The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:31:04 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Yet even MORE drivel that I'm not inclined to thoughtfully wade
through, but...

Thoughtfully? Hee, hee, hee!

So much for the funny part.

snipped the boring ****

Come on, give us some more of the hilarious double-naught
constitutional legal authority stuff!

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:31:04 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Yet even MORE drivel that I'm not inclined to thoughtfully wade
through, but...

Thoughtfully? Hee, hee, hee!

So much for the funny part.

snipped the boring ****

Come on, give us some more of the hilarious double-naught
constitutional legal authority stuff!

Wolfgang

On 30 Nov 2004 17:30:35 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

[RDean's posts rarely show up at my newsserver...

Heck, you're gonna get overwhelmed with requests for news subscriptions...of
course, you're probably not going to se this, so...

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
...

Further, I simply don't feel that "the public" is _entitled_ to the
amount of
land currently deemed "public," (in the US) not because it is "the
public," but
basically because there is no truly legitimate vehicle for as broad
a program
(in both amount of land and number of clients) as is currently in
effect.
...
any given member of the public is no more "entitled" to such amounts
of land
than they are to, say, "entitled" to the subsidized use of another
member of the
public's property

The public is _entitled_ to the land simply _because_ it is public
land. The federal government aquired the land either through
purchasing or through ceding of land from defeats in war. It was
never _owned_ by private citizens of the US and so it is owned by
"the public". The government is allowed to put policy in place as
to how to use that land, and if it wants to allow "the public" to
use it for recreation, then "the public" is _entitled_ to such
use.

Moreover, the best public land has _already_ been given away to
private owners (homesteading act(s?), OK sooners and all that), so
it is perfectly sensible to keep the rest for public use. Your
"idea" of selling off public lands already happened a long time
ago. Since you say you're not opposed to the idea of public land,
then maybe you should consider how much has _already_ been handed
over to private ownership before deciding that what's left is
still "too much public land".

Of course, it is forgivable for Texans not to understand these
things. Texas came into the Union quite differently, and as a
result it has almost zero public land. That's why "the public"
of Texas (as opposed to "the elite" of Texas) come west for
their outdoor vacations.

If the rest of the west turned into the Texas model, where would
the public go for recreation? Remember, you got to toss them
their bread and circuses, else they might revolt. Things are already
pretty tense...so be careful not to push too hard...

Jon.

Boy, you must have not seen many of my posts...where did you get the idea that
my "idea" was to sell off "public" lands? Also, again, I am not a Texan,
although I do have property and land in Texas. That said, Texas has quite a bit
of "public" land (including the banks of rivers), but where a relative few
members of the public can go for recreation is not the problem of the citizenry
at large. And finally, many members of the "public" are already pretty
revolting...

TC,
R

On 30 Nov 2004 17:30:35 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:

[RDean's posts rarely show up at my newsserver...

Heck, you're gonna get overwhelmed with requests for news subscriptions...of
course, you're probably not going to se this, so...

Wolfgang wrote:
wrote in message
...

Further, I simply don't feel that "the public" is _entitled_ to the
amount of
land currently deemed "public," (in the US) not because it is "the
public," but
basically because there is no truly legitimate vehicle for as broad
a program
(in both amount of land and number of clients) as is currently in
effect.
...
any given member of the public is no more "entitled" to such amounts
of land
than they are to, say, "entitled" to the subsidized use of another
member of the
public's property

The public is _entitled_ to the land simply _because_ it is public
land. The federal government aquired the land either through
purchasing or through ceding of land from defeats in war. It was
never _owned_ by private citizens of the US and so it is owned by
"the public". The government is allowed to put policy in place as
to how to use that land, and if it wants to allow "the public" to
use it for recreation, then "the public" is _entitled_ to such
use.

Moreover, the best public land has _already_ been given away to
private owners (homesteading act(s?), OK sooners and all that), so
it is perfectly sensible to keep the rest for public use. Your
"idea" of selling off public lands already happened a long time
ago. Since you say you're not opposed to the idea of public land,
then maybe you should consider how much has _already_ been handed
over to private ownership before deciding that what's left is
still "too much public land".

Of course, it is forgivable for Texans not to understand these
things. Texas came into the Union quite differently, and as a
result it has almost zero public land. That's why "the public"
of Texas (as opposed to "the elite" of Texas) come west for
their outdoor vacations.

If the rest of the west turned into the Texas model, where would
the public go for recreation? Remember, you got to toss them
their bread and circuses, else they might revolt. Things are already
pretty tense...so be careful not to push too hard...

Jon.

Boy, you must have not seen many of my posts...where did you get the idea that
my "idea" was to sell off "public" lands? Also, again, I am not a Texan,
although I do have property and land in Texas. That said, Texas has quite a bit
of "public" land (including the banks of rivers), but where a relative few
members of the public can go for recreation is not the problem of the citizenry
at large. And finally, many members of the "public" are already pretty
revolting...

TC,
R

On 11/30/04 12:30 PM, in article , "Jonathan
Cook" wrote:

Of course, it is forgivable for Texans not to understand these
things. Texas came into the Union quite differently, and as a
result it has almost zero public land.

Well, zero plus the 800,000 or so acres in Big Bend NP. (Though there is
zero Bureau of Livestock and Mining* land in Texas.)

Bill

*Abbey, Edward

Jonathan Cook wrote

The public is _entitled_ to the land simply _because_ it is public
land. The federal government aquired the land either through
purchasing or through ceding of land from defeats in war. It was
never _owned_ by private citizens of the US and so it is owned by
"the public". The government is allowed to put policy in place as
to how to use that land, and if it wants to allow "the public" to
use it for recreation, then "the public" is _entitled_ to such
use.

It is unfortunate (although I confess to great grudging admiration of the
skill involved) that the terms of public discourse have so effectively been
twisted by ultra-conservatives over the past two decades that otherwise very
intelligent people take this distinction, ("federal government" vs. "the
public"), as some inherently, necessarily adversarial dichotomy. Private
citizens have always owned the public lands of the U.S., just collectively
rather than separately, individually.

The People of the United States own the Public Domain. All of us. Equally.
This is a simple concept. It is, however, literally, historically
revolutionary, which is why many people, even citizens who in fact are
themselves the owners of the land, have a hard time getting their heads
around the whole notion. In the U.S., "the State" does not own public
lands; the People do, as a commonwealth. We have merely chosen to confer
management and care--as we do various for other public functions--to various
levels governments ("of the people," remember?): federal, state, local.

From 1791 to 1867, the People of the United States acquired, through the
means Jon mentioned, a Public Domain of around 1.84 billion acres
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-1_01.pdf, and between 1871 and the
present, the People have disposed of around 1.27 billion of those.
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-2_01.pdf.

Now, it's valid, I think, for the People to debate policies of management of
our common lands, including I suppose whether we want to dispose of more of
them, but I think the debate is wrongly skewed if we, the Owners, allow
ourselves to begin to be convinced that the State owns our land, or that
only a small minority ("users") have some separate, unfair claim on the land
that is somehow being "subsidized" by an abused majority ("taxpayers").

JR

Jonathan Cook wrote

The public is _entitled_ to the land simply _because_ it is public
land. The federal government aquired the land either through
purchasing or through ceding of land from defeats in war. It was
never _owned_ by private citizens of the US and so it is owned by
"the public". The government is allowed to put policy in place as
to how to use that land, and if it wants to allow "the public" to
use it for recreation, then "the public" is _entitled_ to such
use.

It is unfortunate (although I confess to great grudging admiration of the
skill involved) that the terms of public discourse have so effectively been
twisted by ultra-conservatives over the past two decades that otherwise very
intelligent people take this distinction, ("federal government" vs. "the
public"), as some inherently, necessarily adversarial dichotomy. Private
citizens have always owned the public lands of the U.S., just collectively
rather than separately, individually.

The People of the United States own the Public Domain. All of us. Equally.
This is a simple concept. It is, however, literally, historically
revolutionary, which is why many people, even citizens who in fact are
themselves the owners of the land, have a hard time getting their heads
around the whole notion. In the U.S., "the State" does not own public
lands; the People do, as a commonwealth. We have merely chosen to confer
management and care--as we do various for other public functions--to various
levels governments ("of the people," remember?): federal, state, local.

From 1791 to 1867, the People of the United States acquired, through the
means Jon mentioned, a Public Domain of around 1.84 billion acres
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-1_01.pdf, and between 1871 and the
present, the People have disposed of around 1.27 billion of those.
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-2_01.pdf.

Now, it's valid, I think, for the People to debate policies of management of
our common lands, including I suppose whether we want to dispose of more of
them, but I think the debate is wrongly skewed if we, the Owners, allow
ourselves to begin to be convinced that the State owns our land, or that
only a small minority ("users") have some separate, unfair claim on the land
that is somehow being "subsidized" by an abused majority ("taxpayers").

JR

wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov 2004 17:30:35 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:


Snip Snip
That said, Texas has quite a bit
of "public" land (including the banks of rivers), but where a relative few
members of the public can go for recreation is not the problem of the
citizenry
at large.

A Clue: Apparently another one of the things money cannot buy. Did you say
you went to Yale?

Dave

wrote in message
...
On 30 Nov 2004 17:30:35 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:


Snip Snip
That said, Texas has quite a bit
of "public" land (including the banks of rivers), but where a relative few
members of the public can go for recreation is not the problem of the
citizenry
at large.

A Clue: Apparently another one of the things money cannot buy. Did you say
you went to Yale?

Dave

On 30 Nov 2004 17:30:35 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:


.....Moreover, the best public land has _already_ been given away to
private owners (homesteading act(s?), OK sooners and all that), ....

... railroads...