Author Topic: Selling National Forests (Read 3090 times)

steve dave · « **on:** April 10, 2015, 10:46:31 AM »

So a bunch of people apparently just voted to do this or allow people to do this or something. Knowing nothing about it it sounds like a bad thing to do. Explain to me why it would be a good thing to do.

Dr Rick Daris · « **Reply #1 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:47:26 AM »

i know nothing about it either but agree that it's a bad thing.

sonofdaxjones · « **Reply #2 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:50:20 AM »

Without more dets, leaning towards bad.

ednksu · « **Reply #3 on:** April 10, 2015, 10:55:12 AM »

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/republican-senators-just-voted-to-sell-off-your-nationa-1696862450/+megneal

But how will Cliven Bundy make a dollar!!!

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:06:55 AM »

gE is buying one of these fellas. Which should buy?

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:07:55 AM »

I don't have the details. But have any of you visited a national forest? They're ok, I guess, but they really suck in comparison to national parks.

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:10:05 AM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2015, 11:07:55 AM

I don't have the details. But have any of you visited a national forest? They're ok, I guess, but they really suck in comparison to national parks.

Crap, I already put in a stalking horse bid.

LickNeckey · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:15:05 AM »

Just e-mailed Jerry.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #8 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:18:41 AM »

Can anybody cite me some details on this that don't come from a libtard blog? I'm not finding much, except the forest service's own website which says that the sale of national forest land has been going on for decades, and this latest proposal would sell the land to the states. That doesn't seem so bad.

I totally support the national parks, but the federal government also controls much larger (huge) swaths of land under more minor designations that it would seem to be best left to state control. The people of those states can decide what portions to allow for private development.

But I totally understand why the envirotards are going hysterical over this.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #9 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:21:27 AM »

Quote from: ednksu on April 10, 2015, 10:55:12 AM

http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/republican-senators-just-voted-to-sell-off-your-nationa-1696862450/+megneal

But how will Cliven Bundy make a dollar!!!

I like that the article leads with a silhouette of Yosemite, which is a national park - not a national forest. National forests can't carry the NP's jockstraps.

Dugout DickStone · « **Reply #10 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:24:35 AM »

Quote from: K-S-U-Wildcats! on April 10, 2015, 11:21:27 AM

Quote from: ednksu on April 10, 2015, 10:55:12 AM
http://indefinitelywild.gizmodo.com/republican-senators-just-voted-to-sell-off-your-nationa-1696862450/+megneal

But how will Cliven Bundy make a dollar!!!

I like that the article leads with a silhouette of Yosemite, which is a national park - not a national forest. National forests can't carry the NP's jockstraps.

Something I wish I knew 15 minutes ago.

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #11 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:26:24 AM »

Time out. So it turns out the federal government already sells timber rights on national forests, so this bill really doesn't seem to do much at all except maybe sell more land currently managed by the federal government to the states.

Ok - resume envirotard hissyfit.

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #12 on:** April 10, 2015, 11:56:56 AM »

The text says they are selling or transferring to the state or local government some land that isn't within a national park, preserve, or monument. The states will probably be better stewards of this land than the feds.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:10:54 PM »

Great job here sd

GregKSU1027 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:14:07 PM »

If we were to invest in a forest what would we name it?

Tobias · « **Reply #15 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:38:24 PM »

nothing from my guy rush yet

massofcatfan · « **Reply #16 on:** April 10, 2015, 12:48:22 PM »

maybe they should just make all land "our" land. oh wait, it's been tried.

wetwillie · « **Reply #17 on:** April 10, 2015, 01:32:06 PM »

Thneed making time !

Paul Moscow · « **Reply #18 on:** April 10, 2015, 03:42:25 PM »

this is more about industrial development than it is fiscal "responsibility". if you're a conservationist of any stripe you shouldn't be too excited

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #19 on:** April 10, 2015, 04:08:02 PM »

Quote from: Paul Moscow on April 10, 2015, 03:42:25 PM

this is more about industrial development than it is fiscal "responsibility". if you're a conservationist of any stripe you shouldn't be too excited

I'm sure this is true in many respects, but some states have been unfairly annexed by the federal gov and have lost the ability to decide what should be done, and not done, on their land.

steve dave · « **Reply #20 on:** April 10, 2015, 04:28:21 PM »

So it's a good thing?

Paul Moscow · « **Reply #21 on:** April 10, 2015, 04:39:01 PM »

I prefer that public lands be protected from mining and drilling. If the republicans were interested in that at all, or in garnering public support, they would include it in the bill.

john "teach me how to" dougie · « **Reply #22 on:** April 10, 2015, 04:44:46 PM »

I think they're interested in giving control of some federal land back to the states. Most of the land they're talking about is plain old desert. They call it forest but it's sage brush and cactus.

star seed 7 · « **Reply #23 on:** April 10, 2015, 05:16:17 PM »

Sad display of power grabbage by the resident statists

K-S-U-Wildcats! · « **Reply #24 on:** April 10, 2015, 06:03:02 PM »

Quote from: Paul Moscow on April 10, 2015, 04:39:01 PM

I prefer that public lands be protected from mining and drilling.

Why? Take a look at the map. You really think all that land needs to be restricted from mineral rights? Actually, not even the federal government thinks that, which leases timber and mineral rights on lots of its land already.