.

[BlacktailSlayer]

.

 

[Rob5589]

Very California like. Close it down for no legitimate, or documented, concern.

 

[Justin Crossley]

Just for thought.....

I wonder what the pro public land group will think of this. Would we be better off if these lands were managed for profit by a private business? This is always one possibility when we trust the government to manage anything.

 

[Rifleman86]

Just for thought.....

I wonder what the pro public land group will think of this. Would we be better off if these lands were managed for profit by a private business? This is always one possibility when we trust the government to manage anything.

Seems like state control is more of the issue than anything. If this was BLM land it wouldn’t have happened. I have noticed way more arbitrary restrictive rules on state land than federal land across the board.

That doesn’t mean federal land can’t be restricted from hunting and shooting the next time some liberal gets in office at the federal level either...

 

[Schaaf]

Seems like state control is more of the issue than anything. If this was BLM land it wouldn’t have happened. I have noticed way more arbitrary restrictive rules on state land than federal land across the board.

That doesn’t mean federal land can’t be restricted from hunting and shooting the next time some liberal gets in office at the federal level either...

Correct. State Land is not public land. We are lucky to be able to hunt state land in most states across the west, but those rules are subject to arbitrary decisions and don't require public meetings. This is still a shit sandwich.

 

[manitou1]

Banned on 200 acres due to its proximity to urban areas. Title is a bit misleading, don't ya think?

 

[GotDraw?]

@manitou1
Thank you for the clarity
JL

Banned on 200 acres due to its proximity to urban areas. Title is a bit misleading, don't ya think?

 

[jspradley]

We could certainly do without the clickbaity misleading title to the article..jesus

 

[Trial153]

State land isnt public land. Good example of why PTL is bad idea.

 

[wapitibob]

^^^ this

NM is one of the most restrictive states regarding State Trust Land. Imagine this ONE person in charge of what used to be National Forests.

 

[black dawg]

Be interesting to see a map of this...

 

[Justin Crossley]

Seems like state control is more of the issue than anything. If this was BLM land it wouldn’t have happened. I have noticed way more arbitrary restrictive rules on state land than federal land across the board.

That doesn’t mean federal land can’t be restricted from hunting and shooting the next time some liberal gets in office at the federal level either...

I'm sure you're right about all that. I really haven't dug deep into all the pros and cons of the whole public land issue.

One thing that seems odd whenever I read these threads since I believe most hunters lean more to the conservative side is the fact so many seem to prefer large government, federal oversite of public land instead of more local, like state or county. I would think we would all have more of a voice if it was managed more on the local level.

This is a complicated issue for sure and I don't know if there are any simple answers. The above are just some thoughts I had.

 

[Dos Perros]

I'm sure you're right about all that. I really haven't dug deep into all the pros and cons of the whole public land issue.

One thing that seems odd whenever I read these threads since I believe most hunters lean more to the conservative side is the fact so many seem to prefer large government, federal oversite of public land instead of more local, like state or county. I would think we would all have more of a voice if it was managed more on the local level.

This is a complicated issue for sure and I don't know if there are any simple answers. The above are just some thoughts I had.

Perhaps a good amount of the Rokslide membership is a little more nuanced than some binary or sliding scale representation of politics? I know myself I always break those “who should you vote for” calculators.

 

[gbflyer]

Our state (AK) sold a bunch of local area Mental Health Trust property to Nature Conservancy which is a private holder. We are already surrounded my 3.3 million acres of National Park. Many of us residents sat around and let it happen figuring it would never fly. We were wrong. Now it’s private. It’s open to the public but with restrictions the State never imposed. I used to be a fan of state property as opposed to federal property. Not any more. F the state.

 

[Rifleman86]

I'm sure you're right about all that. I really haven't dug deep into all the pros and cons of the whole public land issue.

One thing that seems odd whenever I read these threads since I believe most hunters lean more to the conservative side is the fact so many seem to prefer large government, federal oversite of public land instead of more local, like state or county. I would think we would all have more of a voice if it was managed more on the local level.

This is a complicated issue for sure and I don't know if there are any simple answers. The above are just some thoughts I had.

I’m about as a conservative small government guy as they come, but when it comes to conservation things get wonky and we realize our gut instincts about politics and reality don’t always mesh.

I like the free market, I also like small government, as well as local control. But purely free market management almost wiped out most of the wildlife in this county by the early 20th century. That’s undeniable fact. Government intervention was absolutely necessary.

Purely free market sale of the lands out west would’ve surely meant hunting would be something limited to the very wealthy who could buy vast tracts of land or afford to lease access. Many of our greatest landscapes would be lost to development. Things like public DIY hunting wouldn’t be a thing without mass federal land grabs.

Finally the only place I can “disperse” camp in my state is on National Forrest land. I can plop my happy ass anywhere I please in Wayne NF and pitch a tent far away from another soul. I can drink my whiskey, build a fire, and literally be a happy camper without paying a dime. Being able to do so on any BLM/NF land across this great nation is the ultimate freedom in my mind. Driving across the west and being able to roam, camp, fish, hunt, shoot, etc millions of incredible acres is a liberating experience unmatched by anything else in the world IMO. It’s what our founders would’ve wanted us to be able to do.

Contrast that with state forests and parks? Camping is restricted to shitty campgrounds where I’m stuck next to a bunch of other assholes. I can’t drink alcohol, prohibited by state law. Better not build a fire outside of designated fire rings. I’ll probably have to pay for a campsite. Etc. Etc. This restrictiveness isn’t limited to my state. In Montana I have to pay a fee to camp on State land, as is the case with many states out west. In Michigan this year I had to buy a $35 access sticker to drive onto any of the state parks.

State control of public land sounds great in theory. However in practice federal control seems to work out much better, and offers a greater degree of freedom for those enjoying public lands.

 

[Justin Crossley]

I’m about as a conservative small government guy as they come, but when it comes to conservation things get wonky and we realize our gut instincts about politics and reality don’t always mesh.

I like the free market, I also like small government, as well as local control. But purely free market management almost wiped out most of the wildlife in this county by the early 20th century. That’s undeniable fact. Government intervention was absolutely necessary.

Purely free market sale of the lands out west would’ve surely meant hunting would be something limited to the very wealthy who could buy vast tracts of land or afford to lease access. Many of our greatest landscapes would be lost to development. Things like public DIY hunting wouldn’t be a thing without mass federal land grabs.

Finally the only place I can “disperse” camp in my state is on National Forrest land. I can plop my happy ass anywhere I please in Wayne NF and pitch a tent far away from another soul. I can drink my whiskey, build a fire, and literally be a happy camper without paying a dime. Being able to do so on any BLM/NF land across this great nation is the ultimate freedom in my mind. Driving across the west and being able to roam, camp, fish, hunt, shoot, etc millions of incredible acres is a liberating experience unmatched by anything else in the world IMO. It’s what our founders would’ve wanted us to be able to do.

Contrast that with state forests and parks? Camping is restricted to shitty campgrounds where I’m stuck next to a bunch of other assholes. I can’t drink alcohol, prohibited by state law. Better not build a fire outside of designated fire rings. I’ll probably have to pay for a campsite. Etc. Etc. This restrictiveness isn’t limited to my state. In Montana I have to pay a fee to camp on State land, as is the case with many states out west. In Michigan this year I had to buy a $35 access sticker to drive onto any of the state parks.

State control of public land sounds great in theory. However in practice federal control seems to work out much better, and offers a greater degree of freedom for those enjoying public lands.

Some really good points here.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[BrushyHillGuide]

So, is the NM Land Commissioner an elected position? If so, it sounds like the sportsmen of NM need to step up and quit electing officials like this. NM has always been a sort of sh$tshow politically. You reap what you sew I guess. Sad to see but 100% avoidable if it was a priority for NM sportsmen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lifeisgoodsteve]

I’m about as a conservative small government guy as they come, but when it comes to conservation things get wonky and we realize our gut instincts about politics and reality don’t always mesh.

I like the free market, I also like small government, as well as local control. But purely free market management almost wiped out most of the wildlife in this county by the early 20th century. That’s undeniable fact. Government intervention was absolutely necessary.

Purely free market sale of the lands out west would’ve surely meant hunting would be something limited to the very wealthy who could buy vast tracts of land or afford to lease access. Many of our greatest landscapes would be lost to development. Things like public DIY hunting wouldn’t be a thing without mass federal land grabs.

Finally the only place I can “disperse” camp in my state is on National Forrest land. I can plop my happy ass anywhere I please in Wayne NF and pitch a tent far away from another soul. I can drink my whiskey, build a fire, and literally be a happy camper without paying a dime. Being able to do so on any BLM/NF land across this great nation is the ultimate freedom in my mind. Driving across the west and being able to roam, camp, fish, hunt, shoot, etc millions of incredible acres is a liberating experience unmatched by anything else in the world IMO. It’s what our founders would’ve wanted us to be able to do.

Contrast that with state forests and parks? Camping is restricted to shitty campgrounds where I’m stuck next to a bunch of other assholes. I can’t drink alcohol, prohibited by state law. Better not build a fire outside of designated fire rings. I’ll probably have to pay for a campsite. Etc. Etc. This restrictiveness isn’t limited to my state. In Montana I have to pay a fee to camp on State land, as is the case with many states out west. In Michigan this year I had to buy a $35 access sticker to drive onto any of the state parks.

State control of public land sounds great in theory. However in practice federal control seems to work out much better, and offers a greater degree of freedom for those enjoying public lands.

Cheers indeed for the great perspective!

Great examples of why it's very counterproductive to identify absolutely with a specific "party" or "party line". We get so attached to winning the eternal political battle that we pick a side and fight like hell to prove the other side is wrong, regardless of what we actually might really believe, which ultimately hurts us all.

Kind of like a divorce, the only ones who win are the lawyers, but in this case add politicians and news outlets.

(sorry, rant over...just care about continued incredible access to and contact with nature that means so much in my life)

 

[fbhandler]

We could certainly do without the clickbaity misleading title to the article..jesus

We could do without the blasphemy as well...

 

[Billinsd]

I’m about as a conservative small government guy as they come, but when it comes to conservation things get wonky and we realize our gut instincts about politics and reality don’t always mesh.

I like the free market, I also like small government, as well as local control. But purely free market management almost wiped out most of the wildlife in this county by the early 20th century. That’s undeniable fact. Government intervention was absolutely necessary.

Purely free market sale of the lands out west would’ve surely meant hunting would be something limited to the very wealthy who could buy vast tracts of land or afford to lease access. Many of our greatest landscapes would be lost to development. Things like public DIY hunting wouldn’t be a thing without mass federal land grabs.

You are a Conservative if you say so. Except, when it comes to Conservation and what benefits you is what I'm hearing. I'm a wee bit that way myself as you will see by reading on. I agree that Federal ownership and management of huge amounts of land benefits us hunters. Personally I would suffer if all Federal or certain Federal land was transferred to the States. However, I don't believe our Founding Fathers envisioned this. I can't speculate if they would have liked it or not. When they were alive there was very little Federal public land. That was the status quo. The gigantic land purchases in the 1800s where inconceivable. It was more land than anyone knew what to do with. It's like other things where our country grew and changed. We got all this federal public land. According to the model our Founders had, I believe all this land was supposed to be turned over to the States. It never really happened and here we are. I'm not a huge pro land transfer proponent. I am closer to that side than I am to BHA and other liberals that are in favor of more regulations and restrictions. I'm sort of in the middle leaning with the Conservatives, even though this doesn't personally benefit me. I'm not Conservative or Liberal on issues based on whether it benefits me or not. I lean more and more Libertarian every day. You throw a lot of sweeping generalities like free market management almost wiped out all wildlife in the US and that's an undeniable fact? LOL really? Hunting with no hunting regulations decimated many species of wildlife. That's fact. Hunting regulations were written and implemented. It wasn't regulating the market. Cheers Bill