Well, Moeller, the government GAVE most of this ground to somebody, to encourage homesteading without any conditions besides staying for a period of time. These people who perserveered over time resold the land for many thousands of dollars. The arguement being that it was improved. Now we spend a sizable amount of USDA dollars to encourage the new stewards to not plow wetlands, bulldoze WPA/NRA/CCC hedgerows planted by the government in the thirties to fix the "stewardship" defficiencies of our great grandfathers, and try to put the ground back the way it was originally. All the while we are currently allowing the destruction of public ground, (BLM, forest service), to gouge a a few minerals out of the ground, produce an almost meaningless amount of oil compared to the national consumption, and harvest a tremendous amount of timber,most of which in the pacific northwest is exported to Japan, most of this is free to the harvester, or bears a laughable fee. Graze public ground on the basis of AUM units, degrading streams and forage for anywhere from 1.50-20.00 per year per cow calf. The US government intent was clear from the start, the game, unlike Europe, belongs to the people. It never occured to framers 200+ years ago, that someone would bar the legal pursuit or access to public game. This is my point, had that been a consideration, I suspect there might have been public access laws written, but with 95% of the country un-occuppied by anybody, it wasn't an issue. By the time it was, we had reached the point, like all governments, the we were corrupted away from the purer pursuits of utopian society and subject to landowner lobbies, and special interests, with money, who were able to enforce legalities slanted to their particular advantage. If you want to source this question yourself, read about the history of U.S. railroads, or the Johnson County, Wy. war, or Teddy Roosevelt, and his battles with J.P.Morgan, Or Standard Oil and it's war of union busting in Colorado circa 1880-1910. As far as Stalin being proud, you might want to go back and read your history, Stalin was a totalaterial and a paranoid mass murderer. I don't advocate "land reform" in any aspect, except I would seek to protect what we still own in common, and maximize the value of leased public ground, in this time of economic hardship. Now if your asking me if it could all be done over again, from the begining, than my statement stands. Solves the access problems, solves the high cost of ground for beginning farmers, forces the producer to make money or not, based upon their business and farming skills, not on speculators,holding ground till they can cash out. All I'm saying is it would have been better, to sell/ or give, one 160@ homestead per say 2560@, enter into a long term lease with the holder of that parcel to graze/farm the 2560@ surrounding for what would have been pennies in the 1800's to a dollar figure today, which is a fraction of the cash rent currently of everything from $75.00 - $500, per acre asking prices. Such a system would keep farm incomes up,food prices down, we could adjust the conservation measures as they evolve, hunting access would be automatic except on the homestead/privately held ground. with lease income paid to the government,seek to eliminate income tax for producers, and take a big whack at Federal budget issues. Leases could be inherited, traded, reasigned, traded with caps, This is not a unique theory though it may seem that way. Throughout ancient history into modern times it was the crop produced off the ground that had value, grain or cattle, not the ground itself. The crop will still be retained by the producer. If this is to close to home, so be it, The system I describe would destroy my business but it doesn't mean it would not have been the prudent direction. As I said, water over the dam. I will submit that even in these times of overheated farmland values, the ground is only worth what it will cash flow over a spread of historical past performances. I encourage any civil alternative point of view, but, surely we can do better than resort to the old "commie" slur.
