My Thoughts On Public Land

Most of my childhood was spent in Los Alamos, New Mexico, surrounded by public lands. I went hiking in the national forest every day. You could go target shooting just about anywhere in the Santa Fe National Forest. It was fantastic there, and still is.

Now I live on the Front Range of Colorado, where public lands are much less accessible. People build houses in the mountains (many of which burn down or flood every summer) and they block access to the forest.

I never understood why people want to live in the mountains, anyway. As far as I am concerned, lots of public land is a good thing – and building houses in the Front Range foothills benefits nobody.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to My Thoughts On Public Land

  1. Truthseeker says:

    You can use South Korea as an example. Small country with large population and 80% of the land is mountains – and nobody lives on them (the mountains). They are still unspoilt and the national pastime is walking up and down mountain trails (they have to go overseas to play golf – they can only practice it at driving ranges at home).

  2. HankH says:

    Contrary to the alarmist view of skeptics, I presided over a volunteer organization that worked with the BLM in trail and wilderness restoration I’m a member of the organization “Tread Lightly.”

    One day, following a project to clean up and GPS mark an off-road trail, we were told “thanks for helping us clean up this trail. In the future, please remember to not enter the area with your vehicles. We’re closing it and any use of the trail will result in fines.” That was the last clean-up my organization did as many volunteers were upset and quit. I wasn’t motivated to replace them.

    I inquired why the trail was being closed. He said “dust abatement.” Since then, most off-road trails in Nevada, providing access to public lands, have been closed to the public. All except boundary trails and back country byways (what few exist).

    We live in a friggin’ desert where the average daily dust devil stirs up more dust than a human could produce in ten years. Dust abatement was the excuse? I don’t think so. It was more politically motivated by the envirowackos.

    • methylamine says:

      Agenda 21. The “rewilding” of America; AKA, clearing the peasants off the oligarch’s land as they make good on the outstanding collateral for the unpayable federal debt.

      Oh, we thought they wouldn’t demand payment in kind?

      Contrary to the ages-old scarcity myths, Earth is an abundant planet…and we haven’t even begun exploiting the rest of the solar system.

      But the “Elites” see it as THEIRS–you’re just a useless eater.

      It appears they’ve been seen, though, and met–Cliven Bundy is patient zero in the plague that’s going to re-educate the “Elite”.

      • _Jim says:

        ” Agenda 21. The “rewilding” of America; ”

        … can start with the open areas in Detroit, Mi.

        Words cannot express what pictures (motion pictures/the video below) can:

        Detroit Ghetto Tour – 2013
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9svI08njHk

        • Bob Knows says:

          Yes, 50 years ago under Republican leadership Detroit was the most prosperous city in the world with the highest per-person income. Now after half a century of Democrap policy its mostly a bankrupt ghost town. They have a plan to tear down 40 square miles and convert it back to farm land, but of course Democraps have no money to pay for the demolition of their disaster. So they are working hard to spread similar economic failure to Chicago, LA, DC, NY, and the whole nation.

  3. Charles Nelson says:

    Soon only the Princes and Green Priests will have access to the sacred places.

  4. nigelf says:

    Very few areas should be owned by federal or state governments. I can understand outstanding areas like the Grand Canyon or large military areas but the vast majority of land should be owned by individuals. The denying of drilling permits on most federal lands underscores just one of the problems with government ownership.

  5. geezer117 says:

    Notice that when Robert Redford became wealthy and bought his Colorado ranch, that was when he started agitating for limited access? Once a Liberal has his, everyone else can go suck eggs.

  6. I lived and worked in Los Alamos (X-Div.) for 24 years. I worked on GEONET for over 3 years and had hoped to make LANL the honest broker for climate issues. No luck. [email protected]

  7. squid2112 says:

    While there is such a thing as “public land”, those lands (real property) are “public” to the people of the state in which that real property resides. There is no such thing as “Federal Land” or federal (real property), outside of the District of Columbia, as pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of The United States of America. It is expressly prohibited for the federal government to own any real property outside of the confines of the “seat of government” (the 25 sq miles that is the District of Columbia).

    The only reason why there is any land in this country that is considered “federal land” is because states have erroneously ceded control of land to the federal government, generally through coercion of some type (precisely the reason for Article I, Section 8, to guard against such action). The federal government has no right to eminent domain, and is expressly prohibited from such. A government that has eminent domain power will eventually consume all property.

    • darrylb says:

      Except for Federal Parks???

      • squid2112 says:

        No such thing…. The federal government cannot, in any shape or form, “own” real property. Article I, Section 8 …

        You can call it a “federal park”, but it is still eminent domain of the state in which the property resides. The federal government can “occupy” and even (with restrictions) “control” real properties, but only at the authorization by the state in which the real property resides. “Ownership” of said real property solely and sovereigntly belongs to the people of the state in which the real property resides.

    • B says:

      Between property taxes, the EPA, and various other government agencies right down to the county and city level there is no private property.

      If someone with power wants you off the land they’ll remove you from it.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yw3RiMdS7sE

      • squid2112 says:

        Yes, illegally ….

        • B says:

          It’s all quite legal. Government passed laws on all levels to make it legal. Its very own court said it was legal, and that makes it so. Even the USC itself was just the government claiming new powers for itself in such a way that the vast majority of the people saw it as legal.

          Trying to explain to the average american how some laws or some government agency they have been conditioned to believe ‘protects us’ is violating the natural law is largely futile. They won’t understand until government wants to knock their homes down or take their land.

      • squid2112 says:

        And this is precisely why eminent domain by the federal government is expressly prohibited by the Constitution. A government that has power of eminent domain will eventually consume and control ALL property. The founders knew this very well, that is why it was written into the Constitution, not as an amendment, but as a primary Article. These land grabs are wholly illegal and completely unconstitutional. Unfortunately, the ink of the Constitution was barely even dry when government began violating this Article of our constitution, and they have been doing it ever since, at an increasing rate I might add.

    • Bob Knows says:

      The US Government abrogated its Constitution more than a century ago. None of the 3 branches of government have followed its Constitution since the Progressive era. It will take force of arms to restore Constitutional government, which is why the government is so frightened by the 2nd Amendment.

  8. Colorado Wellington says:

    People build houses in the mountains (many of which burn down or flood every summer) and they block access to the forest.

    The only “mountain” houses that flood are in the drainages, typically in or near creek beds. Most of the houses that flooded in the 2010 Colorado flood were in the alluvial plains of Front Range, not in the mountains.

    Wildfires are a different thing, of course. Just as you said before, pine forests will burn as part of the natural cycle. They will burn whether they are in the mountains or not. The deadly Black Forest Fire is a good example—it happened in gentle, rolling hills landscape east of I-25. But most Colorado forests are in the mountains and that’s where they will burn.

    I share your disgust with the generally worsening access to our public lands. It starts resembling the situation in many parts of 18th and 19th century Europe where villages were surrounded by forests owned by the landed gentry, with the castle’s employees enforcing no access. Many American immigrants left their old countries to get away from those depressive circumstances.

  9. Bob Knows says:

    The UK has almost no public land, BUT the people have a “right to ramble.” Private land owners cannot just block all public access to private land. The people retain a public right to walk the land. There are details about damage to crops, etc., In the US we do have miles of overly restrictive “no trespassing” signs on thousands of miles of barbed wire lining both sides of public roads. What needs to happen is 1. the US Government recognize and require a public right to walk the mountains and fields of open land. 2. The Federal Government turn over land to the states as it was supposed to do when states were formed, and as it did in the eastern states.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *