I have to disagree with Mr. Avery’s letter suggesting promoters of dispersal of government land are playing a con game and misleading ranchers into thinking they will personally benefit.
Ranchers aren’t fools. They know as do the public the pros and cons of the redistribution of public lands.
We all enjoy public lands and we aren’t saying that keeping some is a bad move.
The national parks have a lot to offer us, and there are several unique and special areas that should be set aside for all. That said, some counties in the west are over 70 percent public land. Many western states are over 50 percent public. This places a staggering burden on taxpayers in those areas and results in a far smaller tax base to support schools, police, fire, libraries etc.
There is no good reason for such a huge portion of the west to be in public ownership. Can you imagine the uproar if we suddenly saw the government buying up huge tracts of land in the east? If suddenly New York or Virginia was 50 percent public lands?
I don’t see any reason for the government to own more than 20 percent of any state or county. Those counties need the land to support their tax base, provide services to their citizens, and support their businesses. That’s not greed, that’s what any of us should be able to expect.
Taxes in lieu is a pittance compared to the taxes these lands would bring in private ownership. We aren’t “greedy,” we just want to receive the same services and opportunities everyone else gets and expecting us to carry such a huge tax burden so others can come and enjoy our back yards isn’t fair.
Commented