H.R. 1484 (Public Lands Transfer)

[csaaphill]

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.

yeah ther ya go

[csaaphill]

As to what Bigtex was saying why don't states make that a law or some amendment then, that to sell off state owned lands they need a congressional review or whatever?

[Bean Counter]

...We all own these lands, and it should stay that way. Teddy Roosevelt and others fought hard to establish a system where even the common person without means could have open spaces to explore, hunt, and simply enjoy...

Teddy Roosevelt was a bully pulpit Populist that expanded tons of federal precedents that are still praised today by our Enemies on the Left.  His attitude was that he could do whatever he wanted unless the Constitution forbade it, whereas a principled conservative president such as Coolidge believed he could only act as president if the constitution allowed it.

Fortunately we learned our lesson and wouldn't elect such a power hungry clown again.. oh wait 

[Taco280AI]

How are the states that are already in the negative financially supposed to manage the land? They don't have the $$$ to. Neither do the feds but at least they're not trying to sell everything off

[baldopepper]

...We all own these lands, and it should stay that way. Teddy Roosevelt and others fought hard to establish a system where even the common person without means could have open spaces to explore, hunt, and simply enjoy...

Teddy Roosevelt was a bully pulpit Populist that expanded tons of federal precedents that are still praised today by our Enemies on the Left.  His attitude was that he could do whatever he wanted unless the Constitution forbade it, whereas a principled conservative president such as Coolidge believed he could only act as president if the constitution allowed it.

Enemies on the left?  Geeze, you probably didn't mean it that harsh (at least I hope not) but I see that as one of the major problems these days.  I have friends and relatives on both the right and the left, and while we disagree on many things I don't see them as the enemy.  Civility seems to be a lost art in political discussions these days.

Fortunately we learned our lesson and wouldn't elect such a power hungry clown again.. oh wait 

[bracer40]

...We all own these lands, and it should stay that way. Teddy Roosevelt and others fought hard to establish a system where even the common person without means could have open spaces to explore, hunt, and simply enjoy...
[/quote]

Teddy Roosevelt was a bully pulpit Populist that expanded tons of federal precedents that are still praised today by our Enemies on the Left.

Enemies on the left?!?

This is the kind of thinking that deepens the divide that politicians spend millions to develop. I can think of countless people I know that hold different political beliefs than me. Some are friends, some even loved ones. I assure you, they are not my enemies in spite of what politicians, the media mouthpieces or the fake news outlets on Facebook hope I will believe.

[fireweed]

As Dr. Phil Says, past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

Look what happened during the last big land giveaway, when the US government gave every other section to the railroads as an "incentive" to build the tracks.  Those sections were supposed to be sold to homesteaders (and a few did buy, including my ancestors) but then the rest was sold to familiar names like Weyerhaeuser.  Teddy Roosevelts big land grab was rolled back, too.  If you look at boundaries of most national forests as TR put them on paper, then compare that with what we have now, you might be surprised how much "roll back" of public land occurred after he left office.

But that was ok, right, since the roads and trails weaved between private and public with no access restrictions at the time. 

We all know how that ended up.....

So what have we learned from history?   No land transfers or sales of to anyone without written ironclad public use easements in place first. 

[Special T]

The land only costs $ because the leadership of the USFS is horrible and misguided. It has been shown over and over that the usfs is either colluding in the sue and settle tactics by environment wackos or are inept.

I see this akin to when the wdfw rallied the sportsmen to rescue  them from a merger with parks and DNR. Our thanks for rallying support was the short shafts being ignored as THE reason they exist.

I have little intrest in preserving the status quo. If the usfs wasn't such a beurocratic mess they would have seen this a mile a way and showed us some progress.

[Bean Counter]

Enemies on the left?!?

This is the kind of thinking that deepens the divide that politicians spend millions to develop. I can think of countless people I know that hold different political beliefs than me. Some are friends, some even loved ones. I assure you, they are not my enemies in spite of what politicians, the media mouthpieces or the fake news outlets on Facebook hope I will believe.

I have family members that are Leftist as well. They're family, but we're not allies. Use of the word "enemy" is NOT a call to violence, its simply a recognition that I am 100% committed to the defeat of their agenda. I once took an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You seem to be in denial that such a reality exists(?). Do you honestly think that Barack Hussein Millhouse Benito Obama supports states rights (10th Amendment), your ability to freely own and carry a gun (2nd Amendment), supports your free expression of speech and religion (1st Amendment)? When you're opposed to life, liberty, and property, you become my enemy. Embrace your oppressors to your own folly. 

  Geeze, you probably didn't mean it that harsh (at least I hope not) but I see that as one of the major problems these days.  I have friends and relatives on both the right and the left, and while we disagree on many things I don't see them as the enemy.  Civility seems to be a lost art in political discussions these days.

I meant what I said. and yes, I'll say it to someones face--I've done done it. That isn't necessarily exclusive of civility. I can be civil when the Collectivists are honest about their anti-Constitution agenda.

Keep in mind that this rhetoric is reciprocated by the Collectivists themselves:

[bigtex]

As to what Bigtex was saying why don't states make that a law or some amendment then, that to sell off state owned lands they need a congressional review or whatever?

I assume you mean a review by the state legislature and not the actual US Congress...

Well for one, most states don't have a full-time legislature. Most are like WA which is only in session about 3 months a year (Jan-March-ish). So what happens when DNR wants to sell/buy land in June?? Are they supposed to wait until January and hope the deal is still there? And realistically, the legislature has more important things to deal with. That's why they've given this authority to the DNR Commission. It's why they've given the authority to establish hunting seasons to the WDFW Commission.

[bigtex]

How are the states that are already in the negative financially supposed to manage the land? They don't have the $$$ to. Neither do the feds but at least they're not trying to sell everything off

The majority of the states who have actually convened a study to see if they could financially manage the land have found they could not do so. I believe Montana and Wyoming were the last ones to say it financially wasn't possible for them to manage the current federal lands.

[csaaphill]

As to what Bigtex was saying why don't states make that a law or some amendment then, that to sell off state owned lands they need a congressional review or whatever?

I assume you mean a review by the state legislature and not the actual US Congress...

Well for one, most states don't have a full-time legislature. Most are like WA which is only in session about 3 months a year (Jan-March-ish). So what happens when DNR wants to sell/buy land in June?? Are they supposed to wait until January and hope the deal is still there? And realistically, the legislature has more important things to deal with. That's why they've given this authority to the DNR Commission. It's why they've given the authority to establish hunting seasons to the WDFW Commission.

Yeah that's what I meant the states to do the same thing the feds do. And oh ok. Bummer!

[Elkaholic daWg]

The land only costs $ because the leadership of the USFS is horrible and misguided. It has been shown over and over that the usfs is either colluding in the sue and settle tactics by environment wackos or are inept.

I see this akin to when the wdfw rallied the sportsmen to rescue  them from a merger with parks and DNR. Our thanks for rallying support was the short shafts being ignored as THE reason they exist.

I have little intrest in preserving the status quo. If the usfs wasn't such a beurocratic mess they would have seen this a mile a way and showed us some progress.

I am 100% with you on this Special T

As Dr. Phil Says, past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.

Look what happened during the last big land giveaway, when the US government gave every other section to the railroads as an "incentive" to build the tracks.  Those sections were supposed to be sold to homesteaders (and a few did buy, including my ancestors) but then the rest was sold to familiar names like Weyerhaeuser.  Teddy Roosevelts big land grab was rolled back, too.  If you look at boundaries of most national forests as TR put them on paper, then compare that with what we have now, you might be surprised how much "roll back" of public land occurred after he left office.

But that was ok, right, since the roads and trails weaved between private and public with no access restrictions at the time. 

We all know how that ended up.....

So what have we learned from history?   No land transfers or sales of to anyone without written ironclad public use easements in place first. 

That last sentence is SPOT ON

[Special T]

This ties into the other thread about taking roads out. If access to the Forrest  is constantly reduced through tearing out roadless and installing gates does it matter if the Feds own the land instead of the state? If access  is reduced by tearing out miles  of road and then gating the remainder  why should we support the USFS?

[csaaphill]

Are, or aren't the pay to play campgrounds Fed owned or State? If fed owned then seems like that's a viable way to go state owned? meaning since $'s speak loudly then pay to play seem like the way of the future?, but still kept public but as state owned rather than fed owned?
Special T you make a good point why if they're already mucking things up on the federal level why would we keep supporting them?