Selling Our Nation's Forests?

[DarkShadow]

As fisherman, hunters, naturists, we have been bequeathed Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, and National Forests. From Teddy Roosevelt, to Ronald Reagan, our government has realized that these areas need to be protected. But, here comes SA 838 (https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/838/text), which is an amendment that seemingly backs support so that states can now take over federal land.

Thank goodness it's impossible to sell National Parks, National Monuments and National Preserves, since they enjoy extraordinary legal protection, but it leaves the door open to sell National Forests, Wildlife Refuges and Wildernesses to the highest bidder.

Efforts to "reclaim" public land are backed by Special Interests like ALEC and Americans For Prosperity. ALEC's primary source for funds? ExxonMobil. Americans For Prosperity? Founded by Charles and David Koch, who as you know, have your best interest at heart. In true altruistic fashion, they're spinning the entire thing with the usual rally cry of "Bad Federal Government! Go States' Rights!," but when you peel back the layers, it appears to be a method for private corporations to buy our land that is used for fishing, hunting, etc. as a method land grab by private interests intent on resource exploitation.

Sportsmen (https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/backcountry/current-news/896-senate-votes-in-favor-of-public-lands-seizure-drawing-criticism-from-sportsmen) are none too pleased.

I'm sure you're asking, "who voted in favor for this bill?"

http://i.imgur.com/aUcpJYi.jpg

[City Dad]

thanks Obama

[etucker1959]

The country needs to raise money, so you raise the tax's or sell the land. Which party voted for selling the land?????

[Brent]

Doesn't this create a bit of a dilemma for the Republican "outdoorsman" types. You want to be able to hunt and fish wherever and whenever and the Democrats are taking away your rights, but what good are rights to hunt and fish if there's no place to hunt or fish. Do you really believe that the Republicans and their big corporation "backers" are doing it for the good of the sport fishing and hunting public?
With the Republicans pollute at all cost, big corporation comes first attitudes, we will all be out of a place to hunt or fish before long. The air and water we breath will be sold off to the Koch Brothers as well if the Republicans get their way.

Brent

[DEVOREFLYER]

DS perhaps you should read the actual amendment which is part of a continuing resolution to the Congressional Budget instead of pissing in the wind. You know the Budget that the Senate failed to provide when Dingy Harry was in charge.

SUMMARY AS OF:
3/20/2015--Introduced.
Establishes the congressional budget for the federal government for FY2016 and sets forth budgetary levels for FY2017-FY2025.
Recommends levels and amounts for FY2016-FY2025 for federal revenues, new budget authority, budget outlays, deficits, public debt, debt held by the public, federal tax expenditures, Social Security, Postal Service discretionary administrative expenses, and the major functional categories.
Includes reconciliation instructions directing the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to each submit to the Senate Budget Committee legislation reducing the deficit by at least $1 billion over FY2016-FY2025. Requires the legislation to be submitted by July 31, 2015.
Establishes deficit-neutral and spending-neutral reserve funds that provide flexibility in applying budget enforcement rules to legislation addressing a wide range of specified issues across the federal budget.
Sets forth budget enforcement procedures for legislation considered in the Senate. Extends procedures for waivers and appeals of specified points of order. Makes permanent Senate points of order against legislation that violates Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rules or increases the short-term deficit. Repeals the point of order against reconciliation legislation that would increase the deficit or reduce a surplus.
Provides directions to the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation regarding the scoring of specified legislation and the contents of required reports.



SA 838. Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. SULLIVAN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by her to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 11, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __X. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.
The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

I would also suggest that you read the following bill and let me know how the Demonrats vote when it comes up for a vote.
http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/featured-items?ID=003e7d4a-e4f3-4193-9e14-72f4ab98c30c

[HawgZWylde]

Lol, you said what?


I have noticed something glaring on this GD forum.
The left leaners are way too decisive and direct for the right side. The right siders like bland insults and the left prefer the witty well thought out reply's.
The right siders really do not like Lady Quagga and Dark Shadow because they can't shake them. All they get in reply are facts and shut down response, whereas the right siders seem to be the " I know you are, but what am I " type.

Just an observation.

D'ohh.....

[TROUT MASTERS]

If we leave it to Obama,he will sell our country too...

[Lady Quagga]

DS perhaps you should read the actual amendment which is part of a continuing resolution to the Congressional Budget instead of pissing in the wind. You know the Budget that the Senate failed to provide when Dingy Harry was in charge.

Hey Hawggy, you paying attention? This is a textbook example of deflection.

And Dev, copying, pasting, and bolding certain portions of the amendment à la wall-of-text to deflect from the issue at hand is disingenuous.

But even if we were to follow the subsequent line of reasoning, anyone who thinks this amendment is truly "spending-neutral" is either ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the unrealized cost of selling-off our federal lands to the states. Shame on you.


I would also suggest that you read the following bill and let me know how the Demonrats vote when it comes up for a vote.
http://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/featured-items?ID=003e7d4a-e4f3-4193-9e14-72f4ab98c30c

This is a strawman. Stay focused Dev.

[HawgZWylde]

Hey Hawggy, you paying attention? This is a textbook example of deflection.

And Dev, copying, pasting, and bolding certain portions of the amendment à la wall-of-text to deflect from the issue at hand is disingenuous.

But even if we were to follow the subsequent line of reasoning, anyone who thinks this amendment is truly "spending-neutral" is either ignoring or refusing to acknowledge the real cost of selling-off our federal lands to the states. Shame on you.



This is a strawman. Stay focused Dev.

:Soap Box:
Yawn......:Popcorn:

[Lady Quagga]

:Soap Box:
Yawn......:Popcorn:

Aww, look. Hawggy's drooling into his popcorn.

Carry on, Hawggy. Your continued ignorance demands it.

[HawgZWylde]

Aww, look. Hawggy's drooling into his popcorn.

Carry on, Hawggy. Your continued ignorance demands it.


When in the asylum, do as the inmates do.

How does DS keep sneaking smart phones in to you?...:Dancing Banana:

[Lady Quagga]

How does DS keep sneaking smart phones in to you?...:Dancing Banana:

Rectally. But your mom keeps complaining of the discomfort. :Dancing Banana:

[HawgZWylde]

[
Doesn't this create a bit of a dilemma for the Republican "outdoorsman" types. You want to be able to hunt and fish wherever and whenever and the Democrats are taking away your rights, but what good are rights to hunt and fish if there's no place to hunt or fish. Do you really believe that the Republicans and their big corporation "backers" are doing it for the good of the sport fishing and hunting public?
With the Republicans pollute at all cost, big corporation comes first attitudes, we will all be out of a place to hunt or fish before long. The air and water we breath will be sold off to the Koch Brothers as well if the Republicans get their way.

Brent


The air and water we breath will be sold off to the Koch Brothers as well if the Republicans get their way.

Did Steyer and Soros tell you that?

[DarkShadow]

From the person who brought you this gem:


Do you have anything intelligent to say or is rhetorical deflection all you have?

Brings us these rather intelligent responses for this thread:


Lol, you said what? D'ohh.....

And


Yawn......


And


How does DS keep sneaking smart phones in to you?...


And


Did Steyer and Soros tell you that?

•

Hawgz...you gonna reply with something intelligent? Or are you gonna keep doing what you accuse others of doing?

[HawgZWylde]

From the person who brought you this gem:



Brings us these rather intelligent responses for this thread:



And




And




And



•

Hawgz...you gonna reply with something intelligent? Or are you gonna keep doing what you accuse others of doing?

Yo, when the OP was flawed to begin with, I just go with the game son. Just using your logic against you. Sucks don't it...

[HawgZWylde]

Rectally. But your mom keeps complaining of the discomfort. :Dancing Banana:


Nice, my mother just passed away. Do you speak like that with those kids around you? You are a sick individual troll. So why did you delete the reply you originally posted? Did you have an argument with yourself?

[Lady Quagga]

Nice, my mother just passed away. Do you speak like that with those kids around you? You are a sick individual troll. So why did you delete the reply you originally posted? Did you have an argument with yourself?

Damn. Who's gonna smuggle my cell phones now?

Yawn......:Popcorn:

Suck it, Hawggy.

[HawgZWylde]

Damn. Who's gonna smuggle my cell phones now?

Yawn......:Popcorn:

Suck it, Hawggy.

Lol, you had another argument amongst yourselve's again I see. You outdid yourself with the last deleted post...

Thought you might have been banned for that one eh?

[Lady Quagga]

Lol, you had another argument amongst yourselve's again I see. You outdid yourself with the last deleted post...

Argument? No.


Thought you might have been banned for that one eh?

Banned? No.

Yawn......:Popcorn:

[HawgZWylde]

Argument? No.



Banned? No.

Yawn......:Popcorn:

:No Pity::No Pity::No Pity::No Pity::Idiot:

You truly are a psychopath...

[Lady Quagga]

:No Pity::No Pity::No Pity::No Pity::Idiot:

You truly are a psychopath...

Considering the source, that statement doesn't mean much.

[DarkShadow]

I just go with the game son...

Son?

Lol.

http://s13.postimg.org/nieouqwrb/Get_Hard_009.jpg

"A'ight, bro."

[Brent]

[



Did Steyer and Soros tell you that?

Common sense and research told me that.
Something most people with your beliefs don't seem to care for.

[HawgZWylde]

Common sense and research told me that.
Something most people with your beliefs don't seem to care for.

What are my beliefs? If you are a liberal, you have no common sense. And if you truly researched anything you would know that both parties have sold you out. One party, the democrats are 100% sold out. The repubs are about 50-50%...

[Lady Quagga]

What are my beliefs? If you are a liberal, you have no common sense. And if you truly researched anything you would know that both parties have sold you out. One party, the democrats are 100% sold out. The repubs are about 50-50%...

Ah, the hubris of the intolerant.

[HawgZWylde]

Ah, the hubris of the intolerant.

Ah, the hubris of a psychotic cyber stalker...

[Lady Quagga]

Ah, the hubris of a psychotic cyber stalker...

If by stalking you mean pointing out whenever you make an asinine comment, then I'm the stalkiest around.

[Lipripper93561]

As fisherman, hunters, naturists, we have been bequeathed Wildlife Refuges, Wilderness Areas, and National Forests. From Teddy Roosevelt, to Ronald Reagan, our government has realized that these areas need to be protected. But, here comes SA 838 (https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/838/text), which is an amendment that seemingly backs support so that states can now take over federal land.

Thank goodness it's impossible to sell National Parks, National Monuments and National Preserves, since they enjoy extraordinary legal protection, but it leaves the door open to sell National Forests, Wildlife Refuges and Wildernesses to the highest bidder.

Efforts to "reclaim" public land are backed by Special Interests like ALEC and Americans For Prosperity. ALEC's primary source for funds? ExxonMobil. Americans For Prosperity? Founded by Charles and David Koch, who as you know, have your best interest at heart. In true altruistic fashion, they're spinning the entire thing with the usual rally cry of "Bad Federal Government! Go States' Rights!," but when you peel back the layers, it appears to be a method for private corporations to buy our land that is used for fishing, hunting, etc. as a method land grab by private interests intent on resource exploitation.

Sportsmen (https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/backcountry/current-news/896-senate-votes-in-favor-of-public-lands-seizure-drawing-criticism-from-sportsmen) are none too pleased.

I'm sure you're asking, "who voted in favor for this bill?"

http://i.imgur.com/aUcpJYi.jpg

What is wrong with the proposed bill? Private people/corporations owning land with a natural resource, or perceived one. Ducks Unlimited is a great example of private lands ownership compared to public lands ownership. Does Corona lakes abuse it's resource? Do you truly believe the Federal government manages that land efficiently? Before I go any farther, we need to have a basic understanding of economics.
Do you believe the rightful owner of a resource is one who is willing to pay the highest price for that good/service/resource? Meaning, if you value your house at $300,000 and I value it at $500,000, the most efficient use of that house is for me to buy it at $500,000. Both parties should be happy and the outcome "efficient".
Ducks Unlimited finds something of value, they pay equal or more than asking price and an efficient allocation of resources has commenced.
What you value is "control"....not the resource, you want to be able to tell be what and when to do it. IF you valued these parks as much as the "Koch" brothers do, then you would pay the competing price, but your side, does not want to engage in efficient allocation of resources, you want the "value" but you do not want to pay the price associated with that value.
Private parks tend to run better than Fed or state parks, because they have to compete..........take competition out of the equation.....and you get laziness....just like our current system.

[Brent]

What are my beliefs? If you are a liberal, you have no common sense. And if you truly researched anything you would know that both parties have sold you out. One party, the democrats are 100% sold out. The repubs are about 50-50%...

I'm neither party and they're both 100% sold out. 50/50. Yea, you keep telling yourself that. All the way until the water your fishing on catches fire.
To say that all liberals have no common sense is a condemnation of yourself. As in thinking only you're right.
Oh , that's right. You're a righty. They're always right. Don't believe one, just ask him, he'll be MORE than happy to tell you ALL about it.

[DEVOREFLYER]

So just how much Guberment ownership of land is enough or too much.

http://i.imgur.com/3oc5PRC.jpg

[City Dad]

So just how much Guberment ownership of land is enough or too much.

http://i.imgur.com/3oc5PRC.jpg

coincidence that all of the red areas occur in prime Bigfoot habitat????

[DarkShadow]

What is wrong with the proposed bill? Private people/corporations owning land with a natural resource, or perceived one. Ducks Unlimited is a great example of private lands ownership compared to public lands ownership. Does Corona lakes abuse it's resource? Do you truly believe the Federal government manages that land efficiently?

You honestly believe that the majority of the land is going to be taken over and managed by groups like Duck and Trout Unlimited, because obviously they have deeper pockets than major corporations? If you had a bidding war between Ducks Unlimited and Exxon-Mobil, you honestly think Ducks Unlimited is going to win?


Before I go any farther, we need to have a basic understanding of economics.

You are correct, feel free to answer the question above before we go any further.


So just how much Guberment ownership of land is enough or too much.

http://i.imgur.com/3oc5PRC.jpg

Fixed your map for you, Devore.

http://i.imgur.com/0cAR3vJ.jpg

No wonder you're moving to South Carolina! Lots of white there.^

[Lipripper93561]

This map should make liberals cry.........just look at all that tax revenue that is lost.
Geo-Spatial analysis is my money maker, so those of you in San Bernardino.....below are your numbers. By the way SB is the largest county in the USA.

Total Acres is San Bernardino County 12,910,482 Acres
Federal Managed Lands 8,529,662 Acres

Forest Service 544,405 Acres
Wilderness Areas 2,358,812 Acres
Area of Environmental Concern 1,598,933 Acres
National Parks 1,891,137

I'm all for the privatization of the above areas besides the military bases.
We pay fees to the Forest service
We can only step foot into the wilderness areas, no vehicles...so pretty much off limits
ACEC, no vehicles, and off limits
National Parks.....pay fees to visit and park......why not privatize and create some competition.

[Lipripper93561]

You honestly believe that the majority of the land is going to be taken over and managed by groups like Duck and Trout Unlimited, because obviously they have deeper pockets than major corporations? If you had a bidding war between Ducks Unlimited and Exxon-Mobil, you honestly think Ducks Unlimited is going to win?



You are correct, feel free to answer the question above before we go any further.

Let's take the emotional aspect out of your argument, and talk facts only please. Do I feel that Exxon/Mobile will pay a higher price for wetland habitat than Ducks Unlimited will?
I strongly believe that Ducks Unlimited will pay a much higher price.
Do I feel that Ducks Unlimited would pay a higher price for the North Slope tar sands? Absolutely........in the oil business, there is much more money in a lease, than in a purchase.
Please fill us in on what areas/parks you are afraid (bad word, but just can't think of a better one right now) that Exon would purchase and outright trash or eliminate access to?



Fixed your map for you, Devore.

http://i.imgur.com/0cAR3vJ.jpg

No wonder you're moving to South Carolina! Lots of white there.^

To a certain extent I can see the case you have put before us. But your "feelings" on corporations are just that...feelings...not facts. Corporations consist of people, just like the feds consists of people, why do you "trust" one segment of the population and not the other. What have the feds done to earn your trust whereas corporations have only broken your trust? Do you strongly feel that our national parks are effectively managed? Did you trust the Federal government last time you filled up.......or did you trust Exon/Mobile/BP/etc to fuel your vehicle? In this for lack of better terms "age of the stupid" we distrust Corporations, but these are the same corporations that have caused us great benefit. For a good read, look at the market conditions that Standard Oil emerged from. Standard Oil met a consumer demand, not a government demand, thus great profit was created. IF you have such distrust of corporations.....why do you engage the corporate world. (iphones, transportation, electricity, food,) these are all products of corporations....but of course they are all evil and out for their own good, not the benefit of the seller consumer relationship.

[DarkShadow]

To a certain extent I can see the case you have put before us. But your "feelings" on corporations are just that...feelings...not facts. Corporations consist of people, just like the feds consists of people, why do you "trust" one segment of the population and not the other. What have the feds done to earn your trust whereas corporations have only broken your trust? Do you strongly feel that our national parks are effectively managed? Did you trust the Federal government last time you filled up.......or did you trust Exon/Mobile/BP/etc to fuel your vehicle? In this for lack of better terms "age of the stupid" we distrust Corporations, but these are the same corporations that have caused us great benefit. For a good read, look at the market conditions that Standard Oil emerged from. Standard Oil met a consumer demand, not a government demand, thus great profit was created. IF you have such distrust of corporations.....why do you engage the corporate world. (iphones, transportation, electricity, food,) these are all products of corporations....but of course they are all evil and out for their own good, not the benefit of the seller consumer relationship.

Never did I say that corporations are evil. Everybody knows that corporations are out to profit, and make their shareholders profit as well, a gift for investing in the company.

Many a times on this site does one person give their opinion about a specific situation, and the Hawgz of the world assume that you must be against everything that is against your plight.

Does Exxon Mobile do good? Sure, it provides us the gasoline that we need to get to work everyday.

Can Exxon Mobile also do bad, in this case, buying up public land so that their profit margin is increased, and having the legal ability to keep people out? Sure, it also does too.

So because I'm against the private corporations selling out ordinary citizens like you and me because they want their profit margin increased, reducing the areas where we can fish, hunt, hike and enjoy doesn't mean that I'm against all corporations and pretend to not see the good they do provide to our society. But at the same time, just because a corporation aids in the daily sustenance for every day living, doesn't mean I give them a carte blanche for extending their influence elsewhere.

[Brent]

Never did I say that corporations are evil. Everybody knows that corporations are out to profit, and make their shareholders profit as well, a gift for investing in the company.

Many a times on this site does one person give their opinion about a specific situation, and the Hawgz of the world assume that you must be against everything that is against your plight.

Does Exxon Mobile do good? Sure, it provides us the gasoline that we need to get to work everyday.

Can Exxon Mobile also do bad, in this case, buying up public land so that their profit margin is increased, and having the legal ability to keep people out? Sure, it also does too.

So because I'm against the private corporations selling out ordinary citizens like you and me because they want their profit margin increased, reducing the areas where we can fish, hunt, hike and enjoy doesn't mean that I'm against all corporations and pretend to not see the good they do provide to our society. But at the same time, just because a corporation aids in the daily sustenance for every day living, doesn't mean I give them a carte blanche for extending their influence elsewhere.

Dark,

When are you announcing your run against Hillary and the rest of the a$$clowns? haha
You'd get my vote, but I'm not sure too many people would get on board the common sense party.
People love to hate too much. They need to feel it's us against them or good vs. evil. I just can't wrap my head around how stupid people can be in the name of their 'party' affiliations.
It's easier to follow what your told and keep your head in the sand than look at the whole thing as one big freaking problem. Which is exactly what it is.

[Lady Quagga]

Dark,

When are you announcing your run against Hillary and the rest of the a$$clowns? haha
You'd get my vote, but I'm not sure too many people would get on board the common sense party.
People love to hate too much. They need to feel it's us against them or good vs. evil. I just can't wrap my head around how stupid people can be in the name of their 'party' affiliations.
It's easier to follow what your told and keep your head in the sand than look at the whole thing as one big freaking problem. Which is exactly what it is.

Brent, every issue in this country - be it social, economic, scientific, etc. - has become politically polarized. The idea that an issue could and should transcend this self-destructive partisanship is anathema to these political extremists. There is no place in their world for a "third side", or even for mutual agreement based on rational argument and compromise. They likely see any opposing or dissenting view as "evil extremism", because how else can they establish themselves as being on the side of righteousness? A sad state indeed.

[DarkShadow]

Brent, every issue in this country - be it social, economic, scientific, etc. - has become politically polarized. The idea that an issue could and should transcend this self-destructive partisanship is anathema to these political extremists. There is no place in their world for a "third side", or even for mutual agreement based on rational argument and compromise. They likely see any opposing or dissenting view as "evil extremism", because how else can they establish themselves as being on the side of righteousness? A sad state indeed.

Psycho cyber stalker.

[Lady Quagga]

Psycho cyber stalker.

You been taking lessons from Hawggy?

Speaking of Hawgz, I wonder if they got to him yet?

[DarkShadow]

Speaking of Hawgz, I wonder if they got to him yet?

Hey Hawgz, they get at you yet?

[Brent]

Hey Hawgz, they get at you yet?

The silence is deafening.

[Lipripper93561]

Just a thought exercise........what would Disneyland be like if the Feds ran it?

A. Would it meet or exceed the publics expectations?
B. Would it be in similar shape as the LA unified school district?
C. Would the park go out of business or be unprofitable in nature?

Seeing that the "owners" of Disneyland are incentivized to improve the conditions of the park, create competitive rates (3/4 of visitors are annual pass holders) and increase profit.
Why would this model not work in the National Parks?

[DarkShadow]

Why would this model not work in the National Parks?

Using Disneyland as an example is a bit disingenous, as Disneyland's profit comes from people going through their turnstiles, not them depleting natural resources in the land that they own, and selling them for profit.

But, I'll entertain the question anyway. So, this model would not work in the National Parks system perhaps because in the way the legislation is written, there is no mandatory statute that forces these private entities to permanently allow public access. Once sold, the private entity can do what it wants. Personally, if I bought up some land that had a bunch of natural resources on it, why would I risk liability by having hikers, fishermen and hunters accessing my private land, when I can just put a fence around it and not have to deal with any of the expenses and insurance that I'd need to have? If I close it up, I don't have to hire concession staff, install plumbing, create parking, grade trails, etc, etc.

Think Lake Matthews for example. It's a private body of water that once stood on public land. Then what happened? You're going on the assumption that these once public lands will remain public even after a private entity has bought it.

[John Harper]

Just a thought exercise........what would Disneyland be like if the Feds ran it?


B. Would it be in similar shape as the LA unified school district?

Even the Feds could not **** things up like LAUSD. Amateur, politicized school boards, who hire totally unqualified superintendents (some with grandiose schemes that any fool would see unworkable), who they then have to pay off to go away a couple years later. Nothing is worse than the way LAUSD is run, by elected board members and incompetent superintendents. They've hired back Cortines twice after failed leadership hires. Can't blame us poor teachers for failed leadership on the administrative side.

And, I don't even work in LAUSD. It's in the LA Times almost nonstop.

Remember, if you learned to read for yourself, thank a teacher. If you learned how to think for yourself, thank you.

John

[Lipripper93561]

Using Disneyland as an example is a bit disingenous, as Disneyland's profit comes from people going through their turnstiles, not them depleting natural resources in the land that they own, and selling them for profit.

But, I'll entertain the question anyway. So, this model would not work in the National Parks system perhaps because in the way the legislation is written, there is no mandatory statute that forces these private entities to permanently allow public access. Once sold, the private entity can do what it wants. Personally, if I bought up some land that had a bunch of natural resources on it, why would I risk liability by having hikers, fishermen and hunters accessing my private land, when I can just put a fence around it and not have to deal with any of the expenses and insurance that I'd need to have? If I close it up, I don't have to hire concession staff, install plumbing, create parking, grade trails, etc, etc.

Think Lake Matthews for example. It's a private body of water that once stood on public land. Then what happened? You're going on the assumption that these once public lands will remain public even after a private entity has bought it.

But is not the resource in questions, the park itself? For example, the Grand Canyon National Park. Would Chevron think that the "oil" extraction profits would exceed profits for ticket sales? Yosemite? The value is the park itself, not oil underneath.
The value of "Disneyland" is created by the publics wants/need for it's existence. Is it your opinion that the "public" might not value the park, for the features of the park, but maybe for the oil under it?
Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not from around the Riverside area. From wiki sources, lake Mathews has always been inaccessible to the general public. Do to a rodent, and ecological preserve consisting of over 9,000 acres is what is blocking access along with the opinion that the human body should not contact our drinking water. Is it not owned by the metropolitan water district. Pardon the language, but it seems like tree huggers are the ones blocking access do to the EIR or EIS process.

[Lipripper93561]

Even the Feds could not **** things up like LAUSD. Amateur, politicized school boards, who hire totally unqualified superintendents (some with grandiose schemes that any fool would see unworkable), who they then have to pay off to go away a couple years later. Nothing is worse than the way LAUSD is run, by elected board members and incompetent superintendents. They've hired back Cortines twice after failed leadership hires. Can't blame us poor teachers for failed leadership on the administrative side.

And, I don't even work in LAUSD. It's in the LA Times almost nonstop.

Remember, if you learned to read for yourself, thank a teacher. If you learned how to think for yourself, thank you.

John

Thank you for the great laugh!!!!! It's refreshing to run into someone familiar with the inner workings of that school district. The iPad debacle is killing me slowly. How could they not see that coming???????? They have to be brain dead.

[DarkShadow]

But is not the resource in questions, the park itself? For example, the Grand Canyon National Park. Would Chevron think that the "oil" extraction profits would exceed profits for ticket sales? Yosemite? The value is the park itself, not oil underneath.
The value of "Disneyland" is created by the publics wants/need for it's existence. Is it your opinion that the "public" might not value the park, for the features of the park, but maybe for the oil under it?
Please correct me if I am wrong as I am not from around the Riverside area. From wiki sources, lake Mathews has always been inaccessible to the general public. Do to a rodent, and ecological preserve consisting of over 9,000 acres is what is blocking access along with the opinion that the human body should not contact our drinking water. Is it not owned by the metropolitan water district. Pardon the language, but it seems like tree huggers are the ones blocking access do to the EIR or EIS process.

Lipripper93561,

As my original post had mentioned,


Thank goodness it's impossible to sell National Parks, National Monuments and National Preserves, since they enjoy extraordinary legal protection, but it leaves the door open to sell National Forests, Wildlife Refuges and Wildernesses to the highest bidder.

So, the Grand Canyon, being a National Park, still enjoys the freedom of not being raped by oil derricks. Yosemite, same thing. National Forests, Wildlife Refuges and Wildernesses? Not so much.

Here is the text for the legislation:

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/838/text

Here is what your fellow hunters, fishermen and sportsmen think about the amendment:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/backcountry/current-news/896-senate-votes-in-favor-of-public-lands-seizure-drawing-criticism-from-sportsmen

[Lipripper93561]

Lipripper93561,

As my original post had mentioned,



So, the Grand Canyon, being a National Park, still enjoys the freedom of not being raped by oil derricks. Yosemite, same thing. National Forests, Wildlife Refuges and Wildernesses? Not so much.

Here is the text for the legislation:

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/838/text

Here is what your fellow hunters, fishermen and sportsmen think about the amendment:

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/index.php/backcountry/current-news/896-senate-votes-in-favor-of-public-lands-seizure-drawing-criticism-from-sportsmen

Has this process not existed before? Meaning, the BLM is always selling/auctioning land off, or trading for more desirable land. AS far as I know, you can't hunt in a National Forest, only on a few wildlife refugees and you can't even drive/hunt on a Wilderness area.
Just to gauge to how you value land, do you agree with proposed Sand to Snow national monument in San Bernardino?

[DEVOREFLYER]

So just how much Guberment ownership of land is enough or too much.

http://i.imgur.com/3oc5PRC.jpg

So once again I ask just how much Guberment ownership of land is enough or too much.....crickets chirping eh DS.

[HawgZWylde]

So once again I ask just how much Guberment ownership of land is enough or too much.....crickets chirping eh DS.

I wouldn't expect much besides photo shopping and spun words out of him Dev...

[DarkShadow]

So once again I ask just how much Guberment ownership of land is enough or too much.....crickets chirping eh DS.

Perhaps your question should be posed as, "How much private property ownership of what once used to be public lands is enough, or too much?" but I realize I won't get any response to that.

So my answer to your baseless question, as long as that Government land allows access for the populous and protects these lands from private developers, then they can have all the land that they want as long as it's managed correctly.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Perhaps you need to take a look at the map again and pay attention to "TEXAS" Texas has next to none in terms of Government land. Texas is almost all private land. When I attend a family reunion in Texas every year we feast on BBQ and wild game and most of my family are rabid hunters and fishermen. No ones complaining about any lack of wild game or fish opportunities and the private sector seems to manage it quite well. A cousin that is a retired Texas Game Warden says the fish and game laws apply to private property and they are very well managed and even policed by private property owners to prevent poaching and misuse.

Feel free to nose around and see what fishing and hunting looks like in Texas: http://www.gameandfishmag.com/southwest/texas/

I would also guess you have never been deer or bird hunting in the Midwest (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas). Not a lot of Government land there either and the sportsmen and businesses that service them are doing quite well, try to find a hotel room when hunting season opens. You might want to check out those states also.

[John Harper]

Perhaps you need to take a look at the map again and pay attention to "TEXAS" Texas has next to none in terms of Government land. Texas is almost all private land. When I attend a family reunion in Texas every year we feast on BBQ and wild game and most of my family are rabid hunters and fishermen. No ones complaining about any lack of wild game or fish opportunities and the private sector seems to manage it quite well. A cousin that is a retired Texas Game Warden says the fish and game laws apply to private property and they are very well managed and even policed by private property owners to prevent poaching and misuse.

Feel free to nose around and see what fishing and hunting looks like in Texas: http://www.gameandfishmag.com/southwest/texas/

I would also guess you have never been deer or bird hunting in the Midwest (Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas). Not a lot of Government land there either and the sportsmen and businesses that service them are doing quite well, try to find a hotel room when hunting season opens. You might want to check out those states also.

That map is amazing, I had no idea how much fed land in the west. It would be interesting to see how the midwestern lands were privatized since the Louisiana Purchase (that was a big debate in itself). A lot of the plains states offered flat, fertile land. I think I read that a lot of Revolutionary War officers and soldiers may have been offered huge areas of land for their service. Much like the giant ranchos of California in the Spanish/Mexican eras. Huge tracts of land, and we live on them now. Looks like all those areas in CA are shown as private as well, obviously. Does make you wonder.


John

[DEVOREFLYER]

John I don't know about Revolutionary War soldiers getting land grants but my relatives did after fighting in the Civil War.