[Bob Seger]

So you're saying that we should go back to the time when government played a negligible role in land management?

Certainly appears that way from your first sentence. I must admit, however, that I've read the vast majority of your threads/posts... and I never walk away from it knowing what you actually said or meant. Maybe you're just smarter than I am, or simply -- I just read slow because I talk slow.

I'm going to assume you're for government land management, just because you come across as a communist in many of your posts. Tell me, if the land you lived on for 50 years were discovered to be an sacred burial ground of Indians.. would you turn it over to the government immediately and lose your family's home? Or wait for the government to take it through eminent domain?

The federal government's role in land management shouldn't be 'negligible'. Negligible is infinitely too much. Any land the government doesn't use on a regular basis, or isn't essential to national security (such as a military base) -- should be owned by a)homeowners, b)business owners, or c)the local government.

It is of no benefit to turn a pile of rocks in Utah into a national monument, which restricts GDP contributions. You being a liberal psychonaut, should probably crave GDP growth to help fund your welfare check, earned income tax credit, and socialized medicine.

[Image: https://ibb.co/cLNbPb]

The federal government owns 20% or more of 13 states in the nation. And over 27% of the entire country is deeded to Uncle Sam. Private citizens, corporations, and local governments account for only 15.1% of Nevada's land ownership. California, one of the largest states in the Union, AND the most populous... is almost 50% federal land.

:Thumbs: :Thumbs: :Thumbs:

Now that's funny...True, but funny.

If it makes you feel any better, nobody else can figure out what Geraldo says either.nicker: