Posted on 02/22/2016 10:25:45 AM PST by magellan
Real estate mogul Donald Trump would not let states take control of federal lands, the Republican presidential candidate said in a recent interview.
"I don't like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don't know what the state is going to do," Trump said during a talk with Field & Stream magazine earlier this week.
The trade publication, sitting down with Trump at Las Vegas' Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show, had asked about the issue of turning over federally controlled lands to individual states -- an idea previously floated by rival 2016 contender and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and supported by staunch states-rights activists.
The proposal has also received more attention in light of recent actions by radical conservatives like Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and his son Ammon Bundy, who led an armed group earlier this month in occupying a national wildlife refuge in Oregon to protest federal land use policies.
Trump cautioned, however, that states would be unpredictable in maintaining the designated lands.
"I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?" Trump asked. "I don't think it's something that should be sold."
He added: "We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land."
The billionaire businessman suggested later in the interview that while he was a fan of oil and gas companies drilling and fracking on federal lands, protecting the earth should still be a top priority.
"I'm very much into energy, and I'm very much into fracking and drilling, and we never want to be hostage again to OPEC and go back to where we were. And right now, we're at a very interesting point because right now there's so much energy," Trump said. "And maybe that's an advantage and maybe--actually, it's more of an advantage in terms of your question because we don't have to do the kind of drilling that we did."
"I am for energy exploration, as long as we don't do anything to damage the land. And right now we don't need too much -- there's a lot of energy," he said.
Trump has a point. I don’t think he is for the Feds taking more land, but States, Counties, and Cities have proven time and again that when they run into a revenue problem they will go for anything. Take a drive down I-65 from Northern Indiana to Indianapolis and you will drive through 20 miles of giant windmills from every direction as far as the eye can see. Why did this happen? Because a county allowed it to, so that the county could get additional revenues. The land looks ridiculous, and what is going to happen to the thousands of windmills once they get worn out in 40 years?
A lot of the BS about federal land is people looking to see the land handed over to their interests to make a buck over it and to screw over the vast majority of people. Again, I maybe bias because I am from back east (as was Teddy) but that is my view and I am pretty sure it is the overwhelming mainstream view. He just took an issue away from Hillary.
There is an unfortunate echo effect on some issues in forums.
Trump is right. There is no more of a critic of how the feds manage the land in Nevada the me. The state does not have the resources to take on managing the land. It will be sold off and turned into private hunting areas locking most recreational use out. What should happen is that the Feds should roll back rules and regulations to about 1980.
Oh and PILT goes away leaving counties in a financial bind.
I suspect Trump thinks the only Federal lanfs are the National Parks. Unaware of the liberal land grab to prevent drilling?
If he is up on the issue, it bodes ill
|
If you would like to be added to the
|
You read way too much into Trump.
Your reaction is emotional, in the same way that Obama was elected. This is only the flip side of it and just as wrong.
“We removed your post because it’s an internet hoax that’s been spread via email, various comments sections and blogs beginning sometime last year”
I did note that it might not be Bennett.
Even if it’s not, the content deserves to stand on its own.
The only problem with that map is the EPA thinks they own all of it.
I like this guy less and less every time he opens his mouth.
You sound desperate.
There is nothing more vulgar than a pissant that won't stop soiling its pants when it's been shown to be FOS.
What an idiot. Completely clueless.
Rolling my eyes. How naïve can you be?
Probably deed it to the Indians and let hem build casinos or something.....
YES!! Thank you.
Well said.
I can’t argue with his logic. State and local politicians are probably a little easier to bribe.
When Loop 610 was built around Houston Hofheinz was judge. A man owned land on the west side and he wanted his land to be on both sides of the freeway. Since he gave a lot of money to Hofheinz the route was moved and went through the middle of the donor’s land. That also left only enough room for one lane to connect 610 with US 59 in both directions. And it’s a nightmare.
The dead birds from these will never make it to the MSM. One dead seagull from an oil spill however will be on the front page of every single paper.
This has been a raging issue with the West for decades and has nothing to do with National Parks. The issue is how they are managed and the federal government has mismanaged the land for decades. There have been tons of articles about this issue for decades. This issue has been on the cover of Time and numerous other publications. And I live in the East.
Please research and get back to me. Thank you.
I live in Oregon. The last thing I want is this communist government in charge of anything.
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.