Free Domestic Economy Shipping A lightweight orange vest that complements your technical hunting apparel!

Author Topic: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?  (Read 3020 times)

Offline csaaphill

  • Anti Hunters are weird animals.
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • ******
  • Join Date: Oct 2010
  • Posts: 8529
  • Hunting is non-negotiable it's what I do!
  • Groups: G.O.A., Rocky Mountain ELk Foundation
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #50 on: January 23, 2017, 10:07:31 PM »
Since I supported the Bundy Revolution it'd be hypocritical of me to be against this. So I am for but think the state should get only if they promise to not sell it off. With certain things being legal now that weren't years ago this would be a great way to keep them public.
Liberty = Permission granted if you have to ask it's not liberty.
Tyranny= Absolute power
Daniel 2vers 44 and shall not be left to other people no more. Meaning mans Govornment will be no more.
The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government Ė lest it come to dominate our lives and interests. Ė Patrick Henry

Offended good Merry Christmas and God Bless

Offline haus

  • Too Tall
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 951
  • Location: Shelton
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #51 on: January 24, 2017, 07:11:56 AM »
Keep in mind that the new boss has two sons that both hunt, and this answer from a F&S interview when questioned about public land transfers:

DT: I donít like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you donít know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I donít think itís something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great jobóI mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So Iíve been hearing more and more about that. And itís just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.

An aside here; I recall reading through a rather lengthy federal document(200+ pages) that covered the management of the national forest in our state. It included tables and image references of established borders for implementation of forest management procedures. I recall a specific section regarding the GPNF where it showed and detailed the rules to abide by for managing certain sections of the forest. I thought it was a 1994 document, but I'm unable to find it. Looked through the NWFP, but I don't see anything in there. Any help in finding this document would be appreciated.

"The Wolf Plan was fine when there werenít any wolves"

Offline baldopepper

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2010
  • Posts: 979
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2017, 08:09:46 AM »
I think it's important to understand that because someone says they like to hunt, it doesn't mean they are in favor of free access to all public ground. Too many of us, hunting is a recreational activity that involves getting together with friends and relatives and hopefully putting a little meat in the freezer. We hope to get a trophy class animal but don't predicate our  hunt around trying to get a B&C class animal. Free access to our traditional hunting areas is critical and becoming more of a problem every year. Hunting is becoming a big business now with private land hunts or restricted permit hunts selling for many thousands of dollars.  Don't think for a minute that some of the organizations that offer these types of hunts wouldn't love the opportunity to tie up more of the now public access properties to expand their business. Turning Federal ground over to the states would make it just that much easier for them to negotiate these land lock ups. Then we have the anti-hunters who would love nothing more than to ban hunting on all public ground.  Again, much easier to do on a state level than a federal level (especially in Washington state).  Does anyone on here really think DT's sons go out hunting on public ground rubbing shoulders with we common hunters?  I see this idea as a major threat to a way of life most of us enjoy and look forward to every year.

Offline NumaJohn

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 150
  • Location: Spokane, WA
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #53 on: February 06, 2017, 11:57:16 AM »
Hello, all.

FYI, here a recent article that some of you might find of interest if you have been following the debates regarding the pros and cons of whether to sell or transfer more federal lands to states and/or private interests:

Federal land is our land. Why would we--hunters and other Americans--relinquish or sell it off to others? That would be extremely short-sighted.


Offline MTMule

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2012
  • Posts: 32
  • Location: MT
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #54 on: February 21, 2017, 11:45:35 PM »
The forest service budget is a few billion dollars or something like that. You'd have to be an idiot to attack federal public lands to minimize federal reach.

If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.

Offline Gobble Doc

  • Off-Topics
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 1936
  • Location: Snohomish, WA
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2017, 11:19:12 AM »

Here's some public hunting land that went from State to Federal. Unfortunately ALL of the recreational activities like hiking and biking no longer includes hunting. Of course we are now able to protect the sensitive growth of dandelions and blackberries. The Land Bank managed to get it "Permanently protected for generations..." 

News Release Date: October 10, 2010


FRIDAY HARBOR, WA San Juan Island National Historical Park dramatically expanded its English Camp unit in September with the acquisition of 312 acres of woodlands and trails of Mitchell Hill, which adjoins the southeast boundary, eight miles north of Friday Harbor, announced Peter Dederich, park superintendent.

Making Mitchell Hill a part of the park is an action proposed in the parkís 2008 General Management Plan, and supported by a broad coalition of park stakeholders, and county, state, and federal agencies. It is the first major addition to the park since the 1970s and ensures that Mitchell Hill will be permanently protected for the benefit of future generations, Dederich said.

The property was acquired from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through a $6 million Congressional appropriation included in President Barack Obamaís 2010 budget and backed by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. The transaction was completed in partnership with the San Juan County Land Bank, and The Conservation Fund, a national land trust headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. A planning process will be launched soon, Dederich said, to determine how the overall area will be managed. Once Mitchell Hill becomes part of the national park, the Code of Federal Regulations will apply, and "some of those regulations are stricter than the state's," Dederich said. However, the community will be invited to participate in the planning process throughout to divine a balance of conservation and "appropriate visitor use," he stressed.

The DNR managed the site as one of its "Common School Trust Lands" for the benefit of public schools. To that end the land was to be protected and conserved for sustainable forest productivity while maintaining water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. While grazing has occurred and timber was harvested in the 1940s and again in the 1990s, much of the site is forested with trees ranging from seedlings to 120 years old, including Western red cedar, hemlock, Douglas fir and Garry oak. The area is laced with logging roads and hiking trails, many of which appear on San Juan Island Trails Committee maps.

But some of the most exciting features on Mitchell Hill are traces of the historic military road that bisects the northern edge of the property. This portion of the road was constructed by Royal Marines to travel between American and English camps during the joint military occupation of 1859-1872. The road followed the path of a sheep run cleared by Hudson's Bay Company and Cowichan laborers from Vancouver Island. Visible along portions of the road is rip-rap ó rock placed by British troops to reinforce the road ó as well as wheel ruts from wagons that once rolled along the road. A few road cuts are evident on rock faces along the canopied forest paths.

"The military road, in essence, captures the period before the U.S. took formal possession of San Juan Island when the boundary dispute was resolved," said National Park historian Mike Vouri, author of four books about the joint military occupation era. "Not only did the road symbolize peacekeeping, it tied one end of the island with the other," Vouri said. "This is very much a part of the island's heritage."

Besides its historical value, Mitchell Hill is also treasured by hikers, horseback riders, bicyclists, and naturalists.

"Protecting the historical and natural values of Mitchell Hill has been a priority for me for the last several years. Mitchell Hill is both a great place to go hiking and the home of an important part of San Juan Island history," said Representative Larsen at the time of Mitchell Hillís inclusion in the presidentís budget. "Funding for Mitchell Hill will enhance recreational and educational opportunities for the over 250,000 visitors who visit San Juan Island National Historical Park each year."



* Recent Topics

Worth the money or not ! by trophyhunt
[Today at 08:37:26 AM]

NFL Draft Thread by cem3434
[Today at 08:34:23 AM]

Build VS buy by Biggerhammer
[Today at 08:24:43 AM]

Old Mossy set by Miles
[Today at 08:24:40 AM]

Subaru experience? by Alchase
[Today at 08:19:25 AM]

Chuck Shoot 27/28 Apr 2017 South Central - 17 Hornet CZ 527s by JDHasty
[Today at 08:18:09 AM]

Ilwaco halibut seats available by ribka
[Today at 08:11:45 AM]

If you could build a cabin........ by JimmyHoffa
[Today at 08:06:15 AM]

New holster arrives tomorrow by Alchase
[Today at 08:05:27 AM]

New guy with a bunch of questions! by bearpaw
[Today at 08:03:50 AM]

Time for the Grizzly? by trophyhunt
[Today at 08:00:59 AM]

WTS - Leupold Mark 6 3-18x44 TMR w/ low M5C2 turrets by hunting4sanity
[Today at 07:57:22 AM]

Any turkeys near ritzville by cem3434
[Today at 07:47:58 AM]

Well water gpm question? by jrebel
[Today at 07:45:35 AM]

Some Taxidermy for Sale by runamuk
[Today at 07:44:45 AM]

land surveyor needed south king co by CarbonHunter
[Today at 07:35:12 AM]

bbq for camp trailer by SniperDanWA
[Today at 06:58:02 AM]

JetBoils Mighty Mo! by dscubame
[Today at 06:51:08 AM]

Leavenworth conditions by vandeman17
[Today at 06:44:59 AM]

Huntwa instagramers? by spoonman
[Today at 06:23:58 AM]