National parks for sale?

[jaytx]

The Fed is broke but the national parks aren't to blame. I've been to enough national parks across the country to know they are run much better than most state parks in Texas. These parks are NATIONAL treasures and you have a lot of freedom in a lot of them to go and do what you want. I'm a states rights guy but this isn't the issue in this case. It's about preserving wild lands and it should stay that way. I can guarantee if they try to move ahead the state's will require any stipulation on them not being able to sell the lands be removed before it's over.

[Nailhead]

All I can say is... If Ratcliff Lake National Park comes up for sale...IM BUYING IT! That would be the best deer lease in East Tx.

Can I come hunt there?? I have some family with some property in Ratcliff that backs up to the National Forest and they have some very nice bucks that come through.

[B Littleton]

The Fed is broke but the national parks aren't to blame. I've been to enough national parks across the country to know they are run much better than most state parks in Texas. These parks are NATIONAL treasures and you have a lot of freedom in a lot of them to go and do what you want. I'm a states rights guy but this isn't the issue in this case. It's about preserving wild lands and it should stay that way. I can guarantee if they try to move ahead the state's will require any stipulation on them not being able to sell the lands be removed before it's over.

Exactly.

[Froggy]

These post are the most informed responses on this thread

Well, I imagine we will just have to agree to disagree with regards to that issue. 1000's of ranchers across the west pay their BLM grazing fees without complaint and maintain profitability. regardless of who owns that land he was grazing his cattle on, its not him, and he should have been paying for the resources that he was using and profiting from. Period.

The BLM did not "raise their rates" grazing fees are determined via a formula that considers the cost of livestock production, beef cattle prices and current private grazing land lease rate. Known as the per animal unit month (AUM), today it is $1.35, compared to the $1.23 per AUM that it was in 1966. This is actually a decrease when adjusted for inflation, as $1.23 in 1966 would convert to $8.97 in 2014. It is also a fraction of what ranchers pay on private lands.

His is just another case of someone trying to game the system for their own personal benefit. It's not a states right's issue. What do you think his stance would be if the land transfer occurred, then Nevada sold all that land to a private entity (as they did with 99.9% of the trust lands deeded to them at statehood from the federal government). Do you think he would be happy to pay the truly exorbitant fees (private/state/and other federal agency grazing fees are anywhere from $20-$150 per AUM, substantially higher than the $1.35 the BLM charges) the new owner would almost certainly charge him for a grazing lease chalking it up as a victory for State's rights? I don't. I think his family is just another case of already rich people wanting something for nothing.

The states aren't fighting for control of the land, governors of the western states (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Idaho, etc.) have been outspoken in their opposition to these land transfer proposals. They know that transfer of public lands to the states would be a significant detriment to their outdoor recreation and tourism economy.

The majority of this push is not coming from the states and the general public, it is coming from Washington politicians and their billionaire bank roll. They're attempting (somewhat successfully) to fool the public into thinking this has the potential to be some big win for individual rights, state's rights, etc, but its really just a corporate land grab and anyone who is paying attention and has looked at the history knows it.

Yes, but the states don't want the land with these types of stipulations, so that argument is irrelevant. The only reason they would want control is in order to mine/log the heck out of them to generate revenue, or to sell them off to generate revenue. Otherwise, they know that they don't have the funds, manpower, or legislative infrastructure to properly manage these lands. This is not some grand idealistic stand by our public and our states to challenge a tyrannical overseer. This is a money grab, plain and simple. And if more people don't wake up to that, we are going to find ourselves with a lot less access to the wild places we love, if they aren't gone entirely.

Exactly.

Well stated.

[B Littleton]

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opinion/guest/guest-opinion-local-governments-back-federal-public-lands/article_93b5b77a-3d82-5bde-a42f-ce14a48dfd83.html

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk