Iamsemisweet
Posts: 3651
Joined: 4/9/2011 From: The Great Northwest, USA Status: offline
|
Part of that has to do with history, of course. The Feds owned all the land in the west at one point, but granted a lot of it to the railroads and to settlers. The gov kept the land that wasn't farmable. In addition, there are far more natural resources in the west that the Feds make money off of, like timberland and rangeland. That doesn't really exist in the east, at least not in such large parcels. quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote:
ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Yes, so not going to happen. I do know what my state gov. would do if it did, though. They are logging every stick of wood in the state forest near my house (soon to be ex house). It is an endless parade of log trucks with loads of small diameter timber. The State is selling it to china in a desperate attempt to plug the holes in the state budget. So, if the housing industry ever comes back, expect lumber to be really expensive. At this point, the Feds are better stewards. Yeah, the article stated that it's not going to happen, as previous attempts by states to take over federal land have failed. However, if the Feds are better stewards, how does this explain how so little land is under federal control in the Eastern states? Why would there be such a disparity? Are the Feds implying that Eastern state governments are more responsible than Western state governments?
_____________________________
Alice: But I don't want to go among mad people. The Cat: Oh, you can't help that. We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad. Alice: How do you know I'm mad? The Cat: You must be. Or you wouldn't have come here.
|