Trump on Public Lands

[Mike7]

The biggest threats to the ongoing use of federal lands by We The People who own it, would seem to me to be how inept the Feds are at dealing with court challenges that prevent sound management practices, the increasing restrictions being placed on people who wish to use that land for recreation/etc., and the burgeoning debt of our Federal Gov't which puts everything at risk. Having some certain tracts of land go back to the states and the people that live in those states, is the least of my worries. Perhaps people should get more involved at their state levels where they actually have more of a voice. People that want to circumvent the Constitution, liberty, and the legal system, for increasing socialism are just digging their future grave in my opinion. Ted Cruz is one of the few candidates that I could vote for with some enthusiasm.

 

[1hoda]

I'm a long time NRA member as well, but I'd much rather them stay focused on protecting 2A. Resources are limited, and there are better approaches to addressing the federal lands issue.

 

[Gobbler36]

As Newburg would say this issue is a cold dead hands issue for me, if they dont support federal public lands they wont get my vote republican democrat, black white or purple.

 

[1hoda]

I respect everyone's right to their view. But for all of you who support this above all others issues, I'm curious, why is this more important than all other issues, even ones that threaten the very existence of our republic?

Edit: don't get me wrong hunting federal land is important- see my post above. But my freedom and the survival of my country is vastly more important. American patriots have given all for this country since 1775 so I could be free. They did not risk it all so I could wander federal lands.

 

[airlocksniffer]

I respect everyone's right to their view. But for all of you who support this above all others issues, I'm curious, why is this more important than all other issues, even ones that threaten the very existence of our republic?

What are the issues that "threaten the very existence of our republic?" Our public land heritage is uniquely American and the envy of the world. The divide between the rich and poor would only become greater w/o those lands, which I feel are an equalizer of sorts. The biggest issue in my mind at what threatens the existence of our republic is income inequality. When wealth is concentrated in the hands of the very few, eventually the other 99% will rise up. History has shown that time and time again. Citizens United is by far one of the worst things to happen to this country IMO.

 

[gmajor]

I respect everyone's right to their view. But for all of you who support this above all others issues, I'm curious, why is this more important than all other issues, even ones that threaten the very existence of our republic?

Edit: don't get me wrong hunting federal land is important- see my post above. But my freedom and the survival of my country is vastly more important. American patriots have given all for this country since 1775 so I could be free. They did not risk it all so I could wander federal lands.

Well, this is where the various political differences of each member come into play. Most of us have similar views on public lands, but I'd venture to guess not everyone agrees on "the very existence of our republic" being at stake. Or, even if many of us do feel that way, our responses to such a threat may not mirror each others'. It's not a bad thing to be honest. I quite like the range of opinion on here. So long as you're for federal public lands (joking, joking. kinda)

 

[Mike7]

Really, Citizens United? When did less freedom of speech become better in this country? It seems to me this less freedom of speech is usually only a problem for the people that believe our current media is fair and who fear freedom of speech against bigger gov't, union control, crony capitalism, etc. Not letting citizens groups that monitor gov't corruption spend money to get this message out in campaigns is extremely dangerous. There is income inequality because of the government, not because there is too little government. A growing gov't with democratic socialism & income redistribution has really helped the average person work hard and succeed during the last 16 yrs hasn't it.

I guess my politics are that I would like to see our gov't and public school system go back to the days of old and actually through its actions encourage healthy behaviors like work, charitable giving, finishing school, and utilizing the outdoors, by removing barriers to these activities...instead of holding people down and encouraging dependence and other unhealthy behaviors & "free" stuff that is often just taken advantage of anyway.

Wouldn't it be great if a dad or mom could work hard all week and then go right from work with their son or daughter, directly down to the local lake on a Friday night, to fish and not have to try to find an open gov't office to buy a permit at or have to pay a Park use fee/pass, boat lauch fee, expensive fishing license, etc. What has happened to our values?

A very large portion of our youth is so entitled now and feels like they are owed everything and that they should be able to go through life stoned and uneducated, and everything will be given to them...that it will be discrimination if someone doesn't hire them for $15/hr even though they can't speak or write/add well, get to work on time, present themselves without a face full of tattoos or piercings which is an integral part of their self expression, and can't live with a dress policy. I see multipe youth every day with my job, and see this problem at an ever increasing rate, while talking to kids at the same time their parents are absorbed in playing a game on their new I-phone...parents who are on full gov't assistance. I have tried with only partial success I feel even with my own kids to battle against the current societal & public educational forces that teach them victimhood and no personal responsibility.

So yes, wheter truly warranted or not, I fear for the republic.

 

[5MilesBack]

I am quite amazed at the number of people in this country that would rather use the Constitution as a piece of toilet paper, than fully support it.......let alone be willing to give their lives to defend it. IMO if you don't fully support the Constitution and Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms that it affords, then you are a traitor of the United States of America......much like our current POTUS.

This is the only consideration that people should be looking at. From a national standpoint that's it.......the Constitution and the support and defending of the Constitution. If you have a problem with the way your state handles public land, or "potentially" could handle public land.......then take that up with the state. But don't help ruin the country as a whole because your state can't or won't manage land. There are ways to fix this in the states without voting for a traitor to run the country.

And Hoda......golf isn't all that bad. It actually is a lot like archery, and has a lot of the same fundamentals.

 

[Trial153]

Working with your state to manage public land within that state is a wonderful. The states hold those land in trust the states citizens.
Federal lands are owned but all citizens regardless of their state of residences. Better management is everyone's best interests. However better management does not include transferring the land to a more narrow group i.e. Just the citizens of the state the land is in. No where do we hear about how the rest of the states will be compensated for this gift giving to the western states? Why is that? It simple because these states don't not have the resources to purchase the land. So the state makes out while the rest of the country's citizens are screwed.
Then who profits from the sale of these land to private business, corporations and individuals? This is Cronyism at its worst. The lobbying money flowing into the candidates super pacs for this issue is obscene.
All the talk about socialism and this is the worst form of, socialism. It politicizes the narrative, privatizes the profits and subsidizes the expenditures. The politicians in all their greed gain, the corporations gain and the American people pay for it.

Better management is in everyone's best interest. You have to have the land in order to manage it, and this scam takes that away from all Americans.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I am quite amazed at the number of people in this country that would rather use the Constitution as a piece of toilet paper, than fully support it.......let alone be willing to give their lives to defend it. IMO if you don't fully support the Constitution and Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms that it affords, then you are a traitor of the United States of America......much like our current POTUS.

5MB,

I also fully support the constitution, and am glad you do. Supporting Federal Lands IS supporting the Constitution. Article 4 Section 3 Clause 2 provides the authority for the United States to own and manage land in plain language. Further the SCOTUS has upheld this authority repeatedly including the relatively recent benchmark case Kleppe v. New Mexico where the court was unanimous.

Furthermore, while there are certainly politicians that have expressed anti-second amendment views, remember that SCOTUS affirmed the second amendment as an individual right with the DC v. Heller. This precedent has led to gun restriction laws being overturned as recently as las week.

Transfer advocates want to deflect the public lands issue to other issues.

So join me in supporting the Constitution and ALL of its parts. Oppose transfer. Let candidates know that public lands aren't on the table.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Really, Citizens United? When did less freedom of speech become better in this country?

Then you are agreeing that money is speech? That is what Citizens United decided. Unlimited campaign contributions and little to no disclosure on who is actually making those contributions. Corporations are people, etc. Do you really think that if one of our presidential candidate gets millions of dollars from the ultra wealthy funneled via Super Pac's that they won't play puppet to those donors? The major threat to our republic is the impending oligarchy. Shit, we're basically there already. And you think free speech and money are the same thing. Cute.

 

[Trial153]

Then you are agreeing that money is speech? That is what Citizens United decided. Unlimited campaign contributions and little to no disclosure on who is actually making those contributions. Corporations are people, etc. Do you really think that if one of our presidential candidate gets millions of dollars from the ultra wealthy funneled via Super Pac's that they won't play puppet to those donors? The major threat to our republic is the impending oligarchy. Shit, we're basically there already. And you think free speech and money are the same thing. Cute.

That's it in a nutshell. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum our voices and opinions have been subverted and replaced with a corporate government partnership like the world has never seen before.
If you can't see that influence being asserted in this issue then either your blind or you not looking hard enough.

 

[Mike7]

I am not a lawyer, but I must be thinking of a "different" Citizens United where an attempt was made to shut down the free speech by a nonprofit organization that happened to be presenting information unfavorable to Hilary Clinton...and a decision that left individual contribution limits and campaign finance reporting laws unchanged.

Even you progressive leaning folks must see the hypocrisy in all of this. I am for total exposure, gov't accountability, and simply for more free speech (however that occurs), but not for the gov't picking winners and losers through intimidation or by whatever means...and yes one has to spend their own money to get information out to the people if you don't have the gov't or media apparatus at your fingertips. The next thing you know, you guys will want to control the internet...oops, that is already being tried.

I would like to see federal politicians get paid more, but put in jail for personally benefitting from anything beyond their own salaries. I would like to see solutions, not knee jerk reactions and ideas which only create other problems. Like, hey we can get rid of corruption by the gov't controlling free speech, or we can get rid of crime by keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Whether that is how it is meant or not, it is really insulting to me as a free American to hear these arguments.

Here is just one example of many, many, many that illustrates the hypocrisy and the danger of too large and controlling of a federal gov't, one who has become our master instead of our servant. Private citizen Dinesh D'Souza being put in jail for an open relatively small personal contribution in an effort to support the ideals of this country of freedome of speech, getting back to the Constitution, etc., while Hilary Clinton does "speeches" for hundreds of thousands of dollars so that money can go to a foundation that she directly benefits from...and then those people who bought her speeches just happen to benefit from the gov't picking them as a winner. Let's wake up people and address the real problems.

I think my campaign finance law would go something like this and I think it would pass Constitutional muster..."Any politician or his or her familiy who benefits monetarily from their time in office (while in office and for 7 yrs after leaving office) will immediately be thrown in jail pending trial. And any free American can donate however much and to whoever they want openly. Every donation would be open to the light of day. And any campaign that trys to hide foreign money transfer into the campaign from countries like Saudi Arabia for instance would automatically forefeit those moneys and if knowingly accepting said money from a foreign source be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

 

[Matt Cashell]

I am not a lawyer, but I must be thinking of a "different" Citizens United where an attempt was made to shut down the free speech by a nonprofit organization that happened to be presenting information unfavorable to Hilary Clinton...and a decision that left individual contribution limits and campaign finance reporting laws unchanged.

Even you progressive leaning folks must see the hypocrisy in all of this. I am for total exposure, gov't accountability, and simply for more free speech (however that occurs), but not for the gov't picking winners and losers through intimidation or by whatever means...and yes one has to spend their own money to get information out to the people if you don't have the gov't or media apparatus at your fingertips. The next thing you know, you guys will want to control the internet...oops, that is already being tried.

I would like to see federal politicians get paid more, but put in jail for personally benefitting from anything beyond their own salaries. I would like to see solutions, not knee jerk reactions and ideas which only create other problems. Like, hey we can get rid of corruption by the gov't controlling free speech, or we can get rid of crime by keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Whether that is how it is meant or not, it is really insulting to me as a free American to hear these arguments.

Here is just one example of many, many, many that illustrates the hypocrisy and the danger of too large and controlling of a federal gov't, one who has become our master instead of our servant. Private citizen Dinesh D'Souza being put in jail for an open relatively small personal contribution in an effort to support the ideals of this country of freedome of speech, getting back to the Constitution, etc., while Hilary Clinton does "speeches" for hundreds of thousands of dollars so that money can go to a foundation that she directly benefits from...and then those people who bought her speeches just happen to benefit from the gov't picking them as a winner. Let's wake up people and address the real problems.

I think my campaign finance law would go something like this and I think it would pass Constitutional muster..."Any politician or his or her familiy who benefits monetarily from their time in office (while in office and for 7 yrs after leaving office) will immediately be thrown in jail pending trial. And any free American can donate however much and to whoever they want openly. Every donation would be open to the light of day. And any campaign that trys to hide foreign money transfer into the campaign from countries like Saudi Arabia for instance would automatically forefeit those moneys and if knowingly accepting said money from a foreign source be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

Supporting Federal Public Lands is supporting the Constitution.

Transfer advocates want to deflect the public lands issue to other issues.

 

[Mike7]

I am not for getting rid of all federal lands, nor am I for locking up all federal lands in the least. I felt like a caged animal living back east for school where where there is no wild country. I guess I am not a monolithic voter either, so I am willing to accept compromises when it comes to deciding how we as a nation/community wisely utilize our natural resources...but I am not willing to give up Constitutional rights either. I would like to see a comprehensive approach that will allow my grandchildren to experience what I have been able to; where we have the foresight to balance the federal budget, control pollution & immigration, support individual rights, utilize resources and stay within the environmental carrying capacity, etc. all at once.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I am not for getting rid of all federal lands, nor am I for locking up all federal lands in the least. I felt like a caged animal living back east for school where where there is no wild country. I guess I am not a monolithic voter either, so I am willing to accept compromises when it comes to deciding how we as a nation/community wisely utilize our natural resources...but I am not willing to give up Constitutional rights either. I would like to see a comprehensive approach that will allow my grandchildren to experience what I have been able to; where we have the foresight to balance the federal budget, control pollution & immigration, support individual rights, utilize resources and stay within the environmental carrying capacity, etc. all at once.

Awesome. It sounds like we are close in agreement then. I feel much the same. I am willing to compromise on management choices and uses on public lands, but I am not willing to compromise on ownership of public lands. Keep public lands public. This is THE biggest issue in this election to me, and I don't think I am the only one. It is something I will consider when casting any vote, and I will let every candidate I support know where I stand on this issue.

It makes me sick to think about living in Montana and feeling like the caged animal you describe.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Mike7, absolutely in agreement with you on a comprehensive approach. Sure, various stakeholders have their pie-in-the-sky idea on how best to manage public lands. That's why people come together, state there goals then compromise to work something out that is palatable to everyone. For example, there has been a big uproar from enviro-type folks regarding some limited logging in Rattlesnake NRA. The damn trees there are so overgrown and with all of the houses in the valley, a forest fire would be devastating, not to mention the impacts of bark beetles. As long as we have the mentality of fighting fires rather then letting them resume their natural role in the forest, we need to do some thinning. No logging isn't a good solution, just as clear-cuts aren't a good option. We as sportsmen, hunters and citizens need to work with each other, even if some pills we have a hard time swallowing. Everything is so damn polarized these days. It gets pretty disheartening to knowing that most people will cross their arms and plug their ears when the suggestion of compromise is floated.

Lastly on the public lands, TR was pretty damn radical in his day to even suggest let alone push forward the national forests and public lands. It was a big f-u to the robber barons and ultra-wealthy. Many of his ideas more closely align with Bernie Sanders.

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done….

It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced.

 

[Mike7]

I completely agree Bitteroot and Airlock with that sentiment. For those in gov't in states with land largely owned by the feds and who believe in some transfer of Federal land (maybe not prime wintering mule deer habitat though, that would have to be off of the table - lol), is there not a legal method of contractually binding the states to multiple use and maintaining it as public land, or it otherwise goes back to the Feds?

 

[5MilesBack]

So join me in supporting the Constitution and ALL of its parts. Oppose transfer. Let candidates know that public lands aren't on the table.

IMO......there are MUCH more pressing issues regarding the Constitution (or lack thereof) and this election, than just land ownership. Kind of like giving away the farm to save the pig, when in the end you lose the farm and the pig.

Our country is headed in a direction where in a few years many of you won't be able to afford to hunt and won't even care to hunt because of all the other issues becoming such a problem, that hunting and public land will be the least of your worries. When you've lost all your freedoms, rights, and liberties your perspective will change.

The 2nd Amendment while a big issue, is also just a small piece of the overall liberal puzzle. And most people for whatever reason can only see a piece here and there, but for the life of them either don't care what the finished puzzle looks like.....or just can't see it at all. I believe people are blinded to the big picture.

In some ways it's a lot like Economics. People are very short-sighted and only see the immediate. Economics takes time. People will applaud a President for doing such a great job in some area of something, yet the Economic policy from 8 years earlier is what actually made that change. And the effects of the changes and policies of the current President are even yet to be seen. So in a vicious cycle people play the blame game, and don't have any idea what they're talking about.

We are still reeling today by some of Jimmy Carter's actions as President. And absolutely reeling from some of FDR's actions.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I feel like you are kind of making my point, 5MB. Proponents of transfer would prefer to move the conversation from public lands to some other issue. They want to make it partisan, so people can say, "Yah, we lost our public lands ... but we still have our FREEDOM!"

I say its a smokescreen. Public Lands are not a partisan issue. Transfer has broad opposition from both parties, as well it should. In MT we have a Republican House Rep. and Democrat Senator that have both strongly stood up to transfer attempts. I am glad for it.

Maybe some day Public Lands will be the least of my worries. I certainly hope so. That day is not today, however.