texas billionaires bar hunters from Potlatch Land

[WAPatriot]

Dan and Farris Wilk. Great Americans living the American Dream.

[jackmaster]

, unfortunately. I'm not sure under what conditions the property was sold and whether or not others had the opportunity to buy it. But, private land is private land. It's the privilege of the owners to do with that land whatever they wish. It certainly sucks for a great many people. I also agree with the sentiment that public land, whether county, state, or federal, should remain public.

thats why pman will be potus.. Always makes sense

[JimmyHoffa]

Sounds like those billionaires just bought a new hunting ranch for there friends and family. Can't say I blame them for not wanting others hunting their land.

I read before somewhere that they are building religious compounds out on those lands. 

[JLS]

Sounds like those billionaires just bought a new hunting ranch for there friends and family. Can't say I blame them for not wanting others hunting their land.

And how much does one person need?

To those whom much is given, much is expected.  It's called leaving the world as better place than you found it.  Appreciating the fact you have been very blessed, and using that to make the world a better place.

I just don't see that here.

[KFhunter]

I'm hugely anti eminent domain and some of us have had some heated arguments over it.

I need to rethink my position, or rather modify it.  I'm still hugely anti eminent domain, but in instances like this these lands aren't private domiciles, they're cooperate lands and I think ED should be used on lands that are cooperate in nature rather than private domicile.   Don't use ED on small rural farms and holdings where the family live/work and reside full time.

Reclassify huge holdings where the "owners" are cooperate or don't live there full time and ED existing roads or make new foot trails if it blocks public lands over so many acres.

re-classification would carry different taxes as mentioned also, use every tool to gain access. 

[pianoman9701]

Under the rules of eminent domain, the government must pay just compensation for the property. Why wouldn't they have just bought it in the first place? I'm pretty sure they knew it was going for sale.

But the bigger problem here is that some people somehow think that a corporation which owns land should have fewer rights than an individual. This is wrong thinking in a number of ways. First, the SCOTUS disagrees in supporting Citizens United which, when they supported it in 2010, says that corporations are individuals. Whether or not you agree with the decision, it is now law. Secondly, people incorporate for the protection of their personal assets. That doesn't give these people fewer rights to land ownership because their specific name isn't on the deed. It's still a person or persons who owns it.

This is a lot like limiting someone's rights under the 1st Amendment. Once it's acceptable to limit free speech because it's objectionable, it then becomes OK for someone to limit yours because they find it objectionable. The same applies to land ownership. You may strongly dislike what the owners of this land have done to access. But allow the government to stomp all over their private property rights and all of a sudden, the government will find reasons to stomp all over yours. Our republic is based on a combination of democracy and capitalism. Suggesting that the government should be able to step in and grab land because your don't agree with the owners sides with communist ideals, not liberty. My 

[WAPatriot]

These guys are republicans from Texas who came from nothing they like hunting and fishing. I don't blame them for not wanting random people on there property especially if they plan on hunting or have friends who want to hunt there property. I like billionaires who spend money on ranches for hunting and fishing way more than I like billonare's who are anti hunting and anti guns

[BigGoonTuna]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

[JLS]

These guys are republicans from Texas who came from nothing they like hunting and fishing. I don't blame them for not wanting random people on there property especially if they plan on hunting or have friends who want to hunt there property. I like billionaires who spend money on ranches for hunting and fishing way more than I like billonare's who are anti hunting and anti guns

Regardless of whether they hunt or not, it's one more cut that will eventually bleed out the North American model of wildlife management and lead us back to the European Model. 

Teddy Roosevelt is rolling in his grave.

[JLS]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

[JimmyHoffa]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

An effect of population growth.  Keep adding more and more people and not adding land, more will get locked up.

[pianoman9701]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

I agree.

[JLS]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

An effect of population growth.  Keep adding more and more people and not adding land, more will get locked up.

I believe it has a lot more to do with attitudes and egos than it does population.

[pianoman9701]

locked up is locked up, regardless of one's political views.

one thing is for sure, the idea that there's "room for everybody in the west" and private lands being open to everyone is definitely a dying ideal.  just sickens me that so many are indifferent or even supportive of closing access to the public.

It makes me incredibly sad to see this.

An effect of population growth.  Keep adding more and more people and not adding land, more will get locked up.

I believe it has a lot more to do with attitudes and egos than it does population.

It has more to do with investing amassed wealth. If I had billions of $s, I'd buy up a lot of land, too.

[KFhunter]

I don't agree with cooperate personhood either, but in this case it's a single owner buying cooperate type lands for business.  It's not a home nor does he live on it so I think there's reason to gain access to it and through it.