Proposed law would call for keeping the vast majority of land in Nevada under communal ownership

Some people have a really strange concept of “democracy,” and that says a lot about some of the people elected to the Nevada Legislature.

Also, if you thought changing Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples Day as a silly waste of time and paper, wait till you take a gander at Senate Bill 413.

SB413 proposes to designate the last Saturday in September each year as Public Lands Day in Nevada and require the governor to issue a proclamation encouraging the observance of said Public Lands Day.

The resolution accompanying the change in law is a paean to Nevada’s wide open spaces largely controlled by federal bureaucracies headquartered in the Kremlin on the Potomac:

WHEREAS, More than 80 percent of the public lands in this State are owned by the people of the United States and are managed and controlled by various federal agencies for the benefit of all persons living in the United States; and

WHEREAS, The federal public lands in this State include national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, monuments, wilderness areas and public lands managed and controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, the United States Forest Service, the National Park Service and other federal agencies; and

WHEREAS, All public lands located in this State feature a diverse range of landscapes, deserted mining towns where riches were made and lost, lush oases which stand in sharp contrast to surrounding barren lands, isolated ranches that are sometimes the size of small countries and trees which are thousands of years old; and

WHEREAS, The public lands in this State reflect many noble democratic ideals because they are open and accessible to all persons, regardless of whether those persons are rich or poor; and …

Noble democratic ideals? Communal ownership of vast swaths of land lying fallow and largely unproductive is democratic? And it is actually closer to 85 or even 87 percent of Nevada that is federally controlled.

The resolution then goes on to oppose any effort to release even a single square foot of that communally owned land to the state or private ownership:

WHEREAS, Efforts to transfer the federal public lands in this State from the people of the United States into state or private control are contrary to the democratic values of the United States and jeopardize activities such as hiking, camping, hunting, fishing and off-road pursuits; and …

So, there would be no more recreational opportunities if the feds only controlled, say, 70 percent of the state?

Pay no heed to the fact that a report from the Nevada Public Land Management Task Force, which was created by the Nevada Legislature, found that the BLM loses 91 cents an acre on the land it controls, but in the four states that have public trust land revenues amounted to $28.59 per acre. The report estimated that Nevada could net $114 million by taking over just 4 million acres of the BLM’s 48 million acres. Taking over all 48 million acres could net the state more than $1.5 billion — nearly half the annual general fund budget.

It is striking that the sponsors of this praise for and observance of communal ownership are all urban Democrats, save one turncoat independent. Where would these lawmakers be living right now if the federal government had not sold off a few thousand acres of that federal public land over the past decades so those urban areas could grow, adding homes, schools, businesses, parks, roads? Now they want to close the door on those rural communities that would like to annex a few acres for homes and businesses, providing opportunities for their next generations.

When everybody owns something, nobody owns it, and it gets neglected.

Gold Butte is part of the 1 million acres of Nevada that Obama designated as national monuments in his final year in office.

Advertisements

14 comments on “Proposed law would call for keeping the vast majority of land in Nevada under communal ownership

  1. Steve says:

    When there are no more rural lands, there will be no more rural people to oppose those urban Democrats agendas.

  2. deleted says:

    No more or less worthless than the NRS that says “Nevada wants the land that we foreswore for all time, that we never owned anyway, back.”

    Least this would tell the orange mans minion in the Interior to keep his grubby hands off land that belongs to the people of the United States which is contained within the boundaries of Nevada.

    The wank.

  3. Nevadans repealed the Disclaimer Clause in 1996. How can residents of a territory bind future state residents for 150-plus years?

  4. Steve says:

    Careful now, that train of thought opens the door to the whole “living” document argument.

  5. deleted says:

    Well, I suppose in the same fashion that the founding fathers bound the country and the states, and no one, and no state now, ma be heard to say “well, I didn’t sign it, or agree to it, so therefore it’s a nullity”.

    And, “Nevadans” in 1996 couldn’t unilaterally disavow a contract. A waste of the legislatures time, and our money, they could though.

  6. A contract cannot bind someone who is not a party to it.

  7. deleted says:

    Of course it can; as one example (there are many) my children can’t stop paying rent on my mortgage and claim they get to continue living in the home.

  8. Continue living in the home? You’re just being ridiculous.

  9. Steve says:

    C’mon Tom, you’re dealing with Patrick. Ridiculous is the baseline.

    But paying the mortgage is a contract and it does apply across generations or reverse mortgages wouldn’t be possible.

    Nice to see Patrick makes his kids pay rent, huh? Maybe he should apply that to the entitlement mentality many of the people he wants us to “support” with our tax money, huh?

  10. deleted says:

    Thomas you’re pretending that because the current citizens of this country weren’t parties to the Constitution that somehow it doesn’t bind them, and I’m the one being ridiculous?

    If you say so.

  11. deleted says:

    Oh and, like I said Thomas, lots of people who are not parties to contracts are bound by them.

    Ever hear of contracts that rn with the land? As a defender of ranchers I’m guessing the answer is yes.

    https://www.law360.com/articles/787383/when-a-contract-runs-with-the-land-a-look-at-the-laws

  12. Steve says:

    Tom, told ya that was coming.

  13. riskeggnog0 says:

    are you sure, we can have a catch-and-release fishing in North woods? thats great! thanks for the information. For fishing, usually,I will use a spinning reel to fishing instead of other ways…. it has more feeling on fishing… for anyone want to pick a spinning reel, I will suggestion you to pick the Penn Spinfisher V, which is considered as the best spinning reel by many users!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s