Alll that research comes from federal funding...... and you are saying the exact thing that has been said from the start.... Blanket approach doesn't work. Kind of the points of land grant universities, wanna have your mind blown? Check out how those land grants came about and where that money came from. At this point, I think you are missing what we have said over and over.... And negative on the local government being better. Check out how much land is owned and managed by local governments in your area.... and then I'll show you in mine, and then we can find some info for our west and so on and so forth.... call your local government (county manager, commissioners, mayors, etc...) and ask what they would do if they had tons of forested land... Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
Would prefer we don't subsidize either but if we are, I'd rather the decision to do so be made by the individual state than the federal government.
You say give them the ability to generate money, how would you propose this without zero acres leaving their current state of habitat for wildlife? States already collect money from hunting licenses to fund each states DNR or game and fish department. Tag costs would have to go up exponentially from their already high prices. Yes, taxes will generate land, but at the rate of 1.5% of the purchase value per year, so in 66.7 years it will earn again what it was sold for. That is quite a long time, and the state is still without those acres for habitat. How is it apples and oranges? yes they are not the same but both are federally funded situations that only small populations of people use. Once you get every other program in our country to be self funded by the groups that utilize them, then my taxes will go down enough to be able to pay for the states to own the land, but like you said earlier, it will cost the same so I will have to pay as much as I am paying in taxes to license fees. Seems like a waste of time to go through all the work the change the system in order to pay the exact same and hope the politicians didn't screw something up in the process.
Ask a farmer if he would want his subsidy check to come from the State of Illinois. You would be laughed at and called insane.
Then we better give everything from the Louisiana Purchase back to France.... Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
I understand and support your plight for smaller federally government, but lets start with education, welfare, infrastructure, or anything else than public land. Let the politicians and states prove they can handle it. If they screw up an education policy they can rewrite it. If they screw up the public land transfer, those lands could be lost forever.
The only reason the government owns these lands is because no body wanted to settle it from the beginning of westward expansion. The people, and probably states as well, had their chance at these lands and didnt want them. Teddy Roosevelt was smart enough to realize the priceless gem that these federal lands were and protected them before someone figured out how to take advantage of them.
Either you pay taxes for the subsidy check, or you pay for $20/bushel corn in your corn syrup byproducts. either way you will pay for it.
So, technically, Wisconsin should go back to the Brits.... since it was acquired in the Treaty of Paris, and then became the 30th State on May 29, 1848 Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
Neither state or federal can run a lemonade stand.. they are mismanaged and broke on both levels and it will bite us all in the *** one day.
Which brings us back to where I started. Personally I don't care if the land stays public or goes to the states, as long as the revenue to "manage" it comes from those who choose to utilize the land not from those who don't. If it cost me more to hunt that is fine with me, its not the governments job to redistribute others money so my hobby is cheaper for me.
I cant see where the federal government makes anything better or cheaper for anyone. There involvement seems to always make things worst. I think the AFFORDABLE care act proves that. Dont know how true it is but read this today. Obamacare premiums to rise sharply as choices dwindle, administration confirms Obamacare premiums will soar in 2017, the administration acknowledged Monday, with the price of the most popular benchmark plans jumping an average of 22%… We would be better off without the government involvement there for sure!
You are ignorant of what the free market would do. Farmers would go bankrupt and be bought out by corporations that would own a monopoly and set the price as high as they want. I would way rather pay for the subsidy than have a bunch of Monsanto's controlling the food supply. You think 4 dollar gas and 8 dollar corn is high? we will be begging for those prices if the fed gov didnt step in and control things like that.
I think thats his point. And who knows how things would have turned out if it had been this way all along. Where the states manage themselves and we have 90% less fed government screwing things up (with their hands in every ones cookie jar)
I agree that obamacare proves they usually screw it up, but I think subsidies for farmers are a good thing, when implemented right. I can't imagine what would happen if our food supply was operated by giant corporations... Then we would have zero voice in the matter. The way it is, we can vote different people and ideas in to office. I can't vote for the CEO of Monsanto... (but monsanto was recently sold I heard so bad example)
