Study courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.
Study courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.
For obvious reasons his main intention in all this is to save the skunks that dwell on these lands.
"Rut rong rid Beeruls?"
WOW $35 mil for bugs and mice. As a good Socialists shouldn’t they be spending this money on helping people that have lost THEIR homes. After all the socialist are responsible for the economic catastrophy we are experiencing.
Didn’t fish and wildlife raid the Gibson guitar factory? Here’s some payback....they’ll have to hire more people to oversee this land.
Again, the crooked are stealing your money through laws of their own making. That money goes to them for control and power. Why do we need a Federal Government?
I’ve long been a proponent of the “de-nationalization” of State lands, which has long been beyond any semblance of reality or purpose, mostly based on the egos of former presidents who want a legacy of land set-asides. (So where do the Republican candidates stand on this issue? Not one of them has said a darned thing about it.)
There are a few, legitimate reasons for federal lands outside of Washington, D.C. Indian reservations, which are internal treaties; military bases; and most Americans would agree that a *few* federal parks, of America’s “crown jewels”, are reasonable “set asides” as “conservation areas.”
Rules must be much, much stricter for “preservation areas”, which means that only very limited human entry is permitted. Things such as major archeological sites, which are generally tiny areas, and extremely sensitive biological zones, with a multitude of unique species, should be considered.
As for the rest of it? The vast majority should be returned to the individual States for *their* use. It is not within the authority of the federal government to seize such lands “just because they can”, which is the vast majority of them.
Will anyone even *ask* the Republican candidates if they support the return of State lands by the federal government?
They need to get out of the land business.