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

[bearpaw]

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.

It's OK to have differing views. I do see several shortsighted views in your statements.

It's great that a few communities can become tourist meccas for skiing, movie goers, and rock climbing, but if every small community offers that then most would go bankrupt, there's not enough tourist dollars to support all rural communities across the nation to be tourist meccas. There must be more diversity than just tourist dollars to support rural communities which make up probably 80% of the landmass in the US. Its the urban dwellers preservationist policies that are hurting rural communities! Urban dwellers need natural resources to support their lifestyles. Instead of allowing rural communities to provide these natural resource products as in the past, this country is increasingly buying them from foreign countries. This flow of dollars out of the US is why we are going deeper in debt and there is increasingly less employment across the nation. I don't think anyone wants our forests over logged or open pit mines everywhere, we just want to allow reasonable logging and mining, that will support these communities. For those that don't know, most loggers I know didn't like huge clear cuts, most landowners who log do selective logging on about a 10 year cycle, you take out a few trees every 10 years, it was mismanagement and forest service policy that dictated the huge clear cuts on public lands. Logging has changed since those days, many mills can't even cut big trees, they are set up to cut smaller thinned trees. The real answer is very simple, less liberal policies so this country can get back to work!

[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.

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

Did you even read my response, I don't want any public land turning private. But if you want to find an answer to the problems you must consider options and look outside the box!

[bearpaw]

"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....

I'm sorry you don't understand the need for revenue, this is really bigger than most people realize, essentially 20% of the US is USFS or BLM, I'll offer some info and reasoning:

Simple management requires thousands of employees, upkeep of existing roads, repairs after severe storms or mudslides, upkeep of campgrounds, oversight of recreational activities, oversight of grazing by livestock, oversight of industrial activities, law enforcement officers, many other reasons, etc.


United States National Forests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest

Geography
In the United States there are 155 National Forests containing almost 190 million acres (297,000 mi²/769 000 km²) of land. These lands comprise 8.5 percent of the total land area of the United States, an area about the size of Texas. Some 87 percent of National Forest land lies west of the Mississippi River in the mountain ranges of the Western United States. Alaska has 12 percent of all National Forest lands. The U.S. Forest Service also manages all of the United States National Grasslands, and around half of the United States National Recreation Areas.

There are two distinctly different types of forests within the National Forest system.
Those east of the Great Plains in the Midwestern and Eastern United States were primarily acquired by the federal government since 1891, and may be second growth forests. The land had long been in the private domain and sometimes repeatedly logged since colonial times, but was purchased by the United States government in order to create new National Forests.
Those west of the Great Plains in the Western United States, though established since 1891, are primarily on lands with ownership maintained by the federal government since the U.S. acquisition and settling of the American West. These are mostly lands that were kept in the public domain, with the exception of inholdings and donated or exchanged private forest lands.

Management
Land management of these areas focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. National Forests are categorized by the U.S. as IUCN Category VI protected areas (Managed Resource Protected Area). However, the first-designated wilderness areas, and some of the largest, are on National Forest lands.
There are management decision conflicts between conservationists and environmentalists, and natural resource extraction companies and lobbies (e.g. logging & mining), over the protection and/or use of National Forest lands. These conflicts center on endangered species protection, logging of old-growth forests, intensive clear cut logging, undervalued stumpage fees, mining operations and mining claim laws, and logging/mining access road-building within National Forests. Additional conflicts arise from concerns that the grasslands, shrublands, and forest understory are grazed by sheep, cattle, and, more recently, rising numbers of elk and mule deer due to loss of predators.
Many ski resorts and summer resorts operate on leased land in National Forests.


Bureau of Land Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior that administers more than 247.3 million acres (1,001,000 km2) of public lands in the United States which constitutes one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[2] President Harry S. Truman created the BLM in 1946 by combining two existing agencies: the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.[3] The agency manages the federal government's nearly 700 million acres (2,800,000 km2) of subsurface mineral estate located beneath federal, state and private lands severed from their surface rights by the Homestead Act of 1862.[3] Most BLM public lands are located in these 12 western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.[4]
 
The mission of the BLM is "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations."[5] Originally BLM holdings were described as "land nobody wanted" because homesteaders had passed them by.[4] All the same, ranchers hold nearly 18,000 permits and leases for livestock grazing on 155 million acres (630,000 km2) of BLM public lands.[6] The agency manages 221 wilderness areas, 23 national monuments and some 636 other protected areas as part of the National Landscape Conservation System totaling about 30 million acres (120,000 km2).[7] There are more than 63,000 oil and gas wells on BLM public lands. Total energy leases generated approximately $5.4 billion in 2013, an amount divided among the Treasury, the states, and Native American groups.[8][9][10]

[jackelope]

I'm willing to think outside the box and am willing to learn. Maybe I'm missing something.

As a whole, would you say guides and outfitters utilize more public land or private land throughout the west?

Would you say the quality of the hunts are better on private ground or public ground?

As a majority, do you think DIY/unguided hunters would benefit from more federally controlled public lands or more state controlled public lands?

[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.

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

Did you even read my response, I don't want any public land turning private. But if you want to find an answer to the problems you must consider options and look outside the box!

So with state controlled public land, how do we ensure it doesn't turn private?
I'll reiterate this which was posted earlier.  This is what I'm worried about.

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

[lamrith]

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 

No up here we throw it out because the state is being overrun by idiot liberals more and more.  Liberals that have no idea bout actual conservation and want to see hunting ended "for the animals".  Further compounded by financially strapped states as previously mentioned that could sell the lands off to private and then we all lose what little we have left...

AZ has a decent conservation program and plan in place from what I have seen going down there, lots and lots of BLM land to hunt etc.  Not so much up here.

[kentrek]

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

Did you even read my response, I don't want any public land turning private. But if you want to find an answer to the problems you must consider options and look outside the box!

So with state controlled public land, how do we ensure it doesn't turn private?
I'll reiterate this which was posted earlier.  This is what I'm worried 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"!!!

Don't forget increased privatization of our water....

[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.

It's OK to have differing views. I do see several shortsighted views in your statements.

It's great that a few communities can become tourist meccas for skiing, movie goers, and rock climbing, but if every small community offers that then most would go bankrupt, there's not enough tourist dollars to support all rural communities across the nation to be tourist meccas. There must be more diversity than just tourist dollars to support rural communities which make up probably 80% of the landmass in the US. Its the urban dwellers preservationist policies that are hurting rural communities! Urban dwellers need natural resources to support their lifestyles. Instead of allowing rural communities to provide these natural resource products as in the past, this country is increasingly buying them from foreign countries. This flow of dollars out of the US is why we are going deeper in debt and there is increasingly less employment across the nation. I don't think anyone wants our forests over logged or open pit mines everywhere, we just want to allow reasonable logging and mining, that will support these communities. For those that don't know, most loggers I know didn't like huge clear cuts, most landowners who log do selective logging on about a 10 year cycle, you take out a few trees every 10 years, it was mismanagement and forest service policy that dictated the huge clear cuts on public lands. Logging has changed since those days, many mills can't even cut big trees, they are set up to cut smaller thinned trees. The real answer is very simple, less liberal policies so this country can get back to work!

I agree with you on some points. Not every small community can make that transition to catering to the urbanites, many are in areas that have little or no recreational appeal.  But, those that do (upper Stevens county being a great example) and act to make the transition happen will be the ones to survive.  I don't just see tourism as just rock climbers and skiers-lets face it, hunters and fishermen also fall into this category. Do you think  it is in their best interests to eventually have outside interests come in and make this transition, or isn't it better to have local interests begin this to help mold it to the best interests of their local area?  I'm not opposed to responsible logging or mining operations, but again I would say that in the long term there is no future in either for rural communities to hang their hats on. The idea that there are no jobs is just not true.  Every hiring manager I know (myself included) are struggling to find help.  Like it not, times have changed.  Training and mobility are the real keys to employment.  To raise you child in a rural community and let them think that a ready job is waiting  without further training than high school is doing them a real disservice.  For that matter, in our area of south Seattle there are literally hundreds of basic unskilled positions waiting to be filled (starting pay 13.50-15.50/hr with benefits) that none of us can fill.  These are entry level positions that actually lead to better paying, long term opportunities but we can't fill them!! (lots of people seem to want a job, they just don't want to work)  People have to understand you cant wait around for the job to come to you, you have to train and go find the job. I realize this is off topic for this thread, but in a way it's not.  I have a home in Stevens county, love the people there and love the surroundings-but it's hard to watch them complain of no work/no future when they really don't try to do anything about it. If you want your local rural area to stay alive you've got to think forward, not backwards.  By far and away the biggest asset in Stevens county is the open, beautiful country and waterways.  We don't have the local monies to keep the way of life there as it has been, I suggest we look at ways to move forward and mold it the best we can. I think it's critical that we don't gamble that the vast open to the public areas there might be closed off to generate short term profits and the hollow hope that it will keep the rural lifestyle as it has been
I also agree that the ability to disagree in an open and respectful manner is critical to healing the vast divide in our country.  I might not agree with your opinions, but I certainly do try to respect and understand them.

[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....

I'm sorry you don't understand the need for revenue, this is really bigger than most people realize, essentially 20% of the US is USFS or BLM, I'll offer some info and reasoning:

Simple management requires thousands of employees, upkeep of existing roads, repairs after severe storms or mudslides, upkeep of campgrounds, oversight of recreational activities, oversight of grazing by livestock, oversight of industrial activities, law enforcement officers, many other reasons, etc.


United States National Forests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest

Geography
In the United States there are 155 National Forests containing almost 190 million acres (297,000 mi²/769 000 km²) of land. These lands comprise 8.5 percent of the total land area of the United States, an area about the size of Texas. Some 87 percent of National Forest land lies west of the Mississippi River in the mountain ranges of the Western United States. Alaska has 12 percent of all National Forest lands. The U.S. Forest Service also manages all of the United States National Grasslands, and around half of the United States National Recreation Areas.

There are two distinctly different types of forests within the National Forest system.
Those east of the Great Plains in the Midwestern and Eastern United States were primarily acquired by the federal government since 1891, and may be second growth forests. The land had long been in the private domain and sometimes repeatedly logged since colonial times, but was purchased by the United States government in order to create new National Forests.
Those west of the Great Plains in the Western United States, though established since 1891, are primarily on lands with ownership maintained by the federal government since the U.S. acquisition and settling of the American West. These are mostly lands that were kept in the public domain, with the exception of inholdings and donated or exchanged private forest lands.

Management
Land management of these areas focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. National Forests are categorized by the U.S. as IUCN Category VI protected areas (Managed Resource Protected Area). However, the first-designated wilderness areas, and some of the largest, are on National Forest lands.
There are management decision conflicts between conservationists and environmentalists, and natural resource extraction companies and lobbies (e.g. logging & mining), over the protection and/or use of National Forest lands. These conflicts center on endangered species protection, logging of old-growth forests, intensive clear cut logging, undervalued stumpage fees, mining operations and mining claim laws, and logging/mining access road-building within National Forests. Additional conflicts arise from concerns that the grasslands, shrublands, and forest understory are grazed by sheep, cattle, and, more recently, rising numbers of elk and mule deer due to loss of predators.
Many ski resorts and summer resorts operate on leased land in National Forests.


Bureau of Land Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior that administers more than 247.3 million acres (1,001,000 km2) of public lands in the United States which constitutes one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[2] President Harry S. Truman created the BLM in 1946 by combining two existing agencies: the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.[3] The agency manages the federal government's nearly 700 million acres (2,800,000 km2) of subsurface mineral estate located beneath federal, state and private lands severed from their surface rights by the Homestead Act of 1862.[3] Most BLM public lands are located in these 12 western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.[4]
 
The mission of the BLM is "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations."[5] Originally BLM holdings were described as "land nobody wanted" because homesteaders had passed them by.[4] All the same, ranchers hold nearly 18,000 permits and leases for livestock grazing on 155 million acres (630,000 km2) of BLM public lands.[6] The agency manages 221 wilderness areas, 23 national monuments and some 636 other protected areas as part of the National Landscape Conservation System totaling about 30 million acres (120,000 km2).[7] There are more than 63,000 oil and gas wells on BLM public lands. Total energy leases generated approximately $5.4 billion in 2013, an amount divided among the Treasury, the states, and Native American groups.[8][9][10]

IL elaborate alil....I understand there needs to be revenue....what I don't understand is why "they" spend the precious revenue they do have already on such frivolous things....which makes me think it's not a revenue problem

[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

Did you even read my response, I don't want any public land turning private. But if you want to find an answer to the problems you must consider options and look outside the box!

Guaranteed that if the federal lands go to the states they will end up privately owned. Period. That's the whole goal of this movement. They know the states can't afford to manage these lands.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[JimmyHoffa]

What about working on the state level law then?  Making it such that the state can't sell it off.

[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.

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

Did you even read my response, I don't want any public land turning private. But if you want to find an answer to the problems you must consider options and look outside the box!

So with state controlled public land, how do we ensure it doesn't turn private?
I'll reiterate this which was posted earlier.  This is what I'm worried 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"!!!

Don't forget increased privatization of our water....

In northeast Washington our legislators have to fight against increased state control over water. Westside legislators want to meter our wells and charge us. I haven't heard about privatization of water?

I've leased a ranch right next to the Bar J in Montana (Wilkes owned), everyone hates the Wilkes, but the ranch I was leasing is trying to sell to them for a windfall high price. I'm not sure how you stop someone from selling when they can get more than it's worth?  I don't know if it's wrong for the Wilkes to do what they want with their own private land?

I'll say it again, I do not want to see any net loss of public lands. I didn't say I support this legislation and that is because it might open the door to sell public land. FYI - I would like to see legislation that results in public land management changes without any danger of public land sell off.

Perhaps Trump will turn over more local control of management practices on USFS and BLM or perhaps he will simply change leadership and policies in the agencies and there will be more logging, grazing, mining, and oil extraction and this legislation will die?

[Naches Sportsman]

Bearpaw,


IMO all he needs to change is leadership. Get rid of tree huggers running the place. Have a connection to CNW or Sierra Club? Their out. Make policy easier to navigate around.

[bearpaw]

"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....

I'm sorry you don't understand the need for revenue, this is really bigger than most people realize, essentially 20% of the US is USFS or BLM, I'll offer some info and reasoning:

Simple management requires thousands of employees, upkeep of existing roads, repairs after severe storms or mudslides, upkeep of campgrounds, oversight of recreational activities, oversight of grazing by livestock, oversight of industrial activities, law enforcement officers, many other reasons, etc.


United States National Forests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Forest

Geography
In the United States there are 155 National Forests containing almost 190 million acres (297,000 mi²/769 000 km²) of land. These lands comprise 8.5 percent of the total land area of the United States, an area about the size of Texas. Some 87 percent of National Forest land lies west of the Mississippi River in the mountain ranges of the Western United States. Alaska has 12 percent of all National Forest lands. The U.S. Forest Service also manages all of the United States National Grasslands, and around half of the United States National Recreation Areas.

There are two distinctly different types of forests within the National Forest system.
Those east of the Great Plains in the Midwestern and Eastern United States were primarily acquired by the federal government since 1891, and may be second growth forests. The land had long been in the private domain and sometimes repeatedly logged since colonial times, but was purchased by the United States government in order to create new National Forests.
Those west of the Great Plains in the Western United States, though established since 1891, are primarily on lands with ownership maintained by the federal government since the U.S. acquisition and settling of the American West. These are mostly lands that were kept in the public domain, with the exception of inholdings and donated or exchanged private forest lands.

Management
Land management of these areas focuses on conservation, timber harvesting, livestock grazing, watershed protection, wildlife, and recreation. Unlike national parks and other federal lands managed by the National Park Service, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted, and in many cases encouraged. National Forests are categorized by the U.S. as IUCN Category VI protected areas (Managed Resource Protected Area). However, the first-designated wilderness areas, and some of the largest, are on National Forest lands.
There are management decision conflicts between conservationists and environmentalists, and natural resource extraction companies and lobbies (e.g. logging & mining), over the protection and/or use of National Forest lands. These conflicts center on endangered species protection, logging of old-growth forests, intensive clear cut logging, undervalued stumpage fees, mining operations and mining claim laws, and logging/mining access road-building within National Forests. Additional conflicts arise from concerns that the grasslands, shrublands, and forest understory are grazed by sheep, cattle, and, more recently, rising numbers of elk and mule deer due to loss of predators.
Many ski resorts and summer resorts operate on leased land in National Forests.


Bureau of Land Management https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Land_Management

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is an agency within the United States Department of the Interior that administers more than 247.3 million acres (1,001,000 km2) of public lands in the United States which constitutes one-eighth of the landmass of the country.[2] President Harry S. Truman created the BLM in 1946 by combining two existing agencies: the General Land Office and the Grazing Service.[3] The agency manages the federal government's nearly 700 million acres (2,800,000 km2) of subsurface mineral estate located beneath federal, state and private lands severed from their surface rights by the Homestead Act of 1862.[3] Most BLM public lands are located in these 12 western states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.[4]
 
The mission of the BLM is "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations."[5] Originally BLM holdings were described as "land nobody wanted" because homesteaders had passed them by.[4] All the same, ranchers hold nearly 18,000 permits and leases for livestock grazing on 155 million acres (630,000 km2) of BLM public lands.[6] The agency manages 221 wilderness areas, 23 national monuments and some 636 other protected areas as part of the National Landscape Conservation System totaling about 30 million acres (120,000 km2).[7] There are more than 63,000 oil and gas wells on BLM public lands. Total energy leases generated approximately $5.4 billion in 2013, an amount divided among the Treasury, the states, and Native American groups.[8][9][10]

IL elaborate alil....I understand there needs to be revenue....what I don't understand is why "they" spend the precious revenue they do have already on such frivolous things....which makes me think it's not a revenue problem

  Thanks, I think we need policy changes, simply changing policy will create revenue, jobs, and better economy.

Bearpaw,


IMO all he needs to change is leadership. Get rid of tree huggers running the place. Have a connection to CNW or Sierra Club? Their out. Make policy easier to navigate around.

I think you are probably right! 

[Boss .300 winmag]

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

Did you even read my response, I don't want any public land turning private. But if you want to find an answer to the problems you must consider options and look outside the box!

So with state controlled public land, how do we ensure it doesn't turn private?
I'll reiterate this which was posted earlier.  This is what I'm worried 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"!!!

Don't forget increased privatization of our water....

In northeast Washington our legislators have to fight against increased state control over water. Westside legislators want to meter our wells and charge us. I haven't heard about privatization of water?

I've leased a ranch right next to the Bar J in Montana (Wilkes owned), everyone hates the Wilkes, but the ranch I was leasing is trying to sell to them for a windfall high price. I'm not sure how you stop someone from selling when they can get more than it's worth?  I don't know if it's wrong for the Wilkes to do what they want with their own private land?

I'll say it again, I do not want to see any net loss of public lands. I didn't say I support this legislation and that is because it might open the door to sell public land. FYI - I would like to see legislation that results in public land management changes without any danger of public land sell off.

Perhaps Trump will turn over more local control of management practices on USFS and BLM or perhaps he will simply change leadership and policies in the agencies and there will be more logging, grazing, mining, and oil extraction and this legislation will die?

Why do people not like the Wilkes?