Evicting Smoky

You have probably heard of the proposed sale of about 300,000 acres of public land owned by the US government, land that is not on the tax rolls, land that doesn’t support schools or services, land that the 2007 proposed federal budget from GWB proposes selling to private parties to raise money to support schools. Don’t get too excited. That’s an area about 470 square miles, a square of about 21 miles on a side, about the same landmass as the Spirit Lake Indian Reservation south of Devils Lake North Dakota.

At first blush this seems like a good plan. I have surfed blogdom for insight into this issue. There are the usual leftwing stuck in a rut nutcases who’s blog essentially says, “Sale of Public lands = Bush lied, WMD’s, Bush idiot, Abortion, blah blah blah”.

There are some thoughtful essays. They say nearly uniformly, we need to think about this, this may not be a great idea. You will find them by using the blogsearch feature on google.

This is a local issue. Conrad Burns, Montana has declared this dead.

I’m not so sure. Fundamentally I am against selling assets to pay current bills. If you keep selling your clothes to pay your rent you will end up naked. That’s a sight I don’t want to see.

There is balance. I have hunted in Montana. There are 30-acre parcels here and there which are unattached and useless. The government and you and I are not served well by owning this scrap. It is usually landlocked and fenced from access to you or me. The surrounding landowner uses this land as if it were his without the consequence of tax or liability. So, I’m ambivalent.

I just hate the precedent. Selling long-term assets to pay current bills is a poor “strategery”.

And I don’t want to hear that Toyota just bought Yellowstone.

Where’s Smokey gonna live?