1
   

Why Have National Public Land if Not to Protect It?

 
 
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 09:41 am
If we are no longer going to protect wildlife, endangered species, national treasures and wonders, why don't we insist that the government sell all public lands to prvate individuals or companies and be done with it?

During this administrations term we have opened public lands to loggers, ranchers and oil drillers, and the American people are not being compensated or seeing the use of their land reflected by lower prices for the goods produced.

Is there a reason for not just selling it outright, puttig the funds toward the nationa debt and stop wasting money on "studies" that this administration just changes anyway?

(This is the latest one: Land Study on Grazing Denounced )
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 546 • Replies: 3
No top replies

 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 09:43 am
Is not "conservation" inherent in the defintion of "conservative"? My current guess is that it is not.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Jun, 2005 05:17 pm
One would think so, dys, but apparently not.

So, is there any reason to continue holding on to public land?
0 Replies
 
Atkins
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Jun, 2005 10:24 am
Let's see. To give George Bush a place to run his snowmobile?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why Have National Public Land if Not to Protect It?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:01:11