Posted on 07/26/2011 11:35:50 AM PDT by Twotone
Former Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt is blasting as "radical" a Republican proposal to open up more than 50 million acres of public lands to logging and other development.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Heaven save us all if we get the mindset that we can and should produce! /s
Sell sell sell and the dept of Interior, too...sell Babbitt’s building.
Yep.
If the Republicans were serious they should first require FedGov to put all unused land up for sale to the states at a set price. Then up for public auction if the states refuse.
We have so many forests killed by bark beetle, & it’s just a matter of time before they burn in what will be a truly horrendous fire. Why not utilize them?!
Because utilizing them privately or at a state level would take away political leverage in the Washington beltway.
It IS Public Land! Ask the general public, want to see it burned to ashes or logged off and replanted! I’ll take logging any day!
I’m for it, Land Rush plus Road Warrior!
How much did the Federal government pay for the land when they took it from the states in the first place?
I don't recall exactly how the Federal government came into possession of these lands in the first place. Did they buy them from the states?
“radical” Mr. Babbett is the utter and sheer amount of land that the Government owns....all of which are resource rich and untapped. How many states does the Government nearly own because of those owned Federal lands? Idiot, I got “radical” for you.... =.=
In Nevada the Fed. unconstitutionally made ceding all public land to the Fed. a condition of statehood.
The Fed. now claim ownership and control of 87%+ of ALL Nevada lands.
Several of our counties have so little private land, as little as less than 3%, that they depend on OTHER counties and very high sales taxes to provide basic services such as education and fire protection.
This is a flagrant violation of the “Equal Footing” clause of our U.S. Constitution.
No doubt many other states can point to similar Fed. abuse.
The Nevada public lands should be returned to state ownership and control.
This is critical for Nevada to develop it’s own resources and gain a stable economy that is not dependent on the whims of gamblers!
Conservative generally claim to believe in “Local Control”.
Let the states control public lands, let the counties have the most control in each state.
Then the people we know, locally, will be responsive to the people who actually live on or near the land.
If the LOCAL majority demand that some rock pile be treated as wilderness, that is their choice.
If they decide the rocks should be ground up to recover the gold in them, spreading wealth around the county, state, and nation, that is also their choice!
Under the current scheme, eastern liberals are dictating that western states continually add “Wilderness” and “Conservation Area’s”, depriving them of resources and jobs.
These same eastern states usually have very little “Wilderness” of their own, and will not be creating any more as virtually ALL of their lands are OWNED by individuals, companies, or state government.
This is an advantage they have due to being settled before the Fed. became the intrusive meddlesome behemoth it is today.
Our constitution requires them to buy the land, for Forts, post offices, etc.
But it seems the Fed. rarely follow the constitution, instead they tend to claim the land is theirs from the beginning, and they imperiously “allow” the states to own portions of their own lands.
The further west you go, the worse this gets.
Which begs the question, “Why do the Feds own 30% of all American land?”
Agenda 21?
Hey Republicans! How about turning the millions of acres of federal lands taken from the States back to the States?
Did the federal government have *any* legitimate reason to take:
84.5% of Nevada?
69.1% of Alaska?
57.4% of Utah?
53.1% of Oregon?
50.2% of Idaho?
48.1% of Arizona?
45.3% of California?
42.3% of Wyoming?
41.8% of New Mexico?
36.6% of Colorado?
Of course they didn’t. They took those lands, for more than any other reason, to show how powerful and mighty they were, and to keep the people of those States from enjoy, using, and profiting from their lands.
Nothing in the constitution says that the federal government should be able to just take what it wants from the States, for all but a small amount of limited federal reservation and Indian lands, by treaty.
So Republicans, GIVE IT BACK!
I’m not sure of all the details myself. I vaguely remember that all territories were considered federal land. Once the territory became a state, the Fed would start releasing lands for home-steading (sold, I’m sure). Apparently the western lands were not brought in under the same terms as the more established eastern states.
Still, my reading of the constitution is that the Fed is only supposed to hold property for specific functions (necessary buildings, forts, etc.). They should definitely sell these lands & use that to reduce the debt!
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.