I guess this is what we disagree about: you say, "This WE THE PEOPLE property would be purchased from the private sector at fair market value. A mere $200 billion would purchase about 60 million acres."
I'm opposed to taxpayers underwriting the activities of farmers at the level we underwrite them now. It would be hypocritical of me to ask the taxpayers to pay "a mere $200 billion" to enhance my hunting opportunities. I'd rather see the market be corrected by pulling the subsidies that have jacked up land prices to, in some cases, all time highs. Then those of us who care about hunting could put OUR money (not other taxpayers' money) where our mouths are -- into developing good hunting habitat, on small parcels we could afford to buy or lease. It's those small parcels that have disappeared because of excessive subsidies and relatively recent economic decisions to buy up any excess land, even if marginal, because of the market value of crops, driven artificially high.
I also believe that to the extent some farmers care nothing about wildlife management (and you're right, plenty don't), then they don't have any wildlife on their property to speak of. But there remain a few -- fewer and fewer all the time -- who have resisted farming or tiling every last inch of tillable land because they want to have some wildlife. Your plan of a government taking (to the tune of $200 billion of Other People's Money) of land would capture those guys, too. I would rather disincentivize the border to border farming of marginal ground for the purpose of creating unneeded (and therefore subsidized) ethanol products, than create a new federal subsidy program, for hunters.
Your father and uncle had success in the 1940s in a free market system, and it's that system that's going away, to the detriment of hunting. I'm for it, and against new federally-funded substitutes, just because those substitutes might serve my own interests, rather than farming interests. And to be blunt, if I had to choose whether there's more public good in farming subsidies or hunting subsidies, I'd have to admit that farming would win out. But I don't think that is, or should be the choice. I think hunters should have a fair opportunity to buy property and improve it, without having to "farm the government" in order to make their payments on that property.
I'm opposed to taxpayers underwriting the activities of farmers at the level we underwrite them now. It would be hypocritical of me to ask the taxpayers to pay "a mere $200 billion" to enhance my hunting opportunities. I'd rather see the market be corrected by pulling the subsidies that have jacked up land prices to, in some cases, all time highs. Then those of us who care about hunting could put OUR money (not other taxpayers' money) where our mouths are -- into developing good hunting habitat, on small parcels we could afford to buy or lease. It's those small parcels that have disappeared because of excessive subsidies and relatively recent economic decisions to buy up any excess land, even if marginal, because of the market value of crops, driven artificially high.
I also believe that to the extent some farmers care nothing about wildlife management (and you're right, plenty don't), then they don't have any wildlife on their property to speak of. But there remain a few -- fewer and fewer all the time -- who have resisted farming or tiling every last inch of tillable land because they want to have some wildlife. Your plan of a government taking (to the tune of $200 billion of Other People's Money) of land would capture those guys, too. I would rather disincentivize the border to border farming of marginal ground for the purpose of creating unneeded (and therefore subsidized) ethanol products, than create a new federal subsidy program, for hunters.
Your father and uncle had success in the 1940s in a free market system, and it's that system that's going away, to the detriment of hunting. I'm for it, and against new federally-funded substitutes, just because those substitutes might serve my own interests, rather than farming interests. And to be blunt, if I had to choose whether there's more public good in farming subsidies or hunting subsidies, I'd have to admit that farming would win out. But I don't think that is, or should be the choice. I think hunters should have a fair opportunity to buy property and improve it, without having to "farm the government" in order to make their payments on that property.
