US Government Land Grabs

[XNASA]

I just got into a discussion with someone who claims he was a victim of a land grab in his native Washington state. He claims that land grabs were much more frequent during the Clinton Admin and that things have settled down now. He even went so far as to say that "people in New York spearheaded the effort to sponsor a land grab in Wyoming with the intent to reintoduce the wolf back to it's native habitat without the consent of the people of state of Wyoming". Not sure why they would do this. Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.

I confess, I have no knowledge of who, what or why a land grab is enacted. I googled it and only came up with a couple of vague references. I'm ignorant on the subject.

Anybody have any knowledge of this or other US Government Land grabs?

[slackmaster]

1. I thought this was about land CRABS.

Never mind.

[Walt Starr]

2. What they refer to as "lnad grabs" are actually

The government refusing to renew leases on governemnt owned lands.

Farmers and ranchers have had decades upon decades of leasing governement land for next to nothing. The so-called "land grabs" were, in fact, the goverment refusal to extend the lease beyond the last date.

[HFishbine]

3. I guess it depends on the definition

Would an appointed airport authority using eminent domain to condemn private land for a FedEx cargo hub qualify?

[XNASA]

4. In his case, it had to do with restoring wetlands.

He claims that a creek ran through his property and that the US Gov classified it as wetlands and claimed it.

Since it bisected his property, we was left with two small parcels instead of one larger piece of land and that his tax bill rose because of it.

Does this kind of thing really happen without fair compensation?

Can a group of people in one state infringe on another? Sounds outrageous.

[sandnsea]

7. Federal land is everybody's

That's one way to look at it. When a National Forest in one state is being mismanaged, it's everybody's business. Like Yellowstone is everybody's business. Local people feel it's only their business because it's their economy. With wetlands, I thought they were designating certain lands as wetlands, not actually taking them. Maybe it depends on the importance of the land or something, somebody else might pop in that knows more.

[HFishbine]

10. That's really funny

because in the FedEx case, they are actually going to fill in wetlands (32 acres of wetlands, and three miles of streams) on which to build the facility. This one is an example of a quasi-governmental entity using its power of eminent domain to destroy wetlands to advance the interests of a corporation.

I don't want to hear about the evil government protecting wetlands. I've seen first hand the extent to which the Bush department of justice will go to help a corporation destroy wetlands. Another reason why we need an envorinmentally sensitive president.

[sandnsea]

5. Point of view I guess

Environmental protection. The feds do various things to get land that needs protection or land that is prime habitat, from buying it outright to arranging trades. To Wyoming in particular, alot of mountain people don't want wolves and gizzlies introduced. They feel that out-of-state environmentalists aren't concerned with the local problems these particular animals create. Although I didn't know that 'land grab' was the spin on this issue. There's alot more to it and probably alot more situations, that's the bit that I know.

[pfitz59]

6. Bush* made his wad on a TX land grab!

Soaked the folks in Arlington and used the loot to buy the Pig Ranch. Bring it up any time someone mentions "land grab".

[Pillowbiter]

8. I think he may be referring to the national parks initiative

There was something similar that happened in the appelachians, where the people that lived there had to move because the land was made into a national park. Of course they were compensated, but probably not enough.

Still it's one of those things where to benefit the many, you have to upset the few.

PB

[havocmom]

9. Rumblings around here getting louder since the fire

that is turning the Big Sky grey/brown again.

Small fire (lightening caused) On BLM land, BLM would not allow the locals right next to it put it out, Now it is a raging mess that has eaten up the better part of several ranches. An unusually wet spring fostered tremendous growth of grasses and now it is hot and dry. It is always windy and the locals knew that to let it burn was a really bad plan.

Doesn't help that several months ago, at a community meeting, the local manager for Fed lands shot off his mouth to the general tune of: Ranching is dead; you people should give up and get off the land; it is all gonna be federal buffalo preserve soon anyway...

So now these folks have had fire fighting thwarted. The 'management' team the state sent in has been the Keystone Cops at best and agents for mayham at worst. They stood down all last weekend and the fire went from 3000 acres to over 100,000 acres. At first they did not allow teams on private land to help. They were shamed into sending them in when reports of folks in their 60s, 70s and 80s fighting the fires in 113 degree temps hit the wires.

Fire has taken out the privates lands wanted to make the preserve. Things that make ya go hmmmmmm.

[SharonAnn]

11. Well, that kind of ranching is welfare paid for by everyone else

when Federal lands are provided at next to nothing and the rancher makes a profit on something that doesn't belong tohim/her and that he/she didn't pay fair market value for.

Yes, the Westerners like to talk about how they're so self-reliant and independent but some of them are on the dole and always have been. Read Sandra Day O'Connor's book about her childhood and their "independence" and "self-reliance" then notice that they were ranching on public land and next to no cost.

Hmmm, sounds like a typical Republican hypocritical set of beliefs vs actions.

[havocmom]

14. These are people fighting fire on their OWN deeded lands!

A few lease fed lands, but I am talking about PRIVATE land laid waste in the past week and a half! The main fire was on fed land but the locals knew conditions would likely cause it to spread onto private property. I am talking about people watching the siding melt off their private homes and yet jubiliant that THEY saved the buildings and so far no one has died, though there have been some mighty close calls! (And it isn't close to being over yet. I fear we will be burying neighbors before it is over.)

The fact that they are near federal lands puts them at risk in this case. The deeded lands were homesteaded before the federal preserves in the area were enacted. These are not million $$ trophy homes built within the past decade bordering national forests where they shouldn't be! But federal land management policy has decided the fate of their private property.

Maybe some of us are as guilty of the kneejerk reactions that we ascribe to the republicans. Not taking time to look into individural cases and then pronouncing sentence does not win us any friends. Nor will it help win any elections.

[havocmom]

15. And by the way, are you eating cheap beef with that?

Ranchers and farmers have not seen the prices they recieve for their goods increase in decades. The middle men and processors get a lot of markup, but Americans actually get their groceries on the cheap because of policy. The producers get a small fraction of what you pay at the checkout.

One way the producers manage to stay afloat is thru various programs, which some may see as welfare (including many producers who avoid utilizing programs they may qualify for on ethical grounds, and their personal creed of self reliance.) Like national parks and forest are in everyone's best intrests, so is food production. Subsidies to small farms is a small part of the national budget. Also, many programs and subsidised encourage and/or require landowners to set aside areas for and create/maintain conditions to help natrual resource conservation and wildlife.

This is what my husband does for a living: he beats his head against the wall of stubborn folks on both sides to show them how it can all be a win/win situation. And it works. Conservation and ranching/farming are not only compatiable, they are dependent upon each other.

edit: typo

[sandnsea]

Bitterroot 2000

Same thing happened there. Locals went out west of Hamilton to put out that fire and were turned away. (I used to live there, still follow things. Montana never leaves your blood!) I believe in controlled burns and burning policies for healthier forests; but not during droughts. They're having the same argument on a fire east of me now. Then when it's out of control, the environmentalists only lose more of their argument because of public perception of thousands of burned acres. Then I read about a forest down in Cali that had some burning and true thinning and that forest stopped a fire immediately. In a few years, it'll probably have just the kind of trees loggers want in the first place. They know how to do this correctly, they know how to create healthy wildlands, it's just neither side will bend. Sorry about you living in the midst of the fire too, I was in Missoula when we had 5 fires all around us. Pretty spooky.

[Loonman]

12. LOL, like this "land grab"?

[jagguy]

13. a shameful government practice thats nearly unknown

they killed people here in VA a few years back while removing them from land that they wanted.

Damn near as odious as the treatment of natives. Same thing really.

Every administration is guilty of this, no need to pick on Big Dog.

[jackstraw45]

16. Biggest land grab I'm aware of...

During WWII for the Manhattan Project - government grabbed over 600 square miles in WA state alone displacing towns and native tribes. Same thing happened in Tennessee and New Mexico.