Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A lot of public land should be sold off. What's the big deal?
I'm betting you didn't read the article and the reason for the call of action.
There are some lands the government probably should sell. My problem here is with these cowards that take the position of selling lands to balance the budget as opposed to stop bombing other lands.
I'm betting you didn't read the article and the reason for the call of action.
There are some lands the government probably should sell. My problem here is with these cowards that take the position of selling lands to balance the budget as opposed to stop bombing other lands.
I read the article. The author gives no specifics on which federal lands are possibly going to be sold off, other than to say "including national forests, wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges, historical sites and other important conservation lands..."
Considering that I've seen "important" conservation lands which are basically barren wastelands with no appeal to hunters or fishermen, I have a hard time falling in behind this group which can't even bother to tell us which federal lands are possibly endangered. Quite frankly, if the government wants to sell of the Death Valley National Park, I say more power to them. There are numerous other sites in the United States which, imo, can also be sold with no major loss to hunters or anglers.
Now, if the author would like to go into specifics rather than just engage in fear-mongering, I might feel differently. However, the way the article is written makes the author look a lot like Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
I read the article. The author gives no specifics on which federal lands are possibly going to be sold off, other than to say "including national forests, wilderness areas, national wildlife refuges, historical sites and other important conservation lands..."
Considering that I've seen "important" conservation lands which are basically barren wastelands with no appeal to hunters or fishermen, I have a hard time falling in behind this group which can't even bother to tell us which federal lands are possibly endangered. Quite frankly, if the government wants to sell of the Death Valley National Park, I say more power to them. There are numerous other sites in the United States which, imo, can also be sold with no major loss to hunters or anglers.
Now, if the author would like to go into specifics rather than just engage in fear-mongering, I might feel differently. However, the way the article is written makes the author look a lot like Chicken Little or the Boy Who Cried Wolf.
You're just flat wrong. Big business interests have been pushing for years to be allowed to take our public lands to plunder and destroy them. And there are people in congress more than happy to oblige. It's not just an issue either of what lands are best for hunters or anglers either. It's about having the freedom to see, hike, explore and not have wall to wall development everywhere or a fence and gate up because someone claims it as private property. It's something that has always made this country different and more free.
Just because you don't know what you're looking at doesn't make a piece of land less important.
You're just flat wrong. Big business interests have been pushing for years to be allowed to take our public lands to plunder and destroy them. And there are people in congress more than happy to oblige. It's not just an issue either of what lands are best for hunters or anglers either. It's about having the freedom to see, hike, explore and not have wall to wall development everywhere or a fence and gate up because someone claims it as private property. It's something that has always made this country different and more free.
Just because you don't know what you're looking at doesn't make a piece of land less important.
It has nothing to do with importance, it has to do with usability. If there is a Federal Park or Conservation Area sitting in the middle of a desert and the FedGov wants to offload it to someone who wishes to make it a solar or wind farm, more power to them.
However, the argument is moot because - as I mentioned previously - even the author doesn't appear to know which lands are potentially up for sale. The article is nothing more than someone crying "fire" in a crowded theatre and hoping for a reaction.
Want me to give an opinion on whether or not particular lands should be sold? Find an article which actually lists what land is in danger and link that, rather than the linked sensationalist drivel written by some individual who can't even bother with doing their due diligence and researching the issue well enough to write comprehensively about the subject.
By the way, I write as someone who grew up on property which bordered a fairly large state park in the Ozarks and appreciates public land just as much as the next person. On the other hand, I also feel that the Federal government should not be in the real estate holding business. Parks and public lands should be held and maintained at the state level, not the national.
Selling all public land and mineral rights to the highest bidders was a part of the Ron Paul plan to reduce the debt and get the federal government out of the business and cost of maintaining the parks. This would mean the majority of Alaska would become privately- owned.
Grand Koch Canyon Park
Great Sheldon Adelson Smoky Mountain Park
Soros Glacier Park
Putin Yosemite Park
China Yellowstone Park
Several states and municipalities have sold long term tolling and parking revenue rights to temporarily balance their budgets. Most of these deals were give-a-ways and tolls and meter rates went thru the roof.
You're just flat wrong. Big business interests have been pushing for years to be allowed to take our public lands to plunder and destroy them. And there are people in congress more than happy to oblige. It's not just an issue either of what lands are best for hunters or anglers either. It's about having the freedom to see, hike, explore and not have wall to wall development everywhere or a fence and gate up because someone claims it as private property. It's something that has always made this country different and more free.
Just because you don't know what you're looking at doesn't make a piece of land less important.
I usually disagree with you, but this is spot-on!
The earth is not ours to plunder for a few to profit. We should be stewards, and knowing what we do now, giving it back better than we got it. We are living on borrowed time here. We have an obligation to not ruin and kill everything living for the sake of temporary convenience. Humans are the most dangerous and unnecessary species on the planet. It's time we know our place and act accordingly.
The Federal Government always has sold some Federal lands. The city of Las Vegas is built on former BLM land. Murkowski's amendment has to do with the transfer of Federal Lands to states. After the land is transferred states can administer or sell the former Federal lands. Her amendment makes the transfers "revenue neutral" which I am guessing would require states to pay all the fees involved in transferring land. In the House Republicans are willing to have taxpayers on the hook for $50 million dollars in transfer fees. Wait till we have a Republican President and Republicans in control of both houses. I would look at Utah, Alaska, and Montana getting control of former Federal lands. The vote on Murkowski's amendment fell on party lines with three Republicans crossing over to join Dems and two independents. I can understand why hunters, fishermen, and other outdoor users would be first in line to oppose the sale. Who likes running into fences and NO TRESSPASSING signs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
