View in: Desktop
Copyright @2024 TigerDroppings.com. All rights reserved.
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Posted by
Message
A paradigm shift in the politics of public lands
Posted by OleWarSkuleAlum on 3/1/19 at 8:07 am518
quote:
Congress overwhelmingly passed an omnibus bill Tuesday that strengthened America's commitment to its public lands - hundreds of millions of acres of open space that carry labels like national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness and recreation areas.
The support this measure enjoyed among Republicans just might signal an approaching end to the party's decades-long embrace of a campaign aimed at divesting the U.S. of ownership or control of public lands.
That campaign produced few tangible results. A proposal by the Reagan administration to sell off about 40 million acres went nowhere, and efforts by Reagan's Interior Secretary James Watt to yield control of hundreds of millions of acres of public lands to mining companies and ranching enterprises were stymied by Congress or the courts. Since then, the campaign has tried to keep the idea alive by regularly inserting a plank calling for divestiture of public lands in Republican Party platforms, including in 2016.
While President Trump never embraced the idea of selling off public lands, his administration has revived the Watt approach, working to turn over control of many millions of acres to fossil fuel and other industrial interests, and to gut regulations protecting clean water and endangered species. Indeed, the administration has given industry even more than it asked for, abandoning agreements prior administrations had forged with western governors to protect imperiled species, and drastically downsizing the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, the first large protected area of public lands where Native Americans were given a meaningful management role. Any doubts about this administration's priorities were erased when, during the recent government shutdown, it kept civil servants processing oil and gas drilling permits while park rangers were furloughed.
LINK
BLM is the biggest racket in the US. After the DoE the next sections that need to be cut are BLM, NPS, and USFS. The land belongs in the hands of the people not the government. We can reduce or outright eliminate the deficit selling key land.
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by Pbhog on 3/1/19 at 8:08 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
So let corporations buy national parks?
You think we could put a dent in our multi- trillion dollar deficit but selling national parks? Wow
You think we could put a dent in our multi- trillion dollar deficit but selling national parks? Wow
This post was edited on 3/1 at 8:10 am
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by OleWarSkuleAlum on 3/1/19 at 8:09 am to Pbhog
quote:
So let corporations buy national parks?
Yes the government has zero business owning / managing land.
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by Pbhog on 3/1/19 at 8:10 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
I respectfully disagree sir.
quote:
So let corporations buy national parks?
No, but the amount of land, especially out west, owned by the federal government is ridiculous. It should at least be turned over to the states where the land is located.
I'm ok with exempting National Parks and National Monuments. But that is still a small, small fraction of the amount of land owned by fedgov.
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by CoachChappy on 3/1/19 at 8:12 am to Pbhog
quote:
I respectfully disagree sir.
So the gov't should own and manage land? Can they put a wall or barricade around it if they want?
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by TigerChief10 on 3/1/19 at 8:13 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
National parks are one area I actually am not against government owning/regulating. It's for the betterment of wildlife and outdoors enthusiasts in America.
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by Homesick Tiger on 3/1/19 at 8:14 am to Centinel
quote:
No, but the amount of land, especially out west, owned by the federal government is ridiculous.
So does the federal govt. have to pay taxes on that land to the states like you and I have to? I'm pretty sure of the answer.
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by Centinel on 3/1/19 at 8:15 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
federal govt. have to pay taxes
If Teddy Roosevelt was alive he would be beating posters here over the head with a cane. There's not a lot of things that government is needed for. Protecting the absolute most mind blowing examples of natural splendor in this country from greedy and idiotic real estate developers who would think building a water slide in the middle of Yosemite Valley is the best idea in the history of mankind is one of them.
TD SponsorTD Fan
USA
Member since 2001
USA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors Posted by Site Sponsor to Everyone
Advertisement
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by uway on 3/1/19 at 8:19 am to OleWarSkuleAlum
How many people post under OleWarSkules account?
And I’m a conservative, which naturally means I’m in favor of all of the land in the United States being owned by corporations and ultra wealthy individuals who will put it to its most profitable use in the service of our god THE ECONOMY....
Not.
It’s retarded to call yourself conservative and not be in favor of some land being reserved for public/open access.
And I’m a conservative, which naturally means I’m in favor of all of the land in the United States being owned by corporations and ultra wealthy individuals who will put it to its most profitable use in the service of our god THE ECONOMY....
Not.
It’s retarded to call yourself conservative and not be in favor of some land being reserved for public/open access.
re: A paradigm shift in the politics of public landsPosted by Lima Whiskey on 3/1/19 at 8:21 am to 88Wildcat
Look at a map of the west that shows how much land the Federal government owns.
You’ll be shocked.
You’ll be shocked.
quote:
Protecting the absolute most mind blowing examples of natural splendor in this country from greedy and idiotic real estate developers who would think building a water slide in the middle of Yosemite Valley is the best idea in the history of mankind is one of them.
If this was a direct response to me, you need to go back and read my post again.
My issue is not protecting places like Yosemite. My issue is the national government owning millions of acres of land for no other reason than "because we said so" when it could be turned over to the states.
ETA: Do you not see a problem with this?
This post was edited on 3/1 at 8:26 am
quote:
Most of that land is desert, in hospitable for humans to live in
So why should the federal government own the land, and not the states?
ETA: Why should the vast majority of the land in Nevada be owned by the federal government instead of...you know....the actual state of Nevada?
This post was edited on 3/1 at 8:25 am
quote:
No, though I’m sympathetic to more local public ownership of the land. I just don’t want it to be in private hands.
Hence my saying several times it should be turned over to the states.
If Nevada wants to sell their public lands, that's up to the citizens of Nevada. Neither you nor I should have any say in the matter.
It’s owned by all people and the fed govt is the trustee.
Giving it to the states will result in them most likely selling them which is very short sighted.
Look up what Nevada did with its school board land.
We’re not creating any more land or wild places.
Giving it to the states will result in them most likely selling them which is very short sighted.
Look up what Nevada did with its school board land.
We’re not creating any more land or wild places.
This post was edited on 3/1 at 8:41 am
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News