So let's break this down further. You take the example of the chain saw. You paid for it, you pay the upkeep, and your neighbor wants to borrow it. You lend him the chainsaw. Great. However, is the guy now that owns the Universal rent all a greedy SOB in your mind because he makes money off doing the same thing on a grander scale???
If someone wants to let others hunt for nothing great. Who am I to say they can't do just that nor would I. But who are you to say they can't charge??? And why can your desire to get on their land for free not be linked to your greed to part with your money. We could make the same argument both ways. Depending on the situation I might say you're too greedy to part with your 50k pickup and drive something more modest so you could afford to pay a tresspass fee. (THAT IS JUST AN EXAMPLE DON'T TAKE IT OUT OF CONTEXT LIKE THE LAST QUOTE OF MINE YOU POSTED) The pendulem swings both ways. Let me further state that the most land I own is around .23 acres that my house sits on so I'm not speaking on my own behalf as a landowner.
I never said someone was not at liberty to do what they want with property they own. Others did and I spoke out against that.
Now to put back into context my words you fondly quoted..
after I typed... "I'll go farther and say it is in most of our best interest that landowners can make money selling tresspass rights"
...I then typed... "Were it not so, the amount of winter ground being sold to developers would happen faster than it is now then we could all cry about the greedy landowner selling his land for house developments. The only way for the property owner to win with some of you guys would be if they donated the land and turned it into a wildlife trust for hunters and wildlife alike. Noble idea which I'm sure each one of us would do if we were lucky enough to inherit a large tract of prime property ....yeah right."
This was all in one single paragraph as it was a single thought ...please try to follow.
Here is a breakdown for you.
1. Pretend you are a wealthy greedy landowner.
2. You own all this land and your greed becomes too much to contain. You then desire to make profit from the asset that we call your land.
3. You cannot turn a positive cash flow on the land at the same rate as if you were to liquidate the asset and place it elsewhere.
4. In the process of liqidating the land a developer approaches with an offer that your greedy landowner hands cannot resist.
5. The land is sold from the greedy landowner to the greedy developer.
6. The greedy developer then builds homes on the land to greedy homeowners.
7. The greedy homeowners now live on the land that was once winter ground that you were pissed the greedy landowner would not let you hunt without a fee.
8. The greedy wildlife now has no winter ground, dies off, dwindles, at which point the greedy hunter moans about the the lack of winter range.
IN THIS CASE EXAMPLE YES, IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE OVERALL WILDLIFE PICTURE HAD THE GREEDY LANDOWNER JUST SATISFIED HIS GREED WITH FEES FROM GREEDY HUNTERS PAY THE GREED FEE WHICH MAY HAVE KEPT THE GREEDY LANDOWNER FROM SELLING TO GREEDY DEVELOPER WHO IN TURN SOLD THE WINTER GROUND TO GREEDY HOMEOWNERS. Get it??
Nobody is entitled to something for nothing. Sometimes they get it. Hell, sometimes I get it. Sometimes I give it too. But I am not about to jump on a bandwagon and say who should and who shouldn't.
So no jon, in that context I am not kidding you.