Obama wants to double conservation spending, buy more federal land

posted at 2:15 pm on April 4, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

The United States already has over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt, and runs an annual budget deficit of more than $1,600,000,000,000.  The federal government already owns almost a third of all land in the United States, which precludes it from commercial use in most cases, and which costs taxpayers a fortune to maintain.  Barack Obama thinks this situation has to change — which is why he’s proposing to, er, buy more land and spend more on conservation:

President Obama says he’s constantly telling his two daughters to turn off the television, stop using Skype and go outside. He wants to get more American kids off the couch and out the door, reconnecting with the world and its natural beauty.

And he wants to make it easier for Americans to use parks and public lands, saying that too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

Toward that end, the president wants Congress to double spending — to $900 million next year — on a conservation fund that’s used to buy more property for the federal government. Currently, the government owns 635 million acres, or roughly three out of every 10 acres, with the largest chunk in Alaska.

Obama launched his re-election campaign today on the promise to extend whatever change he’s brought to Washington, but buying land and spending money is just more business as usual.  We should be discussing the sale of federal properties in order to raise capital and reduce costs.  Given the results of last year’s midterms, the worst possible message Obama can send is the notion that we should increase discretionary spending in order to lock more natural resources away from taxpayers.

The National Park Service wants to spend almost $2 billion in buying land, but Republicans aren’t biting.  Senator Lisa Murkoswki of Alaska, a state that has most of its land under federal control, reminded Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last week that the government can’t keep up with maintenance on lands it already owns, and that Interior actually would have to cut its maintenance budget to buy more land.  Rep. Doc Hastings, chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, made the same point, saying that the federal government needs to fix what it does now before proposing expansion.

It’s actually more basic than that.  We need less land under federal control, not more, and we need more exploration and recovery of our natural resources — especially on energy — rather than less.  The federal government should focus on what it can cut, not what it can buy.  It’s hard to imagine an idea that shows Obama less in touch with the concerns of Americans than a land-grab spending spree.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Trust me on this one. There are plenty of laws on the books and penalties for noncompliance in re to strip mining and fracking. Restoration of the land is part of the law.

onlineanalyst on April 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM

But that costs the businesses money and they pass on those costs and detract from stockholder’s earnings.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 4, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Yes. Bcs then they’d go out & get a job, go cotnact their family for help, go to their local church for help, go to their local charity for help.
Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Or move to a rural area and grow their own food. Which would kill at least 3 birds with one stone.

hawksruleva on April 4, 2011 at 4:20 PM

leave America to the Natives.

hawksruleva on April 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM

And of course, the Natives never managed the land themselves.
Like for instance, they never cleared land for farming.
They also never burned grassland to hunt for animals.
They also never dug channels for crop irrigation.
They also never cut down trees for teepee poles or to even burn for fuel.
They also never killed animals for fur or meat.
No.
They just lived on magical fairy dust & flitted through the woods like ghosts.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:21 PM

hawksruleva on April 4, 2011 at 4:20 PM

I bought my seeds last weekend & am getting ready to plant them in the house.
I’m gonna make the most of the 3 months of summer I’ll get up here in bone a$$ cold Global Warming ND!

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:22 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

Why do you hate poor people so much, would be the logical follow-up question.

misterpeasea on April 4, 2011 at 3:35 PM

Queen M’chell: “Let them use windmills”

slickwillie2001 on April 4, 2011 at 4:23 PM

Trust me on this one. There are plenty of laws on the books and penalties for noncompliance in re to strip mining and fracking. Restoration of the land is part of the law.

onlineanalyst on April 4, 2011 at 3:17 PM
But that costs the businesses money and they pass on those costs and detract from stockholder’s earnings.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 4, 2011 at 4:19 PM

Not all enviro regs are bad. But it should be left up the the states to protect their own resources.
Big companies do still rape & pillage, as well as individuals.
The key is to get rid of the EPA & let the states care for their own.
Local control means you care more for your own land & resources.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:24 PM

You think there will be more or less forest fires as the Feds govern more land?

hawksruleva on April 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM

More forest fire = more homes burned = less people in the area = easier for the govt to take that land next time around.

And more forest fires = need for more fire fighters = more federal employees = more unionized govt workers/Democrats for life.

It’s a win-win-win-win for Obama.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:25 PM

President Obama says he’s constantly telling his two daughters to turn off the television, stop using Skype and go outside. He wants to get more American kids off the couch and out the door, reconnecting with the world and its natural beauty.

When was the last time Obama went camping? I challenge him to camp with his girls instead of appreciating the manicured beauty of the golf course.

Meanwhile, Barry, raise your own kids and leave ours alone!

disa on April 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM

When was the last time Obama went camping? I challenge him to camp with his girls instead of appreciating the manicured beauty of the golf course.

Meanwhile, Barry, raise your own kids and leave ours alone!

disa on April 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Sarah Palin offered to take them camping. I doubt he’d be able to keep up. I can imagine Michelle acting just like Kate Gosseling.

mizflame98 on April 4, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 4:21 PM

I went to the zoo this weekend with my family and we saw the Woolly Mammoths. They just had a new baby.

Oh wait… no we didn’t, because they were wiped out by hunters thousands of years ago.

strictnein on April 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM

And more forest fires = need for more fire fighters = more federal employees = more unionized govt workers/Democrats for life.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 4:25 PM

Yeah, like all those unionized NYFD thugs that died on 9-11.

Or do union members get a pass if they’re killed in the line of duty, especially by Religion of Peace terrorists?

Sheesh.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 4, 2011 at 4:58 PM

He should start with buying up most of Detroit and declaring it a wilderness area.

NNtrancer on April 4, 2011 at 5:38 PM

Oh wait… no we didn’t, because they were wiped out by hunters thousands of years ago.

strictnein on April 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM

If you had read any of the scientific literature out there concerning the extinction of paleo mammals, you would know that is an extremely stupid thing to say.
There is no proof that paleolithic peoples caused the extinction of wool mammoths, sabre toothed tigers, the giant sloth, the giant cave bear, etc.
The extinction of animals throughout the geologic AGES (billions of years) has much more to do with things like climate change. Humans haven’t been here long enough to have caused all extinctions.
Please go educate yourself about the extinctions of past flora & fauna before you spout more biased ignorant garbage.
You are talking out of your a$$.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 5:40 PM

strictnein on April 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM

And ScienceDaily.com is not a source.
Go read the papers & look at the evidence. You will have to dig around, but the info is out there.
There are both sides.
Chances are, many ice age extinctions are due to a myriad of factors, of which humans are only one.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 5:43 PM

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080611161038.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100701072732.htm

If Science Daily is your ignorant cup of tea, then here’s easy reading.
That way you don’t have to go read sci papers.
Noone knows the real truth.
There are many theories out there, strictnein.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 5:46 PM

I can’t even call them theories.
Hypotheses is what they are.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 5:46 PM

dominigan on April 4, 2011 at 3:45 PM

Thanks for that .. I just had no time to find it, today.
Now, WHO will stand up for it ???!!!
In DC, I mean.
Sigh.

pambi on April 4, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Ernie- you suppose that the government owning nearly a third of the land might inflate the cost of the available land? Ever take an econ class? What does this action do to the cost of food , energy, and other products as well?

Do you hate the poor? Really the stupidity of you leftists kills me.

CWforFreedom on April 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM

Most days I walk about 4 miles up a road on BLM land. Which has ‘no trespassing’ signs the whole way. Some people ignore the signs to go picnic and dump garbage, but us law-abiding types, who carry trash bags to pick up litter, are kept out.

They are not ‘doing nothing’ with the land, theoretically it is a wildlife preserve. But try calling them when trespassers are there, somehow nobody ever shows up. So trespassers get the ‘blade of grass’ experience, not law-abiding citizens…

jodetoad on April 4, 2011 at 5:55 PM

WE the People own enough land already…

Khun Joe on April 4, 2011 at 6:14 PM

They are not ‘doing nothing’ with the land, theoretically it is a wildlife preserve.

jodetoad on April 4, 2011 at 5:55 PM

There’s some CRP next to our land,like I said above.
When the govt let’s NOTHING happen to the land & the only thing it does is maybe spray for noxious weeds now & then & suppress fires, you have land that nothing wants to be on.
And that includes wildlife.
This ~160acres next to ours is nothing but a fire hazard.
The muleys, white tail, pheasants, etc. that come to this area to eat come to MY land to eat.
There’s nothing in this swatch of dead ground that is CRP to eat.
That’s the kind of thing the govt does to the land.

you suppose that the government owning nearly a third of the land might inflate the cost of the available land?

CWforFreedom on April 4, 2011 at 5:53 PM

It does for a fact. The govt pays so much/acre for crappy land to a farmer not to farm it.
This inflates the price of available pastureland, which is what this land should be used for in the 1st place.
I have to compete with the govt’s price for CRP when I lease pasture land.
And I cannot compete.
In addition, the govt is also paying people to farm.
I have watched some really crappy farmers around here profit off of their loss bcs they know how to game the farming payment subsidy system.
So the govt is giving me a double whammy in regards to pasture rents.
The govt basically is setting the price for land rents in agriculture.
It is also setting the price for food in general bcs it is directly influencing what farmers grow by their payment system.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:20 PM

I’d rather we just stop mining coal; burning it is pure mayhem on the lungs of anyone in the area.

ernesto on April 4, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Almost 60% of US electricity is generated by coal fired power plants. Can you provide an alternative that costs the same or less?

F- (as usual)

Del Dolemonte on April 4, 2011 at 6:32 PM

This is simply more unconstitutional government-sponsored Pagan religious activity.

landlines on April 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM

And just how much of this land just happens to be sitting on oil, gas, mineral, precious metal, etc, reserves?

CurtZHP on April 4, 2011 at 2:24 PM

you sure you want to know?

Mineral Resources Data System (USGS)

National Oil and Gas Assessment (USGS)

DOE (Energy), BLM, MMS, DOI, USGS have all contributed to these GIS maps and such. Grab a map of what the Fed’s want land wise and I bet you dollars to doughnuts that what is being “labeled” in these maps.

Are you bothered yet? I know I am.

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 6:43 PM

I went to the zoo this weekend with my family and we saw the Woolly Mammoths. They just had a new baby.

Oh wait… no we didn’t, because they were wiped out by hunters thousands of years ago.

strictnein on April 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM

Now that there is just stupid.

Vince on April 4, 2011 at 6:43 PM

State governments simply need TO SAY NO.

darwin on April 4, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Are you bothered yet? I know I am.

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Bingo!

Vince on April 4, 2011 at 6:45 PM

Oh wait… no we didn’t, because they were wiped out by hunters thousands of years ago.

strictnein on April 4, 2011 at 4:38 PM

really? Can you prove that?

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 6:48 PM

State governments simply need TO SAY NO.

darwin on April 4, 2011 at 6:44 PM

YES!

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 6:43 PM

Fargo radio station had the historian from DSU (does T.Roosevelt & Jefferson impersonations) Clay Jenkinson on.
They are talking about how the oil development is ruining the land of ND.
A caller pipes in how the mule deer are being ‘affected’ by oil development, citing ‘studies’ in how their numbers are getting low in the oil fields.
Mule deer are not bothered much by human activity.
They are docile, & almost downright friendly.
It’s white tails that are nuts.
It is ignorant garbage like this that people hear & bcs they are too stupid to use reason abt the things they are ignorant abt, they make judgments abt important topics like this that affect those of us who need the development.
ND has very high standards when it comes to physical development.
It’s not like we’re letting in all of these oil companies to just rape & pillage the land.
They have to jump through hoops etc.
Here in ND we do care about our land & when we develop our natural resources, we do it as safely as possible.
This $hit just pi$$e$ me off-ignorant a-holes spouting off through their arses!

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Just bring up these 3 things:

Caribou, Bears, and Muskox on the North Slope and other animals throughout Alaska.

That shuts them up.

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 6:55 PM

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 6:55 PM

Then they’ll switch tunes & whine abt wolves.
Bcs there’s not enough.
We need millions of them!

I am so sick of these people who know nothing about the land spewing their worthless garbage.
For once, these a-holes need to just go outside & spend some time watching nature.
Really watch it & learn.
Then they’ll know the good mankind does when he manages the land.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Then they’ll switch tunes & whine abt wolves.
Bcs there’s not enough.
We need millions of them!
Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 7:01 PM

Okay wolves or deer?

People are going to whine in general. I have yet to see anyone not use something mineral or fossil based yet, or even animals/biological based.

If they stopped and thought about what they were saying… we wouldn’t have had O’Blah Blah voted in to begin with.

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 7:08 PM

too many “can go days without stepping on a single blade of grass.”

This explains the amount of golf…

cnredd
Political Wrinkles
http://politicalwrinkles.com

cnredd on April 4, 2011 at 7:09 PM

Okay wolves or deer?

People are going to whine in general. I have yet to see anyone not use something mineral or fossil based yet, or even animals/biological based.

If they stopped and thought about what they were saying… we wouldn’t have had O’Blah Blah voted in to begin with.

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 7:08 PM

It never ends.
There are still people wistfully talking about the Buffalo Commons idea. It is just nuts how they think that packing mankind into cities & leaving the ‘wilderness’ to itself is some sort of solution.
All critters have an effect on their ecosystems.
Sometimes good, sometimes bad, etc.
Humans are just another animal.
But we can make choices about how far we affect things.
There is nothing wrong with utilizing resources of all kinds.
Even other animals do it.
Bagh! upinak it’s just irritating to have to fight this crap every damned day of your life.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Bagh! upinak it’s just irritating to have to fight this crap every damned day of your life.

Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 7:17 PM

LOL, you are preaching to the choir!

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 7:18 PM

So let me get this straight. We should have less land for conservation and more for people? Meanwhile we keep expanding housing settlements and overpopulating the land. Rather than move into already built housing people want to nove away from high crime and over developed areas. Then when wild animals come onto properties you get dumbasses who call the cops who then shoot the animals because they’re a threat.

More land should be restricted from being developed and people should be forced into housing that alreday exists whether they like the view or neighborhood.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM

This $hit just pi$$e$ me off-ignorant a-holes spouting off through their arses!
Badger40 on April 4, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Dang, you are on a roll.

Must be gearing ip for that 4 weeks of work you cattle farmers do each spring :o)

kidding, of course..

You are right on all points. CRP was never meant to ‘conserve’ anything. It was meant to manipulate the free market. My brother has been getting paid $175 an acre by the taxpayer not to farm 80 acres we previously rented for $50.

I grew up on a Rez watching socialism suck the lives out of people on a daily basis.

The entire country will be destined for Rez quality if Obama gets another four years.

Maybe even if he doesn’t.

cntrlfrk on April 4, 2011 at 7:35 PM

More land should be restricted from being developed and people should be forced into housing that alreday exists whether they like the view or neighborhood.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Those are called HUD homes. I guess you are a socialist?

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 7:36 PM

More land should be restricted from being developed and people should be forced into housing that alreday exists whether they like the view or neighborhood.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM

They tried this already. In Moscow. In East Berlin. In Warsaw. In Bucharest. In Sofia.

Ever been to a former Soviet Block city? Rows and rows and rows of decrepit apartment buildings. All of them the same drab gray color.

That’s your utopia moron.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 7:45 PM

So let me get this straight. We should have less land for conservation and more for people? Meanwhile we keep expanding housing settlements and overpopulating the land. Rather than move into already built housing people want to nove away from high crime and over developed areas. Then when wild animals come onto properties you get dumbasses who call the cops who then shoot the animals because they’re a threat.

More land should be restricted from being developed and people should be forced into housing that alreday exists whether they like the view or neighborhood.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Please read this.

visions on April 4, 2011 at 7:46 PM

He’s just locking up assets for our creditors.

And will anyone ever call this “Conservation” what it REALLY is?
(A vehicle to grow Government borrowing).

PappyD61 on April 4, 2011 at 7:46 PM

That’s your utopia moron.

angryed on April 4, 2011 at 7:45 PM

you forgot to add that farmers were the “slaves” and had to produce food to give over to the Elite as well as to sell their crops due to the “taxes” on their property and crops they had to give to the Elite… not counting to feed themselves.

Nothing like being taxed and worked to death.

upinak on April 4, 2011 at 7:49 PM

It’s like the guy is just trying to come up with ways to bankrupt us even faster…and keep property away from the hands of the people.

AUINSC on April 4, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Fore! The guy is a bloody genius. But again, I love a man that knows how to relax.

Mason on April 4, 2011 at 8:08 PM

The one thing not mentioned… Federal land pays no property taxes. Ask the people of Anderson County, Tenn. The Oak Ridge Reservation (Nuclear, not Indians) takes up so much of the county, the rest of the available land pays the most property taxes of the East Tennessee area just to keep up with basic civil government. Also, check out the situation in Nevada for a similar situation.

As noted, the Dept of Interior doesn’t even have the budget to maintain the land the Feds own. This is a simple ‘Oh look!, Squirrel!!’ bait-n-switch tactic to try and take some heat off of his terrible Libya decisions. Plan and simple.

Phil-351 on April 4, 2011 at 8:16 PM

More land should be restricted from being developed and people should be forced into housing that alreday exists whether they like the view or neighborhood.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 7:25 PM

And here I thought the 14th Amendment outlawed slavery… Silly me!

dominigan on April 4, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Land grab see Snatch

darwin-t on April 4, 2011 at 8:23 PM

And here I thought the 14th Amendment outlawed slavery… Silly me!

where did I say forcing people into doing labor and forcing them to work in inhumane conditions?

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Who carries their clubs like that? Do you think its a SS rule to keep someone from getting a couple good whacks in before they can close the distance?

KZnextzone on April 4, 2011 at 8:28 PM

Agenda 21.

Fallen Sparrow on April 4, 2011 at 8:39 PM

And here I thought the 14th Amendment outlawed slavery… Silly me!

where did I say forcing people into doing labor and forcing them to work in inhumane conditions?

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Actually, you’re advocating forcing people into “reservations”- as the U.S. Government did to the Native American nations a century and more ago.

Not to mention how FDR & Co. treated Japanese Americans during World War Two.

In both cases, there was an “over-riding national interest” involved. Much as you insist there is here.

Now, either you approved of that in both cases, or else you believe your “interest” (the preservation of “Holy Mother Gaia”) trumps all, including the rights of the individual. Is this the case?

Or do you want everyone equally oppressed, either because “they have it coming” or you just dislike humanity?

Which is it?

And would you voluntarily move to such a “cantonment area” yourself?

I don’t normally respond to people with “opinions” like yours, but I’m hearing them often enough these days (especially from the supposedly “enlightened” self-styled “elite’”) that my arse is becoming somewhat weary.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 4, 2011 at 9:22 PM

We is broke in this here United States.

Stop the damned spending.

If you are so hot and bothered about the environment, your State can help you out on that, I’m sure. It doesn’t matter how ‘nice’ the spending is or the purported ‘good’ it does: the basics are being ignored and the spendthrifts are printing cash and making your labor valueless because of this crapola.

We has done reached the bottom of the damned hole.

Stop digging.

ajacksonian on April 4, 2011 at 9:28 PM

If it threatens our economic well being and throttles the economy, well then, he is for it.

AshleyTKing on April 4, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Actually, you’re advocating forcing people into “reservations”- as the U.S. Government did to the Native American nations a century and more ago.

Actually no I’m not. I am so using already existing land that is developed. If the housing alreday exists in the town/city and home buyers come in looking for homes. Either buy the already existing that are for sale or by the lot, bulldoze the home and the homebuyer can build the home of their dreams. As populations expand and existing infrastructure is used up you expand land development. You don’t let land development surpass the population that you’re left with excess. It allows the market to flow with population trends.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM

In both cases, there was an “over-riding national interest” involved. Much as you insist there is here.

I never said there was a “national interest”. Please don’t put words in my mouth. What I am talking about is responsible land management. Look at NYC, Boston (where I regretfully live), LA they’re all over overdeveloped.

Spare me the mother gaia bullshit I am no f’ing liberal. I don’t need to show my bonafides by name calling someone like a child (not you but others) and trying to label people.

I have no problem with what FDR did. War is war. I’m out to win. I’d just as soon close Gitmo by executing every terroist in it. They are not soldiers and they’re not insurgents. As far as I’m concerned there beyond Geneva.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Actually no I’m not. I am so using already existing land that is developed. If the housing alreday exists in the town/city and home buyers come in looking for homes. Either buy the already existing that are for sale or by the lot, bulldoze the home and the homebuyer can build the home of their dreams. As populations expand and existing infrastructure is used up you expand land development. You don’t let land development surpass the population that you’re left with excess. It allows the market to flow with population trends.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 11:22 PM

This still amounts to telling people, “You may only live where I, the one with the power, tell you you can live.”

And how are you going to force existing property owners to give up their land so you can rebuild it the way you think it should be developed? “Eminent Domain”?

And if someone doesn’t like the place, or way, you want them to live, and want to leave- how will you stop them? Short of using force, that is? (Or is force on the table?)

If you want control over other people this badly, run for public office on a platform describing what you intend to do.

Just don’t be surprised if you lose.

clear ether

eon

eon on April 4, 2011 at 11:38 PM

This still amounts to telling people, “You may only live where I, the one with the power, tell you you can live.”

I fail to see how this is any different than existing zoning regulations. They limit how close to your property line you can build, what you can build, where you can build. The control where you can do business and where you build a home. People are always on the move. Moving to other towns/cities, states. Its placing restrictions on how quickly the land can be developed. I’m simply saying live where you want and choose from the available land. Really what’s the point in over developing land and building too much? You destroy the land.

By the way I wasn’t advocating removing people from existing developed land. Stop being a reactionist. Read the totality of what I write and stop and think before you read too much into it. If need be ask for clarification. Again this goes back to me saying use existing developed land. Let the market flow. There’s not a housing shortage.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 11:47 PM

Agenda 21.

Fallen Sparrow on April 4, 2011 at 8:39 PM

What Fallen Sparrow said, that’s what I’m thinking.

Lunatrope on April 5, 2011 at 2:14 AM

Do we really know if this is being pre-sold to Foreign Governments or Monetary system to alleviate debt?
.

This was the usual procedure for Nations of Africa; as the people awaken to find over half of their country’s banking system blocked; with new access dictated by foreign powers… Where-by economic resources logistical, & military, became synchronized with foreign entities…
.

I hope I am incorrect; but intuitively, this looks like a potential fast-track to a Federated State…

definitemaybe on April 5, 2011 at 4:13 AM

…Boston (where I regretfully live), LA they’re all over overdeveloped.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM

The view from inside the biggest cities in the US can overwhelm anyone. Regardless, the term “overdeveloped” is a subjective one. I have spent a great deal of my life all over North America and have come to realize there is a huge disconnect between the all-too-common environmentalist catch phrases and the natural realities that are there to be observed.

My conclusion is that air and water quality has, in limited fashion, a place in Federal jurisdiction. Land management, however, is a wholly different animal. The Federal government should be headed in the opposite direction by a power of at least -3.

Your solutions assume a problem that I can only attribute to too much living room observations.

Saltysam on April 5, 2011 at 6:39 AM

The entire country will be destined for Rez quality if Obama gets another four years.

cntrlfrk on April 4, 2011 at 7:35 PM

So many people live clustered in cities they do not understand what it’s like to live anywhere else.
down on the Sioux rez right across the border from me there are Indians who are ranching & getting together to lease/buy land that’s been leased by whites for many years so they can ranch. I think it’s a great idea. Bcs way too many of them right now are pathetic. I can’t walk down the streets of McLaughlin SD without getting panhandled by a drunk Indian. Mobridge neither.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 11:34 PM

I understand what you’re getting at. But that is not the solution.
The states involved need to stop it.It is true there are some places that should not be developed for large living communities.
Like Phoenix. There’s not enough water for those people.
And they rob it from everywhere else.
The same for LA.
But anything short of turning America into a communist country is not going to stop that sort of thing.
States have to take care of their own resources.
Not the federal govt.
Let the states & counties decide these things for themselves.

Badger40 on April 5, 2011 at 8:42 AM

Agenda 21.

Fallen Sparrow on April 4, 2011 at 8:39 PM

What Fallen Sparrow said, that’s what I’m thinking.

Lunatrope on April 5, 2011 at 2:14 AM

Agenda 21 cannot be overstated enough.
It isn’t paranoia.
Those of us who live out in rural areas have had run ins with people who are grabbing what they can in anticipation of this.
And when I say people I’m talking about Federal agencies.
They get control through things like EPA mandates.
Govt people swarming over your land with no permission to enter to see how many cows you’ve got where & what you’re feeding them etc.
I’ve had these people come out here doing this stuff.
Goggle Earth is not my friend.
These govt people have seen fuel tanks on a farmer’s property & then they come & visit that farmer & hound him about his containment system for fuel spills etc & threaten to fine him.
It’s happening & has been happening, stuff like this, for years.

Badger40 on April 5, 2011 at 8:45 AM

First they buy the land, then they put up fences and gates. Montana is chock full of federal and state lands that are kept away from the people. Mismanagement is their middle name. They can’t keep the bison in Yellowstone and the wolves left after killing most of the elk herd. Now the deer and elk numbers are down in most western states and you go to jail if they find you killing a wolf. The govt crap# on everything it touches.

Kissmygrits on April 5, 2011 at 9:26 AM

The govt crap# on everything it touches.

Kissmygrits on April 5, 2011 at 9:26 AM

Let’s not mention the fact that the beforehand agreed upon wolf numbers have been long since surpassed in that area.
I agree that a predator was needed in Yellowstone. It was way overgrazed.
But there are too many predators there now bcs they didn’t limit the #of wolves there.
BTW-wolves from there have moved all over.
I live in SW ND & have seen lone wolves move through ehre from time to time.
Predators should be few in #. Prey should be more in #.
Govt is full of morons.
To watch them attempt to manage the land is an effing joke.
It makes me sick.

Badger40 on April 5, 2011 at 10:18 AM

I’m not opposed to all such purchases. Gettysburg National Park just added 95 acres of battleground. I like that.

The real crime is that most of the federally owned acreage sits idle. It’s not leased for grazing or farming or lumbering or mineral extraction. It’s not used for recreation. It just sits there. What a waste of resources. And if you want to talk about conservation, I’ll argue that no one is more interested in conserving our land nor is more knowlegeable about how to do it than they who make their livings from it.

SukieTawdry on April 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM

I’ll argue that no one is more interested in conserving our land nor is more knowlegeable about how to do it than they who make their livings from it.

SukieTawdry on April 5, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Thank you.
Bcs if I overgrazed my pastures, I wouldn’t be able to raise cows for very long.
I will say that historical sites like Gettysburg should be accomplished by the state combined with non-profit groups like historical societies.
You can’t save every damned old house or building.
When you do spend $$ on saving historically significant things, make it count.
The feds have no business with any of this.

Badger40 on April 5, 2011 at 2:34 PM

Obama wants to double conservation spending, buy more federal land

After hundreds of plays has Obama tired of all the goverment owned golf courses and now needs land to build hundreds of new courses for his use during his hoped for (not by me) second term?

RJL on April 5, 2011 at 4:23 PM

You destroy the land.

Rattl3r on April 4, 2011 at 11:47 PM

ROFL! Its so funny to see insane environmentalists spout off idiocy like this.

Ok Mr. Genius. How do you destroy land? I’ll bet you can’t do it.

dominigan on April 5, 2011 at 8:10 PM

Regardless, the term “overdeveloped” is a subjective one. I have spent a great deal of my life all over North America and have come to realize there is a huge disconnect between the all-too-common environmentalist catch phrases and the natural realities that are there to be observed.

Fair enough on the subjectiveness of the term. My experience is from watching my hometown expand and what I’ve seen in the rats nest of Boston. As well as what I’ve seen in other parts of the country I’ve visited. Yes different areas present different dilemma’s. A mass ive state like Texas has a much different situation interm of population spread than say CA or even MA (where most of the population is in the Boston Metro area). There are limits on both sides of the fence.

Then you get idiots like this guy quoted below who make conservatives look ignorant:

Its so funny to see insane environmentalists spout off idiocy like this.

Ok Mr. Genius. How do you destroy land? I’ll bet you can’t do it.

First off chief I’m not an “insane environemntalist”. Secondly land gets destroyed. You ever wonder why farmers switch up the soil they grow their harvest in? Over use destroys the composition of the soil and then they’re out of the job. Think before you speak.

Rattl3r on April 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM

Yes different areas present different dilemma’s.
Rattl3r on April 5, 2011 at 8:44 PM

That’s why you leave it up to the states individually.
The federal govt has no business dictating to any state what it can, or cannot do with it’s resources, except where it involves a dispute btw 2 states.
Like say, over water discharge in rivers & streams.
But if ND wants to develop the Bakken, then the feds should have no say in the matter.
And if Phoenix is stupid enough to have too many people for what the land can phsically support, then people will move away bcs of the measures the city may have to take, like limiting watering of your lawns, taking showers instead of baths, etc.
Some states will not take good care of their resources & some will.
As long as they are not affecting other states, it is none of the federal govt’s business.

Badger40 on April 6, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2