Another criminal idiot in the National Parks

agesilaus wrote:
That's the wrong perspective. The PUBLIC owns the land. Without public land, Yosemite would be Disney and be out of reach to many people who can now access it with a tent a low daily fee. Hunting would be confined to those who can pay $5,000 for a ranch and a guide. Public land allows the average citizen to access the beauty of the land
================

OK why does the federal government need to own millions of acres of grazing land? And don't tell me that they take better care of it. Tragedy of the commons. It's well known that when someone owns something, then he takes better care of it.

I'm not saying that National Parks should be made public. But they are a small portion of the land that the feds owns thru the BLM, USFS and other agencies.

If you take a look at the history of the Grazing Service/Land Office/BLM, you might get a different perspective. According to the BLM's website about its history...

"The late 19th century marked a shift in Federal land management priorities with the creation of the first national parks, forests, and wildlife refuges. By withdrawing these lands from settlement, Congress signaled a shift in the policy goals served by the public lands. Instead of using them to promote settlement, Congress recognized that they should be held in public ownership because of their other resource values.

In the early 20th century, Congress took additional steps toward recognizing the value of the assets on public lands and directed the Executive Branch to manage activities on the remaining public lands. The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 allowed leasing, exploration, and production of selected commodities, such as coal, oil, gas, and sodium, to take place on public lands. The Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 established the U.S. Grazing Service to manage the public rangelands. And the Oregon and California Act of 1937 required sustained yield management of the timberlands in western Oregon."

Congress obviously recognized the importance of public lands.

Overgrazing was a huge problem as you note with your "Tragedy of the commons" and I believe still would be without government oversight unless the land is sold to private interests. Recreational users (motorized, hiking, horsebackriding, RVers, drone pilots, rock hounds, hunters, fishermen, etc.) will be shut out by the private land owner as he "takes better care of it".

BTW - if you think state ownership of public land works out well, take a look at Nevada's history of public land protection...

http://pvtimes.com/opinion/when-state-officials-get-federal-land.html

Obviously, I am completely against private and state control of federal public lands. I do agree some remote parcels like areas along railroads that were "checkerboard" granted to the railroads should be sold off. I like the fact that I can head from my place in Nevada, and have the same access to the federal public lands of North Dakota as I do here without having to jump through different state, local, or private owner roadblocks.

Just my 2 cents...