Utah- what the hell?

[CorbLand]

Yeah same here but many feel come hunting season it’s their own personal paradise and others are not welcome, they hate seeing NR license plates at a federal trailhead and will let us all know. Many many residents want the free access to land without sharing it with others and they are not shy about that.

I personally know a few CO residents that will not use federal land come hunting season for fear of being shot, they would love if all federal land was fire arm free.

There are many many views on federal land and the fact is most non hunters that use them do not like hunters.

In the end hunters will be the ones that ruin it for themselves.

Do I really want to see federal lands sold, for the most part no but I do believe we have millions of acres of land that either can’t be accessed or are not really used that should be sold.

People bitch, it’s what people do. Hunters bitch about other hunters. Mountain bikers bitch about other mountain bikers. UTVers bitch about other UTVers.

How many people have truly had a negative reaction from someone, while hunting, because of their license plate? I have been in four different states, with out of state plates hunting multiple times and never once had a single person say anything to me. Maybe a joke or two about being a Utard but 50% of those come out of my own mouth.

If anyone thinks selling land would make hunting more open for everyone, you have your head in the sand. Look at what has happened to waterfowl hunting. 100 bucks a gun per day on the cheap end. Yea, some people can pay it but there are more that can’t, especially young kids.

 

[WRO]

For the record some of our federal land should be disposed of, ideally to purchase winter range etc.

That being said you want to fuk up a good thing in the outdoors, get a Texan and a utard involved.

 

[CorbLand]

That being said you want to fuk up a good thing in the outdoors, get a Texan and a utard involved.

Not sure if I should laugh at this or cry because of how true it is.

 

[tdhanses]

People bitch, it’s what people do. Hunters bitch about other hunters. Mountain bikers bitch about other mountain bikers. UTVers bitch about other UTVers.

How many people have truly had a negative reaction from someone, while hunting, because of their license plate? I have been in four different states, with out of state plates hunting multiple times and never once had a single person say anything to me. Maybe a joke or two about being a Utard but 50% of those come out of my own mouth.

If anyone thinks selling land would make hunting more open for everyone, you have your head in the sand. Look at what has happened to waterfowl hunting. 100 bucks a gun per day on the cheap end. Yea, some people can pay it but there are more that can’t, especially young kids.

For everyone, no way, for nonresidents that spend thousands, yes.

I also would be for there being a $25-$50 a day charge to access federal land per person. Seriously $500 for 10 days is cheap. Feds could easily do this and use funds to add more forest service rangers, plus add a $25k fine and lifetime ban to anyone that doesn’t have a permit that is valid for the period of use.

People are to used to freeloading and having private playgrounds.

 

[Hnthrdr]

For everyone, no way, for nonresidents that spend thousands, yes.

I also would be for there being a $25-$50 a day charge to access federal land per person. Seriously $500 for 10 days is cheap. Feds could easily do this and use funds to add more forest service rangers, plus add a $25k fine and lifetime ban to anyone that doesn’t have a permit that is valid for the period of use.

People are to used to freeloading and having private playgrounds.

what tax bracket are you in? I can safely say I feel like my family pays more than our fair share of taxes. This might be the dumbest idea I have heard all day. All it would do is disenfranchise people who don’t have the funds to participate

 

[IdahoBeav]

I also would be for there being a $25-$50 a day charge to access federal land per person. Seriously $500 for 10 days is cheap. Feds could easily do this and use funds to add more forest service rangers, plus add a $25k fine and lifetime ban to anyone that doesn’t have a permit that is valid for the period of use.

The budget the feds would require to operate that program would be astronomical.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

For everyone, no way, for nonresidents that spend thousands, yes.

I also would be for there being a $25-$50 a day charge to access federal land per person. Seriously $500 for 10 days is cheap. Feds could easily do this and use funds to add more forest service rangers, plus add a $25k fine and lifetime ban to anyone that doesn’t have a permit that is valid for the period of use.

People are to used to freeloading and having private playgrounds.

How much had you been drinking or smoking?

 

[CorbLand]

I am more curious as to how this started out as feds owning grounds was too much government and now it’s being argued that we should pay more fees and have stricter punishments. Because some how that’s small government…

 

[mtwarden]

I am more curious as to how this started out as feds owning grounds was too much government and now it’s being argued that we should pay more fees and have stricter punishments. Because some how that’s small government…

We’ve now officially come full circle

 

[Billinsd]

I am more curious as to how this started out as feds owning grounds was too much government and now it’s being argued that we should pay more fees and have stricter punishments. Because some how that’s small government…

How ‘bout them Dodgers?

 

[IdahoBeav]

How ‘bout them Dodgers?

They seem to be able to print money and postpone debts like the feds do

 

[Billinsd]

They seem to be able to print money and postpone debts like the feds do

Why do we pay taxes when the Fed prints money?

 

[IdahoBeav]

Why do we pay taxes when the Fed prints money?

That’s better put into two separate questions and a statement:

-Why do we pay taxes?

-Is that federal service necessary and producing the intended result?

-The Fed should never under any circumstance operate on a deficit.

However, people only care about the deficit when they are speaking on federal services and operations that they don’t care about. No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.

Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

 

[Szwampdonkey]

How do you want to solve the housing crisis? Every government solution is a disaster. Why not let the free market do it? I'm fortunate enough that I can afford to live in a highly desirable location in the Mountain West. It doesn't seem right that a yuppie like me can move into a booming area while working class (and I don't mean burger flippers. I'm talking tradesmen) native Idahoans are priced out and have to move to GA, Upstate NY, SC, etc. where they can afford to live. Meanwhile, the feds have millions of acres of snake & rabbit land locked up, land that could be developed to increase the housing supply, in turn lowering the demand and cost.

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.

 

[IdahoBeav]

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.

That’s already happening on a large scale, and it’s great, but it doesn’t produce affordable housing. It’s highly sought after and, therefore, expensive.

 

[CorbLand]

That’s better put into two separate questions and a statement:

-Why do we pay taxes?

-Is that federal service necessary and producing the intended result?

-The Fed should never under any circumstance operate on a deficit.

However, people only care about the deficit when they are speaking on federal services and operations that they don’t care about. No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.

Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

Because the cost to manage the ground is small compared to what is truly causing our deficit to increase. Endless wars in countries 90% of us can’t find on a map. Send money to counties 3 years ago nobody new existed. All of those things add way more than the cost to manage the ground.

Selling ground to reduce the deficit is short sighted. Yea, it will make it look good but it won’t solve the problem. Like replacing the sink because it doesn’t give you hot water.

 

[Szwampdonkey]

That’s already happening on a large scale, and it’s great, but it doesn’t produce affordable housing. It’s highly sought after and, therefore, expensive.

So build more of them smaller, less fancy eminities, cheaper fixtures etc until they aren’t expensive.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Because the cost to manage the ground is small compared to what is truly causing our deficit to increase. Endless wars in countries 90% of us can’t find on a map. Send money to counties 3 years ago nobody new existed. All of those things add way more than the cost to manage the ground.

Selling ground to reduce the deficit is short sighted. Yea, it will make it look good but it won’t solve the problem. Like replacing the sink because it doesn’t give you hot water.

^This is a perfect example of this:

. . .No one ever concedes that things they like should be cut. They just respond with whataboutism on what other programs and services should be cut.

And a complete dodge of this:

Forget about your recreation for a minute and ask yourself the question, “Why should an entity that is $36 trillion dollars in debt be able to own and manage 650 million acres?” Does the logical answer involve not selling a single acre of land?

Nonetheless, the items you mentioned should also be slashed, but if they were or ever are, there will still be a deficit. The federal government needs massive overhaul and reduction, 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.

 

[IdahoBeav]

So build more of them smaller, less fancy eminities, cheaper fixtures etc until they aren’t expensive.

That doesn’t reduce demand, and when real estate has high value largely due to location, it’s not going to be developed for less profit without government subsidies, which are always a disaster.

 

[CorbLand]

^This is a perfect example of this:



And a complete dodge of this:



Nonetheless, the items you mentioned should also be slashed, but if they were or ever are, there will still be a deficit. The federal government needs massive overhaul and reduction, 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.

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?

Do you replace the sink because it doesnt turn out hot water when you turn it to hot or do you replace the water heater?

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.

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.”