fort fireman
WKR
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2015
- Messages
- 413
Republicrat or Demican. Just the left wing and right wing on the same bird of prey.
Trump on Public Lands
- Thread starter airlocksniffer
- Start date
CrzyTrekker
WKR
Not a terrible analogy. Electronic intrusions into our privacy, erosion of the 4th Amendment in the courts, and police equipped with surplus military hardware under federal grants. All of this has been written about in the Wall Street Journal.
Haha, I'm going to look at the gear forums now. Must . . . stay . . . positive! Haha
MuleyFever
WKR
Never heard that but I like it.
IdyllwildArcher
FNG
The short-sightedness necessary to take a position on public lands that does anything but preserve the hundreds of years and vast wealth of legacy and benefit that preservation and conservation have attained in those lands makes me think that anyone who takes that stance is unfit to run the country.
The Czar of Russia once sold us a vast wilderness called Alaska. It turned out to be one of the most foolish mistakes a leader of any country has ever made.
The Czar of Russia once sold us a vast wilderness called Alaska. It turned out to be one of the most foolish mistakes a leader of any country has ever made.
pgk
FNG
It's not doing much for you these days, you should flip it to us Canucks for a massive profit!
AK Troutbum
WKR
Some insights from Randy Newburg
The State Land Boards will explicitly claim, "STATE TRUST LANDS ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS." Go to the Colorado State Land Board website and that is the first sentence of the second paragraph.
And, they are correct. Those lands are held by the state for a select group of beneficiaries (school systems) and a very specific purpose - funding the schools.
As the 10th Amendment dictates, the Feds cannot force the states to manage those lands in any way other than the state, via the State Land Board, sees fit. Immediately, the logical theories like you stated, start falling by the wayside.
And here is how it plays out in a manner that causes concern and why these states will not agree to the "theory" you logically proposed. I'll use the easiest examples, to illustrate the points; Colorado and Oregon.
Colorado does not allow hunting, camping, or other recreation on State Trust Lands, unless those rights are leased by the state wildlife agency. Due to budget limitations, CPW only leases a small fraction of the State Trust Lands for public recreation access; a very small portion.
Given CO has 23 million acres of BLM and USFS lands, transferring those lands to the CO State Land Board means hunters lose 23 million acres of access. As a hunter, I ask the politicians promoting the idea, "HOW DO WE REPLACE 23 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC HUNTING ACCESS, JUST IN COLORADO?"
The politicians don't have an answer when asked the question. They change the subject.
Some would say, force the states to allow access if those lands were transferred. I doubt Congress is inclined to reverse 240 years of the 10th Amendment by telling the states what to do in order that we would have hunting access.
I wish it was different in these western states, but that is how the State Land Boards operate. In NM and WY you cannot camp on these State lands. In MT, we had to fight the legislature for to change the law from the Colorado model to a new law where we can now pay a fee to hunt these lands.
Imagine transferring millions of acres in NM and WY where you could no longer have your elk camp in the Gila and you were expected to drive from Datil or Magdalena every day. Or you finally drew the Region G deer tag, but you had to hike in ever morning (about 8 hours) and hike out every night (about 5 hours) because these are now State lands and you cannot camp on them. Imagine if you hired an outfitter to take you into the Thoroughfare Country in NW WY and you had to ride horses in 20+ miles each morning and back out each evening, because these lands are now state lands and WY state lands are off limits to camping.
Hopefully that illustrates how much hunting access would be lost under a state transfer scenario.
Then, we have to look at the state Constitutional mandates these land boards have to maximize profits from state lands for funding schools. Profit maximization is the requirement of these state agencies.
I have no problem with lands being managed for profits. But, given the legal environment of the west, a lot of places you cannot manage lands profitably due to litigation under the ESA or other obscure laws. These laws such as the ESA apply to all landowners, BLM, USFS, private, or States, so it is a reality of the landscape.
The best example is Elliot State Forest in Oregon, comprised of 90,000 acres of productive timber land owned by the state land agency and formerly managed for a profit while allowing public recreation.
Or maybe I should restate as; managed profitably until the litigation started. Now, due to litigation, the State Forest has lost a ton of money and this very popular Forest is being sold. The state land board has no recourse, as they are mandated by state law/constitution to either manage for a profit or dispose of the land.
In the scenario you suggested, the states would not accept ownership of the lands without the right to dispose of them. That would burden them with the costs and obligations of litigation currently paid by the Feds, road maintenance, wild fire suppression, invasive weed control, property taxes to the counties, with no assurance they could make a profit on lands, especially in locations under ESA or other litigious issues.
A few examples of how litigation would sink the states if they took the lands. All of Western MT is covered by ESA issues. All of Western WY is covered by ESA issues. Most of Eastern and Northern ID are covered by ESA issues. Most of SW NM and SE AZ are covered by ESA issues. If the wingnuts win their appeal of the USFWS decision to not list sage grouse and sage grouse end up on the ESA, the entire inter-mountain west will be subject to ESA regulations.
Those ESA areas have pretty much no land management occurring, due to litigation. None of the transfer advocates have been able to explain how the states could take on all of these land ownership costs and hold these lands in places where Federal-level litigation would prevent any income generating management strategies, plus incur the costs to litigate the issues.
As a result, the states would have no choice but to sell the lands, which is the end goal of the promoters of the schemes. They have no interest in better land management. The promoters use state transfer as a rallying point to hide their motives, which prior to fifteen years ago was openly advertised as an effort to sell the public lands. Then, getting their teeth kicked in, they came back with a new mantra of "transfer the public lands," seemingly less offensive to the American public. Same people, same funders, same motive, just wrapped in a different package.
I understand how on the surface this sounds good to those of us who believe in smaller government and would like to see the Federal agencies freed of all the litigation that prevents them from managing lands. But, when inspected with more detail, changing ownership of the lands is not the answer, rather changing Congress and removing the Congressional obstructionists who handcuff Federal land management is a better path.
Just one guy's opinion from 20+ years of having been in the political battles of it.
The State Land Boards will explicitly claim, "STATE TRUST LANDS ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS." Go to the Colorado State Land Board website and that is the first sentence of the second paragraph.
And, they are correct. Those lands are held by the state for a select group of beneficiaries (school systems) and a very specific purpose - funding the schools.
As the 10th Amendment dictates, the Feds cannot force the states to manage those lands in any way other than the state, via the State Land Board, sees fit. Immediately, the logical theories like you stated, start falling by the wayside.
And here is how it plays out in a manner that causes concern and why these states will not agree to the "theory" you logically proposed. I'll use the easiest examples, to illustrate the points; Colorado and Oregon.
Colorado does not allow hunting, camping, or other recreation on State Trust Lands, unless those rights are leased by the state wildlife agency. Due to budget limitations, CPW only leases a small fraction of the State Trust Lands for public recreation access; a very small portion.
Given CO has 23 million acres of BLM and USFS lands, transferring those lands to the CO State Land Board means hunters lose 23 million acres of access. As a hunter, I ask the politicians promoting the idea, "HOW DO WE REPLACE 23 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC HUNTING ACCESS, JUST IN COLORADO?"
The politicians don't have an answer when asked the question. They change the subject.
Some would say, force the states to allow access if those lands were transferred. I doubt Congress is inclined to reverse 240 years of the 10th Amendment by telling the states what to do in order that we would have hunting access.
I wish it was different in these western states, but that is how the State Land Boards operate. In NM and WY you cannot camp on these State lands. In MT, we had to fight the legislature for to change the law from the Colorado model to a new law where we can now pay a fee to hunt these lands.
Imagine transferring millions of acres in NM and WY where you could no longer have your elk camp in the Gila and you were expected to drive from Datil or Magdalena every day. Or you finally drew the Region G deer tag, but you had to hike in ever morning (about 8 hours) and hike out every night (about 5 hours) because these are now State lands and you cannot camp on them. Imagine if you hired an outfitter to take you into the Thoroughfare Country in NW WY and you had to ride horses in 20+ miles each morning and back out each evening, because these lands are now state lands and WY state lands are off limits to camping.
Hopefully that illustrates how much hunting access would be lost under a state transfer scenario.
Then, we have to look at the state Constitutional mandates these land boards have to maximize profits from state lands for funding schools. Profit maximization is the requirement of these state agencies.
I have no problem with lands being managed for profits. But, given the legal environment of the west, a lot of places you cannot manage lands profitably due to litigation under the ESA or other obscure laws. These laws such as the ESA apply to all landowners, BLM, USFS, private, or States, so it is a reality of the landscape.
The best example is Elliot State Forest in Oregon, comprised of 90,000 acres of productive timber land owned by the state land agency and formerly managed for a profit while allowing public recreation.
Or maybe I should restate as; managed profitably until the litigation started. Now, due to litigation, the State Forest has lost a ton of money and this very popular Forest is being sold. The state land board has no recourse, as they are mandated by state law/constitution to either manage for a profit or dispose of the land.
In the scenario you suggested, the states would not accept ownership of the lands without the right to dispose of them. That would burden them with the costs and obligations of litigation currently paid by the Feds, road maintenance, wild fire suppression, invasive weed control, property taxes to the counties, with no assurance they could make a profit on lands, especially in locations under ESA or other litigious issues.
A few examples of how litigation would sink the states if they took the lands. All of Western MT is covered by ESA issues. All of Western WY is covered by ESA issues. Most of Eastern and Northern ID are covered by ESA issues. Most of SW NM and SE AZ are covered by ESA issues. If the wingnuts win their appeal of the USFWS decision to not list sage grouse and sage grouse end up on the ESA, the entire inter-mountain west will be subject to ESA regulations.
Those ESA areas have pretty much no land management occurring, due to litigation. None of the transfer advocates have been able to explain how the states could take on all of these land ownership costs and hold these lands in places where Federal-level litigation would prevent any income generating management strategies, plus incur the costs to litigate the issues.
As a result, the states would have no choice but to sell the lands, which is the end goal of the promoters of the schemes. They have no interest in better land management. The promoters use state transfer as a rallying point to hide their motives, which prior to fifteen years ago was openly advertised as an effort to sell the public lands. Then, getting their teeth kicked in, they came back with a new mantra of "transfer the public lands," seemingly less offensive to the American public. Same people, same funders, same motive, just wrapped in a different package.
I understand how on the surface this sounds good to those of us who believe in smaller government and would like to see the Federal agencies freed of all the litigation that prevents them from managing lands. But, when inspected with more detail, changing ownership of the lands is not the answer, rather changing Congress and removing the Congressional obstructionists who handcuff Federal land management is a better path.
Just one guy's opinion from 20+ years of having been in the political battles of it.
- Banned
- #108
Bkaufmann
FNG
I think the scariest thing that could happen if Hillary becomes president, is Obama getting nominated to supreme court. that would tip the scale and Democrats would have majority.
Presidents ask for change, Supreme court makes it happen.
Therefore, i'll vote against any Democrat candidate.
Presidents ask for change, Supreme court makes it happen.
Therefore, i'll vote against any Democrat candidate.
Well unfortunately on this issue there are more Republicans on the wrong side of this issue, including several of the candidates.
It's just another factor to weigh before casting your vote.
Bkaufmann
FNG
Thats true, and that is why primaries are so important.
- Thread Starter
- #112
OP
airlocksniffer
WKR
Thanks for the great writeup Trial153. The motives are the same as they have been for the last 100+ years, suck as much out of the lands as possible. Resource development, privatization, etc. Profit. When I talk about 'cold dead hands', I'm talking about public lands. This is my issue this election and as such, would never vote R, especially that dickshine Cruz. While Trump says he supports to public lands, he also panders to the worst elements of our country so not sure I believe him.
One thing to add, where is the NRA on this? Silence is approval in this case. They don't give a thin shit about your public lands. They only care to help sell more guns by making you scared of brown people amongst other things.
One thing to add, where is the NRA on this? Silence is approval in this case. They don't give a thin shit about your public lands. They only care to help sell more guns by making you scared of brown people amongst other things.
5MilesBack
"DADDY"
Is there a law that says that any and all land transferred from the federal government to the states has to go into the State Land Trust? Why can't there be a differentiation between Trust land and other newly transferred State land? Doesn't the 10th Amendment only cover the Trust land? And why couldn't each state pass their own State amendments dictating the use of these lands? This is an area where even the tree huggers would be against a total exclusion from the land in question.
- Banned
- #114
Timber harvest, a sound practice for sustainable and healthy forests, would go a long way toward paying the bills for upkeep. It's something that has been taboo in the USFS political bureaucracy for far too long. Another thing, maybe state management would allow for fire to be used as a sound management tool again.
gmajor
WKR
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2014
- Messages
- 609
Scariest party of the election for me. Cruz and Rubio are quite publicly state-land grab yahoos, Jeb waffled over the issue...I just can't support that. There are a select few issues that are deal-breakers for me. Support for federal public lands is one of them.
- Banned
- #116
My family are avid outdoorsmen and depend almost entirely on public land for hunting, fishing, and recreational opportunities of all sorts. If that went away, then we'd be out of business and I guess I'd have to learn to golf, which sounds like a boring life compared to what I have now.
With that said, what's even more important to me is the restoration of the respect for the US Constitution as the law of the land. Without that, nothing else really matters because the consequences are so dire. That is the reason I'm voting early and often for Ted Cruz.
With that said, what's even more important to me is the restoration of the respect for the US Constitution as the law of the land. Without that, nothing else really matters because the consequences are so dire. That is the reason I'm voting early and often for Ted Cruz.
I am with you there. Cruz and Rubio are out for me.
In addition to their land grab stance, the list of supper pac supporters for them is loaded with big oil, mining and construction ( huge support contractor to oil and natural gas firms ) make me believe that I knows who's interest they will be furthering.
If either of them get the nomination I will not vote for them.
Another thing that is bothering me.
The NRA has not come out against this land grab. If they don't support us hunters on this issue then I am done supporting them.
I am 39, I been a member since I was 16 when my uncle bought me a member ship. I been a life time member for about 15 years. When my son was born 5 years I made him a life time member also. Same with my daughter two years ago. And I don't even gun hunt anymore. I been bowhunting only since 2006 . Yet I still send them a donation yearly and support them whenever I have the opportunity.
If they don't support us or admit to being on the wrong side of this issue I am finished with them. I will have them take my name off their membership list.
The NRA has not come out against this land grab. If they don't support us hunters on this issue then I am done supporting them.
I am 39, I been a member since I was 16 when my uncle bought me a member ship. I been a life time member for about 15 years. When my son was born 5 years I made him a life time member also. Same with my daughter two years ago. And I don't even gun hunt anymore. I been bowhunting only since 2006 . Yet I still send them a donation yearly and support them whenever I have the opportunity.
If they don't support us or admit to being on the wrong side of this issue I am finished with them. I will have them take my name off their membership list.
Violent Hippie
WKR
High Country, That is a nice geographical display. Pretty accurate IMO.
gmajor
WKR
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2014
- Messages
- 609
Couldn't agree more. I absolutely will not vote against federal land holdings, period.
Similar threads
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
Triple Big Buck Year with James Yates
-
Vortex Defender CCW Red Dot Review
-
TT#44 Steve Evans Journey with Custom Rifles
-
Born Outdoor Badger Bed Review
-
The Intersection of Hunting Big Mule Deer & Big Whitetail
-
YETI LoadOut GoBox Review
-
Big Bucks, Bigger Secrets: Antelope Island Unguided
-
Iron Will Wide Single Bevel Broadhead Review
-
TT#43 Travis Hobbs Alaskan Brown Bear Hunt
-
YETI Tundra 210 Cooler Review