{"id":8303,"date":"2016-01-17T20:19:06","date_gmt":"2016-01-18T04:19:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/?p=8303"},"modified":"2018-07-11T12:09:18","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T19:09:18","slug":"the-burning-question-of-federal-land-use-policies-and-land-ownership-in-the-western-united-states","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lessgovisthebestgov.com\/blog\/the-burning-question-of-federal-land-use-policies-and-land-ownership-in-the-western-united-states\/","title":{"rendered":"The Burning Question of Federal Land Use Policies and Land Ownership in the Western United States"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a0<\/h1>\n

\u00a0\u00a0\"\"<\/h1>\n

\u00a0“Bounty and the Beast”<\/strong><\/h1>\n

By Scott Rohter, January 2016<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

All of the bounty of God’s\u00a0earthly blessings comes from the land.\u00a0This\u00a0includes both our\u00a0health and our wealth…\u00a0In the United States\u00a0about half of the land\u00a0west of the Rocky Mountains is owned and controlled by the Federal Government. To be more precise, forty-nine percent of\u00a0the land in twelve Western States is\u00a0controlled by Congress.\u00a0 This is the Beast in my analogy of Bounty and the Beast.<\/p>\n

The actual percentage of State land\u00a0owned by the Federal Government <\/a>varies in each\u00a0State from a high of\u00a0almost 90% in Nevada to a low of just under 30% in Montana, but the combined average in\u00a0all twelve western states is just under 50% compared to only 3% in States which\u00a0lie east of the Rocky Mountains…<\/p>\n

The twelve western States along with the amounts of\u00a0 land owned by the Federal Government in each State are as follows: Washington (35%), Oregon (53%), California (45%), Idaho (50%), Nevada (85%), Montana (30%), Wyoming (42%), Colorado (37%), Utah (57%), Arizona (48%), New Mexico (41%), and Alaska (69%).<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"

Malheur National Wildlife Rufuge<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

East of the Rocky Mountains the percentage of land\u00a0that is controlled by the Federal Government is much less as you can\u00a0see\u00a0from a quick look at this map<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0Why is there such a huge\u00a0disparity\u00a0in the amount of land controlled by Congress east of the Mississippi River and west of the Rocky Mountains? By what legal stretch of the imagination\u00a0and by what unconstitutional misappropriation of federal authority did the United States Government\u00a0wind up in control of\u00a0so much land in the West?\u00a0The\u00a0disparity\u00a0clearly\u00a0violates the Equal Footing Principle\u00a0by which all new States were supposed to be admitted to the Union. They were suppose to be admitted to the Union\u00a0on the same basis as all of the other States.\u00a0<\/p>\n

So just\u00a0how did\u00a0Western States lose control over so much of their land<\/a>?\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 We are talking about over 700 million acres of land, half of the land in these twelve Western States… almost one third of all the land in the entire United States of America, and all of this land is administered by Congress. It is controlled\u00a0by politicians in Washington D.C.\u00a0 The overwhelming majority\u00a0of\u00a0this land\u00a0is located west of the Rocky Mountains in\u00a0just twelve States.\u00a0\u00a0How did this happen?\u00a0<\/p>\n

Starting with California in 1850 when\u00a0future\u00a0States applied for admittance to the Union they were required by Congress through\u00a0various Enabling Acts to relinquish control\u00a0over\u00a0vast amounts of\u00a0 land. It was\u00a0a quid pro quo that each new Western State had to agree to before they could become a\u00a0State..\u00a0\u00a0Even more amazing\u00a0than this violation of the Equal Footing Principle\u00a0 is the fact that all\u00a0twelve\u00a0Western States agreed to\u00a0this land give away.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Notwithstanding this historical injustice, \u00a0the United States Constitution places strict limits upon the amount of land which the Federal Government can\u00a0control. It is limited\u00a0to just “ten miles square” <\/em>or\u00a0one hundred square miles of land which\u00a0the Federal government purchased\u00a0from the States of Virginia and Maryland. This\u00a0became\u00a0the seat of\u00a0government and the future capitol of our Nation (the District of Columbia). The Constitution allows the Federal government the right to\u00a0acquire\u00a0certain additional amounts of State land for specific\u00a0 purposes with the consent of\u00a0the\u00a0State legislature. <\/strong><\/em>but\u00a0this land\u00a0can only be used for the construction of forts and ports and “other needful buildings” <\/em>like post offices.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 There is no\u00a0place in the Constitution where the Federal government is allowed to control\u00a0vast amounts of\u00a0land\u00a0like it now does.. There is no place where it gives the Federal government the authority to administer a 160,00 acre National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon as a sanctuary for birds. \u00a0The part of the Constitution\u00a0which explains this is\u00a0referred to\u00a0as\u00a0the Enclave Clause<\/a>.\u00a0(Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17 and 18).<\/p>\n

Since all of the powers that belong to the\u00a0Federal Government\u00a0are listed in the Constitution and\u00a0it has no other powers other than those which are\u00a0enumerated\u00a0therein according to the 9th and 10th Amendments,\u00a0 it is reasonable to conclude that the federal government does not<\/strong> have the authority to control 700 million acres of land in twelve Western States.<\/strong><\/em>\u00a0\u00a0There is only so much land that the Federal Government can legitimately designate as “forts and ports and other needful buildings”<\/em> or as National Parks\u00a0or Monuments under the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution. So then just where does the federal government derive the authority to administer such vast amounts of land from?<\/p>\n

During the 19th century the Federal Government transferred title to\u00a0millions of acres\u00a0of\u00a0land east of the Mississippi River Valley to individual farmers and ranchers through\u00a0various land grants of 160 acres each\u00a0<\/a>.\u00a0This\u00a0policy was\u00a0also implemented west of the Rocky Mountains, but for various\u00a0reasons it\u00a0did not succeed as it did east of the Rocky Mountains and it was subsequently abandoned. When pioneers crossed the mountains and settled in the West it\u00a0soon became\u00a0apparent that 160 acres of land was\u00a0just not enough\u00a0 to\u00a0support a family\u00a0and make a go of it. \u00a0In many areas there was not enough timber to build a house.\u00a0 The weather\u00a0was unpredictable. Rain and water were unreliable. In some places there was no surface or\u00a0subsurface water. There were\u00a0many different reasons\u00a0why homesteading\u00a0160 acres of land was not viable in the West like it was in the East. The\u00a0Homestead Act of 1876 <\/a>\u00a0did not make\u00a0allowances for\u00a0such things. It was\u00a0160 acres or nothing, and if you didn’t comply with the terms of the land grant than you lost your claim to\u00a0the land.<\/p>\n

\"Steens

Steens Mountain wilderness area in Harney County, Oregon near Hammond Ranch<\/p><\/div>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"\u00a0The Federal Government\u00a0eventually developed a\u00a0policy of retaining control over most of the remaining land west of the Rocky Mountains<\/a>. This was\u00a0one of the first indications that something was running amuck\u00a0in our Nation’s capitol. The\u00a0balance of power\u00a0 was shifting from the States to the central government.<\/p>\n

During the last half of the 19th\u00a0century and\u00a0in the early part of the 20th century land grants\u00a0became harder and harder to\u00a0obtain. Unless\u00a0you were willing to homestead\u00a0in Alaska\u00a0these land grants were few and far in between. In 1976 all homesteading came to an abrupt end when the Homestead Act was repealed.\u00a0As\u00a0land grants were\u00a0being phased out for\u00a0farmers and ranchers\u00a0they were\u00a0still being\u00a0offered\u00a0to railroad companies as an incentive to\u00a0build the\u00a0railroads\u00a0that would\u00a0eventually\u00a0connect our country.\u00a0\u00a0They\u00a0\u00a0were still being issued\u00a0to\u00a0miners to prospect\u00a0for\u00a0gold and other\u00a0minerals, but\u00a0because of the hardships of homesteading, land grants\u00a0in the West were\u00a0no longer\u00a0\u00a0being routinely\u00a0issued to\u00a0settlers.\u00a0Pioneers were encouraged to settle in pre-existing communities\u00a0that\u00a0were springing up along the\u00a0railroad lines.\u00a0\u00a0These were the tentative first\u00a0steps of the Federal Government\u00a0into the arena of urban planning<\/strong><\/em>, and from this rather timid beginning the Federal Government’s\u00a0land management policies\u00a0have\u00a0become progressively worse and more restrictive over the ensuing years.<\/p>\n

\u00a0In 1934 Congress enacted\u00a0\u00a0<\/a>The Taylor Grazing Act\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0to manage\u00a0western grasslands.\u00a0\u00a0Along with the repeal of the Homestead Act in 1976 Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0in the\u00a0same year. It was signed into law by President\u00a0Ford to formerly\u00a0codify the government’s\u00a0new policy of retaining control over all remaining public land<\/a>. It is not hard to understand how\u00a0this metamorphosis occurred.\u00a0\u00a0Two hundred years had\u00a0passed since the Constitution was signed. The Federal Government had been expanding and growing more powerful\u00a0over the years\u00a0 especially since\u00a0the Sixteenth Amendment had created\u00a0the\u00a0Federal Income Tax. Washington\u00a0began\u00a0to assert its\u00a0power in ways and areas where it had no right to do so and no Constitutional authority to do so. That is\u00a0why Congress\u00a0was able\u00a0to exert its newfound leverage\u00a0over\u00a0new States\u00a0as\u00a0they were admitted to the Union.<\/p>\n

Starting with California in 1850 Congress pressured\u00a0newly recognized States to sign what amounted to a quit claim deed to\u00a0huge amounts of land within their borders in order to gain admittance to the Union. Under an 1864 Act of Congress which recognized the State of Nevada<\/a>\u00a0Congress stipulated (in the third paragraph of Section 4) that Nevada\u00a0agreed to\u00a0give up control of what amounted to\u00a0almost 90% of the land within its sovereign borders. Under The Enabling Act of 1910 New Mexico and Arizona were both forced to relinquish control of\u00a0approximately 45% of the land within their borders. The same thing happened to\u00a0every Western State as\u00a0they were admitted to the Union. The price of admission was the loss of control over\u00a0much of the land within their borders. It has been just as permanent as it is unconstitutional.\u00a0The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority whatsoever to control\u00a0vast amounts of State land.<\/p>\n

\"Teddy

President Teddy Roosevelt (noted conservationist)<\/p><\/div>\n

In 1908 Teddy Roosevelt who was one of America’s biggest promoters of\u00a0big\u00a0government signed into law the Congressional legislation\u00a0which created the 90,000 acre Malheur National Wildlife Refuge<\/a> in eastern Oregon.\u00a0The bird refuge\u00a0has doubled in size since its formation to over 180,000 acres through various government land grabs and forced buyouts of private landowners. Dwight and Steven Hammond of Burns Oregon\u00a0are two of the last remaining private landowners in the Harney County Steens Mountain Wilderness Area which explains why the Bureau of Land Management<\/a> has been waging\u00a0a relentless campaign of intimidation and persecution against them. That is why the Federal Government\u00a0obtained a first right of refusal on their ranch if they\u00a0ever decide to sell it\u2026 The\u00a0Government has been doing just about everything in\u00a0its power to force them to sell it too including throw them in jail for five years. When Republicans praise Teddy Roosevelt\u00a0they should never forget that he was one of the biggest proponents of unconstitutional actions by the Federal government in our nation’s history.<\/p>\n

About half of the people\u00a0in the town of Burns, Oregon are now employed by the Federal government\u00a0since most of the private ranchers, loggers and miners who used to live here have been driven out of business by excessive government over regulation.. About the only thing left to do in Harney County is to work for\u00a0a government agency\u00a0and watch the birds fly\u00a0overhead as they migrate to the refuge which brings me to my next point. Some of the biggest supporters of federal land\u00a0policy in the West are these environmentalists who live\u00a0hundreds of miles away\u00a0in big cities like Portland, far\u00a0removed from the realities of rural life. They are the ones who keep insisting that\u00a0public land should be maintained and\u00a0administered by the\u00a0Federal Government for “the good of\u00a0everyone”.<\/em> What they really mean is that they want public land\u00a0to be\u00a0maintained as a private park\u00a0so\u00a0that they can come out there once a year on a weekend and enjoy the scenery. There is no constitutional basis for their claim that the Federal Government\u00a0 should\u00a0control\u00a0such vast amounts of land. The Property Rights Clause<\/a> in the U.S. Constitution says that\u00a0Congress\u00a0shall have the power to\u00a0“dispose of Property and Territory belonging to the United States”.<\/strong> <\/em>It does not say that Congress has the power to keep it forever.<\/p>\n

\"Dwight

Dwight Hammond (Oregon rancher whose re-imprisonment over a grass fire to control weeds sparked a national outcry)<\/p><\/div>\n

The latest government\u00a0attempt to\u00a0force the Hammond family to sell their ranch\u00a0now includes\u00a0additional jail terms\u00a0 of five years a piece for Dwight and Steven\u00a0Hammond of Burns Oregon\u00a0plus $400,000 dollars in fines for setting several small back fires on their property in 2001 to burn weeds and again in 2006 to protect their house from a wildfire that was raging nearby.\u00a0 At least one of the backfires\u00a0accidentally\u00a0spread onto adjacent\u00a0land\u00a0they were leasing from the government.\u00a0 The Hammonds were convicted of federal arson charges and they were sentenced under the Anti Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. \u00a0They are currently serving their second jail terms in a California federal penitentiary thousands of miles away from all their friends and family.\u00a0\u00a0This second jail term after they served their original sentences and were released from prison is really\u00a0no different than double jeopardy.<\/p>\n

The Department of\u00a0Justice has violated the Hammond’s Fifth Amendment Rights. The Fifth Amendment states that “no person\u00a0shall be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”<\/em>\u00a0 This same\u00a0Federal government which\u00a0 charged Dwight and Steven Hammond with arson under an\u00a0 anti-terrorism law\u00a0also retains control of over 700 million acres of western land that it has no constitutionally authority to own. It is time to put\u00a0the\u00a0Federal Government\u00a0back in its constitutional cage which America’s Founding Fathers have prepared for it.<\/p>\n

The Federal Government needs to\u00a0begin divesting itself of most of the land it\u00a0administers in the Western States. It has been acquiring this land ever since the Lewis and Clark Expedition\u00a0in 1804. This land is being held in clear violation of the United States Constitution. Prior to 1804 the United States\u00a0obtained a huge chunk of territory from the French through the Louisiana Purchase\u00a0of 1803. Vast\u00a0additional amounts of\u00a0land\u00a0were\u00a0added later after the annexation of Texas in 1845,\u00a0after the treaty with England in 1846 by which we obtained the\u00a0Oregon Territory in the Pacific Northwest, after the\u00a0Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 which ended the Mexican American War\u00a0by which we obtained most of the southwestern United States, and again after the\u00a0 Gadsden purchase by which we purchased some additional land from Mexico in 1853 to adjust the boundary line between Mexico, California, and Arizona. The United States also purchased Alaska in 1867 from Russia. However there exists no Constitutional authority for the Federal Government to continue to retain control\u00a0over these lands forever.<\/p>\n

\"Ammon

Ammon Bundy (rancher and patriot) removing fence preventing cattle from grazing on public land<\/p><\/div>\n

In order to understand what land rightfully belongs to the\u00a0Federal Government one merely needs to refer to Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution where it specifically states that one hundred square miles (ten miles square)<\/em>\u00a0around the District of\u00a0Columbia which was purchased from the States of Virginia and Maryland became the seat of the Federal Government\u00a0plus\u00a0certain additional amounts of land on which to build “forts and ports and other needful buildings”<\/em>on. Any other land which the Federal Government currently\u00a0claims to own\u00a0is unconstitutional. There is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal Government to own 700 million of acres of land in twelve Western States or a 160,000 Bird Sanctuary in Oregon.<\/p>\n

If you enjoyed reading this article\u00a0please share it with others.\u00a0<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THIS IS A LINK TO A NATIONAL PETITION TO RETURN CONTROL OF ALL FEDERAL LAND ADMINISTERED BY THE BLM TO THE STATES AND COUNTIES RESPECTIVELY OR TO THE PEOPLE. PLEASE SIGN IT AND SHARE IT. YOUR NAME WILL NOT BE PLACED ON A MAILING LIST. http:\/\/www.ipetitions.com\/petition\/congressional-petition-regarding-federal-lands<\/a><\/p>\n

Half of the land in Oregon is controlled by the Federal Government. If you live in Oregon and you would like to see the\u00a0control of Federal land returned to Oregon Counties and\u00a0to its people please sign this petition here at http:\/\/www.ipetitions.com\/petition\/oregons-federally-administered-lands\u00a0<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n