• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Feds Lied To Nevada About Statehood

Mike

Well-known member
If one thing Bundy has done, it's to get us to thinking of all the Federalism still occurring.

I must side with Thomas Jefferson on it.................

We could possibly downsize the Federal Gov't to a mere shell of itself and be much better off.
 

Red Barn Angus

Well-known member
I thought this was a very interesting article. I do have a couple of questions though. In one place they indicated that Nevada land was worth $5,000 per acre. I think they are in for a rude awakening there as there was a really large ranch for sale that was discussed on Ranchers a while back. The asking price was $49.5 million and it figured out to be about $100 per acre. I think they are dreaming at the $5,000 figure.

The other point I noticed was that the state felt the Feds should just transfer the land to the state so it was no longer in US control. All this would do is give control to a different set of politicians and wouldn't put the land on the tax roles as it still would not be privately owned. I don't see that as a solution at all. That would just be a way for different politicians to skim the gravy. If it is truly going to be owned by the people then it would have to be sold to individuals who will pay taxes to support roads and schools and other public needs.

But I do agree the Bundy case got a lot of people talking and has certainly exposed the over reach of the federal government. I hope it continues. I mean I hope the talking continues, not the over reach of the feds.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Red Barn Angus said:
I thought this was a very interesting article. I do have a couple of questions though. In one place they indicated that Nevada land was worth $5,000 per acre. I think they are in for a rude awakening there as there was a really large ranch for sale that was discussed on Ranchers a while back. The asking price was $49.5 million and it figured out to be about $100 per acre. I think they are dreaming at the $5,000 figure.

The other point I noticed was that the state felt the Feds should just transfer the land to the state so it was no longer in US control. All this would do is give control to a different set of politicians and wouldn't put the land on the tax roles as it still would not be privately owned. I don't see that as a solution at all. That would just be a way for different politicians to skim the gravy. If it is truly going to be owned by the people then it would have to be sold to individuals who will pay taxes to support roads and schools and other public needs.

But I do agree the Bundy case got a lot of people talking and has certainly exposed the over reach of the federal government. I hope it continues. I mean I hope the talking continues, not the over reach of the feds.

No matter which state, if it is in state hands, the state can decide what is best for them to do with it. If they deem private ownership of whatever land can be sold is best for tax revenue, then they can sell it. If they deem it is better under state parks ect, that is for the people of the state to decide. If it is important enough to them, they can choose to make political choices locally. It isn't for people in New Hampshire to decide what is best for Wyoming.

If Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, or wherever fail to make a good choice, that is on them. Back to States functioning autonomously and in competition for the betterment of society. If one makes a great choice, the rest can choose to follow.
 

ranch hand

Well-known member
You can buy state lands in Montana if it has no easement for the public to use. So if it is landlocked by private you can buy it. Then they take the money and buy up more land. I think the parks is the only land state or federal should be able to own. Neither one can take care of the land they have.
 
Top