You headline "Should Grand Tetons National Park be sold off to private interests?"Aggie Apotheosis said:Captain Pablo said:
Why are y'all taking OP seriously?
The Wyoming Senate
a lot of ignorance on this thread - you summed up why it should never be sold about as perfectly as it could be said. We are the envy of the world with our access to public land and selling it off to bunch a billionaires who would restrict access would just be a move to feudal Europe where the nobles owned all the land and fish&game. And any money generated in sale would disappear into the ether of government waste. Selling to states would also in the same final result of billionaires ownership.Hoyt Ag said:MemphisAg1 said:
The federal government owns 30% of the land in the US.
Let that sink in -- that is insane!
They could sell half of that and the amount they would still own would be equivalent to Texas multiplied by seven!
Anybody else so deep in debt would sell off some of their real estate to get their financial house in order. The US government shouldn't be any different.
A few points.
First, selling the land won't make a significant impact on our debt so take that off the table. All this will do is overcrowd what is left.
Second, public lands serve a lot of useful purpose that most on this board will never experience, especially in you live in Texas. I live in the middle of 9 million acres of public lands in CO. I can ride my horses, Utvs, fly fish, hike, hunt, camp, explore all within 30 minutes of my home. If that is taken away to private developers, it will become another Aspen full of entitled rich *******s. We don't need any more of those in this world.
Lastly, funding for public land is something I will die on a hill for. As a former National Park employee, I ha seen firsthand the impacts of having our park systems and fully support it's core mission, not the DEI stuff that has infiltrated.
In short, leave public lands the F alone.
InfantryAg said:You headline "Should Grand Tetons National Park be sold off to private interests?"Aggie Apotheosis said:Captain Pablo said:
Why are y'all taking OP seriously?
The Wyoming Senate
Then you cite the bill that wants the fed to give up all federal land to the state.
That's called deceptive.
. Agreed. If it can be sold it should be cut down, drilled whatever. All about that cheddar son. **** the poor folks. If they can't afford it, enjoy looking at your concrete wall. Not my problem.Aggie Apotheosis said:TyHolden said:
sell off Yosemite
Agreed. And King's Canyon. Who needs a bunch of 2,000 year-old giant Sequoias? Do you know how many houses can be built from one tree? We can just plant more.
. Not our problem. If you can't afford it, it's on you. Work harder. My tax dollars shouldn't go to poor people problems. Plus I get the added bonus of less crowds and less poor lazy folks going to places I enjoy.Junction Boy said:
Hell no! It's expensive enough to travel there for the summer without private interest.
. Sounds good to me. If you can't afford it work harder. To hell with your family and family time. It's about making that money! Your laziness is not my problem.AgDad121619 said:a lot of ignorance on this thread - you summed up why it should never be sold about as perfectly as it could be said. We are the envy of the world with our access to public land and selling it off to bunch a billionaires who would restrict access would just be a move to feudal Europe where the nobles owned all the land and fish&game. And any money generated in sale would disappear into the ether of government waste. Selling to states would also in the same final result of billionaires ownership.Hoyt Ag said:MemphisAg1 said:
The federal government owns 30% of the land in the US.
Let that sink in -- that is insane!
They could sell half of that and the amount they would still own would be equivalent to Texas multiplied by seven!
Anybody else so deep in debt would sell off some of their real estate to get their financial house in order. The US government shouldn't be any different.
A few points.
First, selling the land won't make a significant impact on our debt so take that off the table. All this will do is overcrowd what is left.
Second, public lands serve a lot of useful purpose that most on this board will never experience, especially in you live in Texas. I live in the middle of 9 million acres of public lands in CO. I can ride my horses, Utvs, fly fish, hike, hunt, camp, explore all within 30 minutes of my home. If that is taken away to private developers, it will become another Aspen full of entitled rich *******s. We don't need any more of those in this world.
Lastly, funding for public land is something I will die on a hill for. As a former National Park employee, I ha seen firsthand the impacts of having our park systems and fully support it's core mission, not the DEI stuff that has infiltrated.
In short, leave public lands the F alone.
?? I think you are either being really sarcastic or trolling, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to makeAggieHammer2000 said:. Sounds good to me. If you can't afford it work harder. To hell with your family and family time. It's about making that money! Your laziness is not my problem.AgDad121619 said:a lot of ignorance on this thread - you summed up why it should never be sold about as perfectly as it could be said. We are the envy of the world with our access to public land and selling it off to bunch a billionaires who would restrict access would just be a move to feudal Europe where the nobles owned all the land and fish&game. And any money generated in sale would disappear into the ether of government waste. Selling to states would also in the same final result of billionaires ownership.Hoyt Ag said:MemphisAg1 said:
The federal government owns 30% of the land in the US.
Let that sink in -- that is insane!
They could sell half of that and the amount they would still own would be equivalent to Texas multiplied by seven!
Anybody else so deep in debt would sell off some of their real estate to get their financial house in order. The US government shouldn't be any different.
A few points.
First, selling the land won't make a significant impact on our debt so take that off the table. All this will do is overcrowd what is left.
Second, public lands serve a lot of useful purpose that most on this board will never experience, especially in you live in Texas. I live in the middle of 9 million acres of public lands in CO. I can ride my horses, Utvs, fly fish, hike, hunt, camp, explore all within 30 minutes of my home. If that is taken away to private developers, it will become another Aspen full of entitled rich *******s. We don't need any more of those in this world.
Lastly, funding for public land is something I will die on a hill for. As a former National Park employee, I ha seen firsthand the impacts of having our park systems and fully support it's core mission, not the DEI stuff that has infiltrated.
In short, leave public lands the F alone.
Then why don't you cite that, instead of the article that says nothing of the sort?Aggie Apotheosis said:They want the Grand Tetons to be given to the state of Wyoming so they can sell it off. Mike Lee's campaign donors are behind this.InfantryAg said:You headline "Should Grand Tetons National Park be sold off to private interests?"Aggie Apotheosis said:The Wyoming SenateCaptain Pablo said:
Why are y'all taking OP seriously?
Then you cite the bill that wants the fed to give up all federal land to the state.
That's called deceptive.