H.R. 1484 (Public Lands Transfer)

[Vees]

Fellow sportsmen!  Been a while since I've been on the forum, but this is the best place I know to connect with lot of other local sportsmen and I wanted to reach out on an important issue that affects us all. 

Congress is taking aim at public lands in Nevada through H.R. 1484, which would transfer Federal public land to the State of Nevada.  Transferring these lands would GUARANTEE less public access and wholesale privatization of our public lands. The bill also references large public land holdings in other western states such as Idaho, Montana, WASHINGTON, Oregon, California, Utah, among others. Only a matter of time until these lands are targeted as well. They sell the idea as overcoming "government control" of land that the American people deserve to monetize. The fact is they are NOW assets of the American people, managed for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This would not help us, it would rob us of our rural economies, traditions, wildlife, recreation, and part of our identity as a country. American citizens would never be compensated for this loss and would no longer have any claim to these lands. Not to mention there are over 100 million acres of Federally owned land available for energy development already (the purpose of this legislation). Please join me in contacting our legislator in the House Committee of Natural Resources to make sure Congress knows what these lands mean to us. Once they're gone, there's no getting them back. 

Dan Newhouse is a House Republican on the Natural Resources committee, who's office can be reached at 202-225-5816.  I called this afternoon and the lady who answered my call indicated I was not the first person to contact their office with concerns.  I think hearing from sportsmen in his district would send a meaningful message.  I really believe this is the greatest sportsmen issue of our time.  Seeing the public access lost in Washington (mostly through timber company policies) has reinforced just how important public lands are to the future of our heritage.

Thanks in advance for your support!  Let's get the phone lines ringing before this bill gains too much traction.

-Tyler

[yakimarcher]

Called, and E-mailed

[Vees]

Right on, thank you! 

[yakimarcher]

Here is where you can email   https://newhouse.house.gov/contact/email

[bigtex]

Public land transfers are a real threat now that the Republicans control DC. The Trump Campaign said they were opposed to federal land transfers, but will that remain true when you have Republican congressmen/senators from places like Nevada and Utah banging on Trump's desk for such a transfer???

It'll be interesting times...

[Bean Counter]

I for one support such transfers. The residents of Nevada, Utah, and yes, Washington, don't deserve subsidies for free hunting access from other taxpayers in the union who live in states that are predominately private land. I chose to be consistent on the issue of states rights even if I don't like the particular political results. 

[baldopepper]

Yea, transfer it over to state control.  Sure would be easy for anti hunting groups in this state to pass a referendum banning hunting on all state owned properties.  I guarantee in Utah, with a mandate to manage all state lands for maximum profitability, they would sell off/lease off any and all prime pieces they could. I consider this idea one of the biggest threats to outdoorsmen and women to come along ever.

[Vees]

Bean Counter, there is strong consensus that state ownership = selling vast tracts of public land.  I agree the federal government loses SIGNIFICANT amounts of money managing our federal lands, which is exactly why they would be sold off under state ownership.  There is absolutely no way any western states could afford to hold on to millions of acres of new land. 

Residents of other states (who you say are subsidizing western state residents) are benefiting tremendously from public access.  I personally hunt and recreate on federal lands all across the west and will happily "subsidize" for those rights.  What I believe is great about our federal public lands is that they belong to every citizen of this country, not just to those who live within certain state borders.  Also, its not just hunters who benefit from federal ownership.  Ranchers (through grazing leases), timber companies, etc. all benefit through federal land ownership. 

Aside from the financial aspect, the fact is that our hunting and fishing heritage absolutely depends on public access.  Privatization would make hunting and fishing a forgotten part of our culture, accessible only to the rich and privileged.   

The land transfer issue is not a partisan issue in my opinion, it's a sportsmen issue.  Not sure if you primarily hunt public or private land, but I'm asking you to reconsider what public ownership means to our heritage. 

Finally, I agree that a state's sovereignty is important, but honestly, that's not what this issue is about.  It's a play by BIG business to purchase public land at wholesale prices.

I for one plan to fight for our public lands the rest of my life....this fight won't end in my lifetime.  Since an early age my dad has taken me out hunting and fishing, almost exclusively on public land.  We aren't a rich family, and I don't have access to other places to hunt.  Public lands are all I have.

Hopefully I've at least given you a few things to consider.  This issue could send a death blow to what we know and love about hunting across the west. 

-Tyler

[bigtex]

Yea, transfer it over to state control.  Sure would be easy for anti hunting groups in this state to pass a referendum banning hunting on all state owned properties.  I guarantee in Utah, with a mandate to manage all state lands for maximum profitability, they would sell off/lease off any and all prime pieces they could. I consider this idea one of the biggest threats to outdoorsmen and women to come along ever.

Both of WA's Governor candidates were opposed to such a move in WA, not often you see that in politics. The Trump campaign/team has said they wouldn't trust states to net sell such lands.

[Bean Counter]

Yea, transfer it over to state control.  Sure would be easy for anti hunting groups in this state to pass a referendum banning hunting on all state owned properties.  I guarantee in Utah, with a mandate to manage all state lands for maximum profitability, they would sell off/lease off any and all prime pieces they could. I consider this idea one of the biggest threats to outdoorsmen and women to come along ever.

Just because your state legislature is more liberal than the national legislature doesn't mean that dumping your sovereignty is a constitutionally palletable solution for the nation. How about working to change your legislature and if that cannot be done: move. 

[WAcoyotehunter]

Did you know you can't camp on Wyoming state land?  There are several pieces of state land in N Idaho that are closed to hunting.... Those are not exactly bastions of liberal ideals.  Federal transfer is a bad idea for a number of reasons, recreational access is a big one.

[Bean Counter]

In Wyoming I cannot legally access wilderness areas of the national forest that *I* am paying for without paying their guide extortion racket.    And yes, I actually have a federal tax liability on the bottom line of my tax form.

[Bean Counter]

Bean Counter, there is strong consensus that state ownership = selling vast tracts of public land.  I agree the federal government loses SIGNIFICANT amounts of money managing our federal lands, which is exactly why they would be sold off under state ownership.  There is absolutely no way any western states could afford to hold on to millions of acres of new land.

Residents of other states (who you say are subsidizing western state residents) are benefiting tremendously from public access.  I personally hunt and recreate on federal lands all across the west and will happily "subsidize" for those rights.  What I believe is great about our federal public lands is that they belong to every citizen of this country, not just to those who live within certain state borders.  Also, its not just hunters who benefit from federal ownership.  Ranchers (through grazing leases), timber companies, etc. all benefit through federal land ownership.   

and 50 residents of an Alaska island were sure grateful for their representatives Ted Stevens and Don Young reaching for $400 million of federal tax dollars to build them an infamous Bridge to Nowhere to connect to the mainland. but hey, there's an "international" airport on the island, so the average Joe that lives in Missouri benefits from it, too     

Aside from the financial aspect, the fact is that our hunting and fishing heritage absolutely depends on public access.  Privatization would make hunting and fishing a forgotten part of our culture, accessible only to the rich and privileged.   

The land transfer issue is not a partisan issue in my opinion, it's a sportsmen issue.  Not sure if you primarily hunt public or private land, but I'm asking you to reconsider what public ownership means to our heritage. 

I'm sensitive to this even though I have benefited from the upward mobility of the American dream. I was born into a single parent, low income household, am a top 3%'er now (its actually less money that you might guess), and should retire fairly comfortably if things go according to plan. I can afford guided hunts and private access, but still chose the free options myself

Finally, I agree that a state's sovereignty is important, but honestly, that's not what this issue is about.  It's a play by BIG business to purchase public land at wholesale prices.

I for one plan to fight for our public lands the rest of my life....this fight won't end in my lifetime.  Since an early age my dad has taken me out hunting and fishing, almost exclusively on public land.  We aren't a rich family, and I don't have access to other places to hunt.  Public lands are all I have.

Hopefully I've at least given you a few things to consider.  This issue could send a death blow to what we know and love about hunting across the west. 

-Tyler

Probably a sacrilegious statement on this forum, but life will go on without hunting. The hunting community has faced and survived incredible challenges before. If we cannot survive a transition to a new structure that is IMHO more important than the nature of hunting itself, maybe we don't deserve to continue the tradition.

Ok, flame on ...

[JLS]

No need to flame, it's your opinion and as much as i disagree with it, it's your right to feel that way.  Instead of choosing to argue with someone who's mind won't be changed, I'll devote my time to writing my legislators and ask them to oppose any federal land transfer.

[csaaphill]

I support it but don't think it would necessarily mean loss of hunting land especially with marijuana legal now in the mentioned states. They could use that money being brought in now to help manage that land and not sell it off to private people. If they do make it a provision that it stay's public for good, or for a specific amount of time.