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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
Especially with the predators, one of the things that gets these programs going on a local level is for our land management agencies to build partnerships with surrounding communities and landowners.
I've already made a substantial commitment to wildlife by putting my land in the easement. It won't be developed. It will remain there in perpetuity - will be there for the wildlife.
I've asked the Department of the Interior inspector general to look into how much manpower and taxpayer money has been spent responding to ALEC-supported bills that force federal land managers to give land to states.
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.
If you want to maintain a sustainable supply of fish you have to farm the fish, rather than mine them. So putting your money into fishing fleets that are going to exacerbate the problem by over-fishing is not the way to preserve the underlying asset.
It is up to us as lawmakers to provide the resources and streamlined processes that will enable our federal forest managers to become the best possible steward of our lands.
The thing generally raised on city land is taxes.
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.
Not on my watch will we sell or transfer our public lands.