Study courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.
Posted on 09/02/2011 7:00:47 AM PDT by opentalk
The Obama administration is spending $35 million to buy 30,000 acres of private property across the U.S. this year to make permanent homes for mice, fairy shrimp, mussels, prairie bushes and beetles. Those are just some of the 70 critters and plants to benefit from the land purchases in a dozen states as part of the government’s habitat conservation plans for endangered species.
“The federal government already owns more land than Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy and Poland combined,” said Rob Gordon, senior adviser for strategic outreach at The Heritage Foundation.
...The federal government owns more than 600 million acres of land.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the habitat for endangered species, already controls 93 million acres. That’s more than the National Park Service, which oversees 79 million acres.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Study courtesy of the Heritage Foundation.
For obvious reasons his main intention in all this is to save the skunks that dwell on these lands.
"Rut rong rid Beeruls?"
WOW $35 mil for bugs and mice. As a good Socialists shouldn’t they be spending this money on helping people that have lost THEIR homes. After all the socialist are responsible for the economic catastrophy we are experiencing.
Didn’t fish and wildlife raid the Gibson guitar factory? Here’s some payback....they’ll have to hire more people to oversee this land.
I think that the reason for all these land purchases is not so much for the benefit of the animals, but for the exclusion of Man. These rare and exotic creatures seem to turn up anywhere there are economic interests, such as oil deposits, mineral deposits, a good place for a hydroelectric plant, et cetera. We may as well be putting up Sasquatch crossing’ signs
Again, the crooked are stealing your money through laws of their own making. That money goes to them for control and power. Why do we need a Federal Government?
I’ve long been a proponent of the “de-nationalization” of State lands, which has long been beyond any semblance of reality or purpose, mostly based on the egos of former presidents who want a legacy of land set-asides. (So where do the Republican candidates stand on this issue? Not one of them has said a darned thing about it.)
There are a few, legitimate reasons for federal lands outside of Washington, D.C. Indian reservations, which are internal treaties; military bases; and most Americans would agree that a *few* federal parks, of America’s “crown jewels”, are reasonable “set asides” as “conservation areas.”
Rules must be much, much stricter for “preservation areas”, which means that only very limited human entry is permitted. Things such as major archeological sites, which are generally tiny areas, and extremely sensitive biological zones, with a multitude of unique species, should be considered.
As for the rest of it? The vast majority should be returned to the individual States for *their* use. It is not within the authority of the federal government to seize such lands “just because they can”, which is the vast majority of them.
Will anyone even *ask* the Republican candidates if they support the return of State lands by the federal government?
A way to ensure we do not use our energy resources and are dependent on foreign sources. Consolidate power to the government.
Agenda 21 UN, influence.
They need to get out of the land business.
Wonder what happens when China wants to be paid back and the dollar is worth very little.
“Wonder what happens when China wants to be paid back and the dollar is worth very little.”
Good Question,I guess Obama will have to work it off!
That figures.
I can’t remember the exact timeline anymore but I’m sure it can be established that shortly after Hitler came into power roads and trails leading into the mountains were closed. Aside from the high-sounding humanitarian excuses given for the action it soon became apparent that the Nazi government wanted to deny “certain groups” any chance to find sanctuary in the wilderness.
History stutters a bit but it still repeats itself.
“History stutters a bit but it still repeats itself.”
I like that. The one I REALLY like is “History may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.”
Oh - and interesting observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.