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

[kentrek]

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.

All because of wolves....

I'l take wolves any day over having to rely on private access and a draw system in order to kill big bulls

[jackelope]

1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.

2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.

3. Public lands are good for the economy.

4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.

5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.


It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/

[wooltie]

This idea of 'fed .gov = less freedom' has been floating for decades.  I personally think the idea is a falsehood, but I'm always curious why and how people arrive at this conclusion.  So I do my best to ask nicely.

[bearpaw]

The problem is with federal land management, the land has been basically management by preservationists. There is less and less use of the land (logging, mining, oil extraction) which means less and less income from the land to help pay for management of federal lands and thus why campgrounds are being shut down, roads are being abandoned rather than fixed, and people have no jobs in rural communities, the feds have shut off the revenue stream with their liberal preservationist management methods. The federal government is more than bankrupt, they are 19 Trillion in debt, that is simply due to mismanagement by politicians who are concerned about their own net worth, and don't care what happens to the federal budget or this country.

Essentially Washington State has the same problem with State Parks. I served on Inslee's State parks Task Force, I brought up allowing venders to offer services in State Parks so that income is generated to help pay for the operation of the State Parks. But the liberals don't want to allow any private entity to operate, they want Parks to be increasingly subsidized by the legislature (tax payers). The state is having trouble coming up with money to pay for education, state parks is not going to get more money from the legislature because they don't have any extra money and state parks are probably going to continue to close because the liberals will not budge on allowing other uses that would create revenue to help fund park operations. If the state does have a few dollars they will use it to buy more land that they already can't afford to manage.

I do not want to see any public lands sold although I have no issue with public lands being traded when it results in easier or better management as is already being done. I am definitely in favor of allowing local or state management of federal lands because the forest service has been a terrible land manager. I would like to see legislation that somehow allowed local management but restricted any net selloff of public land. Another words land could be traded or land could be sold as long as other land was bought to replace what was sold. Trump is a smart business man and his boys (close advisers) are staunch hunters and public land advocates, I have faith we are going to see better USFS and BLM management in the very near future! Trump could bring back logging, mining, and oil extraction to public lands which would generate revenue for the federal government, better public land management, and revenue for local economies. I expect to see something positive within this year!

[bearpaw]

1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.

2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.

3. Public lands are good for the economy.

4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.

5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.


It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/

The problem with the propaganda you are reading is that it comes from an organization with preservationist beginnings. I agree with keeping public land public but there has to be revenue from our lands or the tax payers will have to increasingly pay more and the federal government will increasingly go further in debt. Local economies depend on use in our public lands. BHA's answer seems to be to make more and more wilderness which does nothing to help our economy, in fact it worsens it. I'm all for keeping the roadless areas that we have, but we don't need to make half the country wilderness. I would much rather hunt land that has been managed with logging as a tool, far more game abounds there than in over aged forests that tax payers have to support.

Half the county where I live would be wilderness if BHA had their way!

[Katmai Guy]

Bearpaw, not sure if having the states manage federal lands would be a good idea either, couldn't Adverse possession come into play after , what is it, 7yrs?  Then the states would get the land without having to pay a dime.  except for maybe court costs if contested.

[jackelope]

1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.

2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.

3. Public lands are good for the economy.

4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.

5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.


It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/

The problem with the propaganda you are reading is that it comes from an organization with preservationist beginnings. I agree with keeping public land public but there has to be revenue from our lands or the tax payers will have to increasingly pay more and the federal government will increasingly go further in debt. Local economies depend on use in our public lands. BHA's answer seems to be to make more and more wilderness which does nothing to help our economy, in fact it worsens it. I'm all for keeping the roadless areas that we have, but we don't need to make half the country wilderness. I would much rather hunt land that has been managed with logging as a tool, far more game abounds there than in over aged forests that tax payers have to support.

Half the county where I live would be wilderness if BHA had their way!

Can't say I wasn't waiting for that response.
Propoganda...isn't this all propaganda?  Even what you just posted is propaganda. Just depends on your personal views on this sort of thing and which side of the propaganda you decide to put value in. 
I'm not for everything turning into wilderness either, but I'm also not ok with everything being turned into a state park.

[grundy53]

1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.

2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.

3. Public lands are good for the economy.

4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.

5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.


It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/

The problem with the propaganda you are reading is that it comes from an organization with preservationist beginnings. I agree with keeping public land public but there has to be revenue from our lands or the tax payers will have to increasingly pay more and the federal government will increasingly go further in debt. Local economies depend on use in our public lands. BHA's answer seems to be to make more and more wilderness which does nothing to help our economy, in fact it worsens it. I'm all for keeping the roadless areas that we have, but we don't need to make half the country wilderness. I would much rather hunt land that has been managed with logging as a tool, far more game abounds there than in over aged forests that tax payers have to support.

Half the county where I live would be wilderness if BHA had their way!

Can't say I wasn't waiting for that response.
Propoganda...isn't this all propaganda?  Even what you just posted is propaganda. Just depends on your personal views on this sort of thing and which side of the propaganda you decide to put value in. 
I'm not for everything turning into wilderness either, but I'm also not ok with everything being turned into a state park.

and I'm definitely not for everything turning to private land. If we get rid of federal land the west is going to end up looking like Texas.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[grundy53]

1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.

2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.

3. Public lands are good for the economy.

4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.

5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.


It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/

The problem with the propaganda you are reading is that it comes from an organization with preservationist beginnings. I agree with keeping public land public but there has to be revenue from our lands or the tax payers will have to increasingly pay more and the federal government will increasingly go further in debt. Local economies depend on use in our public lands. BHA's answer seems to be to make more and more wilderness which does nothing to help our economy, in fact it worsens it. I'm all for keeping the roadless areas that we have, but we don't need to make half the country wilderness. I would much rather hunt land that has been managed with logging as a tool, far more game abounds there than in over aged forests that tax payers have to support.

Half the county where I live would be wilderness if BHA had their way!

Those five points are fact. Not propaganda. I don't agree with BHA as a whole. But I do on this topic.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[JimmyHoffa]

I remember reading about some counties in Oregon that are almost completely owned by the FS.  The counties hit hard times, and not because of market forces--that would be a different argument, but because the land manager and enviros.  The FS operations had been funding all the county workings, but afterwards it left a huge tax need that the people aren't willing shoulder through property and sales tax, almost no county sheriffs, fire depts or ambulances.  Yet they are surrounded by millions of acres of timber that can't be cut...but seems to burn every year.

[bearpaw]

1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.

2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.

3. Public lands are good for the economy.

4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.

5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.


It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/

The problem with the propaganda you are reading is that it comes from an organization with preservationist beginnings. I agree with keeping public land public but there has to be revenue from our lands or the tax payers will have to increasingly pay more and the federal government will increasingly go further in debt. Local economies depend on use in our public lands. BHA's answer seems to be to make more and more wilderness which does nothing to help our economy, in fact it worsens it. I'm all for keeping the roadless areas that we have, but we don't need to make half the country wilderness. I would much rather hunt land that has been managed with logging as a tool, far more game abounds there than in over aged forests that tax payers have to support.

Half the county where I live would be wilderness if BHA had their way!

Can't say I wasn't waiting for that response.
Propoganda...isn't this all propaganda?  Even what you just posted is propaganda. Just depends on your personal views on this sort of thing and which side of the propaganda you decide to put value in. 
I'm not for everything turning into wilderness either, but I'm also not ok with everything being turned into a state park.

Yes it's all propaganda LOL. I do definitely agree with everything you just said in your last post.   

Here's more propaganda:
What I see in BHA is an organization created by preservationists like Conservation Northwest to further their goal of getting more wilderness. They have ushered in a large following of sportsmen (who have sincere good intentions) to help them achieve their original goal. While I don't disagree with all their points, I do know that if they achieve their original goal it means many of my friends and neighbors will have less work and my local area economy will suffer. Yes, if half my county was wilderness I could make more money hauling in hunters on horseback (hunters who couldn't hike in to hunt without help) but I am not going to overlook the good of the community for my own personal gain.

Every year I talk to thousands of hunters looking for hunts, many of these hunters who are older aged or out of shape simply can't hike miles into a wilderness and then try to hunt. Lots of younger guys supporting more wilderness forget that someday they will be the older guy who needs a road to get closer to the hunt area! 

[baldopepper]

Bearpaw-you open pandoras box with a long simmering feud in this country. That being the demise of the traditional rural lifestyle due to the disappearance of the jobs that sustained them.  The idea that logging, mining, oil exploration will sustain these communities does nothing but (I hate to say it) postpone the inevitable. We see it all across the country where small rural towns that depend on these activities are slowly disappearing. The power of the urban dwellers to dictate what happens on our public lands is undeniable.  What some communities(I would use Park City, Utah and Moab Utah as examples- both were dependent entirely upon mining and some logging ) have done is to figure a way to convert their areas into tourist meccas that milk millions of dollars and jobs out those urban dwellers who want to taste the great outdoors. Is it ideal? No, not if you were born and raised in a small rural area that has different standards and ideals than most larger urban areas.  Is it ultimately the best way to keep your kids and grandkids near to you because they can actually find employment and a future, probably. Who will be the best overseer of this transition-states or feds?  I can't answer that, I would like to see better cooperation between them so this transition can be made to benefit both sides of this equation.  I do know that these urban dollars are not going to flow into overly logged, overly mined or overly developed areas. And they sure aren't going to areas that are sold off and plastered with no trespassing signs. Personally, I don't trust the people who are pushing for state control.  I see them more interested in short term profits than long term management of our outdoor lands.  I appreciate your point of view and think I understand where you're coming from, just honestly don't agree with it.

[Naches Sportsman]

I think the problem about federal lands arises from all the sue happy groups and their friends who are high in the forest service rankings.

Launch a major investigation into why things don't get doneand fire or demote the people responsible.

Rebuild the structure of the forest circus and find people high in the rankings thar will pushow projects through. Many of us at the bottom of the todemn pole who see the forest's health declining want change.


There has to be a way around it and believe Trump can fix it without selling the land off.

[kentrek]

"There has to be revenue from our lands"

Why ? So we can hire more workers to maintain more stuff we don't need ?? So we can build out houses that never get maintained so we don't have to squat in the bushes? Or sighns telling us not to liter ? And sending 3 bioligist out to bait one trail camera ?? It's never ending....before you know it they'll be building drone power up stations at all trail heads....keep things simple.....

Fix the part not the machine....

[bigtex]

1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.

2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.

3. Public lands are good for the economy.

4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.

5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.


It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/

The problem with the propaganda you are reading is that it comes from an organization with preservationist beginnings. I agree with keeping public land public but there has to be revenue from our lands or the tax payers will have to increasingly pay more and the federal government will increasingly go further in debt. Local economies depend on use in our public lands. BHA's answer seems to be to make more and more wilderness which does nothing to help our economy, in fact it worsens it. I'm all for keeping the roadless areas that we have, but we don't need to make half the country wilderness. I would much rather hunt land that has been managed with logging as a tool, far more game abounds there than in over aged forests that tax payers have to support.

Half the county where I live would be wilderness if BHA had their way!

Can't say I wasn't waiting for that response.
Propoganda...isn't this all propaganda?  Even what you just posted is propaganda. Just depends on your personal views on this sort of thing and which side of the propaganda you decide to put value in. 
I'm not for everything turning into wilderness either, but I'm also not ok with everything being turned into a state park.

and I'm definitely not for everything turning to private land. If we get rid of federal land the west is going to end up looking like Texas.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk