From the perspective of a non-resident only interested in visiting "public" land for the purposes of outdoor recreation, I am a big proponent of keeping if Federal. Now, if I was a resident, concerned about ways to make $ off the property in a more business like model, I would likely give more consideration to transfer to the state.
-
-
Keep it federal or put it up for sale.Comment
-
I will continue to support the Teddy Roosevelt plan implemented looooong ago!Comment
-
Id like to follow the Constitution and remove ownership of federal lands from the govt, except for installations as necessary for military operations.Comment
-
Amistad
Tommy, do you hunt Amistad? If so, do you think it would be better managed by TPWD? Curious.Originally posted by Tommyh View PostComment
-
I agree. Part of the national debt could be retired by returning the land to private ownership, and the reduction of the cost of government management of those lands. Most of us don't like "redistribution"--unless it benefits us.Originally posted by Tommyh View PostComment
-
Now I will swim in that pond!!Originally posted by Tommyh View Post
Does that mean the FOR SALE signs go up for citizens or corporations? If I can buy as a citizen I am all in sir!
Comment
-
Who would pay for Wildfire Suppression?
I'm curious where that is in the Constitution?Originally posted by Tommyh View Post
From the article I posted above.
"The Valles Caldera Preservation Act, which was passed in 2000, was designed to create an alternative model of management.
Under this act, the Valles Caldera National Preserve was managed by a “trust” and mandated to become “financially self-sufficient” by 2015. The trust was authorized to replace federal appropriations with income from recreation fees, resource extraction and any other means that could be found. A mostly private-sector board of trustees made decisions and supervised the staff.
At first, Congress instructed the trust to pay for all wildland fire operations at the preserve out of its own budget. A later congressional amendment made firefighting once again the responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service. Soon after, two large fires burned 53,000 acres in the preserve and cost the federal government $56 million in suppression costs alone.
Despite the efforts of many trustees and the staff for 14 years, the preserve never managed to earn enough money from hunting, grazing and tourism to pay even one-third of its bills. Heavy logging and overgrazing had depleted forests and grasslands well before the preserve became public land. High fees and restrictions on public access kept the income from recreation low, and to a large extent, the public continued to perceive the preserve as private land. Elk hunting paid well, but the preserve broke even on cattle grazing only by charging ranchers more than seven times what other federal agencies were charging."
Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinio...#storylink=cpy
I spent a career with the U.S. Forest Service. I worked with many dedicated federal employees who lived by the Forest Service motto of "Caring for the land and serving the people".
How many folks are aware of this act?
Payments to States Act of 1908 (the “25% Fund”) shares 25 percent of all receipts received from commercial activities on the national forests from timber, grazing, special-use permits, power and mineral leases, and admission and user fees with the States in which the national forests are located, for public schools and public roads. States determine how these funds are allocated between these two purposes and make distributions to local governments, or in some cases retain payments intended to support local schools and include them in state school equalization funding.Comment
Comment