SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: goldworldnet who wrote (482943)4/16/2012 2:30:03 PM
From: ManyMoose1 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 794027
 
I agree with that, but the land the government should be selling is managed by the Bureau of Land Management, whose founding mission was to dispose of unneeded federal land. National Forests were founded under an entirely different principle, and should never be privatized or broken up.

There used to be small National Forest parcels that were surrounded by private land. I could be wrong, but I think most of these have already been disposed of, and they should be. They are unmanageable in the context of National Forests.

I see no reason why land returned to National Forest ownership can't be offset by equal transfers to private ownership of Bureau of Land Management land. That's where most of the oil and gas resources under federal control are anyway.

I do not necessarily like what Plum Creek and other corporations did with their land, but they acted legally under the laws they were bound by. We have nobody to blame for that than the politicians who set it up that way.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News