If you like it, buy it. Get together with other people and buy a lot of it.
Don't go crying to Big Stupid Government to steal other people's money to buy it for you.
Let's take Florida's Ocala National Forest.
I enjoy traveling there, and camping with the family. In your world, people with a whole lot more money than I have should be able to buy that land (from whom I would ask), and disallow me and my family the ability to enjoy camping out.
They could turn the whole thing into a parking lot if they wanted to because it's THEIR land.
I don't have a problem with certain areas being owned by all of us rather than by some of us.
A place like Ocala National Forest should belong to all Americans...it's part of our heritage.
You said, "Get together with other people and buy a lot of it."
That is exactly what I do when I encourage my elected representatives to use my tax dollars to create parks.
I own an average house on 1/2 acre; I'm a 'little guy'. I can't afford the luxurious preserves of the rich and famous. By encouraging the government to use taxes from me and like minded citizens I get to enjoy parks that I couldn't afford to buy.
Most of the opposition to conservation (that I've read so far) seems to be based on "property rights" and "land use" which is not an issue in my part of the country. I'm going to learn more so I can understand your perspective but it seems to me you are concerned about government control and loss of freedom. If conservation could be enacted without loss of freedom would you be for it or against it?
It also seems to me that those who have most to fear about "property rights" would be large and wealthy land owners. Around here we see similar concerns voiced by land developers who don't want the local government to prevent them from cutting all the trees down when they develop a new sub division. I really don't think the proposed legislation is going to stop someone from cutting down one or a couple of trees on their private property as one of the posters implied.
You said, "Get together with other people and buy a lot of it."
That is exactly what I do when I encourage my elected representatives to use my tax dollars to create parks.
I own an average house on 1/2 acre; I'm a 'little guy'. I can't afford the luxurious preserves of the rich and famous. By encouraging the government to use taxes from me and like minded citizens I get to enjoy parks that I couldn't afford to buy.
Most of the opposition to conservation (that I've read so far) seems to be based on "property rights" and "land use" which is not an issue in my part of the country. I'm going to learn more so I can understand your perspective but it seems to me you are concerned about government control and loss of freedom. If conservation could be enacted without loss of freedom would you be for it or against it?
It also seems to me that those who have most to fear about "property rights" would be large and wealthy land owners. Around here we see similar concerns voiced by land developers who don't want the local government to prevent them from cutting all the trees down when they develop a new sub division. I really don't think the proposed legislation is going to stop someone from cutting down one or a couple of trees on their private property as one of the posters implied.