Another criminal idiot in the National Parks

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

Well no one government entity is often no better than the other. Tho governments closer to the locals are at least more responsive since the locals know who to punish at the ballot box.

No these lands need to be sold to private hands. The money needs to go to retiring the national debt. There is no reason to withhold grazing land just because some people like to drive across it. There are plenty of parks in Nevada right now, especially with the creation of that huge new national monument.

National parks are to protect those lands for future generations, not to be destroyed by whoever.

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...

Johno02 wrote:
All of it belonged to the native Americans who were here first. Then the US government came along. What is different now... Them with the most, get the most.

So the Picts own the British Isles?

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.

I'll also say that I'm no Constitutional scholar. I have only one undergraduate course in Constitutional history. That doesn't qualify me to talk about what is or is not in the Constitution. There are people who do have the education to talk about these things, the Supreme Court being the ultimate authority.

shelbyfv wrote:
The Federal government has owned land for the entire existence of the United States. To imagine that somehow this is not permitted by the Constitution is deranged.

OK back up your assertion with facts. Where is that authorized?

agesilaus wrote:

shelbyfv wrote:
Western property, with the exception of Texas was all owned by the Federal government (all of us) prior to granting the privilege of statehood. Folks who live in Western states have no more right to determine the use of Federal land in their states than citizens who live in other parts of the country. This is well established.

All current states other than the original 13 were owned by the US government at one point or another. Is 80 percent of TN now owned by the feds? Or any other state east of the Mississippi? Your point makes little sense especially considering the 10th Amendment. I see nothing in the US Constitution that permits the government to own land. If you do let me know where it is.

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 nation.

I'm for private land owners being able to use their land within reason and the public to have access to land as well. It's not either or, it's balance.

The Federal government has owned land for the entire existence of the United States. To imagine that somehow this is not permitted by the Constitution is deranged.

All of it belonged to the native Americans who were here first. Then the US government came along. What is different now... Them with the most, get the most.