Public land transfer issue

[dotman]

Again, let's talk about what's causing the problem and the solutions to it.

I see these threads that say don't vote for so and so but no one ever talks about the root cause or more important, the solution. Agree with Airlocksniffers point about education.

What's your solution?

That's just it, there isn't a problem with it. You feel there is but many of us see Federal public land as a non problem area within our government. The only problem I see is transferring the public land away from the public.

 

[MontanaMarine]

While the citizenry fights amongst ourselves, across political lines, the govt will do whatever it wishes with 'public' land.

Divide and Conquer........the basic premise of a two-party political system. Seems to work perfectly (for the govt).

 

[dotman]

I certainly am not advocating for the feds to transfer public land to the states but saying the feds can "afford" to maintain it and states cannot is a bit of a stretch. Our federal government is 19,000,000,000,000 in debt. If one were to count to 19 trillion and it took them one second to count each number - they would be counting for 602,471 years!! Its insurmountable especially considering that in 10 years 80% of our budget will be going directly to social programs.

I would venture to say that our states balance sheets look WAY better than that.

Public lands is the one item not contributing to our debt, sure sell them off and pay off .1% off our debt. You want to solve our debt problem, bring back jobs and get companies to invest in our country again instead of stripping away a resource that pretty much pays for itself and adds billions of dollars to the economy.

I would bet many rokslide sponsors businesses would fold if there was only private land in the US. The majority of outdoorsman have no private ground or access to private. If we transfer the land to the states then groups like SFW will pounce and you'll see hunting become no different then what you see in Europe.

So to tackle our debt program lets look at the real problems and not short sell an asset all Americans own that can never be replaced.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Pro-transfer folks say the land isn't managed properly however the budget for public land management has been reduced substantially over the last 20 years. Fighting fires takes a huge portion of that budget. To think the states could afford to take over the management is delusional. Maybe for awhile but it would eventually be sold. Once we go down this route, there is no reversal. That access is gone. Hunting becomes a rich man's sport when you have to pay trespass fees and get leases just to hunt.

 

[dotman]

Also in the west we'll see the decline of many species especially sensitive ones like bighorn sheep and mountain goats as private interests utilize their natural habitat for sheep grazing or stripping the land of its minerals.

I'm a firm believer that we need to keep large tracts of land wild, they do not need to be making money as once they are gone we can't get them back.

 

[MontanaMarine]

And when the land is sold to the highest bidder, you can bet there will be a LOT of it bought up by our enemies abroad, that our govt has made wealthy.

 

[1hoda]

$19 trillion and counting is the ultimate problem. That's what citizens should be calling politicians about.

 

[dotman]

$19 trillion and counting is the ultimate problem. That's what citizens should be calling politicians about.

I agree with that statement. But if you owe $40,000 on your pickup you don't sell your tires or your battery to pay down your debt on it. This will create hardly any pay down in debt but will hurt the economy and jobs. Heck this might even only pay for the interest on the debt. So time to look at other areas to reduce our debt burden that will not put a huge dent in the economy and that will remove an asset we can never get back.

Really the transfer of public land to me is no different then selling off AK to China or selling HI to Japan to pay off our debt, just a bad illogical thought.

 

[2ski]

Again, let's talk about what's causing the problem and the solutions to it.

I see these threads that say don't vote for so and so but no one ever talks about the root cause or more important, the solution. Agree with Airlocksniffers point about education.

What's your solution?

I think those of us opposed to the land transfer already won the argument in the Cruz thread.....

I kid, I kid.

1Hoda, you say that the model that we have is unattainable, but I would like to know what is broken right now?? What do you see the problem is that is solved by transferring land to the states? Maybe I missed you spelling it out. So far your point seems to be both liberal and conservatives rich dudes would want to buy the land from the states. If you tried to make a point other than that, it wasn't clearly stated. And education should always be part of the solution to any problem no matter what the problem. This one or any other definitely.

 

[1hoda]

I'm not advocating for land transfer. From a 100,000 foot view this issue comes right down to two things - politicians by nature are power hungry and second the federal government has concentrated too much power. That's the toxic combination that gives us exploding debt, which even politicians recognize is unsustainable. That drives them to prolong the inevitable- so instead of raising taxes to find their spending habit they want to sell stuff like public lands. I'd much rather then stop spending and reduce debt, which is the What created this monster to begin with.

 

[Publiclandhunter]

I think contacting representatives and voting against those for this is very important. It will end in the loss of access to millions upon millions of acres as time goes by. It will be detrimental to hunting, wildlife, and access in every way.This is not a battle we can afford to lose and doing what you can will help stop it no matter what it is you have to give. States have proven they will sell it and we already have pathways to fix managment if people would get involved. How many people were at your last forest service giving their input? When I go it is usually mostly environmentalists. If people want their voice heard they have to call, email, or show up at meetings. The disposal, transfer, or sale of our amazing public lands is unessacary and a disservice to every American present and future. We need to do all we can to unite and stop this terrible idea.

 

[1hoda]

Completely agree the treehugger crowd is always better represented and organized at CPW meetings. They don't pay anything for wildlife managment yet show up and have their voice heard. Sportsmen need to realize that's happening and we have to get off the couch and get involved before it's too late. For far too long we've abdicated our influence.

 

[Publiclandhunter]

1hoda you speak of the amount hunters spend..... Hundreds of thousands of acres have been purchased by hunter dollars and turned over to the BLM and Forest Service. Bet we won't be getting that money back if these lands are given to the state for free. Access and these lands are too important to loose. Hunters built them and our wildlife up, now ts time to defend our KEEP of them.

 

[sbcff15]

This election is definitely important in so many ways. I am a life member of BHA, a member or RMEF, California Bowmans Association, Arizona desert Bighorn Sheep Association and others, but this election is more than a single issue to me. I'm very concerned about the selling of our public lands, but if there was any chance that no more of my tax dollars would be used to butcher babies, I would have to go with my conscious. As a 20 plus year firefighter, I've held many dying people in my hands, men, women and children. I can't stand the thought that the government is using my tax dollars and sending it to organizations that would end these babies lives. During a discussion about this at work, a coworker said "without medical intervention, these fetus's wouldn't live. My rebuttal to him was, "without the medical intervention, theses babies would live." Maybe I'm alone on this, but I would sacrifice everything for access to public land, except if its payed for with the blood of children.

 

[Publiclandhunter]

I would sacrifice anything to ensure those children these public lands are still available to them throughout their life as well.

 

[Schaaf]

This has been my biggest battle internally. I've ultimately come to the conclusion that I have voted for a candidate many times for only this reason. The candidate would then go on to serve their term in the state legislature and nothing would be done by him. I've decided that a lot of these people claim to be pro life to get my vote and when the time comes nothing is accomplished even with a Republican majority.

Tough for me to explain my true feelings because I'm all drugged up from getting wisdom teeth out this afternoon, but this is not a subject that I have even decided on yet. I wrestle with it daily.

 

[1hoda]

Good luck with the recovery. I had all 4 out at once while in college. I swelled up like a chipmunk for about a week and was bruised like I'd been in a bad bar fight.

 

[Schaaf]

Same boat, I had all 4 done today. It's been about 4 years overdue but I finally gave in to the wife. I think the next couple days could be an interesting time.

 

[Mike7]

All of the western lands were once federal lands. I would assume that much of the land that you all and your families live on if you live in the west like I do, land that provides food for your table, that once provided timber for your homes and once provided good winter range valley habitat for many species of wildlife was once land that the states obtained from the federal gov't expressly for their use as they see fit in developing the west.

The federal gov't, not the states, has not only NOT discouraged population expansion in the west, and the rest of the US for that matter, but rather has promoted it and promoted unfettered illegal and legal immigration. So, now we have ever more people competing for a limited amount of natural resources, with the ability to participate in outdoor recreation being just one of those resources. They have also promoted a system where pretty much anyone with money to hire lawyers can throw a wrench in management decisions, separate from the whole public comment process. And the federal gov't is clearly more irresponsible with money than most of the states are...to the point that our children may have a lot more pressing things to worry about than how they are going to participate in outdoor recreation.

I am going to play a little devil's advocate here...
So, my point with all of this, particularly for you one issue voters who feel like not a single acre of federal arid land somewhere in the west should go to the states, is have you considered how you may be winning a battle in the process of losing the war? Public lands are important to me, but they are not seemingly that important to most people that I know. Maybe an attitude and demand that no public land should ever be sold will be enough to keep these lands from being sold? I don't know. But if it isn't, are some of you willing to look at the bigger picture and also try to work on relieving the stresses in this country that are going to lead to us ultimately losing our public lands? Does it matter if you think that the federal lands are appropriately managed, if that is not what the greater public perception is? Are you willing to compromise and sell off some public lands not critical to wildlife habitat in order to lock up other lands forever? Are you willing to not ignore some of these other issues which may lead to the ultimate loss of more public lands?

This is an interesting article, that most here will find repulsive at spots likely. Lol. But there is some interesting information, history, and resources referenced in it just the same. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/reforming-federal-land-management

 

[dotman]

All of the western lands were once federal lands. I would assume that much of the land that you all and your families live on if you live in the west like I do, land that provides food for your table, that once provided timber for your homes and once provided good winter range valley habitat for many species of wildlife was once land that the states obtained from the federal gov't expressly for their use as they see fit in developing the west.

The federal gov't, not the states, has not only NOT discouraged population expansion in the west, and the rest of the US for that matter, but rather has promoted it and promoted unfettered illegal and legal immigration. So, now we have ever more people competing for a limited amount of natural resources, with the ability to participate in outdoor recreation being just one of those resources. They have also promoted a system where pretty much anyone with money to hire lawyers can throw a wrench in management decisions, separate from the whole public comment process. And the federal gov't is clearly more irresponsible with money than most of the states are...to the point that our children may have a lot more pressing things to worry about than how they are going to participate in outdoor recreation.

I am going to play a little devil's advocate here...
So, my point with all of this, particularly for you one issue voters who feel like not a single acre of federal arid land somewhere in the west should go to the states, is have you considered how you may be winning a battle in the process of losing the war? Public lands are important to me, but they are not seemingly that important to most people that I know. Maybe an attitude and demand that no public land should ever be sold will be enough to keep these lands from being sold? I don't know. But if it isn't, are some of you willing to look at the bigger picture and also try to work on relieving the stresses in this country that are going to lead to us ultimately losing our public lands? Does it matter if you think that the federal lands are appropriately managed, if that is not what the greater public perception is? Are you willing to compromise and sell off some public lands not critical to wildlife habitat in order to lock up other lands forever? Are you willing to not ignore some of these other issues which may lead to the ultimate loss of more public lands?

This is an interesting article, that most here will find repulsive at spots likely. Lol. But there is some interesting information, history, and resources referenced in it just the same. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/reforming-federal-land-management

I wouldn't say I'm a one issue voter and actually I agree with Trump on many issues, more then the other candidates, I don't agree on everything he says but overall his view on the bigger issues I can agree with to a point. I think he would be a great president and move the country back on track. Trump also just so happens to be the only republican that doesn't want to sell our public lands, wants to stop illegal immigration, stop federal funding of abortions, lower Corp taxes, higher import tariffs, lower the tax burden on bringing money from overseas back into our economy and many other things. He stands strong on the 2nd amendment and his priority is keeping Americans safe over everyone else. Yes he may hurt feelings with his direct zero pc approach but overal he wants all Americans to come before everyone else in this world in our country, which if you watch the democrats we are second rate to immigrants, especially illegals. It just blows my mind that Hillary would give freely to criminals over law abiding citizens.

I just saw Hillary is now wanting to not only give illegal immigrants citizenship but free healthcare now. Trump is the only candidate that can beat Hillary, a vote for Cruz or Kasich is one step closer to Hilary as president. What's sad is some would rather have her just because Trump is not PC.