New EO - review National Monuments, seek development.
- Thread starter BelemNole
- Start date
If the Western states want to pay top dollar for the federal lands I say let the bidding begin. But, if it's a hand out for the extractors and polluters to get a free ride then I couldn't be more opposed to this. Not one of the states clamoring for federal lands has the budget and infrastructure to manage these lands.
I say put it to a vote, nationwide referendum where people can vote on each specific tract of land - gift to state, sell, keep, improve.
So long as we do only what the government tells us we can on the parts that they let us go to.
Sure, you think you can go onto government land and do what ever you want where ever you want?
Depends on its purpose. A base? Nope. A park? You bet I can enjoy it.
Now let everything go private and suddenly I'll be trespassing once I leave my house. Terrible system.
I get that, but why is proximity to the park somehow an important factor? How many visitors visit the big parks on a yearly basis? How many from out of state compared to in-state? Enjoyment isn't based on proximity, and whether or not you "deserve" it certainly doesn't depend on proximity, because it doesn't depend on that anywhere else.
The real problem in people's heads is that they only look at the outer borders, and not the inner. That would, imo, be like looking at Virginia and Maryland and pretending DC doesn't exist within its own borders. There are sections of states that are carved out due to federal land, just because they fall within drawn borders - drawn at the same time as the federal land borders, doesn't make them "owned" by the state or the people within the state. If it is an argument that the surrounding-border state should get the benefits of the land, couldn't the same be said for, say, the states surrounding Rhode Island? Why does Rhode Island get that little parcel and not Connecticut or Mass?
I'm surprised, actually, that the Left hasn't proposed filling in the Grand Canyon. It poses a serious health threat to the unwary.
You can enjoy it the way the government wants you to. In the case of National Parks this is a good thing.
I like the National Parks system and think the Parks Service does a great job with them. Interestingly enough for you guys with the states can't management the parks as well as the federal government is that in Texas there are 12 national parks and around 20 state parks. In Iowa there are is also around 20 state parks.
The thing is the vast majority of the land the federal government owns is neither a military base or a park.
Yep, basically he wanted to continue to steal from the American people, as he had been doing for the past 20 years.
Really, the original 13 KNEW that George W controlled all the land in their states?
Well, when you consider that almost all of the land in this country was federal land before it was a state...
I'm pretty sure that only the original 13 colonies don't fit that profile. And even some of their current land does.
About half of the original 13 currently have land that wasn't an original part of their state. That land was all federally owned prior to becoming a state. So was pretty much all of the other 37 states.
Even Texas was federally owned prior to becoming a Republic, it was just federally owned by Mexico
.
The thing is, I spend more of my time enjoying public land that isn't a park than I do parks. Not sure what your point is.
Here are the areas under attack.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Source Confirms to Rivals, Iowa has been in Contact with General Booty
- Latest: WaterlooChazz
-
-
