Preps and Solutions
(Sponsored Ads)
Silver
Strategic Relocation
Recently Posted Articles and Videos
Ready Nutrition - Homesteading and Preparedness
Ready Gardens - A Ready Nutrition Company
The Daily Sheeple
The Prepper Website
SGT Report
SGT Report
top Prepper Web Sites
Featured Destinations
The Liberty Mill
Web Destinations

Clarocet for Kids
Silver

The Reality Of The Federal Government’s Land Grab

Mac Slavo
July 9th, 2017
SHTFplan.com
Comments (99)
Read by 6,005 people

landgrab

Not many Americans realize just how much land the federal government claims to have ownership of.  In the United States, the federal government has been systematically taking over the west, and the land grab looks bleak and tyrannical.

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that when the government declares ownership over land, they also dictate what others may do with said land, often burying the economy in burdensome paperwork and regulations.  And based on the map above, Nevadans have it the worst. Today, the federal government claims to “own” or hold approximately 640 million acres of land or 28 percent of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Around 92 percent of all the federally owned acres are in the West. According to shocking statistics published by Ballotpedia, the federal government collectively owns 47 percent of all land in 12 western states. Interestingly enough though, states East of the Mississippi River are, for the most part, less controlled by the feds, with only 4 percent of all land owned by the government.

Given the very poor management of the federal government in every aspect, many states in which the feds claim ownership of vast amounts of land, are calling for a reduction in federal land ownership and for the control to be transferred to the states.

Did you know 84.9 percent of Nevada, 64.9 percent of Utah, 61.6 percent of Idaho, and 52.9 percent of Oregon are federally-owned? Though Nevada has the greatest percentage of land owned by the feds within a state, Alaska has the most land total owned by the federal government. A whopping 223.8 million acres (or 61.2 percent) in Alaska are owned by the feds.

Other states where the feds own a vast amount of land include Washington (28.5 percent), Montana (29.0 percent), New Mexico (34.7 percent), Colorado (35.9 percent), Arizona (38.6 percent), California (45.8 percent), and Wyoming (48.1 percent). –Natural News

Government control of the natural resources gives the federal government tremendous control of the whole economy. The feds then intentionally distort prices and diminish the efficacy of our economic calculation for political gain and oppressive power over civilians. The government ownership of lands also leads to several severe economic problems, such as the most horrific outcome: tyranny. Government officials can use their control of the natural resources to reward politically favored industries (as we all witnessed during Obama’s reign as president when he financially awarded the failed clean energy industry and further indebted the nation in doing so)  and punish their political enemies.  Obama’s $800 billion bailout was an economic disaster and failure of epic proportions – even socialists and liberals saw it as such. But the other disaster of federal land ownership is the government restrictions on the use of resources on government lands, which massively limit economic growth.

According to Sue Lani Madsen, frustrated local federal land managers are hindered by layers of internal regulations that make a timely response to weed outbreaks difficult.  Simply having the feds as a neighbor is more costly and not effective for those who use their privately owned land for farming or any other economic contribution.  Since federal land is exempt from state noxious weed control laws, having a federally owned plot of land next door is bad news for the everyday American land owner.  The feds play by their own rules -the very rules they made up and they don’t care about the peasants they oversee in the process.

Other problems arise due to the mismanagement so engrained within the federal government. Wildfires tend to spread very rapidly in areas controlled by the feds destroying usable land at a much higher rate. As reported by The Economic Collapse Blog, over 2.6 million acres of land has gone up in flames just in 2017 alone.  The feds are horrific with responses to fires, while private businesses tend to take the disaster more seriously.  Since the feds literally don’t care even a small about local issues or concerns, it can be very frustrating for people living in areas where the federal government is in control of vast stretches of the state.

The issue goes deeper than who owns what land, as pointed out earlier in this article.  The federal government is seeking more power by owning land and claiming authority over those who reside in or near it.  The oppressive thumb of the feds is slowly being pressed down on everyone, and those in the West could face eminent domain laws, eviction, or worse, possibly to be left searching for the dreaded FEMA camps many still claim don’t exist for nefarious reasons. Federal power is needed to purge the nation and “cull the herd,” and the land grab by the federal government is necessary for the eventual outcome of complete tyranny.

Click here to subscribe: Join over one million monthly readers and receive breaking news, strategies, ideas and commentary.
Gas Masks, Filters, Body Suits, Anti Radiation Pills
Please Spread The Word And Share This Post

Author: Mac Slavo
Views: Read by 6,005 people
Date: July 9th, 2017
Website: www.SHTFplan.com

Copyright Information: Copyright SHTFplan and Mac Slavo. This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.shtfplan.com. Please contact us for permission to reproduce this content in other media formats.

99 Comments...

Vote: Click here to vote for SHTF Plan as a Top Prepper Web Site
  1. Jim in Va. says:

    With the US in major debt what is to prevent the government from selling off assets to foreign governments? Money talks…..

    • Gandhi says:

      You been living under a rock Jim? Foreigners own most big farms and business. I have a heard of illegal Mexicans in the house down the street. Nicest house in the area and they use it as a flop house for illegal contractors. Chinese own most of the ski resorts in Colorado and mines too, the just call it a corporation.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’ve heard that suggested as far back as the Clinton administration.

    • Eisenkreutz says:

      https://9gag.com/gag/azjYvrq/ministers-of-defence

      TAKE A LOOK AT THIS MEME CUCK BOYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      MINISTERS OF DEFENSE BY COUNTRY

      ALSO CHECK OUT CANADA AND HUNGARY’S MINISTERS OF DEFENSE

    • paquo says:

      sadly that will happen, notice in the west at least they have closed off big swaths to motorized travel making it inaccessible. Get them off the land it will be easier to take it when the time comes.

    • Nailbanger says:

      I believe sale of assets is one idea floated by DT to reduce the federal deficit

      • The Deplorable Braveheart says:

        All the land where my BOL and the family lives is only a 30-minute drive from the Chattahoochee National Forest in GA. Never been any issues with the feds or anyone else in the area. Property taxes are paid on time every year so no issues there. All of that land has been in my family since the American Revolution. All the homes on the properties are totally paid for so no mortgages to worry about. Half of them gave up jobs and homes in the cities back in the late 90s when they saw what was coming down the pike so they relocated to those properties and built their homes and new businesses there. Everything has worked out fine there so far. My time for bugout is coming. Once I get there the BOL is my final home for life.

    • Gandhi says:

      Really though because of property taxes and eminent domain fraud no one owns property, you are only allowed to rent the crap they don’t want.

      • john stiner says:

        That statement is more true than you realize.

        The supreme court ruled that local cities can eminent domain property for “economic development”.

        So if you aren’t willing to sell your land to Walmart, then the city can take it and re-sale it to Walmart.

        So much for “your home is your castle.”

      • That’s not the reason you don’t own property. You don’t own property because it was hypothecated by the UNITED STATES inc as collateral for the bankruptcy of 1933. All property r belong to us says US inc. As for “federal” lands. Good luck convincing benefit seeking Americans to give up all of the goodies offered by US inc. The states will sell it, they cry, and we will no longer have access to our lands, which of course, is nonsense.

    • Smokey says:

      Not going to happen.

    • durangokidd says:

      Lands in the West were acquired by the Federal government on behalf of the American People after prosecuting a successful war against Mexico in 1848. Otherwise the land would still belong to Mexico, and La Raza wants it back.

      Much of the land acquired by the FEDS was given to the State as each State in turn emerged from their respective territory, while retaining so0me of the land. While Federal Management of these lands may not be optimal, I encourage someone to come up with a better plan.

      State ownership is not a better plan.

      State ownership of all of the land within its border is not a better idea. Power brokers (read politicos, and major corporations) within these individual States would move to buy, lease, and control the most valuable land very quickly, with NO BENEFIT to the taxpayer.

      Crony Capitalism BEGINS at the State level where the local PTB in both parties use State taxpayer funds to enrich themselves by leasing office space from their private buildings to State and County government agencies.

      Typically these leases run two to three dollars per square foot higher than market leases of comparable space in buildings NOT owned by the BIGWIGS in both parties. Over the years, even decades that represents a lot of money flowing to political cronies at taxpayers expense when you consider the hundreds of thousands of square feet leased by State agencies EVERY FUCKING YEAR.

      Under Federal Management of these public lands, INDIVIDUALS like you and I, are able to lease land for ranching and/or locate a mineral claim. I seriously doubt whether these programs as an example would be available if all land in the West belonged to the respective State.

      All politics are local and CRONYISM begins at your State Capitol. Be careful what you wish for. 🙂

      • Prepared Pastor says:

        Yes. We must not forget the property clause of The Constitution empowers the federal government to purchase and manage property. I found it ironic the same people complaining about us doing it claim to uphold the Constitution.

    • CrackSummSkulls says:

      The US Politicians already sold of the US Government and foreign policy to Israehell. They sold off our US Currency system off to the Rothschild’s private banning Cartel to thieves. Hillary sold off 20% of US Uranium to Russia, Harry Reid sold a lot of Nevada to the BLM and Chinese. The US donated $1 Billion in weapons to ISIS they claimed went missing in Iraq when they just left it all there for the taking.

      RE: Nevada, its 85% Desert. 10% Casinos, 3% Bunny Ranch and 2% Ski resorts in Lake Tahoe area

  2. Gandhi says:

    Feds use taxes to grab it then sell it to Chinese or Mexicans. Good racket, that is how they stole my family property in Pennsylvania

  3. Gandhi says:

    But, I would rather the Feds own it than some uneducated cowboy to torture his herd on.

  4. Kate says:

    Already doing that, they are selling the water in the great lakes to China already. They everything is for sale. We are just tax slaves to them.

  5. JW M says:

    Why does the Federal Government hold lands other than as authorized by the Constitution?
    Under Article 1 – The Legislative Branch, Section 8 – Powers of Congress:

    To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and 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; And

    The states should hold all lands within their boundaries not privately owned except as noted in the U.S. Constitution.

    • TnAndy says:

      They violate the Constitution because as Bush II said “It’s just a GD piece of paper”.

    • frank says:

      I would imagine they play fast and loose with the definition of “needful Buildings.” What I think is more I important is the “Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be.” Did the legislatures of the respective states actually consent to this, or was it by default? Can consent, if it was actually given, be subsequently withdrawn? Even if there was no active consent, can the states kick the Feds out and reclaim the land? If so, to what extent can that happen? These are questions that need to be answered.

      • No, “needful buildings” are those that are inline with the authority delegated to the branch or named office(s) within a branch as is found in writing within the US Constitution.

        In other words, there is no “land management” type of authority delegated to those that serve within the federal government except in where they are required (in writing) to manage the new territories until the new states are created within those territories by making state boundaries and a republican form of government, thereafter the land within those boundaries becomes the people of that new state’s land.

        Those serving within the federal government changed that without it being a Lawful change (convention), just usurpation so NOT Lawful.

        “Admission on an equal footing with the original States, in all respects whatever, involves equality of constitutional right and power, which cannot afterwards be controlled, and it also involves as Citizens of the United States of those whom Congress makes members of the political community, and who are recognized as such in the formation of the new State with the consent of Congress.” Boyd v. Thayer (1891), 143 U.S. 143.

        So what are the “powers” DELEGATED to the federal government so that we can know what they might need buildings for?

        Publius Huldah: “In a nutshell, our Constitution authorizes the federal government to handle the following objects for the Country at Large:
        — Military defense,
        — international commerce & relations;
        — Control immigration & naturalization of new citizens;
        — Domestically, to create a uniform commercial system: — weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and

        With some of the amendments, secure certain civil rights.
        As stated in the 10th Amendment, all others powers are reserved by the States OR The People….” (end quote)

        So what exactly are those that serve within the federal government given authority over domestically (most of their powers deal with foreign affairs as a representative of the states).

        Publius Huldah: “Here is the enumerated (listed) powers which list the objects on which Congress may appropriate funds:
        — Immigration office (Art. I, §8, cl.4)
        — mint (Art. I, §8, cl. 5)
        — Attorney General (Art. I, §8, cl. 6)
        — Post Offices & post roads (Art. I, §8, cl. 7)
        — Patent & copyright office (Art. I, §8, cl. 8)
        — Federal courts (Art. I, §8, cl. 9)
        — Military (Art. I, §8, cls. 11-16)
        — the civil list (Art. I, §6, cl.1)
        [and other objects listed in various other articles, sections, & clauses]
        … The Constitution itemizes what Congress is permitted to spend money on. See also the two geographical areas over which Congress was delegated “general legislative powers”: Art. I, §8, next to last clause, & Art. IV, §3, cl. 2.” (end quote)

        Those are the delegated powers, notice what is missing, what was NOT delegated, yet is being usurped from the people and the states. Remember that the people did NOT delegate all the people’s power and authority over themselves, etc to the state governments, nor to the federal governments, but instead retained for themselves to decide and/or to administer/enforce.

        Re: property Law here in the USA (capital “l” designates that it is in Pursuance thereof the US Constitution).

        John Adams: “Property is surely a right of mankind, as really as liberty”.

        James Madison: “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

        “Right of protecting property, declared inalienable by constitution, is not mere right to protect it by individual force, but right to protect it by law of land, and force of body politic.” Billings v. Hall (1857), 7 C. 1.

        “Constitutional guarantee securing to every person right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property refers to right to possess absolutely and unqualifiedly every species of property recognized by law and all rights incidental thereto, including right to dispose of such property in such manner as he pleases.” People v. Davenport (1937), 21 C.A. 292, 69 P.2d 396.

        “Right to possess and protect property is not more clearly protected by constitution, than right to acquire it. Right to acquire is right to use proper means to attain end; and use of such means, cannot be prohibited by legislature, except peace and safety of state require it.” In Re Newman (1858), 9 C. 502.

        “To say that one may not defend his own property is usurpation of power by legislature.” O’Connell v. Judnich (1925), 71 C.A.386, 235 P. 664.

        “Owner has constitutional right to use and enjoyment of his property.” Simpson v. Los Angeles (1935), 4 C.2d 60, 47 P.2d 474.

        “Right of property antedates all constitutions. Every person has right to enjoy his property and improve it according to his own desires in any way consistent with rights of others.” People v. Holder (1921), 53 C.A. 45, 199 P. 832.

        Hope this helps to clarify what those that serve within our government are under contract and Oath bound to do.

        • GrandpaSpeaks says:

          And yet the Bundy’s rot in jail abandoned. This was the crux of Bundy’s defence, he would gladly have paid to the Constitutional authority, the State of Nevada. But judge Navarro would not allow the Constitution in her court. See how they run? Deeply rooted, certainly. Corrupted, absolutely. Unstoppable,seemingly, as long as the Bundy’s ride the railroad. We miss a chance to defend it right there. That is why it isn’t as it should be. People need to brush up on their right to nullify.

          • Old Guy says:

            Stupid Bundy should have paid those grazing fees. Who he thought they should be paid to is of very little importance. My opinion was he is a deadbeat who’s family had used that land so long they thought it belonged to them. I used to drive a wrecker. And I sometimes reposed cars and tractors ect. All the time some person would be crying and yelling about me taking their property. I usually countered with the statement Its not your property. When you buy on credit its not yours. Until you make the very last payment you are nothing more than a glorified renter. Bundy wasn’t even that. He was a not paying deadbeat renter.

              • Old Guy says:

                I watched the video. I didn’t see any video of burned to death cattle or burnt to the ground buildings. The old don’t believe anything unless you see it firsthand with your very own eyes and only believe 1/2 of that applies to the video. And It evidently wasn’t private land they where burning off. In Arkansas the duck hunters are supposed to remove their duck blinds after the season from the game & fish and federal land. If they don’t the blinds are destroyed. The fact is if you don’t have a deed to the land it isn’t yours and you don’t have any say so.

            • john stiner says:

              grazing fees were only a ruse to do selective enforcement.

              Make the fees so outrageous he has to get off.

              No different than the carpet baggers after the civil war making the taxes on the plantations so high, the plantations were seized for tax sales.

              • Old Guy says:

                At one time a family member leased some grazing land from the government. It was along the flood control Levee next to the Mississippi river. every so often the lease expired and the lease was put up for bids. Most of the time nobody bid against them. However during the drought of 1980 they where outbid and lost that lease. And anyone who doesn’t pay the prescribed amount of rent on property they are merely renting is a deadbeat. Its that simple no if’s and’s or but’s. If you don’t agree with the terms pack your bags and leave.

            • Robert says:

              Man, American, Hero….

              But a deadbeat?

              Never heard a cattle rancher called a deadbeat before.

              Doesn’t sound like he was “taking” anything from anyone, sounds more like he was a provider,for his family, community and country, you may have benefited from his hard labor at some time or another, still could, in theory.

            • durangokidd says:

              Bundy was and is an idiot. They will all rot in jail for his stupidity and the generations that follow him will be perpetually broke.

              I told this community that Bundy would get someone killed; and he did. Too bad he wasn’t man enough to pull his gun. 🙂

              • Robert says:

                If you can not support a man or future generations who will work hard,stand and face trial for honest principles then just get used to paying for welfare recipients and be sure to keep quiet while you do.

              • Ron Ahrens says:

                You are such a piece of disgusting vial boot licking shit stain drunken bum cowardly trash, I hope you have no children depending on filth like you, but I still pray for your damned soul.

              • Ron Ahrens says:

                “vile” I mean…and I mean very, very vile, so vile I can smell your cowardly fascist boot licking drunken bum stench through the computer beast. There is such a very special place in hell for soulless demon cowards like you durangokidd, but you know that don’t ya, you are already living in it.

        • Robert says:

          Just when I had given up on intelligent comments here.

      • Most of this land was gained by treaty long after the the revolution…”treaty”…a fedgov operation. That is why most of the land in the west is “red”. There were no states when these lands were acquired. This is why they are treated differently than the original states.

        If you read the history of these lands, they were generally offered up as homestead land. After a certain period of time, when a territory applied for statehood, the land was offered to the state. Some states decided to decline oversight of unclaimed land and ceded their rights to fedgov. Nevada is one of these states that ceded control to fedgov over vast tracts of land when they ratified their constitution. They simply didn’t want to be responsible for the land at the time.

        Nevada tried to amend this part of their constitution several times, but it did not pass.

        Even so, you are only a tenant on your land anyway. Its the scam called “real property”. The .gov owns your land unless you can produce an allodial title. Don’t try to find yours. They no longer exist.

    • Smokey says:

      It’s the ‘Equal Footing’ doctrine, been there since 1787. On admission the Union, the states get their sections according to the Northwest Ordinance, and they disclaim everything else, as long as it’s not Patented out already or under Pre=Emption by settlers.

  6. Traitor Hator says:

    If the Italian mafia took over our banks , media ,Hollywood ? So what? Unless we owe trillions to those banks, our media gets worse by the day, And Hollywood is perverting our youth? If we see this. What do we say? What do we do ? How long do we wait?

  7. paquo says:

    as soon as land is taken back by states it will be sold to the highest, actually lowest single corrupt, bidder. At least with the fed owning there is a slight chance it still is nominally the people’s

    • Quatermain says:

      Right because we have soooo much more power over the distant DC than our state capitols

    • You misunderstand our government. It is NOT one government, but two (really three, but that is for another comment) – each state is sovereign, and the federal government was created to deal with foreign affairs for the states so that each state would have the same treaty, immigration laws, money, roads making it easier to get around the USA, etc.

      So what is the CONTRACT that those that serve within the states are under and oath bound to? Really it is to two contracts, the US Constitution is supreme Law and Contract and then each state’s Constitution is the highest Law and Contract of the state.

      That is why it is so important every election to see what Amendments are being added to be voted on – they change the power and authority of those who serve within that state’s government. At this time I do not know of any who serve within a state that has not taken more power FROM the people. Amendments change the state Constitution (contract) and your vote okays that change of powers for those that serve within your state government.

      They can take nothing from you but with your permission, which is mostly given through ignorance of understanding our way of government. When was the last time YOU read your own state’s Constitution? Read it, know what is allowed and not allowed, and if you do not like something that was voted in, remove it by showing your fellow citizens what they have assisted in doing to themselves by remaining ignorant of our way of government.

      Best would be that you get involved within your government at the LOCAL level, because each level has its own powers that were given to that segment. All of which can change your, and your families lives. It really is pretty critical that people who hate dealing with government quit letting corrupt, want power people RUN your local government.

      BTW, the states CREATED the federal government to be their representative in dealing with mostly foreign affairs. Here is one place to educate yourself as to what can happen by some changes such as what is being advocated today – to change the electoral vote, very dangerous to independence. Here, listen to this and learn why.

      ‘Votes, Guns, Hate & Crosses’ explains why what is going on today will remove the power from you and your state to a couple of major population states, actually to a couple of cities within those states that would become the decision makers for all of us.

      http://krisannehall.com/votes-guns-hate-crosses/

      or can listen to it here

      • john stiner says:

        The states lost control with the 17th Amendment.

        That is the direct election of US Senators. before this the senators were appointed by the state legislators so they truly represented the States.

        Now that they are elected they just pimp themselves to the highest bidder like everybody else.

    • Old Guy says:

      In Arkansas when the state receives title of real property because of failure to pay taxes the Land becomes property of the Elected Commissioner of state lands office. After two years its offered at public auction. Anyone who has the money can bid and purchase tax forfeited lands. I myself have purchased several parcels of tax land. Search COSL for information. Also our Arkansas State Game and Fish commission routinely buys acreage and manages it to benefit the public. They have built lakes and developed wildlife habitat. And it is all free to the citizens to enjoy. They receive royaltys from gas and oil leases. Sell the timber and sell hunting and fishing licences and permits. We now have elk, bear and alligator hunting as a result of their great management. The deer and turkey hunting are the best it has ever been. Fishing and duck hunting generates revenue for many buisnesses. Im glad the government owning land is working in my home state.

      • john stiner says:

        In Texas, it is the County government that is owed the taxes and does the tax seizures and tax auctions. None belongs to the State, it belongs to the county.

        If in Arkansas the fish and game is buying the land, aren’t they just “buying” from themselves?

        • Old Guy says:

          No the Fish and game buys and from individuals. Example in 1980 the fish and game bought some slough land that wasn’t viable farm ground. I was purchased from the landowners. They then built levees and built Lake Ashbaugh . Its located just west of Delaplane Arkansas on hwy 304 in Greene county ark. Its a great crappie fishing spot. Free for anyone to use and enjoy. You know there isn’t any fees to hunt & fish on the federal lands located here also. I simply don’t see any land grab by the feds. The land shown in red on the map the federal government has owned the lions share ever since they booted the Indians off of it.

  8. Sean says:

    What’s lost is the fact that most of the land the Feds own is land the states don’t want to manage.

    • Smokey says:

      Yep, this was called ‘the land nobody wanted’ for a very good reason.

      The states were given lots of opportunities to acquire federal land, even after statehood. Swamp Land acts in the South, Timber and irrigation lands in the west, town sites, all manner of outright gifts of land to the states and even counties.

  9. ace in reno says:

    As a Nevadan, that map makes me cringe! The swath of white that crosses the state is the route of the transcontinental railroad (and now I-80), where land was given to the railroad on both sides of the track. From the looks of the map, one would believe that Nevada was one big national park. Not true! Nevada only has one national park entirely within the state, and that is Great Basin National Park, which is beautiful, but hardly anyone outside of Nevada has heard of it, which is a good thing. Nevada also has a small part of Death Valley National Park, most of the park is in Kalifornia. Most people would consider Nevada (with all of its federal land) a wasteland. But it is actually very beautiful. Wide open spaces. Since the Fed’s own most of the land here, the way to protect it is to leave it as it is. The less development, ostensibly so people can enjoy it, the better. Preservation in the language of the government is visitors centers, restrooms, trailhead signage and parking, and developed campgrounds. Just a few miles from my house the government took a beautiful forest and creek area with a few unmaintained footpaths, and “protected” it by building new multi-use trails (horses, hikers, and mountain bikers), a visitor’s center, 6 new parking lots for almost 500 cars, bridges over the creeks, restroom facilities, trailhead kiosks, picnic tables, grills, cement areas for disabled access, fenced gardens (fenced so the rabbits and deer don’t eat the bushes), and much more. Like Yogi Berra famously said, “no one goes there anymore, it is too crowded”. The place is destroyed!! So much for government protection and oversight.

  10. Quatermain says:

    The percentage in Nevada is actually closer to 86%.

  11. nameless says:

    All that land and they won’t tolerate any homeless squatters.
    That big red splotch in Oklahoma is the Osage reservation.
    Mac, please inform these kind people that much of that red space on the map is tribal land.
    It falls under ” federal ” but it’s not all ” public “.

  12. Plan twice, prep once says:

    If the FED Gov confiscated Mexico it would save us the cost of building the wall. What a bargain!

  13. I understand that after shooting Finicum, his associates and even a news reporter are being held, one would think, illegally in conditions akin to torture for almost two years, or around 565 days. What can we do to help them?? If we fail them, we open the door to our own abuse. These people are being made example’s of to intimidate the public at large, and stop anyone with the audacity to stand up to Federal over reach.

    __

    • PO'd Patriot says:

      Well like the old saying goes..”Piss poor planning on your part don’t constitute an emergency on my part”.

        • PO'd Patriot says:

          Yup and Mamma Patriot never raised such a foolish child. Like I said before, I’m not a follower. I strike my own path. Those that threw in with that bunch sorry to say got led by the blind. I’ve never looked about for help when I had to skin my cats and never needed any advice on how it needed to be done.

      • Old Guy says:

        I agree I aint stupid enough to take on the federal government. That is a dumb a poking a grizzly bear in the eye with your finger. Did those idiots actually think something positive was gonna happen because of their actions? I keep trying to tell folks that Im almost 100% service to self. Im going to only take care of me and mine. Its eventually going to become YOYO. Simply put people who do stupid things get culled.

    • john stiner says:

      Bundy’s mistake is to think that he could fight the tyranny in the same system that allowed the tyranny to exist.

      He should have dug a hole and got his gun.

      Shoot. Shovel, and Shut Up.

  14. brian says:

    The Federal government has owned enormous landholdings for decades. Some of those lands have been leased to private individuals for ranching and timber. Some families have leased the same lands for so long that they tend to see the lands as “theirs”. It is EPA which seems bent on returning the lands to an undisturbed state. The laws require that individual Federal agencies be able to justify the ownership of properties to fulfill their agency’s mission. This is one of the things the Trump administration needs to look into! The Federal agencies need to really justify the holding of the lands.

  15. Old Guy says:

    Jefferson made the Louisiana purchase and the federal government paid for land west of the misssippi river. Steward bought Alaska and the government paid for it. The homestead act and federal land grants allowed the federal government to deed that land to citizens. If the assertion that is being made claiming the federal government hasn’t any right to own land is correct. Then the Land grant made to my 5th great grandfather and hundreds of other solders for their service in the war of 1812 wasn’t valid. And all the deeds made to citizens under the homestead act are no good also. Myself I have no problem with the federal government holding land. part of my property adjoins the national forest. I like that the government owns it and I wont get any neighbors next to me .

    • john stiner says:

      federal government paid

      No, the individual American Tax Payer paid for the land.

    • Smokey says:

      Don’t confuse anyone with facts.

      If you live west of the Mississippi, and French, Spanish or Hudson’s Bay land sales and grants are not in your title chain, your ownership comes directly from the Patent issued for parent parcel under Acts of Congress.

      There may be some Russian grants around San Francisco Bay.

  16. Dave says:

    A country of boot lickers!

  17. rellik says:

    I’d just like to see them bring back the Homesteading laws that existed till 1976(1986 for Alaska).

    • john stiner says:

      There is really no reason not to homestead the land.

    • Shawn says:

      Yes, our family won a lottery at Point MacKenzie in the Matanuska Valley and got 640 acres to clear and operate a viable farm or ranch. Lots of work and most of the operations never got off the ground because of the scale of the properties and the start up and holding costs until you could make a profit.

  18. Old Guy says:

    Actually there is still a Homestead Act in effect. In Russia. They will give you land in Siberia if you can develop it and live on it.

  19. Old Guy says:

    The state of Arkansas doesn’t want to own land. They want the land to be in the hands of private ownership so the counties can generate tax revenue. Even the state agencys like the hwy dept, state parks and game & fish have to pay property taxes. The state doesn’t sell the mineral rights. That’s one thing you have to research when buying land. Be certain you obtain the mineral rights. I will not purchase land without the mineral rights.

    • Smokey says:

      Most of the railroads in the west got the mineral rights along with the surface back when they built the routes. The had a lease and sale policy themselves, lots of Northern Pacific sales to farmers and even timber farmers across the west.

      The kicker is, the railroads almost always retained the mineral rights, too. They were hoping for another Comstock Lode on their property, why not?

      So buying a BOL out west? Get a full title chain report all the way back to the grant from the United States. Solves a lot of misunderstandings, and you need to know about minerals, water, access, all that stuff, anyway.

  20. Brian says:

    Selling off Federally-owned lands isn’t new. The lands held in trust for the Indian tribes isn’t going to be sold. Every time the possible sale of a given piece of land is discussed, it comes down to politics. The Government has leased mining rights, timber rights, etc. so the outright sale is opposed. Its all politics. Selling off a significant amount of land to help balance the budget is not likely to happen soon.

    The Defense Department under the Base Realignment and Closure Act used a different approach. A list of properties were drawn up of properties to be sold. Unless the holding agencies could establish a genuine need for a given property, it was sold. It increased the number of facilities closed and sold.

    • Smokey says:

      Putting a list of parcels into the law is about the only way to sell off any excess federal properties, anymore.

      Can’t hardly get rid of an old Post Office building without 57 non-profits wanting the taxpayer to just give it to them for free.

      The people know the difference between public lands and unneeded army bases and such.

      There’s an old Army flight school site near here, airfield, support buildings, large barracks and admin buildings, been closed since the 1960’s. It was declared excess, and according to the law, the local school district took over the barracks and admin buildings for an alternative school and their own administration staff. A fire district took over another set of buildings. All for free.

      Getting rid of the rest of the site is now just about impossible, it’s all severed into odd shapes and lost about half of it’s desireability.

  21. Brian says:

    Politics and money make what should be simple into complex processes.

  22. Dr. Carr says:

    If they will kill a mans cattle, then throw them into a mass grave, they are capable of doing it to the American people.

  23. Leak says:

    All those wildfires… makes you think… if you want to grab land easily just make the people move somewhere else after you burn them down. Let us hope they would not be that sinister…but historically we have seen major abuse of power. By those that weld it…

 

Web Design and Content Copyright 2007 - 2015 SHTF Plan - When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You - All Rights Reserved

Our Supercharged Intel Xeon E5-2620 v4 Octo-Core Dual Servers are Powered By Liquid Web

Dedicated IP Address: 69.167.174.108

The content on this site is provided as general information only. The ideas expressed on this site are solely the opinions of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the opinions of sponsors or firms affiliated with the author(s). The author may or may not have a financial interest in any company or advertiser referenced. Any action taken as a result of information, analysis, or advertisement on this site is ultimately the responsibility of the reader.

SHTFplan is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.