Utah- what the hell?

[jmez]

Does anyone really think the Fed would use proceeds from land sales to actually pay down debt? Did I miss something in Utopia?

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

Once again, why is the answer sell the land and then overhaul things? Why not try overhauling things, and not selling the land? Why not cut the places that are actually contributing the largest to the deficit?

Absolutely!! Completely overall the BLM and Forest Circus and cut them down 90% Do this first, BRILLIANT!

Every time this topic gets brought up, it’s always about the deficit and how we can’t afford it anymore. When the reality is selling the ground won’t solve the problem. It’s putting a bandaid on it.
I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.

I thought the core issue is that the States should own and manage Fed land, because that is how the Founders intended and how things were until the vast lands taken from Mexico? Same logic as why do states manage their big game and not the Fed.

I would concede we should sell ground, if it was the ground causing the problem but it’s not.

The Fed lands are not the core problem of the deficit. Selling them are seen as a means to pay down the deficit. However, it would buy us a short amount of time if we keep spending.

In the context of this thread, we aren’t talking about a few acres. Along with, if you were to cut DoD spending drastically, my stock portfolio would take a hit, so cutting that is not something I “don’t like.”

No one is talking about a few acres, it’s millions. So, do you mean you are against cutting DOD because your portfolio would take a hit? I don’t like eating healthy and I especially despise living below my means!!!!!

 

[Billinsd]

Does anyone really think the Fed would use proceeds from land sales to actually pay down debt? Did I miss something in Utopia?

Sent from my moto g power 5G - 2024 using Tapatalk

I certainly don’t believe it for a second.

 

[Billinsd]

So who’s moving to these rural outskirts areas, rural people?

People like me!!! : )

 

[Teodoro]

Selling those lands would be the stewardship equivalent of living off your capital. Everything seems fine at first, and then pretty quick you're impoverished.

 

[CorbLand]

Absolutely!! Completely overall the BLM and Forest Circus and cut them down 90% Do this first, BRILLIANT!


I thought the core issue is that the States should own and manage Fed land, because that is how the Founders intended and how things were until the vast lands taken from Mexico? Same logic as why do states manage their big game and not the Fed.

The Fed lands are not the core problem of the deficit. Selling them are seen as a means to pay down the deficit. However, it would buy us a short amount of time if we keep spending.

No one is talking about a few acres, it’s millions. So, do you mean you are against cutting DOD because your portfolio would take a hit? I don’t like eating healthy and I especially despise living below my means!!!!!

I would love to respond to this post but honestly, have zero idea of what your saying.

 

[Billinsd]

but I’m only arguing that hunters need to stop screeching at the idea of the fed selling a few acres of barren land, but this will never happen. Hunters will continue to respond with pitchforks and torches every time the green decoys call for them with doom and gloom cries about possible land sales.

Why would you expect most hunters to stop screeching about selling any public land they could hunt on? It’s not a few acres, it’s 650 million acres worst case scenario. I cringe at the thought of losing that much public land. I think it’s highly unlikely and would be a fraction of 650 million. Many real hard core passionate hunters will always respond with pitchforks and torches at any real or perceived threat. And this is a very logical response when having public land available nearby to hunt is more important to you than your country or your family’s well being. It’s more important than anything to some.

 

[Billinsd]

I would love to respond to this post but honestly, have zero idea of what you’re saying.

What I wrote was very complicated and long to understand for most people. You need to have the patience, education, reading comprehension, and age to understand. Of course it’s my fault I didn’t write it so it was easier to understand. I apologize.

 

[Billinsd]

I have no interest in buying any public land, and I hunt public land. I just refuse to only look at things as if myself and people that partake in the same recreation are the only type of people that exist in this country, and I’m not going to simp for the feds.

I COMPLETELY AGREE!! Bruh

 

[IdahoBeav]

What I wrote was very complicated and long to understand for most people. You need to have the patience, education, reading comprehension, and age to understand. Of course it’s my fault I didn’t write it so it was easier to understand. I apologize.

I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

I won't speak to this particular bill or Lee's agenda, but allowing federal land to be sold and developed is not a bad idea as long as it is done with careful selection and honest consideration of critical wildlife habitat.

It’s not a bad idea, it’s a fantastic idea!

 

[CorbLand]

I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey I think you and I actually agree on something in this thread.

 

[Billinsd]

I’m highly educated; your comments on this thread are all over the place, very unorganized, and full of self contradictions.

I’m not trying to win a debate and can see your point. I often bite off far more than I can chew and get into the weeds sometimes. Definitely a lot of OCD, which is the core problem.

 

[IdahoBeav]

You don’t have to be highly educated to criticize my posts. What are you highly educated in? I’m an engineer. I’m not trying to win an argument for or against the Fed transferring lands to states. I’m jumping in here and there making comments as I see fit, all over the place, yes. This is an extremely complicated issue and the solutions complex and there are many pros and cons.

I was only mentioning education because you referenced it when you responded to Corb saying that he didn’t understand your comment.

I am also an engineer.

Yes, it is a complicated issue. It’s not black-and-white, all-or-nothing. Not all land is equal. Some of it would better serve to be privately owned and developed. A lot of it absolutely should not be. State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year. The land was no different than nearby NFS land. Land that is privately owned is not an automatic no-hunting or pay-to-play operation. Last year, I killed a buck on private timber company land that is managed far better than federal lands. Privately owned wintering ground is often better for the animals than public, where the animals are disturbed by atvs/sleds, shed hunters, etc. There are also a lot of ranches that do a much better job managing wildlife than state fish and game departments do.

In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.

 

[Predator_SD]

I was only mentioning education because you referenced it when you responded to Corb saying that he didn’t understand your comment.

I am also an engineer.

Yes, it is a complicated issue. It’s not black-and-white, all-or-nothing. Not all land is equal. Some of it would better serve to be privately owned and developed. A lot of it absolutely should not be. State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year. The land was no different than nearby NFS land. Land that is privately owned is not an automatic no-hunting or pay-to-play operation. Last year, I killed a buck on private timber company land that is managed far better than federal lands. Privately owned wintering ground is often better for the animals than public, where the animals are disturbed by atvs/sleds, shed hunters, etc. There are also a lot of ranches that do a much better job managing wildlife than state fish and game departments do.

In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.

Once the land is gone it’s gone forever. I’ve never seen “barren” public land as you state it there is always value to public land or someone who wants to enjoy it in some way.

But the idea that some land doesn’t have value in your eyes outside of developing it to increase the spread of urban sprawl ever further from urban wasteland epicenters just shows me you’re likely part of that problem. Cities are like cancers spreading ever outward destroying everything they touch. And that spread never wants to stop.

You mention land in close proximity to cities as being prime for development. But then once those lands are developed then the land surrounding those new developments becomes that “close proximity to cities” prime development land and the cycle continues. Those urban wastelands never stop growing and expanding.

It’s a crying shame when i drive by a spot that used to be wild and untouched to find subdivisions bracketed by Starbucks, strip malls, and fast food garbage.

That’s not progress brother. It benefits no one other than developers and urbanite hipsters that are causing the problems in the first place.

 

[LoH]

Build more cheap apartments UPWARD in scum cities run by Libs. Pack em in like roaches they all vote Lib so i say let em live like Libs in the big cities.

Wait, you mean “tradesmen, native Idahoans”?

 

[IdahoBeav]

Once the land is gone it’s gone forever. I’ve never seen “barren” public land as you state it there is always value to public land or someone who wants to enjoy it in some way.

But the idea that some land doesn’t have value in your eyes outside of developing it to increase the spread of urban sprawl ever further from urban wasteland epicenters just shows me you’re likely part of that problem. Cities are like cancers spreading ever outward destroying everything they touch. And that spread never wants to stop.

You mention land in close proximity to cities as being prime for development. But then once those lands are developed then the land surrounding those new developments becomes that “close proximity to cities” prime development land and the cycle continues. Those urban wastelands never stop growing and expanding.

It’s a crying shame when i drive by a spot that used to be wild and untouched to find subdivisions bracketed by Starbucks, strip malls, and fast food garbage.

That’s not progress brother. It benefits no one other than developers and urbanite hipsters that are causing the problems in the first place.

This is quite the exaggeration you have here, but this land that you think is useful to some, it isn’t being used by anyone, unless you count dumping garbage and spinning donuts, homeless camps in a few places.

FYI, your entire existence depends on land that was once developed.

 

[mtwarden]

State owned land isn’t always a bad outcome. I killed a deer on state property this year.

In short, it’s not automatically a bad idea for the feds to sell/transfer some land.

You probably wouldn’t shoot many deer on state land that was transferred and then sold.

Do you really think they want the additional cost of managing these lands so recreationists can continue to use them vs selling them off?
I think I posted how many acres of State Land Utah has sold off already; you think they’re done?

 

[Predator_SD]

Wait, you mean “tradesmen, native Idahoans”?

No, i mean Liberal Roaches.

As in build endless numbers of basic cheap apartments in cities so they can continue to live and procreate in the cities they cultivated and voted for. That way they don’t feel the need to flee these cities invading rural areas so those “tradesman, native Idahoans” aren’t priced out of homes in their native rural areas and small towns where they grew up.

 

[Predator_SD]

This is quite the exaggeration you have here, but this land that you think is useful to some, it isn’t being used by anyone, unless you count dumping garbage and spinning donuts, homeless camps in a few places.

FYI, your entire existence depends on land that was once developed.

“Quite an exagerration” Been to the Denver area any time recently???? How bout LA, Chicago, New York City???? The urban wasteland extends out a 100 miles from those places now. Definitely no exaggeration and it’s coming to a small western town near you soon.

And there is a big difference between “developed” and “OVER developed”. If you want to live like people do 50 miles outside of any major city in America (basically an urban sprawl wasteland of strip malls, fast food, and overpriced homes) you could always move there? No need to continue to spread it out further and further.