|
| Author |
Message |
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jan 2017 08:15pm
Reply
There is a move afoot to sell off public lands in the USA, mostly the western states. Sure you might think it's a good idea if you have mega dollars to be able to purchase some. But how realistic is the expectation that "average Joe" would be able to afford it?
Story here.
No matter if you favor or disagree with the sale of public lands action starts here
|
|
toyota_mdt_tech
Member
|
# Posted: 31 Jan 2017 08:43pm - Edited by: toyota_mdt_tech
Reply
Many western states, the federal govt owns in the case of like Idaho, 80% of the land is govt owned. I think Nevada was one of the biggest or govt owned in percentage.
Here is a map to give you an idea.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/upshot/why-the-government-owns-so-much-land-in-the -west.html?_r=0
I certainly like public land, but its very excessive in Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Colorado Wyoming and a load in Eastern California.
|
|
frankpaige
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Feb 2017 10:36pm
Reply
Sounds all well and good. But I wonder how the average Joe will benefit from this. I am pessimistic. Colorado has still great buys. Building regulations are a different issue.
Good Hunting
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Feb 2017 11:31pm
Reply
Quoting: frankpaige I wonder how the average Joe will benefit from this.
I don't see any sunny side to this sort of sale. It's large amounts of land and that will likely go to those with large amounts of dollars. 
|
|
Nate R
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 08:52am
Reply
HR621 withdrawn. 
|
|
bldginsp
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 09:03am - Edited by: bldginsp
Reply
Ken Burns did a documentary on the history of the National Parks in the US. In this you'll find that with the development of most, if not all, of the parks, there was fierce resistance at the time from local interests. From hunters (and poachers) to cattle grazers to people trying to exploit the parks with tourist hotels, etc. In Alaska the locals were afraid the parks would destroy their economy, but on the long term it improved the economy with increased tourism.
When you save a stand of timber from being cut, the lure of the profits from the timber remains, and increases. The timber increases in board feet, the price of timber increases over time, etc. It's like a ripe cherry just waiting to be picked....
On the other side of the coin is the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in Yosemite National Park. After the park was created, and the 1906 earthquake and fire ravaged San Francisco, there was a call to dam the Hetch Hetchy valley for the water, which succeeded, much to the dismay of John Muir et al. But now there is a strong movement to remove the Hetch Hetchy dam and restore the valley. This was the only time a National Park was used for 'other purposes' and conservationists see it as a major defeat and major step backward for the idea of the National Parks.
BLM lands are not National Parks, but symbolically, if they are whittled away for economic interests, where does it stop? At least, that's what the conservationist side will say. It will be interesting to see how much resistance they can muster to this.
I was surprised not to see California on the list of states with land under consideration. I wonder if this was a political decision to avoid participation of the most populous liberal state.
|
|
TerraLove
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 10:53am
Reply
I wish they did the same thing in Canada. There are lots of crown land owned by her maj. the queen of England, that everyone can use, unless the Min. Of Natural resources closes it to the public. So there are patches of "crown land" in the middle of some properties but they cannot be bought!
I looked at one lot which had a patch of crown land right in the middle where the government believed there was a lake. In reality there wasn't any lake or pond or any body of water. But it still ruined the lot.
|
|
MtnDon
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 02:17pm
Reply
Quoting: Nate R HR621 withdrawn.
Hooray!!!
|
|
|
NorthRick
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 02:52pm
Reply
As someone who lives and plays in the state with the most land under federal ownership, I don't see this as a good thing for us little guys. It will only benefit large corporations and the very wealthy. The rest of us will just get locked out of having places to roam.
I can gas up my snowmobile at my cabin and head out in one direction and ride a 100 miles without seeing a fence and only one old mining road. The next day I could do the same thing in a different direction. And a third.
Not too many places left where you can do that.
|
|
Malamute
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 05:36pm
Reply
I'm glad it was withdrawn. Ive seen how it works when the land is all privately owned, if you don't want to pay (often very serious amounts) for access, or know the right people, you don't get much access to land to hunt, camp or roam on.
Despite the complaints of many of the .gov "owning" too much, or it being wrong somehow, selling off lands would pretty much destroy most of that's great about the west.
|
|
Julie2Oregon
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 07:30pm
Reply
Yes, and out here where I live, people are able to start up small businesses on government land, too, because the rent/lease is affordable. We have a new one down the highway -- a zip line park that's become a popular attraction. No way the local people could have opened that if they had to buy all of the acreage required! It's a partnership with the US Forest Service, and Forest Service staff are also on hand to provide info on the forest, area, flora and fauna, etc. to visitors. Total win-win!
|
|
neb
Member
|
# Posted: 2 Feb 2017 09:22pm
Reply
That would be a bad thing and hope that never happens.
|
|
Salty Craig
Member
|
# Posted: 6 Feb 2017 06:22pm
Reply
I guess the only reason the gov would sell off land is to generate tax revenue. This will surprise many to hear Salty say this, but I enjoy federally owned land. I have a mountain property that borders the George Washington National Forest and love to use the land for hiking and hunting.....the list goes on
Instead of selling land to raise cash, the gov needs to balance the checkbook.
Just like we all do
|
|
|
