The Federal government shouldnt own land in states, at best it should lease for legitimate uses where there is a compelling governmental interest. Cattle ranchers shouldnt have to pay grazing fees. There is no effort, no maintenance, no labor, and no interest in regulating wild (non-landscaped) grass. Locke, the foundation of this nations view on what constitutes property rights, stated that in the wild, on land not maintained by an individual, a renewable resource (grass in this case but apples in Lockes example), which is not the product of anothers labor, belongs to the person who decides to make use of it. The simple labor and act of plucking a wild apple, makes it yours. The government did not plant wild grass, there is no danger of grass going away, so it is ridiculous that the federal government, which has no compelling interest in regulating wild grass, demands a fee for such grazing. This man in Nevada owes $1,000,000+ in back fees on grazing rights. This is an egregious abuse of power. I dont know every side of this issue, and who ultimately is right or wrong on several sides of this argument, but it has exposed some serious concerns about the role of the federal government in how they control lands in the states.
Posted on: Sat, 12 Apr 2014 19:06:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015