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

[Naches Sportsman]

I'm on some F.S. employees Facebook groups. I haven't debated with them, but can tell most of the idiots are district rangers, bios, or work in the supervisors or regional offices. They hate trump. There's a few of us like minded individuals who are debating with them on how policy needs to change. They don't have a clue what they've steered the f.s. to.

[bearpaw]

NACHES
I hold several operating permits with USFS, BLM, and State lands across several states. The paperwork involved is unbelievable, what's also unbelievable is how much control those local forest supervisors have over each forest. There are several forests that I have potential clients asking for hunts but those forest's supervisors are greenies and will not allow outfitting. I'm sure the same scenario occurs with all other types of commercial or industrial activities on USFS or BLM lands.

BOSS
The Wilkes are disliked because in several cases they have bought private lands that previous owners allowed hunting and then closed off hunting. (very large properties) In Montana this is a big problem, all sorts of rich movie stars and corporate owners are buying up the big ranches and closing them to hunting.

[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....

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?

Realistically our views don't differ that much on this...the water thing is interesting....look at Chile as an example

The race for water has started along time ago

[Boss .300 winmag]

I'm on some F.S. employees Facebook groups. I haven't debated with them, but can tell most of the idiots are district rangers, bios, or work in the supervisors or regional offices. They hate trump. There's a few of us like minded individuals who are debating with them on how policy needs to change. They don't have a clue what they've steered the f.s. to.

Let me guess, the woods are mine, no logging it's bad for the enviroment, and animals, close all the roads thier bad, you should only hike into the woods, or bike, no motorcycles, snowmobiles, hunting is terrible I don't know why it's allowed on National Forest lands.

[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?

Realistically our views don't differ that much on this...the water thing is interesting....look at Chile as an example

The race for water has started along time ago

I think you are right. 
I don't know about Chille, too much time in the woods I guess... 

[Boss .300 winmag]

NACHES
I hold several operating permits with USFS, BLM, and State lands across several states. The paperwork involved is unbelievable, what's also unbelievable is how much control those local forest supervisors have over each forest. There are several forests that I have potential clients asking for hunts but those forest's supervisors are greenies and will not allow outfitting. I'm sure the same scenario occurs with all other types of commercial or industrial activities on USFS or BLM lands.

BOSS
The Wilkes are disliked because in several cases they have bought private lands that previous owners allowed hunting and then closed off hunting. (very large properties) In Montana this is a big problem, all sorts of rich movie stars and corporate owners are buying up the big ranches and closing them to hunting.

That's just flat wrong that a forest supervisor has that much control over the people's forests without higher up oversite. 

But hey the National Park Service is the same way.

Once the greenies are in control, hard to get them out.

[grundy53]

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 agree. This is the route I would hope to go. They are appointed positions so Trump could easily fix this.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk

[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....

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?

Realistically our views don't differ that much on this...the water thing is interesting....look at Chile as an example

The race for water has started along time ago

I think you are right. 
I don't know about Chille, too much time in the woods I guess... 

Time in the woods is a double edge sword.....but it does create the best "views"

 

[Naches Sportsman]

I'm on some F.S. employees Facebook groups. I haven't debated with them, but can tell most of the idiots are district rangers, bios, or work in the supervisors or regional offices. They hate trump. There's a few of us like minded individuals who are debating with them on how policy needs to change. They don't have a clue what they've steered the f.s. to.

Let me guess, the woods are mine, no logging it's bad for the enviroment, and animals, close all the roads thier bad, you should only hike into the woods, or bike, no motorcycles, snowmobiles, hunting is terrible I don't know why it's allowed on National Forest lands.

Yep.

[Rainier10]

Great thread and dialogue.   

I really like these kinds of conversations.

Carry on.

[blackveltbowhunter]

We already OWN this land. Why would we give that up?  I am happy to see my federal tax dollars go toward defense spending and public land and ensuring that for the next generations. I assume that the majority here get far more benefit from there little slice of backcountry, than they do an Obama phone, Obamacare, EBT, or any of the other government programs that many of us have little use for. Do you think if the feds sell or give land to the states that you will see a reimbursement check equal to the value you placed on it? I for one am so doubtful that would happen if it did I would label it absurd.

I agree with bearpaw, management of the forest for some revenue based on natural resources absolutley needs to occur, and has been halted for far to long. However I dont think throwing out the baby with the bathwater is the solution. Land cannot be replaced, the republicans need to find other ways to decrease the deficit besides selling off the one thing many of thier constituents actually benefit from.

[bearpaw]

Out west here we really value our public lands. I find it interesting when I talk with people from other areas of the country, some of them do not understand why we like our public lands so much, probably because they've never had them available. Many hunters from states with only a small amount of public land will say there are too many hunters and nothing there to hunt, I think maybe they get an attitude the public lands are worth having for that reason?

I would say Trump is on the right path by appointing Zinke (who actually hunts) from Montana to the Dept of Interior. Let's hope for good "change"!

[kentrek]

Here's a pretty good mentality in my opinion of this issue outlined by the rocky mtn elk foundation starting around the 30 minute Mark

[JLS]

Out west here we really value our public lands. I find it interesting when I talk with people from other areas of the country, some of them do not understand why we like our public lands so much, probably because they've never had them available. Many hunters from states with only a small amount of public land will say there are too many hunters and nothing there to hunt, I think maybe they get an attitude the public lands are worth having for that reason?

I would say Trump is on the right path by appointing Zinke (who actually hunts) from Montana to the Dept of Interior. Let's hope for good "change"!

Thus far, Zinke has maintained he will not support the sale or transfer of public lands, as has President Trump.  Actions will speak MUCH louder than words in the very near future.

Regardless of your political affiliation and/or beliefs, I think that MANY of us on this board and across the west value our public lands very much.  They contribute significantly to my family's quality of life.  ALL of us need to engage in the political process.  Make phone calls every week, reminding your representative(s) that you value your public lands and do NOT want them disposed of.

The money made from the disposal of public lands is insignificant when it comes to a yearly operating budget for our government.  In my opinion, it is stepping over dollars to pick up pennies at this point in the game.  There is MUCH more bang for our buck if we want to focus on fiscal responsibility. 

[JLS]

http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,208238.msg2772573/topicseen.html#new


Go to reply #5 for what you can do.