>
>The federal government owns or controls
>over 640 million acres of
>land in the United States,
>most of which is in
>the West. These are public
>lands, and the public should
>have access to them for
>appropriate activities like hunting, fishing,
>and recreational shooting. Federal ownership
>or management of land also
>places an economic burden on
>counties and local communities in
>terms of lost revenue to
>pay for things such as
>schools, police, and emergency services.
How does simply transferring lands to the states alleviate that economic burden? Dont the counties and local communities still have to provide those services? Only now they have to pay ALL the costs, like wildfire fighting, not just the services they provide now. Sometimes it's much better to let 300+ million other folks help pay for stuff.
>It is absurd to think
>that all that acreage must
>remain under the absentee ownership
>or management of official Washington.
Any part of a campaign platform that begins with "It is absurd..." is just an attempt to sensationalize the issue and talk down to those who might not agree. It's a common tool used by people who think they are smarter than others. There are plenty of those people around here.
>Congress shall immediately pass universal
>legislation providing
Very few things of this magnitude done immediately are done well.
>for a timely
>and orderly mechanism requiring the
>federal government to convey certain
>federally controlled public lands
Which lands, exactly, are they referring to?
> to
>states. We call upon all
>national and state leaders and
>representatives to exert their utmost
>power and influence to urge
>the transfer of those lands,
>identified in the review process,
Ahhhh... "identified in the review process,"... Reviewed by whom? Where? Based on what values and motives?
>to all willing states
Other than Utah what state would be willing to assume the cost and liability and management of all that land without real, comprehensive, informed, unbiased studies into the real implications. So far no one has done that. And if this will be done immediately, when would those studies be done?
for
>the benefit of the states
>and the nation as a
>whole.
Is it really possible to benefit both? If so why can't it be done under current ownership?
The residents of state
>and local communities know best
>how to protect the land
>where they work and live.
>They practice boots-on-the-ground conservation in
>their states every day.
Really? Not always true. The Bundys come to mind. And what if the Koch or Wilkes brothers are those local land owners. Do you think they know best how to take care of your land?
>We
>support amending the Antiquities Act
>of 1906 to establish Congress?
The dysfunctional Congress we have today? They cant even pass a budget.
>right to approve the designation
>of national monuments and to
>further require the approval of
>the state where a national
>monument is designated or a
>national park is proposed.
>
>
>#livelikezac
