Posted on 02/02/2017 12:40:03 PM PST by Sheapdog
If it stays Fed land, the various agencies can forbid nearly all human presence and activity.
If it sells to private owners, they also put fences around it and forbid all human presence.
If it goes to the states, it can be available and overseen by each state, which really has the best interest of the people and the land at the same time.
Chaffetz is right—it should be sold, the sales proceeds used to pay down the national debt, the local governments can put the property on the tax rolls, and the private owners could put the property to profitable use. If the hunters want to purchase it, let them bid on it.
The argument against the state ownership of these lands is that when the states get into financial trouble they will look to sell the land to the highest bidder. Fed Gov can hold these lands in trust for all Americans.
We should work to open access to all Federal lands where possible.
My understanding is that a lot of the lands identified in this withdrawn bill included land that was Fed owned but did not have public access. The lands were surrounded by private property and are not being used.
Sportsmen didn’t want to start the precedent of selling off public lands, even if they could not readily access the lands.
.
The Fed Gov does not have legitimate title to most of the lands that the bill affected.
They cannot sell them; they should just step aside so that the states that really own them can decide their fate.
.
.
>> “Selling it? Give it back to its rightful owners...the states” <<
Correctamundo!
.
.
The Guadalupe Hidalgo Treaty did not give the US Gov title to any lands that were in private use.
The only lands that were not in private use were the high ridges. All arable and grazable lands are rightly privately owned.
.
Terrible move.the land belongs to people, INDIVIDUALLY. If you want “access,” buy it.
US govt should own only a bare minimum of “parks”, most of which you can’t do anything on.
Give lands back to the states though. Cut out the Feds.
I don’t believe that the Federal Government should hold it either.. Give it to the people.. They used to give homesteaders grant or they could give it to the state. I’m just saying that the left thinks since it;s the Federal Governments then they own it and will stop everybody from using it period..
As the Fraud taught us (and veterans), public land can be petulantly closed off to punish us for not marching in lock-step with the fascist domestic enemy.
That’s it.. It’s like the cattle grazing thing..
Another retard?
The BLM employs the dumbest laziest delusional goldbricks in existence.
An Average IQ of around 65.
And those unelected imbeciles WILL decide if we can visit their private playground or not!
Welcome to FR, n00b!
Indeed. Over the years I have seen wilderness trails go from "No Motorized Vehicles" (okay) to "Foot Traffic Only" to "Access Restricted" to "No Public Access".
All those talking about "public access" will never set foot on that land. Better it be sold off, and put on the tax rolls as the land is developed.
These kinds of comments remind me of a Maine resident who complained about the city people who wanted to keep Maine rural so once a year, they could come up North, look around for 15 minutes, say, "Boy, that's a pretty sight" and then remove themselves to their hotel spa and pool.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.