My guy the land was already stolen when the Feds hoovered that shit up without remitting it back to the States. You already have no actual rights to that land, you are a glorified tenant with access priviledges that can be stripped at a moments notice by the Feds.
Because even if you want to assume best case no government tomfoolery, the simple fact of the matter is that with the Feds in charge of it, that means "your" land is actually property of that 80% who lives in the East of the US.
Do you really want "your" land dictated by those hundreds of miles away? Those people out East, who by your own words "...have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere."
You're inventing hypotheticals that don't work because BLM/NFS land is already about as unrestricted as possible. There's few regulations on them for recre use, mostly they're just about fire control.
How the fuck are you actually arguing it could be "better" when it's already fine? It literally only has potential to get worse, which is what happens to almost every plot of state owned land. Go pick a state and actually look up the laws on what state land can be used for, and it's typically significantly restricted. No OHVs, no shooting, no fires, etc.
There are plots of land that isn't for sale that is landlocked behind BLM/NFS land and that means the trailheads go through that sellable land.
How much of a cynical shekel bandit do you have to be to think that it's better for everyone to put up a fence on that land and charge people to walk through what they used to do for free? That's what it's like in Ireland and the UK. You can't get to certain heritage cites without paying the farmer who controls the one road to it. He does t own the site, but he charges you to get to ancestoral history. That's fucking vile.
Population layout with Federalism means BLM land sale is 80% disattached / 20% attached issue. If owned by the actual local states then maybe the State govt would be more swayed on holding on to it, because the majority of voters who get a say actually see benefit from it.
typically significantly restricted.
I get your state reps are assholes, but that's not a reason for the federal government to own insane swaths of land forever.
Last, it's called a road easement, I understand your example is from Muzzie-stan, but this isn't feudal Europe, we have solved your access problems retard.
My guy the land was already stolen when the Feds hoovered that shit up without remitting it back to the States. You already have no actual rights to that land, you are a glorified tenant with access priviledges that can be stripped at a moments notice by the Feds.
What do I give a shit if "muh states" has it?
Because even if you want to assume best case no government tomfoolery, the simple fact of the matter is that with the Feds in charge of it, that means "your" land is actually property of that 80% who lives in the East of the US.
Do you really want "your" land dictated by those hundreds of miles away? Those people out East, who by your own words "...have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere."
You're inventing hypotheticals that don't work because BLM/NFS land is already about as unrestricted as possible. There's few regulations on them for recre use, mostly they're just about fire control.
How the fuck are you actually arguing it could be "better" when it's already fine? It literally only has potential to get worse, which is what happens to almost every plot of state owned land. Go pick a state and actually look up the laws on what state land can be used for, and it's typically significantly restricted. No OHVs, no shooting, no fires, etc.
There are plots of land that isn't for sale that is landlocked behind BLM/NFS land and that means the trailheads go through that sellable land.
How much of a cynical shekel bandit do you have to be to think that it's better for everyone to put up a fence on that land and charge people to walk through what they used to do for free? That's what it's like in Ireland and the UK. You can't get to certain heritage cites without paying the farmer who controls the one road to it. He does t own the site, but he charges you to get to ancestoral history. That's fucking vile.
Population layout with Federalism means BLM land sale is 80% disattached / 20% attached issue. If owned by the actual local states then maybe the State govt would be more swayed on holding on to it, because the majority of voters who get a say actually see benefit from it.
I get your state reps are assholes, but that's not a reason for the federal government to own insane swaths of land forever.
Last, it's called a road easement, I understand your example is from Muzzie-stan, but this isn't feudal Europe, we have solved your access problems retard.