Speaking of rearranging the deck chairs...

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:And who owns ANWAR?

Constitutionally speaking, Alaska 'owns' the Artic National Wildlife Reserve that is federally protected. The only land that can be owned by the federal government is a 'district' which has been ceded by a state for the sole purpose of a national capital. All other land belongs to the state or to private citizens.

At least that's the way I understand it.

Can you show us where in the Constitution?

There are vast acreages of federal government owned lands in the western 48 states. They certainly weren't "ceded" to the U.S. government by those states. They were U.S. government lands before those states even existed as states- and remain so today- just like ANWR in Alaska.

You are usually better informed on most things you comment on, Aaron, than you are on this. That's not a criticism, just my observation based on what you've said above.

So you're saying ANWR isn't part of Alaska. Are you also saying that the wildlife etc doesn't belong to Alaska? There is much of Alaska, and many living things under federal protection in Alaska. The Alaskans live there, not a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats from DC. Sheesh Frank now you've given me something I'm going to have to read up on and I don't have time for that right now. It will have to wait a week or so. I'm extraordinarily busy these days.

Well they can't designate an area a national wildlife refuge without.... well never mind.

So you're saying ANWR isn't part of Alaska. Are you also saying that the wildlife etc doesn't belong to Alaska?

ANWR is part of Alaska, just like the Canaan Valley NWR is part of West Virginia, or like the Monongahela National Forest is part of West Virginia. But they are all owned by the federal government.

Ziggy wrote:There are vast acreages of federal government owned lands in the western 48 states. They certainly weren't "ceded" to the U.S. government by those states. They were U.S. government lands before those states even existed as states- and remain so today- just like ANWR in Alaska.

While I realize Wiki is not the most reliable source, it is quick and easy and generally accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge

The region first became a federal protected area in 1960 by order of Fred Andrew Seaton, Secretary of the Interior under U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Eight million acres (32,375 km²) of the refuge are designated as Wilderness Area. The 1980 expansion of the refuge designated 1.5 million acres (6,070 km²) of the coastal plain as the 1002 area and mandated studies of the natural resources of this area, especially petroleum. Congressional authorization is required before oil drilling may proceed in this area.

Alaska was granted statehood in 1959.

Stephanie wrote:While I realize Wiki is not the most reliable source, it is quick and easy and generally accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_National_Wildlife_Refuge

The region first became a federal protected area in 1960 by order of Fred Andrew Seaton, Secretary of the Interior under U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.

Eight million acres (32,375 km²) of the refuge are designated as Wilderness Area. The 1980 expansion of the refuge designated 1.5 million acres (6,070 km²) of the coastal plain as the 1002 area and mandated studies of the natural resources of this area, especially petroleum. Congressional authorization is required before oil drilling may proceed in this area.

Alaska was granted statehood in 1959.

I appreciate Wiki. Even a simple ole' Ziggy can read Wiki.

And nothing there indicates other than that ANWR is federal government owned land, and has been probably since Seward bought it from Russia 150 or so years ago.

Ziggy,

I respectfully disagree. Wiki makes it quite clear that prior to 1960, ANWR was not federally owned or protected land.

I checked around Wiki a bit at other federally protected lands in Alaska. Some, such as both National Forests, were set aside as federal land long before Alaska was admitted into the Union. Others, including ANWR, were set aside later. In the case of the majority of ANWR, this was done only a year later. Millions and millions of additional acres have been confiscated by the federal government since ANWR.

Alaskans have the right to govern Alaska, to develop Alaska, including ANWR and all the other natural recourses the federal government has so kindly been relieving them of over the decades.

Stephanie wrote:Ziggy,

I respectfully disagree. Wiki makes it quite clear that prior to 1960, ANWR was not federally owned or protected land.

It was already federally owned. It just wasn't protected as NWR land. Like Wilderness land in West Virginia- all the Wilderness has been owned by the U.S. Forest Service for a long time- since the early 1900s. But it is not always "wilderness" designated. Four times over the past 40 or so years Congress has declared by public law that some certain acreages of land already owned by the U.S. Forest Service in West Virginia is to come under "Wilderness" protection- a higher level of protection of the land than just as "National Forest" land. The non-Wilderness areas of the National Forest still belong to the federal government. And some day more of those may be made "Wilderness" by Congressional designation. And the federal government won't have to buy even one acre of it- because it is alreday owned by the federal government.

So again I ask, who owns ANWR? The answer is that the federal government owns it.

Alaskans have the right to govern Alaska, to develop Alaska, including ANWR and all the other natural recourses the federal government has so kindly been relieving them of over the decades.

How could the federal government "relieve them" of lands it already owned- and has owned for 150 years?

And we don't have to go to Alaska to find states wanting to dictate what happens with federal government owned lands. The federal government owns 84 percent of Nevada, 69 percent of Alaska, and more than half of Utah, Oregon and Idaho.

Nearly 30 percent of the territory of the United States is owned by the federal government. And it was not confiscated from the states. It was confiscated from native American Indians, confiscated from Mexico, and from Spain, and from the British, and some of it was even purchased- two chunks from France and Russia.

http://strangemaps.wordpress.com/2008/06/17/291-federal-lands-in-the-us/

.

Ziggy,

It is entirely possible you are correct about ANWR having been owned by the federal government right along. It is also very likely the federal government has confiscated land from Alaska in recent decades. I've been very busy with my children's activities and haven't had the time to really research this.

I don't want to hear about how we confiscated the land from the indigenous people. I can't help what people did decades, even hundreds of years ago. I can't fix that, and neither can you. Those people are long gone and we have to work in the here and now.

The federal government controls so much of Nevada, the state has resorted to using gambling and prostitution as revenue sources. That just provides further evidence the feds need to get out.

I don't want to hear about how we confiscated the land from the indigenous people. I can't help what people did decades, even hundreds of years ago. I can't fix that, and neither can you. Those people are long gone and we have to work in the here and now.

Like it or not, it is directly relevant to the discussion at hand, Stephanie. If the U.S. government confiscated it from indigenous peoples or otherwise acquired it a hundred years before Alaska was a state, then obviously the feds haven't "confiscated land from Alaska in recent decades", as you keep asserting.

The history of conquer is ugly. But not wanting to hear about it does not make it any less ugly- nor any less relevant to how the U.S. government owns nearly a third of the territory of the U.S.A.- and has since long before most of that territory became states.

And so the question remains, why should Alaskans alone get to control lands owned by the U.S. government- owned by all the citizens of America?

That would be like suggesting that West Virginians alone should control the Monongahela National Forest, or that Coloradoians and Arizonians alone should control Grand Canyon National Park.

The federal government controls so much of Nevada, the state has resorted to using gambling and prostitution as revenue sources. That just provides further evidence the feds need to get out.

How? Give the land away? To whom? To a Nevada Congressman's largest campaign contributors?

Ziggy,

Many of these areas people already live on. They control the land. The federal government dictates what can and cannot be done with the natural resources.

In addition, not all of the land was "conquered", and not all of the land that was taken by force was taken by America. America purchased large tracts of lands from other nations.....like Alaska from Russia and Jefferson's Louisianna Purchase. You can't turn back the hands of time and undo what the British or the French or the Russians did. We can't fix what Americans did a hundred years ago.

OK. Then what about what Congress did when it created the state of Alaska?

This from Wiki:

History

Before Alaska was granted statehood on January 3, 1959, virtually all 375,000,000 acres (1,520,000 km2) of the Territory of Alaska was federal land and wilderness.

The act granting statehood gave Alaska the right to select 103,000,000 acres (420,000 km2) for use as an economic and tax base. Cite error: Closing missing for tag These claims were settled in 1971 by the Alaska Native claims settlement act, which granted them 44,000,000 acres (180,000 km2). The act also froze development on federal lands pending a final selection of parks, monuments, and refuges. The law was set to expire in 1978. [6]

Toward the end of 1976, with the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System virtually complete, major conservation groups shifted their attention to how best to protect the hundreds of millions of acres of Alaskan wilderness unaffected by the pipeline.[7] On May 16, 1979, the United States House of Representatives approved a conservationist-backed bill that would have protected more than 125,000,000 acres (510,000 km2) of Federal lands in Alaska, including the calving ground of the nation's largest caribou herd. Backed by President Jimmy Carter, and sponsored by Morris K. Udall and John B. Anderson, the bill would have prohibited all commercial activity in 67,000,000 acres (270,000 km2) designated as wilderness areas. The US senate had opposed similar legislation in the past and filibusters were threatened.[8] On December 2, 1980, Carter signed into law the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which created more than 104,000,000 acres (420,000 km2) of national parks, wildlife refuges and wilderness areas from Federal holdings in that state. The bill allowed drilling in ANWR, but not without prior approval from Congress. Both sides of the controversy announced they would attempt to change it in the next session of Congress.[9].

Section 1002 of the act stated that a comprehensive inventory of fish and wildlife resources would be conducted on 1,500,000 acres (6,100 km2) of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain (1002 Area). Potential petroleum reserves in the 1002 Area were to be evaluated from surface geological studies and seismic exploration surveys. No exploratory drilling was allowed. Results of these studies and recommendations for future management of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain were to be prepared in a report to Congress.

In November 1986, a draft report by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that all of the coastal plain within the Artic National Wildlife Refuge be opened for oil and gas development. It also proposed to trade the mineral rights of 166,000 acres (670 km2) in the refuge for surface rights to 896,000 acres (3,630 km2) owned by corporations of six Alaska native groups, including Aleuts, Eskimos and Tlingits. The report argued that the oil and gas potentials of the coastal plain were needed for the country's economy and national security. Conservationists argued that oil development would unnecessarily threaten the existence of the Porcupine caribou by cutting off the herd from calving areas. They also expressed concerns that oil operations would erode the fragile ecological systems that support wildlife on the tundra of the Arctic plain. The proposal faced stiff opposition in the House of Representatives. Morris Udall, chairman of the House Interior Committee, said he would reintroduce legislation to turn the entire coastal plain into a wilderness area, effectively giving the refuge permanent protection from development.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Refuge_drilling_controversy

ziggy wrote:And so the question remains, why should Alaskans alone get to control lands owned by the U.S. government- owned by all the citizens of America?

That would be like suggesting that West Virginians alone should control the Monongahela National Forest, or that Coloradoians and Arizonians alone should control Grand Canyon National Park.

Well GEEEZE Ziggy, were you not advocating that all West Virginians own all the coal in the State and should be controlling the mining of it and sharing in the profits.

You are flip-flopping again ...... just so you can post your opposing negative BS.



.

SamCogar wrote:

ziggy wrote:And so the question remains, why should Alaskans alone get to control lands owned by the U.S. government- owned by all the citizens of America?

That would be like suggesting that West Virginians alone should control the Monongahela National Forest, or that Coloradoians and Arizonians alone should control Grand Canyon National Park.

Well GEEEZE Ziggy, were you not advocating that all West Virginians own all the coal in the State .....................

No.

......................... and should be controlling the mining of it and sharing in the profits.

West Virginia already does that, via the coal "severance" tax. I think it should be higher than it is- like the Prudoe Bay and North Slope oil income sharing with Alaskans is a function, not primarily of royalties, but of taxes on oil- including a 25 percent oil profits tax.

ziggy wrote: I think it should be higher than it is- ......

Sure you do, and that is because you truly believe part of it belongs to you.

Zig, why are you not calling for a car "severance" tax on all automobile dealers?

How about a grocery "severance" tax on all retailers of groceries?

Or a restaurant "severance" tax on all public eating establishments.

Surely you also believe you deserve part of all the profits each of the above earns.




.