Our land up for grabs
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
I don't know enough about this to form an educated opinion. I tend to be skeptical of the idea, however the article clearly states that it excludes National Parks and Monuments.
"Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments." Non binding resolutions are pretty much worthless anyway.
.
This post was edited on 4/2 9:51 PM by TUMe
The reason we have the national parks is that Teddy
Roosevelt was disgusted by the massive transfers of ancient forests to a
handful of politically powerful, immensely wealthy timber barons in West. Senators then were not directly elected, they
were selected by state legislatures who were controlled by this same small
group of timber barons. As a result this group of Western Senators routinely transferred
irreplaceable old growth timber lands to themselves or their backers, basically
for free. This handful grew wealthier
and more powerful and considered these public lands as their private fiefdoms. Their arguments were much like those on this
board.
Teddy Roosevelt created the national park system by
executive order in recognition that these lands belonged to all Americans. The senators were outraged and cut off funds
for the parks and the Forest Service. Several
terrible fires changed their ideas about the Forest Service. The size of the park system may have seemed a
lot of land back when the population was less than 80 million but now our
population is quadrupled and millions come each year from overseas to enjoy our
national parks and national wildernesses.
The parks alone are insufficient even for tourism. Lotteries are used to allocate hiking permits
for many of our parks today.
As Will Rogers made clear, national sentiment is clearly in
favor of preserving our national heritage and against enhancing the short term wealth
of a powerful few. Maybe those in Oklahoma don't know what
you are losing, but those elsewhere sure do.
But since we have the best government money can buy .
Roosevelt was disgusted by the massive transfers of ancient forests to a
handful of politically powerful, immensely wealthy timber barons in West. Senators then were not directly elected, they
were selected by state legislatures who were controlled by this same small
group of timber barons. As a result this group of Western Senators routinely transferred
irreplaceable old growth timber lands to themselves or their backers, basically
for free. This handful grew wealthier
and more powerful and considered these public lands as their private fiefdoms. Their arguments were much like those on this
board.
Teddy Roosevelt created the national park system by
executive order in recognition that these lands belonged to all Americans. The senators were outraged and cut off funds
for the parks and the Forest Service. Several
terrible fires changed their ideas about the Forest Service. The size of the park system may have seemed a
lot of land back when the population was less than 80 million but now our
population is quadrupled and millions come each year from overseas to enjoy our
national parks and national wildernesses.
The parks alone are insufficient even for tourism. Lotteries are used to allocate hiking permits
for many of our parks today.
As Will Rogers made clear, national sentiment is clearly in
favor of preserving our national heritage and against enhancing the short term wealth
of a powerful few. Maybe those in Oklahoma don't know what
you are losing, but those elsewhere sure do.
But since we have the best government money can buy .
The Imperial government should not own any land.
Once state boundaries were formed, imperial claims to any territory became invalid. That land is for the states to determine their disposition.
Once state boundaries were formed, imperial claims to any territory became invalid. That land is for the states to determine their disposition.
Nice try attempting to confuse us "dumb Okies" with the name Will Rogers. But I wasn't aware he survived the plane crash in Barrow, Alaska back in the 30's.
You seem very content being critical of us countrified heathens living in the heartland where people actually have to work for a living and want to preserve our country instead of hoping it changes to something else (like the USSR) . But no thanks. You live in your part of Obamerica and we can live in our part of Hicksville USA. Thanks again. I also remember another Will Rogers saying about Okies leaving for the left coast (California) during the depression and thus improving the intelligence level in both states. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply I could actually remember that.
Originally posted by WATU2:
You seem very content being critical of us countrified heathens living in the heartland where people actually have to work for a living and want to preserve our country instead of hoping it changes to something else (like the USSR) . But no thanks. You live in your part of Obamerica and we can live in our part of Hicksville USA. Thanks again. I also remember another Will Rogers saying about Okies leaving for the left coast (California) during the depression and thus improving the intelligence level in both states. Oh sorry, I didn't mean to imply I could actually remember that.
Originally posted by WATU2:
This post was edited on 4/3 8:18 PM by rabidTU
I will argue for the sale of federal lands.
the central govt has no right granted to it to own lands.
ALL " federal " lands should be sold and used to pay off the national debt.
Fine, but your first post was after his post that I was responding to and your reasoning separate from what he described and unless I misunderstand, you are not advocating the sale of the Grand Canyon or Old Faithful. Tourism is a fine thing, but if the entire state of Kansas was made a national park, I doubt that there would be a great increase in tourism. Tourism is itself an interesting topic since most of the Western United States is best toured by automobile and our President has promised to cut CO2 emissions by 27 percent in a very short amount of time. [Of course, that is not a problem since his promises never tend to pan out anyway, like "If you like your health insurance you can keep it."]
Concerning expanding and existing parks so the wait for camping is shortened, Yellowstone borders on working cattle and sheep ranches, that have existed for many years. Many of our parks border on lands that are not ideal for tourism. Most National Parks are preserved because they are rare oddities. Indeed many parks have bare lands adjacent that are reservations of Native Americans. There isn't much to do in Thermopolis, WY or in the area immediately South of Grand Canyon
But the real point is that this is a false, issue. The type that WATU likes to trot out. Both sides of the argument are phony. A non binding budget resolution is for consumption by people with one set of goals and the outrage is for consumption by people with another set of goals. If there was any chance of this sale passing it wouldn't be non binding. Those favoring it are playing to their base as are those opposing it. Real sales on a massive scale aren't going to pass Congress and if they did the President would veto them. For both sides this is theatre, keeping sending us your money and we will get this done [or keep it blocked.] The could be some acts to preserve special jewels or some land sold where there is clear reasons. Also, keep in mind that National Monuments, Forests, and Preserves are merely lower classifications of land managed Federally. Back on tourism, there is a new philosophy about parks in Alaska. Tourism itself can harm the parks. Camping is limited in Denali, not because of a lack of space but because they want to keep the impact limited. You can't drive deep into the park. You can't camp too close to the next guy. To the purists, tourism is not a right, nor is camping. Sometimes enjoy and destroy go hand in hand.
But if the two sides want to fight it out over a nonbinding resolution, go ahead. It makes great theatre and something for both sides to get all righteous about.
This post was edited on 4/4 7:07 AM by TUMe
It's also fair to ask if current market prices capture the full value of the asset. Just because I own a house doesn't mean that because someone offers me the current 'market price" that I should sell it. It may well be that there are values that the current price doesn't reflect. More to the point, if my property is unique and irreplaceable, it will only get more valuable over time so selling now would be a poor investment decision, especially if I hold it in trust for my kids and grand kids.
