1st Day of New Congress GOP Votes to Make it Easier to Sell off Federal Land

[jackelope]

http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/washington_bha_letter_on_land_transfer_legislation

[Bean Counter]

And it begins.... 

  

You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?

I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.

Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging  big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west?   

[Jimmybelltown]

And it begins.... 

  

You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?

I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.

Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging  big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west?   

Help me out here.. you trust the cash strapped states with budget holes not to sell off to highest bidder and restrict access? I do not.

[Bean Counter]

I'm nervous about it. I agree that its better to have a wide base of stakeholders involved in conservation. But I don't discard my core principles--federalism, states rights, local control--to get what I want. 99% of you would probably agree with those principles per se, but only throw it out the window just because we're talking bout getting free stuff for your hobby 

[bigtex]

Why isn't that a concern for DNR land currently?

It is. Just about every month DNR sells chunks of land to outside entities. It's worse in other states.

[Skyvalhunter]

I am thinking that some letters and e-mails need to be written to Bishop

[andersonjk4]

If the states were to guarantee the lands were kept open and accessible and they followed the same management goals as the Feds currently do (provide opportunities across all user groups) then I would be all for state transfer. But we all know by looking at the past and at the states current laws regarding land that for the land. The states number one objective is to make money on the land and if they can't do that then they sell it. And a lot of states have that stipulated in their constitution. And regarding access. Pretty much every state has stricter restrictions or regulations than USFS or BLM (discover pass fees, no camping, no target shooting, etc.) Teddy Roosevelt fought hard to get these lands set aside for all Americans, and all people really, to enjoy. Not to let the states do what they want with them. As it stands now they are open and accessible, mostly for free, for all citizens and for all visitors of the US. I am surprised that people who claim to want to put freedom first want to take this huge freedom away from the people. The Feds might not be doing a great job managing the lands right now, but I would much rather push them to do their jobs and start managing the land better than to give it to the states and give up access and risk loosing the land to privatization. 

Soapbox rant over. Carry on.

[jackelope]

And it begins.... 

  

You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?

I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.

Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging  big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west?   

I don't. Please expand. I think I know what you're trying to say. Just want to make sure.

[westsidehntr]

If the states were to guarantee the lands were kept open and accessible and they followed the same management goals as the Feds currently do (provide opportunities across all user groups) then I would be all for state transfer. But we all know by looking at the past and at the states current laws regarding land that for the land. The states number one objective is to make money on the land and if they can't do that then they sell it. And a lot of states have that stipulated in their constitution. And regarding access. Pretty much every state has stricter restrictions or regulations than USFS or BLM (discover pass fees, no camping, no target shooting, etc.) Teddy Roosevelt fought hard to get these lands set aside for all Americans, and all people really, to enjoy. Not to let the states do what they want with them. As it stands now they are open and accessible, mostly for free, for all citizens and for all visitors of the US. I am surprised that people who claim to want to put freedom first want to take this huge freedom away from the people. The Feds might not be doing a great job managing the lands right now, but I would much rather push them to do their jobs and start managing the land better than to give it to the states and give up access and risk loosing the land to privatization. 

Soapbox rant over. Carry on.

Saying they are open for free is like Bernies "free" college for everyone.

[westsidehntr]

You guys who support massive federal land ownership, what do you think is the role and purpose of federal government?

[lee]

This is what I am concerned about.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2016/sep/29/texas-billionaire-bar-hunter-land/

The Billionaire Wilks Brothers (VERY rich Texans) are buying up VERY large Ranches all over the west and turning them into private hunting Reserves, etc.

I worry that the Feds will turn over Public land to the States,.... who can't afford there own affairs now let alone when they now own a bizillon more arches of land,... will sell this land to the highest bidder,... like the Wilks, or Ted Turner,... who owns more land than the size of 3 Rhode Islands!!!!!!,.... and "waalaa" the once public land is now private land "NO TRESPASSING"!!!

Lee

[jackelope]

This is what I am concerned about.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2016/sep/29/texas-billionaire-bar-hunter-land/

The Billionaire Wilks Brothers (VERY rich Texans) are buying up VERY large Ranches all over the west and turning them into private hunting Reserves, etc.

I worry that the Feds will turn over Public land to the States,.... who can't afford there own affairs now let alone when they now own a bizillon more arches of land,... will sell this land to the highest bidder,... like the Wilks, or Ted Turner,... who owns more land than the size of 3 Rhode Islands!!!!!!,.... and "waalaa" the once public land is now private land "NO TRESPASSING"!!!

Lee

 Someone is reading with both eyes open!! Thank you, Lee.

[Rainier10]

This is what I am concerned about.

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2016/sep/29/texas-billionaire-bar-hunter-land/

The Billionaire Wilks Brothers (VERY rich Texans) are buying up VERY large Ranches all over the west and turning them into private hunting Reserves, etc.

I worry that the Feds will turn over Public land to the States,.... who can't afford there own affairs now let alone when they now own a bizillon more arches of land,... will sell this land to the highest bidder,... like the Wilks, or Ted Turner,... who owns more land than the size of 3 Rhode Islands!!!!!!,.... and "waalaa" the once public land is now private land "NO TRESPASSING"!!!

Lee

Ding, Ding, Ding. Winner.

[wooltie]

And it begins.... 

  

You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?

I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.

Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging  big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west?   

If I am interpreting your statement correctly, then are you saying that the federal .gov provides stuff that's cheap or free but at the expense of your freedom?

If so, please explain how one associates the fed .gov and less freedom.

[jackelope]

And it begins.... 

  

You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?

I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.

Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging  big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west?   

If I am interpreting your statement correctly, then are you saying that the federal .gov provides stuff that's cheap or free but at the expense of your freedom?

If so, please explain how one associates the fed .gov and less freedom.

He's ok with Republicans in the government because they will ensure his freedoms, even if that means they're going to enable/simplify the selling of our public lands, because he will still have his freedom.