Are Public Lands at risk?
|
|
|
No. |
|
Yes. |
|
Rick Blair wrote:No. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiro… People in local states having more say over their land. Sounds good to me. Many western states have huge percentages of Federal land, why should New Yorkers have so much influence over land in Colorado but not the other way around?"why should new yorkers..." LOL what makes you think they have 'influence' that you dont |
|
Rick Blair wrote:No. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiro… People in local states having more say over their land. Sounds good to me. Many western states have huge percentages of Federal land, why should New Yorkers have so much influence over land in Colorado but not the other way around?I doubt the western states that are hotbeds of "back to the states" activity would be so eager to take federal lands back if they were required to maintain them as "forever wild." Also, Coloradans have the same say over federal lands in New York as New Yorkers have over Colorado's federal lands. In fact, the eight states at the forefront of this silliness have 16 senators among them whereas New York has only two--even though New York's population is larger than all of those eight states combined. Wyoming itself has the same representation in the US Senate as New York, despite a population one-fortieth of New York's. So who has disproportionate influence over who? |
|
Most of the resistance to this out west is driven by sportsmen. Given how lumber and mining interests tend to lock out recreationalists over "safety" concerns, the fear is that if the state gets control over these lands, they'll either get sold out-right, or at least locked up so the best hunting and fishing in the states will suddenly go private. |
|
tenpins wrote: "why should new yorkers..." LOL what makes you think they have 'influence' that you dontFederal Lands Colorado Federal Land Acreage 24,086,075 = 36% of state Population = 5.356 Million New York Federal Land Acreage 211,422 = 0.7% Population = 19.75 Million Thanks for clearing up for how much more advanced thinkers there are in the Eastern U.S. Must be MIT. |
|
PRRose wrote: In fact, the eight states at the forefront of this silliness have 16 senators among them whereas New York has only two--even though New York's population is larger than all of those eight states combined. Wyoming itself has the same representation in the US Senate as New York, despite a population one-fortieth of New York's. So who has disproportionate influence over who?you obviously missed civics class. It was made that way intentionally... |
|
Also this article fails to take into account the fact that simply deeding to the land to the states, doesn't necessarily close access to climbing. Colorado has plenty of state parks with lots of climbing. Eldo, Staunton, and Golden Gate come to mind. I'm sure the state could sell those off to the highest bidder but they don't... |
|
Rick Blair wrote: Federal Lands Colorado Federal Land Acreage 24,086,075 = 36% of state Population = 5.356 Million New York Federal Land Acreage 211,422 = 0.7% Population = 19.75 Million Thanks for clearing up for how much more advanced thinkers there are in the Eastern U.S. Must be MIT.I think the problem with giving states more control is that when disasters strike (i.e. wildfires and *floods*) they still have their hand out expecting federal money. I think that is really hypocritical. Not to mention Fed vs states rights- that has already been played out, thats so 1860. Seriously though, the reason I signed the petition is to save Red Rocks from your constituency, I don't trust they will do the right thing. |
|
Greg Petliski wrote: Well based on whats happening all over the South, Im not sure the battle for "states rights" aka the state's right to keep poor black folks down even longer, is over.12 comments folks. That's all it took for this to go from land management to keeping poor black folks down. |
|
Stagg54 wrote: why should the government own over 1/2 the land in states like Nevada?Because the federal government, and by extension U.S. taxpayers, paid for it. I am unaware of any state that has offered to pay for federal lands within their borders. Instead, their argument is always that the feds should grant these lands to the states gratis. |
|
Stagg54 wrote: you obviously missed civics class. It was made that way intentionally...Anyone that supports the Senate is against democracy. |
|
Nathan D Johnson wrote: Anyone that supports the Senate is against democracy.Yup. And it was made that way intentionally, because the US is not a democracy. If we were a pure democracy, interracial marriage would not have been legal until the late 1980s. |
|
Scott Phil wrote: Because the federal government, and by extension U.S. taxpayers, paid for it. I am unaware of any state that has offered to pay for federal lands within their borders. Instead, their argument is always that the feds should grant these lands to the states gratis.^^Bingo. Most of the land east of the Sierra Navada is/was uninhabitable without huge federal expenditures and projects. These areas live in a contradiction of getting subsidies from the government to live, but don't want any legislation to follow the money. |
|
For what it's worth, here is the response I got from Mike Lee's office: |
|
Dallas McLellan wrote:For what it's worth, here is the response I got from Mike Lee's office: Thank you for reaching out to Senator Lee. Senator Lee is concerned that the federal government owns well over 50% of Utah lands. This presents some challenges to the state of Utah. Among those challenges is the fact that the state of Utah is not able to collect property tax revenue from any of that land. If the land is turned back over to the state, then the state of Utah will collect more revenue that can be used for the upkeep of these lands. Another benefit of turning the land back over to the state is that Utah will know how to handle its own land better than a bureaucrat in Washington, D.C. does.Wow, that's way more honest than I would expect, although you have to read between the lines a bit. If Utah planned on keeping these lands open and free as recreation/wild areas, there'd be no property taxes to collect. Clearly, they want the federal government to simply give Utah the land so Utah can sell it to private interests (who would NOT keep the land open to the public) and then collect property taxes. This is a very naked attempt to take open public land and make it private. This has NOTHING to do with states' rights or federalism--it's about big business being able to manipulate state government easier and quieter than they can manipulate the federal government (but they seem to have Mike Lee in their pocket already). Also, that business about using the property taxes to take care of the land is total bullshit -- right now, Utah doesn't pay to take care of the land because the Feds manage it! (For the most part.) Mike Lee's response is honestly one of the most evil, stupid things I've ever heard a politician say. I can't believe people vote for that kind of bullshit. Also, Joe Coover's point is very well taken. This land has been publicly held for ALL Americans to enjoy since (essentially) the Louisiana Purchase (that's over-simplified, but you know what I mean). The only reason the western United States is inhabited and thriving is because we, the people, encouraged it and made it possible, in large part because of free land giveaways. And now you want the rest of it for yourselves so you don't have to share it with the rest of America? As an east-coaster, I'm just as American as anyone else, and that land belongs to everyone. I use it often, as we all do, and it's one of the things that makes this country so great. To strip it away from the public and give it to private mining/agriculture/etc business so that state legislators can line their pockets is simply un-American. |
|
Alec32 wrote: If Utah planned on keeping these lands open and free as recreation/wild areas, there'd be no property taxes to collect.Bingo, plus would the states even have the resources to manage what they end up with? The obvious way to make that happen would be by selling off large portions of it, then get whatever they could on an ongoing basis from taxes, plus exploitation of the resources, whether fees for extracting minerals, charging for recreation, grazing or whatever. More restricted access would obviously be part of these changes. I also agree with you Alec about the underlying premise of federal lands being preserved and used for the benefit of all Americans, and not having this premise be degraded to state and private lands for the use/exploitation of the state or private owners. There are many countries where you just can not find this. It is an aspect of being American that I am really grateful for and proud of. To me, climbing in the outdoors on public lands is personal freedom. I oppose any legislation that deliberately or inadvertently contributes to taking that away. You bet I signed the petition. |
|
It will be interesting to see what happens in the UK; the new Tory budget, as I understand it, has instructed government entities to determine what land assets can be sold. |
|
Stagg54 wrote: you obviously missed civics class. It was made that way intentionally...Of course the two senators per state rule was intentional. Now, in what way is that relevant? |
|
Stagg54 wrote:Also this article fails to take into account the fact that simply deeding to the land to the states, doesn't necessarily close access to climbing. Colorado has plenty of state parks with lots of climbing. Eldo, Staunton, and Golden Gate come to mind. I'm sure the state could sell those off to the highest bidder but they don't... Also why should the government own over 1/2 the land in states like Nevada? Why does the federal government instead of the states get to profit off the circuses they've made out of places like Zion and Yosemite?Wrong. Staunton, for example was gifted to Colorado with the stipulation that it be preserved in perpetuity as a "natural wilderness-type park." The state accepted the gift under that condition, and cannot sell it off. As I noted above, I doubt the states want the federal land subject to a non-alienation and wilderness preservation covenant. |