The federal government needs to do a much better job of managing our resources, but the sale or transfer of our land is an extreme proposal, and I won't tolerate it.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't see any justification for the federal government owning land, other than the Statue of Liberty and maybe a few parks, maybe a few refuges. But to just own land to do nothing with it I think is a disservice to the Constitution.
Fish and Wildlife has a significant amount of federal funds for land acquisition, yet it is skimping on management of the lands it already possesses and shortchanging local tax bases.
Not on my watch will we sell or transfer our public lands.
When more land is locked up by the federal government, real people suffer, and opportunities for future prosperity are reduced.
We are no longer going to ask for the land, but we are going to take it without negotiating.
One of the things I would love for people to think about is social responsibility. If you are fortunate enough to be someone who owns land, I think you ought to be making the most efficient use of that land possible.
I am opposed to the wholesale giving away of the public lands to railroad corporations and other like institutions; at the same time, I believe that the government can encourage, by gifts, great national enterprises which are for the common weal and are so placed that they cannot properly expect local support.
Buy land, they're not making it anymore.
People in Eastern Washington should be confident in knowing that the government will not come and seize their property or farm land. Legislation is needed to correct this decision and restore the principle of having limited government involvement.
In so far as the government lands can be disposed of, I am in favor of cutting up the wild lands into parcels so that every poor man may have a home.