What if the federal government decided to start selling off swaths off public land?

[Loo.wii]

I understand the need for NP, I just don't care for them...lots of people, lots of lines, and a lot of fees. When I do go to one I usually leave embarrassed for the human race, people are idiots.
I haven't been back to the New River Gorge since they made it a NP, too many damn people, and I drive by it at least once a month to go to my cabin the butts up against the Mon NF.

I would be in favor of more BLM and wilderness areas being established. thinking about that the establishment of No fly zones over certain wilderness would be fantastic too. I never realized how much i despise hearing planes when im out in the woods.

 

[go_deep]

I'd be a buyer

 

[Loo.wii]

You know what's a tragedy? The number of Texans in Texas.

There's not enough.

 

[mtnbiker208]

If we start our argument from the position that wild animals CAN NOT be private property thus are managed by the state or federal government. Then we can assume based on that that restricting access to those animals to hunters is effectively stealing from the public. More so a thought experiment than anything. The lack of public land in Texas is truly a tragedy.

But, there school systems have lots of money. Idaho public schools do not, mainly due to the fact we are 66% public land, so the local taxing districts don't have as much of a tax base. So large swath's of public land do not allow the local communites much tax base, but do allow lots of outdoor recreation. There are pro's and cons to all sides of the equation.

 

[Loo.wii]

But, there school systems have lots of money. Idaho public schools do not, mainly due to the fact we are 66% public land, so the local taxing districts don't have as much of a tax base. So large swath's of public land do not allow the local communites much tax base, but do allow lots of outdoor recreation. There are pro's and cons to all sides of the equation.

I appreciate your perspective. It gets be thinking though I would dispute that "mainly due to the fact we are 66% public land" statement , I think it may have something to do with it but the state of montana has a tonne of public land and i bet that the school districts/ local governments in vicinity of those large swaths of public land have a huge tax base. Someone referenced king ranch earlier i would be interested to know the tax analysis of the districts that border their or encompass their land.

 

[isItFallYet]

I refrained from sharing my total opinion in my post. i am more so looking to stimulate a complex conversation. you know like forums should.

Remember when people were having a complex conversation about the Trump assassination attempt thread and then you got your feelings hurt and asked for it to be locked? Now you read something about Project 2025 and started a controversial post!

Similar to your previous posts about wolves, etc.

Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’ll apologize.

 

[robtattoo]

The one thing that grinds my gears is the corporate and big brother ownership of so much of the housing market. Without going into full socialism, it would be nice if home ownership/living quarters were the one thing a little less preyed upon by people making tons of money off of other people. Not saying people should ever be given houses for free, but when people and corporations buy up 1/2 of small towns, it makes it next to impossible for a lot of people to buy a house, thus they're stuck with renting.
Same is to be said for land, if government land is to go for sale, who do you think will buy it? Some plumber that lives down the street from you, or a trillion dollar company that will exploit it to make a couple more trillion?

Whoops!

Sorry!

Just basking in the glorious glow of capitalism!

 

[Loo.wii]

Remember when people were having a complex conversation about the Trump assassination attempt thread and then you got your feelings hurt and asked for it to be locked? Now you read something about Project 2025 and started a controversial post!

Similar to your previous posts about wolves, etc.

Correct me if I’m wrong, and I’ll apologize.

You an I both know nothing regarding trump or directly conservative vs liberal topics remains civil or in good faith especially here on the ROK. This is a hunting forum not a "let’s see how far we can guzzle DTs pp" forum. The objective stance is to quell these issues before the get uncivilized as those things are not relevant to hunting or the out doors at all. Even our moderator overlords agree.

What does this discussion have to do with project 2025 or DT? you've made it into that. Even if what i am referring to was in that white paper. At least discussing it on this forum is relevant because most if not all of us on this site use public lands in some way shape or form. The subject discussed a few days ago is not directly relevant to anything in this forum.

 

[Customweld]

I appreciate your perspective. It gets be thinking though I would dispute that "mainly due to the fact we are 66% public land" statement , I think it may have something to do with it but the state of montana has a tonne of public land and i bet that the school districts/ local governments in vicinity of those large swaths of public land have a huge tax base. Someone referenced king ranch earlier i would be interested to know the tax analysis of the districts that border their or encompass their land.

The tax base on a ranch one mile square is a fraction of what a square mile of housing development is. Any school district or county road and bridge district in a rural county dominated by federal land is going to be dirt poor, even if there are expansive private lands in that county.

 

[Loo.wii]

Happens all the time when Federal land gets tranferred to a State that has a legislative requirement to balance the state budget...Federal Lands go to State Lands and then are sold off the highest bidder because state law requires a balanced budger. Older trick in the book...Ever wonder why there is no public land in TX?

Ive never heard that explanation of it. thanks boss. Edit: are you suggesting that Texas has so consistently miss managed their budget and the lack PL in Texas is a direct result of that? That seems plausible but I feel like there’s more to unpack there.

 

[Loo.wii]

Re: your second paragraph, you may want to read "No Such Thing as Bad Weather." It's about the Scandinavian approach to parenting young kids and the author details what you mention there. Fair warning, there are a lot of crunchy opinions in the book but she details the paradigm of free outside play quite well.

Re: the sale of federal lands, I'm against it. It was one of TR's greatest moves and countless have reaped the benefits from it. Look at Europe, especially the Mediterranean region, to see the effects of poorly managed landscapes in private hands: deforestation, erosion, "climate change"/temp increase, etc.

I'll add this to my reading list. I don't mean to say that we should take their approach but using that idea as a basis to explore the thought.

 

[isItFallYet]

You an I both know nothing regarding trump or directly conservative vs liberal topics remains civil or in good faith especially here on the ROK. This is a hunting forum not a "lets see how far we can guzzle DTs pp" forum. The objective stance is to quell these issues before the get uncivilized as those things are not relevant to hunting or the out doors at all.

What does this discussion have to do with project 2025 or DT? you've made it into that. Even if what i am referring to was in that white paper. At least discussing it on this forum is relevant because most if not all of us on this site use public lands in some way shape or form. The subject discussed a few days ago is not directly relevant to anything in this forum.

This has been pushed around by the MSM for the past several months and especially within the last week since the assassination attempt. That’s why it’s relevant. Do a google search on project 2025 + public lands and you’ll see DT and Heritage foundation bs regurgitated a thousand times over.

From your past posts, I can clearly see what type of posts you start. Sorry for calling a spade a spade.

 

[isItFallYet]

View attachment 737147
Who is bringing the popcorn? I like buttered, no salt.

Guess I took the bait.

 

[Loo.wii]

View attachment 737256

Whoops!

Sorry!

Just basking in the glorious glow of capitalism!

I think only those who can afford a million acres should have access large swaths of unbroken wilderness. Public lands are socialist!

 

[Jimmy]

 

[Loo.wii]

This has been pushed around by the MSM for the past several months and especially within the last week since the assassination attempt. That’s why it’s relevant. Do a google search on project 2025 + public lands and you’ll see DT and Heritage foundation bs regurgitated a thousand times over.

From your past posts, I can clearly see what type of posts you start. Sorry for calling a spade a spade.

I'm sorry you want to keep this forum simple. But i would suggest reading threads of similar character to the conversation im trying to start. provoking thought isn't a crime on rokslide is it ? see https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/federal-land-and-state-animals.318716/

 

[CJohnson]

One of my favorite things about western states are the large swaths of uninterrupted public lands with diverse ecosystems and terrain . My disdain of the east and south is partially due to the fact not much public land exists. Monday morning quarterbacking about a hundred or so years too late i think the lack of public land in the east and south is a huge disservice to all Americans. There seems to be mulling about the possibility of federal land being sold off whether its through more covert means like natural resource leases or being sold out right to arbitrary private land owners. I would personally be staunchly against selling off public lands. What is your opinion on the subject?


The discussion that prompted this conversation was with a friend of mine who is from Sweden. According to my understanding the cultural standard there and a few of their neighboring countries is although land can be privately owned, it is for the use of all people. So as long as you're not being an Ahole no one is going to bother you if you're hiking or camping on their massive swath of land. Now i know the American cultural and political perspective/context is almost contrary to this perspective but the spirit of this perspective is visible in efforts by some states to allow corner crossing etc. If public lands were sold off would you be in favor of stipulations that would allow use of private lands for public activities specifically on lands that were formally public immediately before the land was sold?

Off the top of my head i don't remember the word for that Swedish cultural standard referenced above but i will include it in my next update.

Imagine comparing an acre of USFS land in the upstate of SC to an acre of BLM in the desert of NV, lol.

There's tons of public land in the "east", most of it sucks for hunting compared to the private land in the same area because - in my not-so-expert opinion - conservative leaning rural landowners tend to manage their land and the state's wildlife much better than the Federal government does.

 

[KurtR]

I appreciate your perspective. It gets be thinking though I would dispute that "mainly due to the fact we are 66% public land" statement , I think it may have something to do with it but the state of montana has a tonne of public land and i bet that the school districts/ local governments in vicinity of those large swaths of public land have a huge tax base. Someone referenced king ranch earlier i would be interested to know the tax analysis of the districts that border their or encompass their land.

Bet they don’t. It seems you dont understand how the property tax thing works. Farm and ranch ground is taxed extremely low compared to populated areas.

 

[isItFallYet]

I'm sorry you want to keep this forum simple. But i would suggest reading threads of similar character to the conversation im trying to start. provoking thought isn't a crime on rokslide is it ? see https://rokslide.com/forums/threads/federal-land-and-state-animals.318716/

You’ve got it wrong friend. I enjoy reading and contributing to all posts on here. Especially since I don’t have any social media. My problem was that you posted a controversial topic after requesting to get a prior controversial topic locked.

You also played coy on your wolf reintroduction post. I just find it extremely hypocritical and called you out.

 

[Loo.wii]

Imagine comparing an acre of USFS land in the upstate of SC to an acre of BLM in the desert of NV, lol.

There's tons of public land in the "east", most of it sucks for hunting compared to the private land in the same area because - in my not-so-expert opinion - conservative leaning rural landowners tend to manage their land and the state's wildlife much better than the Federal government does.

I dont think i made that comparison at all. objectively by every measure there is no individual state in the east or south that even has a comparable acreage to any state with public land in the west.