That's what was happening before Teddy and the boys intervened. Market hunting and depletion of habitat would have continued. I'm a smaller govt guy, but this is probably the most uniquely American thing. Everyone is a land owner, everyone can pursue the game. Where as those we rebelled against, only certain people were land owners and the Royals owned the wildlife. 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
Maybe so, but as hunters, fishers, outdoorsman and women, conservationsist and bird watchers, we need to stand together to block the land transfer that is happening now. That's not to say in the future there won't be a plan to do it right, but as of now, our public lands are in grave danger.
No, they were bought by an equal. Not a bad example 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
We know exactly how lands where managed in states like Utah, Arizona and Nevada. They ( the states ) did an extraordinary job. After the sale, and kick back to local political hacks the money squandered and the land is gone. Didn't you get your the check for your share? No ?? I didn't think so.
Im all for the states running themselves.. more federal government seems bad to me. I could be wrong but I think the fed gov should make sure the states uphold the constitution.. other than that if your state wants to have welfare or subsides for their farmers ect ect more power to them. Vote for the ppl that will have the programs in your state and your state can tax you accordingly.
I meant bad example becuase Monsanto isn't Monsanto anymore, Im sure what ever Monsanto's market share was, the new company now has more....
I think everything is a balance, and while there probably is a happy medium on the land transfer issue, giving it all to states at one time certainly is not the answer
And no one can argue the udder disaster that the fed gov has become. What about when they can no longer fund these lands? Then what happens? I dont know what is the right answer for the lands at this point, but I do know the fed gov is a train wreck waiting to happen.. its just a matter of when we hit the wall and how hard.
The reason for subsidy is not to protect farmers, or to prevent corporations. It is distribution of wealth for the poor. It is welfare without having to cut the poor bigger checks. If government didn't interfere, cost of goods would level out with wages/income. It could be no other way.
Im not saying they should hand over all the land, or any of it... Im just trying to play the devils advocate here and say that the fed gov is a train wreck itself. In most circumstances I think we need to eliminate them as much as possible. Maybe thats one of the things the fed gov should keep doing.. but the way things are going they wont be able to do it forever.
That's why we need to loosen the ties on those who manage it. Cut through the red tape. Lose the blanket management mantra. Be a whole different ball game if they could be managed the way they needed to be... 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
If we gave public to lands to the state with stipulations like they can't be sold and they have to be managed for access of a diverse group of stakeholders( citizens ) . Then the states will cry about unfunded Federal mandates. And rightly so. I don't think some people understand how unique and valuable Our-public lands are. The fact that everyone of owns the land and can create experiences on them is of unlimited value to all citizens( and in our great generosity Noncitizens also). The idea that we are going to dispose of it rather than improve its management and expand on what is one of the greatest treasures a country has bestowed upon itself is just idiocy and shortsightedness. Thank God our forefathers weren't so greedy and lacking in foresight. On the contrary I think they understand the influence of greed on human nature and try to mitigate it The steps they took to preserve Open spaces.
For those of you pointing to Obama Care as an example, show me where the government demanded that premiums should be increased? From 2014 to 2015 United Health Cares PROFITS went from 10.3 Billion to 11 Billion. I do not want single payer socialized medicine, but Private Insurers don't give a rats *** about their customers. They say they lost 720 million on premiums in the exchanges. On the other side, their newly acquired medicare accounts helped them net an additional 700 million in profits. Could I propose that 8 Billion in profit might be enough to increase the wealth of the share holders? When the bottom line is the bottom line, people and quality get screwed.
I think this thread may have broke Tapatalk on my phone. 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
Its a shame our forefathers didnt take steps to ensure the fed gov stayed small enough to manage its self and maybe it wouldnt be in the situation it has got its self into now. Broke!
And because our federal government is "broke " we should sell all our land off to corporations who lobby a broke corrupted government establishment. Great idea.
You are talking about macro economics and supply and demand dictating the price of goods. The reason this will not work is because unlike if smart phones become too expensive, we cannot just choose to not buy food. Yes some of us can raise our own, but the vast majority of the country will pay whatever it costs for their food and that will stunt the economic growth in our country, and lead many without the resources to pay that extra to go hungry. There is a reason the fed gov blocks monopolies from happening. There are greedy people in our country that will use whatever advantage they can to get more money, and if that means buying up a majority of the farmland and controlling the major food supplies in our country, then that is what could happen.
Privatized health care is one thing that would balance itself out. If health care gets too expensive, one could simply not buy it and therefore, insurance companies have to compete with one another, and competition is always good for the consumer. One takes the risk if they choose not to buy health care, but that is their own decision and it shouldn't be the governments control. That is all another topic, nobody said that government mandated that premiums go up. The only reason I mentioned healthcare is because I am legally required to buy healthcare, even though I haven't needed it in years. My money is going to pay for others that need it. It was an analogy to how people are paying for public lands that don't use them.
