Ted Cruz

[mtnwrunner]

U guys kill me. I don't want public lands sold off either but trump can't beat Hillary. He could barely beat sanders in a general election. He is more likely to divide us even more than Obama did. Look at the big picture not just the primaries. He only has 30% of republicans right now. If john kasich, Carson, and Cruz bow out then it's only a 2 man race and I think Rubio wins. I don't like Rubio but I lie him more than Hillary or sanders. Also, if u believe in the constitution then Cruz is the right choice, if not then oh well....don't know what to say. It's tough I don't disagree with trumb on a lot of things but he is very divisive and I don't think he can beat hillary

Yup, I agree mostly with the above. I still think that Hillary is going to get elected and I have said it all along. I've even saved an email that I sent to all my friends and family over six years ago that Obama would get re elected and then it would be Billary. That is why I buy reloading components every Saturday when I go to town.......it will be tenfold what it was a couple of years ago.
It actually is really sad about our choices for electing the most powerful political person on this earth.

Randy

 

[dotman]

I have a feeling that a democrat will not get elected. Just a feeling, of course our greatest fear is another 4 - 8 years of Obama but something makes me think a silent majority is being woken up.

 

[DWarcher]

The actual words used by Ted Cruz indicate that he would like to “return full CONTROL of Nevada’s lands to its citizens.” There was no mention of selling or giving away land and I’m not sure how state management of these lands would be a bad thing. 85% of Nevada is owned by the federal government, most of which is managed by the BLM. And the swaths of private land are littered with a checkerboard of BLM parcels. It is easy to see why there is a lot of conflict.

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/b...06.File.dat/nv_reference_blm_cnty_11x17_2.pdf

Any mass selloff of public lands would require action by congress. As hunters we need to be careful about falling for left wing talking points and propaganda. A lot of our liberty is at stake in this election.

This is a post from another forum but it explains why the transfer would be a bad thing.

"You are correct, just because the state owns the land it doesn't mean it has to be sold or mismanaged. But, not all states operate under the same laws and Constitution as Maryland. I will give a few examples, prefaced with the fact that Western states were given lands in a far different manner than the Eastern, Southern, and some Midwestern states. So, comparing how it works in one state is not applicable when looking at how it works in other states.

In your state of MD and the state I grew up in, MN, you can hunt state lands. You can camp on state lands. State lands are pretty much treated similar to how Federal public lands are treated. As such, my buddies in MN struggle to see the difference in State versus Federal ownership. And that perspective, without understanding of the differences by state, results in them asking the same question you have.

I use these examples as the easiest to follow, as they are the most dramatic.

Colorado - Colorado State Trust Land Department states that the lands under their control are not public lands. They are correct. Like all western states, these lands are held in trust for a select group of beneficiaries - the school districts. As such, the State Land Board is required to do what is right for Colorado schools, not Colorado hunters, or Colorado hikers, or Colorado (insert user name here).

As a result, Colorado State Land Board does not allow recreation on their state lands unless those recreation rights are leased by CO Parks and Wildlife. CPW has very little budget for this and as such, a very small percentage of State Trust Lands are open to recreation, with hunting being considered recreation.

Let's follow the "state transfer" idea and walk through how that works in Colorado, now that we understand that "state transfer" means transferring currently accessible lands to the State Land Board that has a completely different policy on access and recreation as compared to the current land holders, the BLM and USFS.

Colorado has 23 million acres of USFS and BLM, all of which we can hunt or camp under current rules. Under the "state transfer" idea, that land would now go to the Colorado State Land Board and would no longer be accessible to hunting and recreation.

So, in the case of Colorado, hunters lose access to 23 million acres that they currently have at their disposal. Given Colorado hosts more non-resident hunting than any western state, that is a huge impact to all who hunt Colorado, including the large number of non-residents who hunt there.

I ask the advocates of state transfer, "How do you intend to replace 23 million acres of lost hunting access, just in Colorado?" They change the question or dismiss me as not following their gospel. All I want is an answer. They don't have a good answer because they know the real answer is that we will lose 23 million acres of hunting access.

Now let's move on to WY and NM, two states with State Land Boards that do not allow camping. Yes, you can still hunt them, but in a lot of places, not being able to camp pretty much eliminates the practicality of the hunt. Here are some examples.

Wyoming - The most coveted deer grounds are Regions G and H. Anyone who hunts it knows that it is mostly a horseback or backpack hunt to get to the quality deer. If by foot, you are talking about a five to six hour hike in. Currently, you can camp on these USFS lands, so you can do this as a backpack or horseback hunt and set up a camp for a week of hunting.

Under state transfer to they Wyoming State Land Board, you will not be able to camp in Regions G &H. You will have to hike in and out each day. That is impractical when you have a five to six hour hike, each way. Given that fact, state transfer effectively makes it impossible to hunt deer in the most popular areas of Regions G &H.

Now, let's look at the Thoroughfare, a noted elk hot spot in NW Wyoming. Since it is all wilderness, you need a guide or a WY resident to accompany you. It is a 20+ mile horseback ride each way. Under state transfer, you cannot camp back there, so you will need to ride your horse in 20 miles in the morning and back out 20 miles that night, then repeat the process every day of your hunt. That is so impractical that you can forget any elk hunting in the Thoroughfare units.

In the Big Horns, there are elk camps scattered all over the USFS lands. Under state transfer, you cannot camp there, so hunters will be force to drive in each morning from Powell, Sheridan, Buffalo, Casper, Kaycee, etc., then drive back out each night. These are one to two hours drives, each way. The state transfer scenario makes hunting the Big Horn impractical.

New Mexico - The best elk hunting in New Mexico is the Gila NF. The most popular is Carson NF. Both require long drives to get there. Under state transfer, the BLM and USFS lands you can currently camp on would be off limits. Hunters would have to commute each morning and night from the nearest towns.

Currently, most every elk hunter camps on USFS lands, as they do not want to make a 2-3 hour drive every morning and repeat that every evening, which would be required if state transfer happened. So, assuming these USFS and BLM lands were now state lands and they could not camp on them, it would be impractical to hunt the best and most popular elk units in NM.

These are the obvious examples. It doesn't even touch on the bigger loss when states now have much more inventory to add to their aggressive land sale activity.

Some will say, "Then get the state laws changed." Well, those who make that claim have zero understand of the power structure of western legislatures and how you are not going to get those laws changed at the state level. Those folks behind the transfer movement are aware of all these nuances and they know that will eventually force states to sell these lands like states have sold millions of other acres, which is the long-term end goal of those pushing the idea.

Thanks for asking. I think you have just given me a really good idea for an expanded podcast that approaches this from exactly the perspective you illustrated here. Maybe more examples and details will help people understand why this is so different on a state-by-state basis and probably not like the state land issues in their home state."

 

[JPD350]

NM's state land office just recently attempted to screw it's own residents from having access to state lands, it's a long story but their suspected goal was to remove public hunters and replace them with private leases and unfettered access for current Lessee's. The current SLC is in bed with LO's & Outfitters and the commissioner answers to no one. Yes he was voted in and can be voted out but the damage one term can do is in our face, you have to stay vigilant and not let these type of people get voted into any office.


All I know is that I don't like Cruz, Rubio is being embraced by the insider establishment which means more of the same if he was elected and the way the establishment conspires to take Trump out is nauseating and it just makes me more likely to vote for him.

All the talk about Trump not beating Hillary is crazy talk, it's the same talking heads saying it that wrote Trump off when he opted to run.

 

[Josh Wright]

I used to think it would be a Trump-Cruz ticket, but now think Trump-Rubio or Trump-Huckabee

 

[airlocksniffer]

This is a post from another forum but it explains why the transfer would be a bad thing.

"You are correct, just because the state owns the land it doesn't mean it has to be sold or mismanaged. But, not all states operate under the same laws and Constitution as Maryland. I will give a few examples, prefaced with the fact that Western states were given lands in a far different manner than the Eastern, Southern, and some Midwestern states. So, comparing how it works in one state is not applicable when looking at how it works in other states.

In your state of MD and the state I grew up in, MN, you can hunt state lands. You can camp on state lands. State lands are pretty much treated similar to how Federal public lands are treated. As such, my buddies in MN struggle to see the difference in State versus Federal ownership. And that perspective, without understanding of the differences by state, results in them asking the same question you have.

I use these examples as the easiest to follow, as they are the most dramatic.

Colorado - Colorado State Trust Land Department states that the lands under their control are not public lands. They are correct. Like all western states, these lands are held in trust for a select group of beneficiaries - the school districts. As such, the State Land Board is required to do what is right for Colorado schools, not Colorado hunters, or Colorado hikers, or Colorado (insert user name here).

As a result, Colorado State Land Board does not allow recreation on their state lands unless those recreation rights are leased by CO Parks and Wildlife. CPW has very little budget for this and as such, a very small percentage of State Trust Lands are open to recreation, with hunting being considered recreation.

Let's follow the "state transfer" idea and walk through how that works in Colorado, now that we understand that "state transfer" means transferring currently accessible lands to the State Land Board that has a completely different policy on access and recreation as compared to the current land holders, the BLM and USFS.

Colorado has 23 million acres of USFS and BLM, all of which we can hunt or camp under current rules. Under the "state transfer" idea, that land would now go to the Colorado State Land Board and would no longer be accessible to hunting and recreation.

So, in the case of Colorado, hunters lose access to 23 million acres that they currently have at their disposal. Given Colorado hosts more non-resident hunting than any western state, that is a huge impact to all who hunt Colorado, including the large number of non-residents who hunt there.

I ask the advocates of state transfer, "How do you intend to replace 23 million acres of lost hunting access, just in Colorado?" They change the question or dismiss me as not following their gospel. All I want is an answer. They don't have a good answer because they know the real answer is that we will lose 23 million acres of hunting access.

Now let's move on to WY and NM, two states with State Land Boards that do not allow camping. Yes, you can still hunt them, but in a lot of places, not being able to camp pretty much eliminates the practicality of the hunt. Here are some examples.

Wyoming - The most coveted deer grounds are Regions G and H. Anyone who hunts it knows that it is mostly a horseback or backpack hunt to get to the quality deer. If by foot, you are talking about a five to six hour hike in. Currently, you can camp on these USFS lands, so you can do this as a backpack or horseback hunt and set up a camp for a week of hunting.

Under state transfer to they Wyoming State Land Board, you will not be able to camp in Regions G &H. You will have to hike in and out each day. That is impractical when you have a five to six hour hike, each way. Given that fact, state transfer effectively makes it impossible to hunt deer in the most popular areas of Regions G &H.

Now, let's look at the Thoroughfare, a noted elk hot spot in NW Wyoming. Since it is all wilderness, you need a guide or a WY resident to accompany you. It is a 20+ mile horseback ride each way. Under state transfer, you cannot camp back there, so you will need to ride your horse in 20 miles in the morning and back out 20 miles that night, then repeat the process every day of your hunt. That is so impractical that you can forget any elk hunting in the Thoroughfare units.

In the Big Horns, there are elk camps scattered all over the USFS lands. Under state transfer, you cannot camp there, so hunters will be force to drive in each morning from Powell, Sheridan, Buffalo, Casper, Kaycee, etc., then drive back out each night. These are one to two hours drives, each way. The state transfer scenario makes hunting the Big Horn impractical.

New Mexico - The best elk hunting in New Mexico is the Gila NF. The most popular is Carson NF. Both require long drives to get there. Under state transfer, the BLM and USFS lands you can currently camp on would be off limits. Hunters would have to commute each morning and night from the nearest towns.

Currently, most every elk hunter camps on USFS lands, as they do not want to make a 2-3 hour drive every morning and repeat that every evening, which would be required if state transfer happened. So, assuming these USFS and BLM lands were now state lands and they could not camp on them, it would be impractical to hunt the best and most popular elk units in NM.

These are the obvious examples. It doesn't even touch on the bigger loss when states now have much more inventory to add to their aggressive land sale activity.

Some will say, "Then get the state laws changed." Well, those who make that claim have zero understand of the power structure of western legislatures and how you are not going to get those laws changed at the state level. Those folks behind the transfer movement are aware of all these nuances and they know that will eventually force states to sell these lands like states have sold millions of other acres, which is the long-term end goal of those pushing the idea.

Thanks for asking. I think you have just given me a really good idea for an expanded podcast that approaches this from exactly the perspective you illustrated here. Maybe more examples and details will help people understand why this is so different on a state-by-state basis and probably not like the state land issues in their home state."

Thanks for posting, Randy Newbird.

 

[5MilesBack]

Colorado has 23 million acres of USFS and BLM, all of which we can hunt or camp under current rules. Under the "state transfer" idea, that land would now go to the Colorado State Land Board and would no longer be accessible to hunting and recreation.

Someone is making an assumption. Just because the land is transferred to the state of Colorado, that doesn't automatically turn that land into "State Trust Land" that is to only benefit the schools which is then off limits to the public.

And as I keep saying........if you don't like the way your state manages its land, get the petition together and get the signatures to have a ballot measure for vote to change the state's constitution of how land is allowed to be used.

 

[dotman]

Someone is making an assumption. Just because the land is transferred to the state of Colorado, that doesn't automatically turn that land into "State Trust Land" that is to only benefit the schools which is then off limits to the public.

And as I keep saying........if you don't like the way your state manages its land, get the petition together and get the signatures to have a ballot measure for vote to change the state's constitution of how land is allowed to be used.

Or just don't give it to the state

 

[bowieknife50]

Since this thread mentions both federal land ownership and constitutional government, and I'm not an expert in either, I went looking for the answer to whether feds can own land according to the Constitution. Turns out it depends who you ask. But here are a couple resources I found:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause
http://works.bepress.com/robert_natelson/19/
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

 

[IdahoElk]

U guys kill me. I don't want public lands sold off either but trump can't beat Hillary. He could barely beat sanders in a general election. He is more likely to divide us even more than Obama did. Look at the big picture not just the primaries. He only has 30% of republicans right now. If john kasich, Carson, and Cruz bow out then it's only a 2 man race and I think Rubio wins. I don't like Rubio but I lie him more than Hillary or sanders. Also, if u believe in the constitution then Cruz is the right choice, if not then oh well....don't know what to say. It's tough I don't disagree with trumb on a lot of things but he is very divisive and I don't think he can beat hillary

Are you serious? Trumps going to crush everyone.Helliry or the socialist doesn't stand a chance against him,if fact it will be entertaining when he faces either one of them head on.
The establishment is doing everything to keep a lid on what is about to happen come Tuesday.All the negative MSM,trash talk from the Pope,president and the GOP can't stop the avalanche that's about to happen.

 

[5MilesBack]

Or just don't give it to the state

But if and/or when it happens, wouldn't it be better to be prepared for that than to just keep griping about it?

 

[IdahoElk]

Read up on Agenda 21,that's what this land grab is about

 

[Matt Cashell]

Since this thread mentions both federal land ownership and constitutional government, and I'm not an expert in either, I went looking for the answer to whether feds can own land according to the Constitution. Turns out it depends who you ask. But here are a couple resources I found:
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause
http://works.bepress.com/robert_natelson/19/
http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

Friend, there is no real question here, legally.

For the sake of brevity:
1. The Enclave Clause merely restricts the size of the capitol (District), while listing the ability for the government to have other federal facilities.
2. The Property Clause authorizes large scale "ownership" of "territories and other properties of the United States."
3. There is a long history of SCOTUS cases to back up this ownership and find that the Federal Government has this right "without limit."
4. The standing precedent is Kleppe v. New Mexico in which the court was unanimous:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/529/case.html

 

[Schaaf]

Ted Cruz has the most punchable face in Congress. As for the claim if you believe the constitution then he's your guy, he tends to believe whatever the people that put the most money in his pocket want. His claim that the government cannot manage our public lands is laughable at best. The SCOTUS has long ago established that they can. There is a reason they are attacking this through congress and not the courts.

 

[bowieknife50]

Friend, there is no real question here, legally.

For the sake of brevity:
1. The Enclave Clause merely restricts the size of the capitol (District), while listing the ability for the government to have other federal facilities.
2. The Property Clause authorizes large scale "ownership" of "territories and other properties of the United States."
3. There is a long history of SCOTUS cases to back up this ownership and find that the Federal Government has this right "without limit."
4. The standing precedent is Kleppe v. New Mexico in which the court was unanimous:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/426/529/case.html

So now do we get to debate whether horses are "an integral part of the natural system," or not?

 

[Matt Cashell]

So now do we get to debate whether horses are "an integral part of the natural system," or not?

Sounds like a different thread, unless you know Cruz' position on that debate...

 

[Ray]

One of the things that causes me to scratch my head with these politicians, some of whom are lawyers, is how little they understand the three branches of government. Most of the current crop are in one of the three branches, or have been in one of the three branches at the federal or state level, yet how it functions remains a mystery to them.

Any of the professional leg humpers running for the job of most senior dog catcher who spews forth "when I'm elected I'm gunna do blah blah blah..." just tells me they don't have the education to successfully manage the washing of dishes at a roadside diner, let alone govern a nation.

 

[Mike7]

If some lands will be transferred to the states, how do we ensure that it is done in a way that manages for wildlife like current state wildlife refuges, manages for or allows some recreation like state parks but without all of the park fees, and still manages for other possible uses like hunting, or even selective logging that was allowed on the Forest Service in times past? I don't know? And if lands remain with the Federal Gov't, is there any way to make it more responsive to the will of the many, instead of a few bureaucrats or a few organizations who bring a lawsuit against just about any move?

I do find the history of USFS land management interesting over the past 25 yrs. I worked for the Forest Service in Oregon and California around 1990. On the forests that I worked on, we seemed to go at that time from regular management with logging and controlled burns, to absolutely no logging. Elk & blacktail deer were everywhere at that time. No matter how many enviromental impact, water quality/fisheries, or various wildlife assessment studies we did, even helicopter or high lead cable proposed logging units (and just to salvage from lightning caused burns) just sat in court with some challenge until the timber rotted. And every natural fire we had was fought with the full resources of the Federal Gov't like it was the devil. Fighting fires was relatively easy with plenty of well maintained roads and plenty of fire breaks due to logging & replanting activity.

Fast forward 10-15 yrs, and seen by me from outside of the Forest Service here in Washington...there was still no logging and there was still regular fire suppression, but now roads were not being maintained and some roads were completely closed off and reclaimed in an effort to increase roadless areas. Millions of dollars are spent to move and reclaim roads along riparian areas. Also, some forest areas were clearly becoming ripe for catastrophic fires with many years of fire suppression without logging. There were endless tracts of tightly bunched trees less than 75 yrs old with plenty of ladder fuels. The Forest Service seemed unable to do anything about this. Elk were in very low numbers, except where private or state land was mixed in with Forest Service land in a checkerboard fashion. On state wildlife lands adjacent to federal land, state managers were able to thin trees and burn slash and brush in the name of wildlife, while the adjacent forest service either couldn't or wouldn't do any of that (the Little Pend O'reille Wildlife Refuge with the nearby Colville Nat'l Forest as an example). The Forest Service seemed to be starting to let fires go at that point in the Wilderness Areas.

Fast forward another 10 yrs to now...and those same developing roadless areas are being put up for wilderness designation and I am no longer able to take a mountain bike into them. Many previously maintained foot trails are being let go completely, while some are in bad condition, and there is only a token attempt to clear them once every 2-3 summers, and only just up to the Wilderness Boundary. Catastrophic wildfires are occuring, and it is really unclear if there is much of a management plan other than more of a hands off policy, and even for areas outside of the Wilderness Areas, with only a few main roads being maintained at any regular interval. Now people are trying to bring lawsuits against the gov't (at least the State DNR) about their decisions on how to fight or decisions not to fight certain fires.

 

[tipsntails7]

This is a post from another forum but it explains why the transfer would be a bad thing.

"You are correct, just because the state owns the land it doesn't mean it has to be sold or mismanaged. But, not all states operate under the same laws and Constitution as Maryland. I will give a few examples, prefaced with the fact that Western states were given lands in a far different manner than the Eastern, Southern, and some Midwestern states. So, comparing how it works in one state is not applicable when looking at how it works in other states.

In your state of MD and the state I grew up in, MN, you can hunt state lands. You can camp on state lands. State lands are pretty much treated similar to how Federal public lands are treated. As such, my buddies in MN struggle to see the difference in State versus Federal ownership. And that perspective, without understanding of the differences by state, results in them asking the same question you have.

I use these examples as the easiest to follow, as they are the most dramatic.

Colorado - Colorado State Trust Land Department states that the lands under their control are not public lands. They are correct. Like all western states, these lands are held in trust for a select group of beneficiaries - the school districts. As such, the State Land Board is required to do what is right for Colorado schools, not Colorado hunters, or Colorado hikers, or Colorado (insert user name here).

As a result, Colorado State Land Board does not allow recreation on their state lands unless those recreation rights are leased by CO Parks and Wildlife. CPW has very little budget for this and as such, a very small percentage of State Trust Lands are open to recreation, with hunting being considered recreation.

Let's follow the "state transfer" idea and walk through how that works in Colorado, now that we understand that "state transfer" means transferring currently accessible lands to the State Land Board that has a completely different policy on access and recreation as compared to the current land holders, the BLM and USFS.

Colorado has 23 million acres of USFS and BLM, all of which we can hunt or camp under current rules. Under the "state transfer" idea, that land would now go to the Colorado State Land Board and would no longer be accessible to hunting and recreation.

So, in the case of Colorado, hunters lose access to 23 million acres that they currently have at their disposal. Given Colorado hosts more non-resident hunting than any western state, that is a huge impact to all who hunt Colorado, including the large number of non-residents who hunt there.

I ask the advocates of state transfer, "How do you intend to replace 23 million acres of lost hunting access, just in Colorado?" They change the question or dismiss me as not following their gospel. All I want is an answer. They don't have a good answer because they know the real answer is that we will lose 23 million acres of hunting access.

Now let's move on to WY and NM, two states with State Land Boards that do not allow camping. Yes, you can still hunt them, but in a lot of places, not being able to camp pretty much eliminates the practicality of the hunt. Here are some examples.

Wyoming - The most coveted deer grounds are Regions G and H. Anyone who hunts it knows that it is mostly a horseback or backpack hunt to get to the quality deer. If by foot, you are talking about a five to six hour hike in. Currently, you can camp on these USFS lands, so you can do this as a backpack or horseback hunt and set up a camp for a week of hunting.

Under state transfer to they Wyoming State Land Board, you will not be able to camp in Regions G &H. You will have to hike in and out each day. That is impractical when you have a five to six hour hike, each way. Given that fact, state transfer effectively makes it impossible to hunt deer in the most popular areas of Regions G &H.

Now, let's look at the Thoroughfare, a noted elk hot spot in NW Wyoming. Since it is all wilderness, you need a guide or a WY resident to accompany you. It is a 20+ mile horseback ride each way. Under state transfer, you cannot camp back there, so you will need to ride your horse in 20 miles in the morning and back out 20 miles that night, then repeat the process every day of your hunt. That is so impractical that you can forget any elk hunting in the Thoroughfare units.

In the Big Horns, there are elk camps scattered all over the USFS lands. Under state transfer, you cannot camp there, so hunters will be force to drive in each morning from Powell, Sheridan, Buffalo, Casper, Kaycee, etc., then drive back out each night. These are one to two hours drives, each way. The state transfer scenario makes hunting the Big Horn impractical.

New Mexico - The best elk hunting in New Mexico is the Gila NF. The most popular is Carson NF. Both require long drives to get there. Under state transfer, the BLM and USFS lands you can currently camp on would be off limits. Hunters would have to commute each morning and night from the nearest towns.

Currently, most every elk hunter camps on USFS lands, as they do not want to make a 2-3 hour drive every morning and repeat that every evening, which would be required if state transfer happened. So, assuming these USFS and BLM lands were now state lands and they could not camp on them, it would be impractical to hunt the best and most popular elk units in NM.

These are the obvious examples. It doesn't even touch on the bigger loss when states now have much more inventory to add to their aggressive land sale activity.

Some will say, "Then get the state laws changed." Well, those who make that claim have zero understand of the power structure of western legislatures and how you are not going to get those laws changed at the state level. Those folks behind the transfer movement are aware of all these nuances and they know that will eventually force states to sell these lands like states have sold millions of other acres, which is the long-term end goal of those pushing the idea.

Thanks for asking. I think you have just given me a really good idea for an expanded podcast that approaches this from exactly the perspective you illustrated here. Maybe more examples and details will help people understand why this is so different on a state-by-state basis and probably not like the state land issues in their home state."

This is sums it up perfectly. If you don't get this, no amount of conversation will convince you otherwise..

If you think states are going to take on all federal lands, and not impart their own rules, your a fool. If you think the states can afford to manage these lands as the Feds are, your a fool. They will be manage in the exact way state lands currently are.

 

[tipsntails7]

If some lands will be transferred to the states, how do we ensure that it is done in a way that manages for wildlife like current state wildlife refuges, manages for or allows some recreation like state parks but without all of the park fees, and still manages for other possible uses like hunting, or even selective logging that was allowed on the Forest Service in times past? I don't know? And if lands remain with the Federal Gov't, is there any way to make it more responsive to the will of the many, instead of a few bureaucrats or a few organizations who bring a lawsuit against just about any move?

I do find the history of USFS land management interesting over the past 25 yrs. I worked for the Forest Service in Oregon and California around 1990. On the forests that I worked on, we seemed to go at that time from regular management with logging and controlled burns, to absolutely no logging. Elk & blacktail deer were everywhere at that time. No matter how many enviromental impact, water quality/fisheries, or various wildlife assessment studies we did, even helicopter or high lead cable proposed logging units (and just to salvage from lightning caused burns) just sat in court with some challenge until the timber rotted. And every natural fire we had was fought with the full resources of the Federal Gov't like it was the devil. Fighting fires was relatively easy with plenty of well maintained roads and plenty of fire breaks due to logging & replanting activity.

Fast forward 10-15 yrs, and seen by me from outside of the Forest Service here in Washington...there was still no logging and there was still regular fire suppression, but now roads were not being maintained and some roads were completely closed off and reclaimed in an effort to increase roadless areas. Millions of dollars are spent to move and reclaim roads along riparian areas. Also, some forest areas were clearly becoming ripe for catastrophic fires with many years of fire suppression without logging. There were endless tracts of tightly bunched trees less than 75 yrs old with plenty of ladder fuels. The Forest Service seemed unable to do anything about this. Elk were in very low numbers, except where private or state land was mixed in with Forest Service land in a checkerboard fashion. On state wildlife lands adjacent to federal land, state managers were able to thin trees and burn slash and brush in the name of wildlife, while the adjacent forest service either couldn't or wouldn't do any of that (the Little Pend O'reille Wildlife Refuge with the nearby Colville Nat'l Forest as an example). The Forest Service seemed to be starting to let fires go at that point in the Wilderness Areas.

Fast forward another 10 yrs to now...and those same developing roadless areas are being put up for wilderness designation and I am no longer able to take a mountain bike into them. Many previously maintained foot trails are being let go completely, while some are in bad condition, and there is only a token attempt to clear them once every 2-3 summers, and only just up to the Wilderness Boundary. Catastrophic wildfires are occuring, and it is really unclear if there is much of a management plan other than more of a hands off policy, and even for areas outside of the Wilderness Areas, with only a few main roads being maintained at any regular interval. Now people are trying to bring lawsuits against the gov't (at least the State DNR) about their decisions on how to fight or decisions not to fight certain fires.

I'm asking because I do not know the actual answer, but has the budget for land management been cut pretty substantially now compared to just 10 years ago?

Anyone have figures of this?