Ben D, N CA - 4/13/2014 19:23 Yes and no. You'd think $100 an acre would be dirt cheap, but at 600,000 acres in Bundy's permit, that means you'd need $60,000,000 to buy his range. To feed 1,000 pair supposedly.

I think your right, the government should sell land off, but land like that, it takes so much of it to make a ranch it seems pretty pricey to buy. The government could manage the lands they own to provide income to the Treasury, and at the same time provide people from urban areas open spaces to visit and enjoy. Multiple uses of that land was the original intended use. State of Nevada is owned 87% by the federal government. WY, Utah, OR, ID, AZ, NM aren't far behind. Even CA, which most people think of as mostly beaches and cities, but still manages to have the largest agricultural economy in the US, is 45% owned by the federal government. Mostly Forest Service and BLM. My county in NE California is over 75% federally owned. Makes it real tough to keep a viable economy going when your dependent upon those federal lands, to fund schools and roads, when the federal government is more interested in locking them up than using them. Schools in some of these rural counties used to be funded mostly by a tax sort of, on logging. Those schools were very well funded. Since the spotted owl, our schools have become some of the poorest in the US.