4 ms·

I'm upset and I'm not even American!

by ENTP 10y ago

mickronome 10y ago
Agreed, selling of public land without an actual reason is almost always a bad idea, even economically.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  I'm sure they have a reason, it just isn't one that benefits U.S. citizens...
- pzone 10y ago
  Why do you think that? Which land is better owned by the government and which is better owned by private citizens? The reason in this case is "it's sitting around and not being used for much except random public access once every few weeks or months, and we could make some money selling it." What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.
  - schnottus 10y ago
    > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Lots, Every year I drive 24 hours from Wisconsin to Utah to spend a week hiking, camping, and exploring canyons on BLM land. It's incredibly enjoyable and a very relaxing getaway, due in no small part to the fact that it is not one of the beautiful parks that are filled with people. If I so desire I can spend a week out there and not see another person, and I'll be devastated when that gets taken away. For those of us who are ok with some risk in our activities like canyoneering, BLM lands are crucial. Most parks are afraid of being sued when someone gets themselves in trouble and don't allow fun stuff like that.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    It is not all nondescript and empty. There is plenty of random public land, including BLM, that is gorgeous despite not being a National Park or a Wilderness Area, or which provides access into otherwise inaccessible public land areas. Something doesn't have to be a National Park to be worthy of visiting. National Parks are beautiful—and crowded. There are many people who like to go to more remote areas where they can be alone in peace.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Ask yourself this: what benefit do you personally get from my having access? Let me answer that question for you: when you're hoping to snag a camp spot in Mount Rainier National Park, you can because I'm camping on BLM land. You want to go see Mount Rainier, I just want a place in the middle of nowhere to drop the VW camper for a weekend. But the BLM land went away, so even though I don't give a shit about viewing a big volcano, I'm taking your camp spot because there's nowhere else left. ...and we could make some money selling it. "A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres 'would be unlikely to generate revenue'." IOW, we can sell it to our campaign contributors for pennies on the dollar, and it's all perfectly legal (thanks to a recent change to House rules by Republicans).
  - nate_meurer 10y ago
    There are better reason for government stewardship beside the land's visual attractiveness. Protecting watersheds, for example, is of supreme importance, which the article alludes to in its mention of the Everglades in Florida.
  - TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
    > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty. I'd rather camp here: http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG It's a different experience from the parks.
    - prawn 10y ago
      I think both NP and BLM options are great, but there's certainly something special about the freedom and isolation of that sort of place you've linked. I'm really surprised it doesn't appeal equally to both sides of politics.

I'm upset and I'm not even American!

by ENTP 10y ago

I'm upset and I'm not even American!

mickronome 10y ago

Agreed, selling of public land without an actual reason is almost always a bad idea, even economically.

chrisbennet 10y ago
I'm sure they have a reason, it just isn't one that benefits U.S. citizens...
pzone 10y ago
Why do you think that? Which land is better owned by the government and which is better owned by private citizens? The reason in this case is "it's sitting around and not being used for much except random public access once every few weeks or months, and we could make some money selling it." What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.
- schnottus 10y ago
  > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Lots, Every year I drive 24 hours from Wisconsin to Utah to spend a week hiking, camping, and exploring canyons on BLM land. It's incredibly enjoyable and a very relaxing getaway, due in no small part to the fact that it is not one of the beautiful parks that are filled with people. If I so desire I can spend a week out there and not see another person, and I'll be devastated when that gets taken away. For those of us who are ok with some risk in our activities like canyoneering, BLM lands are crucial. Most parks are afraid of being sued when someone gets themselves in trouble and don't allow fun stuff like that.
- waterphone 10y ago
  It is not all nondescript and empty. There is plenty of random public land, including BLM, that is gorgeous despite not being a National Park or a Wilderness Area, or which provides access into otherwise inaccessible public land areas. Something doesn't have to be a National Park to be worthy of visiting. National Parks are beautiful—and crowded. There are many people who like to go to more remote areas where they can be alone in peace.
- mikestew 10y ago
  What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Ask yourself this: what benefit do you personally get from my having access? Let me answer that question for you: when you're hoping to snag a camp spot in Mount Rainier National Park, you can because I'm camping on BLM land. You want to go see Mount Rainier, I just want a place in the middle of nowhere to drop the VW camper for a weekend. But the BLM land went away, so even though I don't give a shit about viewing a big volcano, I'm taking your camp spot because there's nowhere else left. ...and we could make some money selling it. "A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres 'would be unlikely to generate revenue'." IOW, we can sell it to our campaign contributors for pennies on the dollar, and it's all perfectly legal (thanks to a recent change to House rules by Republicans).
- nate_meurer 10y ago
  There are better reason for government stewardship beside the land's visual attractiveness. Protecting watersheds, for example, is of supreme importance, which the article alludes to in its mention of the Everglades in Florida.
- TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
  > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty. I'd rather camp here: http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG It's a different experience from the parks.
  - prawn 10y ago
    I think both NP and BLM options are great, but there's certainly something special about the freedom and isolation of that sort of place you've linked. I'm really surprised it doesn't appeal equally to both sides of politics.