interesting article from Buzzfeed (of all places) discussing the Mormon influence on all this. Had no idea
http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimdalrympl...-history-if-yo?utm_term=.wnxmBBKK8#.nbbE33zzg
I noticed that one of the "militants" had named himself "Captain Moroni," after the revealing angel. I apologize for getting snappish last night. It was late and I got put out and, frankly, I was too tired to explain the Homestead Act of 1862, which I learned about in high school in American History. There seem to be some misconceptions. At the beginning of the act, the minimum number of acres was 640, at $1 per acre. That didn't really solve the problem, so the amount of land was finally reduced to a quarter - 160 acres. $640 in 1862 is in excess of $15K in today's dollars, and that's without the investment required to buy implements, farm animals, etc. You had to establish residency, live on the land at least six months per year and have no other residence. A certain percentage had to be devoted to agriculture. Although there was a lot of corruption, on the main, the act accomplished what its objective was. Between 1862 and 1976, upon repeal, between 250 and 300 million acres passed into private hands. (No one knows the exact acreage.) Here's the problem - those conditions no longer exist. The land left can't be farmed. In fact, most of it is inaccessible. The grazing which is happening in this case requires, in some parts of the west, it requires 100 acres to graze just one cow. If the public lands they lease - and in this case want to be given them, because it's "theirs" - were sold to them at the same 1862 rates today, a viable ranch for, say, a modest herd of 300 cows or so, would cost upwards of 3/4 million dollars today. Very few ranchers could afford it, which is the reason they're saying it's theirs and want it given to them. In short, the "land rush" will never happen again because of economic and environmental factors. It had petered out by the time it was repealed. For myself, I oppose a big land giveaway. We the people legally own it, as Tidewater has pointed out, and I don't want it given away to some guy whose grandfather happened to homestead next to it. If it were put to a national plebiscite, I have no doubt it would be voted down overwhelmingly. One last point - most of the grazers are infamous land abusers. Why should they take care of the land? After all, they just rent it, so it wouldn't make economic sense. As I said, I was just too tired to outline this last night...
@atmosphere
