Free: Contests & Raffles.
I personally have mixed feelings on this issue. I'm a big believer in states rights and that we need to assert them. At the same time I think these large tracts of land are special and should continue to be available to the public. Those 2 things are NOT mutually exclusive. DNR does a better job of multiple use access than the USFS does. A large part of the reason they are no longer paying thier own way is because they don't cut timber much anymore. It is also the reason why we are loosing access RIGHT NOW with road closures. IF the usfs was doing thier job instead of playing sue and settle games with environmental wackos we would have it all... like we once did in this state.It's possible that other states may not look at the issue like we do, and I'm ok with that. I don't belive this has to be an either/or proposition. States could be given the land to hold but not sell with the requirement that the land still be open to the public for recreation.
I think the people really pushing this transfer (Bundy, et al) are figuring that they will be getting their hands on the land. There is no reason to think that the transfer would benefit ANYONE except the wealthy folks that end up with it.If you want to change the way the feds manage our lands, get involved. I suggest joining a group that serves your interest (whether that's ATV, Logging, Wilderness, Rafting...) and represent your interest in a collaborative to direct management. If you're not involved, you should be.
We agree on part of this. The problem is money. The question is how does ownership change the problem?I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.
@Vees there is a book I highly recomend on the subject. The tinderbox how political correctness destroyed the usfs
I just do not see how this is a "state's rights" issue. The land is not currently owned, managed, nor paid to maintain by the states. This is federally owned land we are talking about. The way I look at it, handing over federal land to the states would be a massive federal government giveaway, a redistribution of wealth from all U.S. citizens to certain state residents and corporate interests. Where is my compensation if the lands that I own, a as a U.S. citizen, are just given away. It would be like government wellfare on steroids. I think it is clear that states permanently holding this land and maintaining public access is literally not possible. There is no state that could afford the expense of managing all that land. State ownership would result in land sales, with 100% certainty. Several states, including Wyoming, researched the cost/benefit and have concluded this time and again. And if you think states wouldn't have to deal with the same litigation as the federal government if they owned the lands, think again, the legal battles will continue.
Quote from: Special T on November 21, 2016, 11:59:15 AMWe agree on part of this. The problem is money. The question is how does ownership change the problem?I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.That's true about the anti loggers/grazers. The loggers have gotten better at collaboration (See NEWFC in NE WA), but the grazers are going to take a political beating if they don't stop acting like separationists. They really need to work with the other user groups and build some relationships. We have tried reaching out to grazers and their argument is that they have everything to lose if they come to the collaborative... they might be right. But they have everything to lose if they don't, and they will not have relationships built or any trust with other groups to maintain their interests.
