land holding the federal government can have. Most of the millions of acres of land that the federal government claims as its own (though it calls it public land) does not fall into those categories. It is noble sounding to say, "This land is yours ... don't forget it". But it really isn't true.

I'm all for sensible land administration by state governments, not by centralized government administrators who are political appointees and who rule from far away. Sally Jewell and her ilk are archetypal examples of this unconstitutional overreach. If the federal government runs out of money, I hope these agencies and departments are the first to get slashed.

[Cohoangler]

If the Federal government does not have the authority to buy land, as they have done, the region we now call 'Alaska' would still be part of Russia.

Be happy that you aren't exactly correct.

[AlaskaHippie]

It is a fair question to ask what would happen to these lands if they were transferred to State ownership. But that's not a question I want answered. The current ownership is just fine.

True story: I took my family to one of our National Parks several years ago. We were looking at an incredible vista with mountains, a major river, a green carpeted forest, and snow capped peaks. The view was nothing short of breathtaking. My 7-year-old son said to me: "This is incredible! Who owns all this land?" I looked him straight in the eye and said: "You do! All of it. It's yours. And everyone else in this country. The Federal government is the caretaker of this land, but they don't own it. You do. It belongs to the people of the United States. So never let anyone convince you that it is your interest to take this away." He was shocked. His response: "I own this?". My response: "Yes. And don't ever forget it!".

Trust me, he won't.

+1

Rep sent.

[sayak]

If the Federal government does not have the authority to buy land, as they have done, the region we now call 'Alaska' would still be part of Russia.

Be happy that you aren't exactly correct.

The federal government did/does have the right to buy land, it doesn't have the right to keep it except for certain reasons, mostly military in nature. I think you are forgetting your history. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 provides a guideline for land to be conveyed to territories, and how they could become states. The pattern set was to give land to the states, not hang onto it. State's rights also enters the argument, since the federal government is not supposed to own great gobs of land according to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which says:

"...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..."

There is no real constitutional allowance for the federal hoarding of land. Manifest Destiny being what it was, the nation acquired Alaska amongst other territory; some under dubious circumstances. The purpose of Alaska's purchase, as it was with other territory, was to eventually create a state (or states), not to hang onto it and treat it like a colony.

If Russia had held onto Alaska (which it could not, because it was broke fighting England and the colony was no longer producing wealth for the Czar) I would not know the difference anyway, now would I?, because I wouldn't be here.

I am a citizen of the State of Alaska, not an outsider. I want to see responsible, healthy growth for my state. Nearly 70% of the land in a state should not belong to the central government (80% in Nevada I believe). If there ever was a "land grab", it was the central government grabbing and holding onto land that should have been conveyed to the state a long, long time ago.

Basically it all comes down to the very old Federalist v anti-Federalist arguments of the 1780s. You support big central government or you believe that state governments should have power over their destiny.

[Cohoangler]

Sayak - Thanks for the spirited discussion and debate. I appreciate your views, and discussing these issues with folks from the Great Land.

I don't necessarily disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. However, the territory of Alaska became a State after negotiations on what lands would or would not be retained by the newly created State. The agreement called for considerable amounts of Federal lands to be converted to State lands, and then subsequently, to private holdings. Nothing wrong with that. But the Federal government did not relinquish all Federal lands. They retained a considerable portions, even though some went to Native Corporations several years later. You appear to believe the Constitution requires the Feds to relinquish all their holdings. Perhaps, but that's not what happened. And the agreement between the Feds and the State was done under "good faith" negotiations. The State was established in 1959, while the Feds retained a significant amount of land. It was a win-win solution. As long as the agreement was negotiated in good faith, there is considerable flexibility in what two parties can agree upon, even if the specific authority is less than clear. In my view, that is what happened in this case.

The issue of whether the Feds are required to relinquish all their holdings upon Statehood, and whether the Feds should retain any lands in the State is a subject of much discussion and debate throughout the Western U.S., including Alaska. I encourage that debate on this BB and elsewhere. However, if the Feds retain those lands, the ownership of those land is not debatable. They belong to all of us. Whether you live in the Bronx or in Bethel, those lands belong to the people of the U.S. They need to be managed with a keen understanding and appreciation of the folks who depend on those lands for sustenance and well-being (i.e., Alaska residents). But they are not to be managed for the exclusive use of the folks in that specific State. That might be where we differ. Fair enough. It's a topic of lively debate. I appreciate your insights.

[extrema]

the specific authority is less than clear.

That's a mouthful.

[BluNosDav]

"You do! All of it. It's yours. And everyone else in this country. The Federal government is the caretaker of this land, but they don't own it. You do. It belongs to the people of the United States. So never let anyone convince you that it is your interest to take this away."

Try having that same conversation with your son the next time the Federal government has an internal argument about a new annual budget. Those benign "caretakers" will escort you off of your "land" and put a chain around the front gate with a sign that reads CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.

[outaMT]

Until we get the Fed out of our backyards, and States start exercising some of those pesky paragraphs codified in the 10^th Amendment, we don’t own JACK. Sad, but the States have become too dependent on Fed $$$, and have sold off our inheritance in the process. I think Alaska ranks highest per capita when it comes to Federal dollars.

[BrownBear]

There's an easy demo of major corporate land ownership and management. Go into the Northwest and try to hunt timber company lands. Makes the feds look like saints.