HR 621 - Selling Off Our Public Lands - to be withdrawn

I understand this doesn't affect you personally, considering you live in Louisiana, but public lands are a way of life for us out here. Not to mention public lands bills that transfer land from the federal government to states, increase fossil fuel development on public land or erode protection for air, water, land and wildlife would be out of step with public opinion.

Yeah, because private owners never conserve land.

The most visited park in the US started because large private owners wanted to give something to the public (and because that evil capitalist Rockefeller paid for the damned thing).

But keep on thinking that only the government can give you what you need.

Over half the visitors to that park are drive through. And do yourself a favor; do NOT compare the Smoky Mountains to the parks out here.

quote:

---

Over half the visitors to that park are drive through. And do yourself a favor; do NOT compare the Smoky Mountains to the parks out here.

---

Why? I've been to the parks out west and to the smokies. Each are beautiful in their own right. Do you somehow think the national parks out west are somehow above reproach to the smokies?

I've been to Yellowstone, Great Smoky Mountains, Grand Teton, Badlands, Carlsbad Caverns, Great Sand Dunes, and Rocky Mountain National Parks. Each have their own unique and beautiful appeal. We went to Asheville in October. That was some of the most beautiful scenery i've ever witnessed. Fall was in full swing. I've never seen so many bright colors in the trees before in my life. It was truly incredible.

I do need to make it back to the parks in the west. Last time i went i was a kid. But those too were breathtaking.

Completely agree. It would be awesome to have a long leaf pine forest the size four counties in AL for public use.

This needs to go next

H.R.622 - Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act

Congress.gov

It calls for federal "block grants" to go to the state/local authorities to enforce the law on public federal land. Why would we need to give them welfare if they are capable of doing a better job?

This is just another attack on federal public land. Down the road it will be "oh look the state/local guys can't protect it...well shucks guess we have to sell it."

quote:

---

Why? I've been to the parks out west and to the smokies. Each are beautiful in their own right. Do you somehow think the national parks out west are somehow above reproach to the smokies?

---

This bill has nothing to do with the smokies; only for lands in the west. While they (the smokies) are beautiful in their own way, and somewhat pristine, western lands are a foundation for people's livelihoods out here. It will not be stolen from us.

quote:

---

This is a huge win for us outdoor enthusiasts, conservationists, and explorers.

---

I can understand not wanting to sell off national parks, forests, etc., but I don't understand what purpose is served by BLM owning so much land.

Responding to a couple of selloff proponents in one.

quote:

---

SlapahoeTribe

---

quote:

---

But keep on thinking that only the government can give you what you need.

---

I prefer a prioritization of private entities in most of what I consume but realize the federal government is needed for certain commodities that private interests cannot provide, such as defense and, yes, preservation of wild lands. You may think you have access to the wild from private entities, but you don't. Barring a few gajillionaire eccentrics with vast holdings (think Ted Turner) most private holdings (indeed, most land in the east, unfortunately) offer a poor, overdeveloped representation of the wild. Your buddy's enlarged duck puddle? Your pine tree farm hunting camp? Your miserable industrial bayous? Might as well be Central Park with some wildlife thrown in a fence. What is left of the true wild in this country is protected by the federal government, and almost exclusively is found west of teh Mississippi. Private entities simply do not protect the wild, and with a few very notable exceptions, I find that state parks are similarly overdeveloped. Just because you don't care to enjoy it, doesn't mean you shouldn't want to protect a little bit of it for your grandsons.

More on this below, but on to the next guy:

quote:

---

Gaspergou202

---

quote:

---

I'm so happy I get to keep my free shite!

Selling 0.5% of federal land would be a disastrous development for selfish snowflake "sportsmen".

---

I love your tone and use of quotation marks around the word 'sportsmen." First of all, I will just emphasize what you already (hopefully) know: calling someone a 'snowflake' or 'cuck' immediately identifies you as a brainless dolt. But since we have digressed to name calling, I'll go ahead and toss in what you are: a pussy. I don't want to make too many assumptions about you but I'm fairly certain I would find your idea of 'getting in the outdoors' to be without any effort, risk, and reward- utterly boring. You drive your fatass to your deer stand, shoot a buck, and drive it back to camp. Great, try elk hunting, pussy.

There are places I could take you in the Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico wilderness where I'm certain you would wilt and collapse long before the final destination, mentally and physically breaking down when you first tasted the feeling of truly being on your own: in a situation where making the wrong decision could easily result in losing your life. These places are never private holdings and, like I said to the guy above, just because you don't get out and enjoy them, don't take away the opportunities of your grandsons. These places are all of our birthrights, and we should protect them rigorously. In other words, stop being such a pussy.