So you would prefer those ranchers to have to lease private ground at 10X the price? Ruining our western heritage and increasing the cost of food and fiber.
For many though the year and years of hearing that make them less likely to jump and say no to these ideas, there isn’t 1,000’s of members jumping on these topics, it’s just a few of us going back and forth, that right there should be an indicator that maybe more and more over the years are ok will selling federal land.
We never had to lease ground and had to pay for our own private, so yes they should pay market rates and if they can’t afford it some other rancher will.
Don’t all of the above states have millions of acres of public land, look at the states that don’t and see how the polling relates to the above. Pretty interesting all other states are just one small portion. The sentiment should be from them not the states with the federal lands.
Yeah but who knows if that’s accurate, maybe it is, also who knows if many of them realize what exactly federal lands are outside of national parks and monuments. I know a ton of people without any knowledge of blm or usfs lands, but they know about Yellowstone.
Well of course, fits your desire.
Yea, also it’s two legitimate polls, and not just a finger in the wind estimate of an angry non resident. Even if you knocked 10% off as some kind of made up margin of error, that still leaves 2/3 of Americans opposing the sale. Take care man.
More attention for a big issue I support it
Haha, I’m not angry at all, I just see a positive in selling some lands is all.
Well, and it’s a poll with at least some hard data. Compared to one man’s intuition. This gets to the heart of public discourse issues. Data is refuted by better data. Yet, people substitute feelings and opinion as equal to data.
I just don’t see the ROI in it for us, the normal people. Extremely short term gain if any gain at all. I do see it as a benefit though when it comes to exchanges. There already is a system in place and precedent for that though. This bill is a made up number that likely vastly exceeds what fits the ideal disposal.
Keep in mind that most American politics (for average people) is about making political enemies miserable via petty revenge. If that attitude happens to constantly enrich corporations and billionaires, even better.
Well yes this alone won’t make a dent, same could be said about every individual thing within this bill or any reconciliation bill ever.
Well if it actually works as proposed and is used in population centers it would be a benefit, it isn’t supposed to create new 3rd homes for the wealthy. It’s just every time this subject comes up the sky is falling and everyone says their hunting spot is on the list, the list showed all public land but a very tiny portion is even eligible.
