I totally understand your feeling on this, as I am aware of the long history, especially with the BLM..
What I tried to convey is that because of the large amount of federal acreage, still growing, someone has to manage it. Someone has to patrol it for lease rights and hunting and recreational activity.
I am not at all trying to say that there is any good in these agencies or that the agencies should continue to exist as is.
It’s only that if closed, the required departments would likely need to be transferred to a different agency so that they can continue to do some very simple tasks and that is the management of federal land, just as we have people who manage federal buildings. They are tax payer assets and will need to have some sort of monitoring.
Either that or we sell them back into the private sector, but I doubt you can do that with all of it, and it may in fact become necessary, perhaps sooner then later.
Correct. It is and should be a business run by those who are good at it.
It’s only that if closed, the required departments would likely need to be transferred to a different agency so that they can continue to do some very simple tasks and that is the management of federal land, just as we have people who manage federal buildings. They are tax payer assets and will need to have some sort of monitoring.
The land should be turned over to the States and auctioned off. Better, the various management functions should be privatized and the land gradually possessed by contract. If the contracts require subsidy in the short term, it would be cheaper than paying lawyers like we do now. Ultimately, I believe the system can price services against what are currently unaccounted socialized risks, for which I have a patent on the business method as a way to prevent somebody else from doing it first. I don't have the cash to enforce it.