The federal government didn't do a real good job of being a steward of Yellowstone national park, when the whole damn thing caught fire years ago! All land is better off in private hands than in government hands. At the very least it generates tax revenue when in Private hands and doesn't generate costs for maintenance.

The States created the Federal government and retain all the powers they did not specifically give the Federal government in the US Constitution.

I came across an interesting post while researching the debacle out in Oregon which just last night cost a life. What was interesting was that the wife of the rancher who was prosecuted on trumped up charges found a BLM survey that specifically noted that the private ownership of the ranchlands had resulted in more prosperous wild life and habitats in comparison to the BLM land literally next door. That study was from 1975 and illustrated just how poorly the Federal Government actually manages those lands.

The same is true in my home state next door: like Utah, we have been weighing a push to get back much of our public lands (most of it national forests). We've had all kinds of problems with conflicts between livestock and wolves for example and the net result has been a disaster - all due to Federal Government.

Should someone take care of those lands? Absolutely. But distance from a problem always distorts perspective. The people managing something should be those not only present, but with skin in the game. Neither of those two qualifications fit the bureaucrats in D.C.

When we lived in Colorado Springs, it was clear that more deer, fox, bear (predator), and probably mountain lions lived in the city per acre than in the wilderness. We plant and maintain much higher calorie per acre lands than a wilderness. Thus the environmentalist argument that we moved into their (deer, bear, etc) territory has it all wrong. They moved to the city because of the calorie rich environment we created.

But the Fed can print more money, while states cannot. Further, I believe that some states have it in their state's constitution that they must balance their budget. Fed doesnt have that requirement either.

"concrete jungle ... Corporate exploitation of the land can be cruel and unforgiving in pursuit of profit."

You sound like an environmental socialist. We are not running out of land - there is plenty of land that is undeveloped.

Maine and the logging companies have not justification for this exclusion unless it disrupts their operations. Property rights are not unlimited.

Who should own America? The producers. Americans. Those who have made the investment of their time, talent, and treasure.

DrZ -
Generally, I agree with your posts, but in this case I read your above email and thought, "So. What's wrong with that?"

I do not know if you are aware that land that is used (but not over-used) is in better condition, has more species of both animal and plants, and a healthier turnover in life cycles than land that is left as untouched wilderness. (Admittedly, this could be because we have altered the ecology by destroying the large predators and the beavers.) There have been a number of studies on this.

I like the idea of the states having their own lands, just so that we have many 'experimental crucibles' going to see what is best. With specific reference to mines, Wm has commented to me that in the MidWest, where he is from, when a strip mine was mined out, the developers would compete for the site. They would make a lake out of the mine, and then construct an elite country club around the lake, and sell the houses for a pretty penny. Apparently there are a lot of these developments where he came from.

I too prefer to live in as close to rural surroundings as possible, but there are many people who prefer the concrete jungle.

Jan

first...all the land (rivers included) should be private...

once you look closely at govt management of "public lands (and waterways), you see a history of mismanagement and abuse...it is in the nature of govt to do so...

Trump does not know beautiful yet...

Simple answer is in a question. Where did the federal or state governments get the money to own and control all this land?

Ideally, there should be no such thing as "public" land; only land owned by individuals.

Not to argue, scojohnson, just to clarify.
9th amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10th amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
And the question was "who should, not who has the constitutional rights. So I can answer it based on my reason, but I think the Constitution provides support for "the people."
Then there is the question of the definition of "should" or "Shall". At the time of the Constitution, "shall" was translated as "must".
Since then the Supreme Court (appointed corrupt political looters) have decided to change the meaning to suit their needs and they say "shall" now means "may."

That is because he deals with emotions, not ideas. This country has truly lost its way. Of course, the seeds of our eventual destruction are embedded in the contradictions built into the Constitution.

Poor baby can't cope with Megyn Kelly.
I can imagine Putin is looking on making mocks with mimicked scared chicken noises.
Buck! Buck! Buck! SQUAWK!
He would still be a better president that Bolshevik Bernie or Benghazi Killary though.

Well, TR was one of the first Progressives. Trump is a narcissistic, petulant child with a very thin skin. The Man on a White Horse we've been warned about. His only positive is that things might go to hell in a hand basket slightly slower than if Hitlery was elected. Then again, perhaps not.

One of them might just be a galts gulch, though. wouldnt THAT be nice.

For me it's become older than that.
When Trump threw his hat into the ring, I delightfully viewed his overall approach as fresh.
Now he's becoming a bit too ripe.

...rapidly turning them into bad areas.

Flounder... I detect the smell of week-old fish.

...and, the people.

Think about this example: the state of Maine has given exclusive rights to over 75% of state land to logging companies. The interior of the state is private, not accessible to the public without permission. Most state revenue comes from this licensed land, so Trump's concern has a point. Utah is fighting over getting control of Federal land for sale of mineral rights to mining and energy companies for increased state tax revenue, so it seems his vision of rapid destruction of undeveloped land is correct.

When I went to high school in the Santa Clara Valley in California, the whole valley was covered in orchards, and fruit harvesting was the primary first job. Today, now that it's become Silicon Valley, you're lucky if you can find a bush here and there among the concrete jungle it's become. Corporate exploitation of the land can be cruel and unforgiving in pursuit of profit.

Shhhhh! Don't give him any ideas! I heard last week he wants to be SecGen of the UN.