Generally speaking, you can't eat scenery, so you gotta have a paycheck to buy a little food.

And generally speaking, once you've built a subdivision on a mountainside or over a wetland, you can't turn it back into a mountainside or a wetland.

The threat of subdivisions is entirely overblown. Only about 4% of the land area of the lower 48 has been developed. In any case a subdivision is a group of houses where human beings live. Assuming that you are human, where do you live? Where ever that is, remember that it was undeveloped bare land before it was developed.

So, Mickey, do you or did you by any chance make a significant portion of your income from land sales for subdivision, real estate activities involving subdivision, or subdivision development?

Nope. Never have been in Real Estate or development. But I'm not a hypocritical NIMBY either, attempting to monopolize the land, using P&Z;restrictive zoning ordinances to shut the gate behind me after I've arrived in Paradise, masquerading as an environmentalist in order to create an artificial land scarcity and raise the cost of housing.

I don't think people will pay to see "America's Largest Snag Patch". For at least the next 20 years, people will stay away from "the Dead Zone". However, the side benefit is that locals might be able to afford real estate where they grew up, now. If they have a job, that is....and good credit!

Gosh, fotowarp, we heard that exact same stuff about Yellowstone after the '88 fires. It really didn't hold true at all.

Well, Yellowstone is a legendary National Park. If you haven't seen the 100% mortality of Colorado, it is astounding and seriously impacting public safety and tourist values. While it might be interesting to ski on clearcuts at the major Colorado ski areas, summer activities will also be problematic. The Forest Service is saying that "Safety is your own responsibility", and they advise you to carry an axe or a chainsaw, in case trees fall on the road and blocks you in. Also, since there are much fewer Forest Service people working in the woods, help could take hours or days to arrive. Out of state tourists are ignorant of such things, and at-risk. You won't be seeing me spend any tourist dollars in such a place. Currently, my attention has been captured by Bryce Canyon and Zion, where high mortality also exists in the sparse forests there.

Yellowstone is evidently heavily marketed to overseas visitors, probably half of all visitors do not speak English. Unfortunately American taxpayers are subsidizing these visitors....and we are out of money.

The Federal Government subsidizes Wyoming by sending Wyoming about 500 to 600 million dollars every year. Independent, conservative cowboys and ranchers on federal welfare. Amusing!

Troller Mike,
People never have come to Yellowstone to look at the forests. They come for the geothermal show and the wildlife. Nobody is going to specifically travel to see peckerpole lodgepole green or black, or red, unless they are interested in that phenomenon.
As for this blather by the Mayah of Salt Lake, those airplanes also carry lots of people coming and going for WORK related purposes, in fact it is probably more for work than for play.
The urban Salt Lakers all see outside the city as their weekend escape, existing only to serve their pleasuring for two days a week -- so they can "reconnect" with some "natural world." How dare there be a COAL MINE in Emery County, for example, or uranium near Blanding, or sheep anywhere?
How dare there be gravel pits to produce aggregate so there is asphalt on the road to the good stuff? I wonder how successful Mayor Becker's model would be if getting to Zion involved getting on an ox wagon or rolling a handcart out of the SLC airport gates.

The Federal government owns several national forests, considerable BLM land, and two National parks in Wyoming, are you saying the citizens of Wyoming should pay all of the costs so the feds (and you) have no responsibility for what they own? How about turning ownership over to Wyoming and we will pay the costs? You might want to find out how much in mineral royalties the feds (you) take from the state of Wyoming from federal lands you don't want to support.
There is also a two tribe American Indian Reservation and a number of American Indians that the feds have certain responsibilities for via treaties. Are you saying break our word to them so you can have more?
I suspect just the medical costs of the VA and IHS take up a big part of the Money that comes back, are you saying that responsibility should fall on the state instead of the feds?

I'm saying that if you're dumb enough to bite the hand that feeds you, you ought to be put out of your misery, or kicked out of the house like any other house pet.

Mickey, using balance of payments is not an honest assessment. For example, Montana did great on the balance according to Moynihan's formula because we were getting all sorts of pork in the form of missile sites and air bases.
But it's not really pork when you're in line to be the first to glow.
Then there is the question of Wyoming's balance...much of that is for transportation and while it seems to be a subsidy, there's certainly a national component in having 80 available for interstate overhead trucking and travel.
So don't oversimplify like that.

Balance of Payments is straight shooting. Its Federal taxes paid by people in a state VS Federal Spending within that state. Everyone loves to justify their own subsidies and vilify the other guys' subsidies as being socialist or communist. Reminds me of the Tea Moron who's voting Repulsican because he want's the federal government off of his back except that he's getting Social Security and Medicare payments. With idiots like that its no wonder the U.S. is in trouble economically. Most of the Red, western states and deep southern states are being subsidized like crazy by the blue urban states, and cursing the hand that feeds them all the way to the bank.

You forget Mickey, SS and Medicare are insurance programs (poorly managed by the politicians) that folks paid into. I worked and paid in for over 50 years. Unfortunately instead of investing wisely, our government invested in buying themselves another term by funding pork barrel with it. Get everyone who worked less than 40 years off of it, put all of the disability into another fund, especially thsoe people who are on SSKI because working is too stressful for them.
All federal land facilities should be funded by the feds or turned over to the states not only to pay for , but to reap the income. Much more efficient. Stop all earmarks and grants for 24 months, then reevaluate.
Back to the original article, sounds like Project 21 to me.

When you have created a welfare state, and there are no longer enough of "us" to feed and house "them," something has to go. In Great Britain, the government is going to sell their national forests. Yep. Sell the land and trees. First, there are plenty of private estates growing timber, so why should the State be involved in doing the same? And other rationalizations. The reality is that there is not enough public income in the welfare state to continue to pay for non self supporting activities and nanny state responsibilities. I would suppose we are not far behind.

If you give a buck to Uncle Sam, $0.48 goes to pay interest on the debt. And 75% or more of the remainder has to go to entitlements like SSI, Medicaid and Medicare, and Federal pensions. So, of that buck, only $0.13 is available to spend on defense, education, internal security, and non mandated social programs and public works. We, like Great Britain, are broke. Great cash flow, but not enough money to pay the bills. And there is no end to how much we can borrow, because the Federal government has the ability to print money in the deceitful path of "creating wealth." Again, we are for all intents and purposes, broke. We are the insurance guy who spends more than he takes in, but won't quit the country club, Cuban cigars, and big cars on time or leases. Quite the dandy, this United States of America.

So, if you don't think that it is possible to sell the public domain, you do have to remember that it was all about selling it for a hundred years. This deal of buying more is recent, and unsustainable. So the Government Garage Sale will happen, and sooner than you would think. It is easy for a Congress to sell the land than it is to manage it by committee with endless opportunity to litigate any and all decisions, without penalty for frivolous litigation. Much, much easier to sell the land than to maintain it. Look at what the USFS and BLM have done to roads that cost them $100,000 a mile or more to build. Their largest expense after fire fighting is now decommissioning roads. Paying contractors to tear up roads, all the while not bringing in enough dough to wad a shotgun from sales of resources, and renewable and renewing resources at that. Grass grows back, better, after grazing than it does with no grazing at all. Of course I know too much grazing is a bad deal. But no grazing is worse. I just got back from a hunting trip in the Hells Canyon Natl. Special Area, now void of domestic sheep because they might transfer a type on pneumonia to wild sheep. No deer like there once was. Sheep kept the feed source renewed. No end to the burned timber gullies, however. Fire is "good", as the claims go. In Britain, they want to sell the trees and the land under them. Then the resource will be managed for sustainable forests and sustainable income. America is going to have to face that soon. Maybe we can tax the billionaires and spend the money on "forest health" issues. Of piss it away on a war or "rebuilding" a failed culture. Never looking at the end game, and that is being broke. Out of money. No cash flow. More bills than income. How to pay for the homeless in New York City? Sell some land in Colorado. Or take possession of some of Charlie Rangel's rent controlled bachelor pads. Lots of timberland in private hands being sold daily. REIT and TIMO tax issues. Owning timberland is not possible in the short term due to public need for profits for publicly held companies. So the special rules under which insurance companies work makes owning timberland a good deal due to the long term issues, and the ways to circumvent the capital expenditure issues an insurance company can find. Long term asset growth. Not possible for a timber company today. And now no longer possible for the government. The USFS budget is a case in point. Hard now to get an adequate budget for a non performing asset. Not hard at all when the timber cut was at 8 billion board feet a year. But now? Who gives a shit? What does having to pony up more and more money just to manage natural fire mean to someone from Kentucky? Or Florida?

Time to sell public land and pay the bills. Or at least that is the current situation in our parent country.

Sorry, Bearbait, ain't going to happen. In a local wilderness bill pushed by a Repulsican, they were going to give a few federal acres to the town of Stanley to help the town out and the enviro extremists threw a hissy fit and got the land transfer removed.

We need to end all non profit status. Any group with holdings in the millions and trillions are anything but non profit and they need to pay their fair share, including the tax payer dollars judges routinely give them for "winning" cases against the people.

I can agree with that; let's start by ending the NRA and go on to get rid of the Nationwide Tea Party Coalition, the Tea Party Express, the Our Country Deserves Better PAC, Tea Party Nation, the Tea Party Patriots, and Americans for Prosperity. How about it, Marion, er, Toad?

I did not suggest ending any groups, only the non profit status of ALL groups, including the Red Cross, churches, and enviro groups.

I dunno Todd, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm perfectly happy knowing that my non-profit local animal shelter is able to operate because of tax-free donations from community members. And, the fact is they do pay taxes - they pay the same payroll taxes as my business.

cs

Payroll taxes are only a part of business expenses, and with volunteers that is non existent. Volunteers are generally a big part of an animals shelter.
I also have some concerns about churches, but the fact remains there is far too much money and real estate that is supported by forced taxes. I am willing to increase my giving to my church and anything else I believe in without deducting it. We will all have the money to support what we want if all kinds of others are not also taking our tax dollars. I was stunned when I saw news articles warning over 800 non profits in a little state like Wyoming that they had to do some sort of paper work to maintain their tax free status. Those were just the little ones that were not up to speed. Google any "non profit" 990 tax form and look at their assets, you will be amazed at how much property they own, it is in the billions for TNC for instance.

Corvus, don't let this banshee off that easy. Marion, you said you wanted to "end all non profit status" and I agreed. Now, you want to "weasel" (pun intended on the basis of your dietary and cultural history) out of it. I say let's "end all non profit status" and maybe actually start with that sick cult religion that I bet you belong to. No weaseling; if that's your position, stick with it.

Obviously mike, you are incapable of reading, I made it clear that individuals can support what they are in favor of with their own money...including me, so end all non profits.

How many donations of $20 does it take to pay the salary of the President of the NRDC???
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Wait for it.....wait for it
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
They need 18,200 seperate donations of $20 each to pay the salary of one single "non-profit" President..... In ONE year!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Of course, that doesn't include benefits!!!!

Bearbait and Todd hit it on the head again. We here in Montana want no more wilderness and no more national monuments. We are sick of land sitting there doing nothing with no use to anyone. Logging is a renewable resource. So is cattle ranching. All these monuments and wilderness areas do is shut out 95% of the people. We have plenty of wilderness in Montana now. We don't need more. We did not vote in the republicians to have them do that, and if Obama does it, he will be known as the anticrist of the west for the rest of his days. Mikey, the NRA would gladly give up its nonprofit status is the rest would also. The NRA would not go away however. Todd, I agree with the "get rid of nonprofit" idea except for a few. I ran a baseball program for kids that was non profit. Do we need to tax that also?
No one made a dime off of that program, and the money all went to equipment, fees for tournaments, and to pay for the lights on the fields.

Bigsky, what kind of assets could the kids have, what kind of money that would be tax free? I suspect it would cost more to do the paper work for tax free status. I really think the only way to stop the abuse of the system would be to eliminate it all, certainly a few hundred in assets could be allowed with no reporting at all.

I cannot disagree with you there. It was a pain in the butt to get the nonprofit status anyway for the baseball program, and no one made any money off of it. I looked at the Defenders of Wildlife website, and they made something like 31 million dollars last year. The head biologists and the CEO made out like bandits on salaries. Who gave them all this money? Misinformed "nice" people who wanted to "save the world". Crimmany. They would have been better to give to the NRA. Even the NRA does more for wildlife then these cash cows. I know my hunting license moneys do more than DOW ever could in terms of wildlife management and more importantly RESPECT from the people who live here. I know more than a few people who would wind up in jail if any of DOWs reps showed up at their door. It is sad, but a true statement. Using the law to hurt others should not happen.