bendog
Diamond Member
Voters in U.S. West oppose transfer of public lands to states survey - Yahoo News
59 % oppose states taking over federal land.
59 % oppose states taking over federal land.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
because they would despoil it and then move on.
Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.because they would despoil it and then move on.
What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?
Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.because they would despoil it and then move on.
What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?
Probably not the profit bearing parks and forest, but the BLM land would go up for grabs. Monuments are up in the air and lots of those could come under attack by private concerns.Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.because they would despoil it and then move on.
What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?
So you actually believe that state legislatures and governors would find it palatable to just sit by and let national parks and monuments deteriorate thus ruining millions of dollars in tourism revenue to their state?
Probably not the profit bearing parks and forest, but the BLM land would go up for grabs. Monuments are up in the air and lots of those could come under attack by private concerns.Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.because they would despoil it and then move on.
What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?
So you actually believe that state legislatures and governors would find it palatable to just sit by and let national parks and monuments deteriorate thus ruining millions of dollars in tourism revenue to their state?
It's every citizen's business. It's our property, not the property of the people who reside in the state. The country paid for it with blood, treasure and treaties with the people who had possession of it when we showed up with federal troops. When the state became a state they agreed all that property belonged to the federal government. Ever since that time the federal government and tax payers have paid the expenses for it's care and upkeep. Why should we give up our property and investments?Probably not the profit bearing parks and forest, but the BLM land would go up for grabs. Monuments are up in the air and lots of those could come under attack by private concerns.Cash, hard cold cash from those who would misuse the land by taking maximum short term profits. Vested interest be damned.because they would despoil it and then move on.
What vested interest would any state have in doing such a thing?
So you actually believe that state legislatures and governors would find it palatable to just sit by and let national parks and monuments deteriorate thus ruining millions of dollars in tourism revenue to their state?
And so what if some of them do? Is there really a need for 85% of the land in my state to be under government control?
Furthermore, what you makes you think the residents of my state or any other western state where the federal government holds a majority stake in our land would allow our state governments to start tearing them apart? Additionally, if you don't live here, how is it any of your business if we do? Oh yeah, it's not.