General Discussion

Robb

(39,665 posts)

11. Without knowing what lands they're talking about in the specific, I'm not moved to be upset (yet).

Fri Oct 4, 2013, 11:17 AM

Oct 2013

Reading about them seems to suggest these might be good deals for the BLM and other agencies -- divesting themselves of public land that is, for example, bordered by private land on every side with no road in.

The conservationist in me would prefer 100-year leases to outright sales, but I know those aren't as popular as they used to be.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

12 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

House Republicans Move To Sell Off 3.3 Million Acres Of Public Lands [View all] n2doc Oct 2013 OP

I'd be okay with selling off Republicans. City Lights Oct 2013 #1

But toxic waste doesn't sell for much. hobbit709 Oct 2013 #2

It's all in the Marketing! nt City Lights Oct 2013 #7

Not a dime for the blind eels I just sent swirling down the porcelain. Eleanors38 Oct 2013 #9

That's a losing deal. You'd have to pay somebody to take them. n/t dgibby Oct 2013 #10

We have to get rid of these treasonous bastards somehow. n/t Avalux Oct 2013 #3

These House Republicans are truly, certifiably nuts Art_from_Ark Oct 2013 #4

NO! Scuba Oct 2013 #5

I have a better plan Andy823 Oct 2013 #6

Agreed... KansDem Oct 2013 #8

Without knowing what lands they're talking about in the specific, I'm not moved to be upset (yet). Robb Oct 2013 #11

A drop in the ocean. progressoid Oct 2013 #12