Posted by Mary Catherine Dunphy (+2896) 5 years ago
Hey everyone! It's official! And, it's in writing in the 2016 Republican Platform!

The Republicans want to put public lands in the hands of state governments knowing full well the states ultimately will not be able to properly manage the public lands, and then eventually the land can be privatized -- which means sold to their rich friends. If you care about your public lands (state and federal parks) remaining your public land, I wouldn't advise voting for any Republican candidate. Yellowstone Park and the Grand Tetons are for all of us to enjoy -- so far!

The public land statement is written in the Republican Platform for 2016 on page 21-22.

Posted by Mary Catherine Dunphy (+2896) 5 years ago
Here is the pertinent quote on public lands from pages 21-22 of the 2016 Republican Platform:

"The federal government owns or controls over
640 million acres of land in the United States, most of
which is in the West. These are public lands, and the
public should have access to them for appropriate
activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting. Federal ownership or management of land
also places an economic burden on counties and
local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay
for things such as schools, police, and emergency
services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage
must remain under the absentee ownership or
management of official Washington. Congress shall
immediately pass universal legislation providing for
a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal
government to convey certain federally controlled
public lands to states. We call upon all national
and state leaders and representatives to exert their
utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of
those lands, identified in the review process, to all
willing states for the benefit of the states and the
nation as a whole.
The residents of state and local
communities know best how to protect the land
where they work and live. They practice boots-on-
the-ground conservation in their states every day.
We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to
establish Congress’ right to approve the designation
of national monuments and to further require the
approval of the state where a national monument is
designated or a national park is proposed." (emphasis added.)
Posted by Mary Catherine Dunphy (+2896) 5 years ago
Thanks to visionary political leaders of the past, this land has been preserved for you and me.

Posted by Mary Catherine Dunphy (+2896) 5 years ago
"In 2015, the two million annual visitors to California’s Joshua Tree National Park spent almost $97 million in the surrounding communities. Those same visitors created 1,341 job,s which had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $128 million, according to an April 21, 2016 statement from the National Park Service. And still, knowing how much his constituents rely on the existence of a National Park within his congressional district, Republican Rep. Paul Cook has done everything within his power to hinder any growth of the Park Service, which will be celebrating its 100th anniversary in August.

Paul Cook is one of 20 Republican representatives and senators, known as the Anti-Parks Caucus, who actively work to sell off public lands to private parties for exploitation."

Read more at:

Posted by Tomm (-1033) 5 years ago
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3245) 5 years ago
But, if one could buy a chunk of that special land filled with could create a business and charge the hunters and fishermen. There was an article in the paper regarding an area near Townsend where the new owner fenced off his property..drove the Elk onto his land...and, was able to have people from out of State come and hunt on his property. The problem was, the Montana hunters who hunt that area became somewhat enraged due to the diminished numbers. Kind of "two-edged". Always and upside and a downside, it seems?

This is not the exact article that I was talking about but, this is similar in that people discuss it and the issues.