Magish

iTrader: (2)

OMFG I can't stand Tom tancredo. THis may have not made news in other parts of the country but it did here. He has just introduced a bill to sell off 15% of federal land to private owners.

http://tancredo.house.gov/press/pres...ederalLand.htm

When you read that you may say, "hey, thats a good idea." but you need to think deeper into that. Hunters? Your wildlife needs room to roam and privatizing land will cut down own the land they have for that. Fishermen like myself? Imagine if your favorite creek was destroyed because the land above where your favorite spot is got sold and the owner was not enviormentally friendly (has happened many times around here). ATV/Dirtbike/4-wheelers? Many trails run through land that has no "purpouse" and if you have done these things enough you know that many times when land that a trail passes through (mining claims) is bought up the new owner gates the property so the trail can no longer be used. Backcountry hikers (my favorite thing)? The land that WE use is the land that he says has NO use. Imagine hiking along in the middle of nowhere, in complete solitude when you come around a mountian and where there used to be nothing, there is now a barbed wire fence.

This dosn't even take into consideration the conservation aspect! Thedore Roosevelt once said "Optimism is a good characteristic, but if carried to an excess, it becomes foolishness. We are prone to speak of the resources of this country as inexhaustible; this is not so."

I have to go now but I am very interestedc to see responces to this thread.
Cheers
-Jeff

jvick125

iTrader: (2)

Would they control what the land that's bought could/would be used for? It's not a "bad" idea, but I wouldn't vote for it.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Right from the article, “Environmental radicals put up regulatory roadblocks to use of our national land, often miring any sensible land use proposal in endless litigation. My bill would give environmentalists an excellent opportunity to put their money where their mouth is and buy up federal land for conservation,” said Tancredo."

So how 'bout you kick down some $$? I'd actually be down with buying some acreage myself.

dub2w

But how many "radicals" are we talking about here?

Selling off our preserved land, as pointed out by Impreza, can have serious detrimental consequences.

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

Like what? The sierra club is notorious for pushing for the closure of open space from vehiclular traffic in the name of a shrub, turtle, rat, and so on. Often, these are areas so remote that the only way to access them is via all-terrain vehicle.

If these are public lands, people should be allowed to access them WITHIN SENSIBLE LIMITS.

I'd rather see these lands become private (purchased by private owners) than see them remain "public yet inaccessible."

lojasmo

People got up to yosemite before cars were even invented, dope. It's called hiking.

Salty

iTrader: (14)

If the environmentalists have suggested they'll buy the land then where's the problem? They should be happy to have such a bill and should be on standby with checkbook in hand.

I think he's proposing this bill because he's confident it'll get shot down. Once every environmental lobbyist demands that this bill get shot down it'll make them look like morons. The alternative is that the bill is passed and this land is bought-up by environmentalists anyway.

Imprezastifan88, what's the chance of this bill passing?

If there is a good chance of this bill passing anyways then let's hope the environmentalists weren't bluffing.

psoper

Hell why have any public lands? why stop at 15%? we should just sell it all so that mining companies and logging companies can make their shareholders rich!

Magish

iTrader: (2)

Salty: I realize it wont get passed, however it is setting two things out. One, when we are in more desperate need of money, as most likely we will be in the nearish future, it sets the precedent that this is something that can be done. By putting the idea out there, he is telling future congressmen that this is a possibility to raise money (at the expense of conservationism). Secondly, IMO it paints a very bad picture of colorado having one of our congressmen care so little about the future of our enviorment. We have one of the most beautiful states in the country, with some of the most amazing terrain out there and yet our one of our congressmen does not want to preserve it or the way of life that it supports.

HellaDumb: Why is it so bad to not be able to drive and polute some of our most beautiful scenery? Have you ever backpacked in a wilderness and seen the diffrence from a regular national forest? The diffrence is night and day. In the regular National forest I always see some wild animals, while whenever I go backpacking in Wilderness I always see an amazing amount of animals. Deer, elk, bears, cyotes (sp), snow-shoe hares, everything. I too enjoy four-wheeling, and quite often, however many four-wheelers do not know what the right etiquite (sp) is and often go off trail, destorying mountain tundra that takes decades to grow back. And the "its for the people, so we should be able to 4-wheel, ATV, and dirtbike" argument? There are plenty of trails already for those things and as Lojasmo said:
So to sum it up, get off your lazy *** and go hiking. Our country is too beautiful to sit on your *** in a car and watch it go by, get out and explore it for what it really is.

Finally, your point of buying the land. I too would buy land if this ever happens, as would my family. Our family owns a large ranch outside of fairplay,colorado that is boardered on 3 sides by national forest that is "unused". We would surely buy land, and I really do not mind people buying this land to build cabins. However, this would obviously lead to much more development as developers hold much more money than many conservation groups could dream of.
-Jeff

HellaDumb

iTrader: (3)

I appreciate the name calling. Do you think any reasonable person would assume that Yosemite lands are in question? Hiking??? Ahhahahahh you mean when they used wagons, donkeys, and horses? You do know that they too are not without environmental cost, right? But anyway, I digress.

What we are talking about is reasonable land use. Often, environmental whackos will close existing trails, essentially (and deliberately) cutting off human access to remote regions.

Many cases involve vehiclular traffic with is essentially the only way humans can safely get to and from these areas. It has been shown that with proper land management, 4 wheelers for example, can behave and "tread lightly."

lojasmo

It has also been shown, beyond any doubt, that despite proper land managemtne, irresponsible offroaders will destroy lots of wilderness because they are simply irresponsible yahoos.

On occasion, "proper management" includes closing some areas to motorized trafic.

We should also realize that these lands are going to be sold to developers who will reap huge profits from the ownership....at the expense of the public.

Link to more Tankredo asshattery

dub2w

This is exactly it... everytime we lose / sell public lands it is gone forever. We will never get it back.

Sure, in a utopian world everyone would have their own nice plot for summertime jaunts into the woods, but this aint no utopia. Privatization of natural resources can not and should not happen.

Case in point: Belize's corrupt govt has allowed companies to buy the rights to their water supplies... all of it! Can you imagine? I believe that we are one short slippery slope away from these insance practices so long as we allow for privatization of natural resources.