Transfer of Federal Public Lands?

[NumaJohn]

Hello, all.

The Newberg videos are compelling, to be sure, but I do not need to overcomplicate a simple issue to be convinced that the transfer of federal lands to state or private stewards is a bad idea. The federal land belongs to ALL Americans, and we should keep it that way if we want multiple use.

Just as many on the Forum believe hunters need to "band together" to save our hunting privileges and 2nd Amendment rights, people of all stripes and political leanings and outdoor interests need to rally behind what is OURS. We need to move beyond "us" vs. "them" and resist a movement that ultimately is much more about the super wealthy such as the Koch brothers than it is about federal government overreach, bunny huggers vs. hunters, etc. If the common hunter wants access, the time is now to speak up, write letters, resist.

My two cents,

John

[bracer40]

Hello, all.

The Newberg videos are compelling, to be sure, but I do not need to overcomplicate a simple issue to be convinced that the transfer of federal lands to state or private stewards is a bad idea. The federal land belongs to ALL Americans, and we should keep it that way if we want multiple use.

Just as many on the Forum believe hunters need to "band together" to save our hunting privileges and 2nd Amendment rights, people of all stripes and political leanings and outdoor interests need to rally behind what is OURS. We need to move beyond "us" vs. "them" and resist a movement that ultimately is much more about the super wealthy such as the Koch brothers than it is about federal government overreach, bunny huggers vs. hunters, etc. If the common hunter wants access, the time is now to speak up, write letters, resist.

My two cents,

John

Well put John. I have a friend in the outdoor industry (25-30 years) and they're rallied around this same issue as well . And there are a lot of bunny huggers in their crowd.

[kentrek]

Hello, all.

The Newberg videos are compelling, to be sure, but I do not need to overcomplicate a simple issue to be convinced that the transfer of federal lands to state or private stewards is a bad idea. The federal land belongs to ALL Americans, and we should keep it that way if we want multiple use.

Just as many on the Forum believe hunters need to "band together" to save our hunting privileges and 2nd Amendment rights, people of all stripes and political leanings and outdoor interests need to rally behind what is OURS. We need to move beyond "us" vs. "them" and resist a movement that ultimately is much more about the super wealthy such as the Koch brothers than it is about federal government overreach, bunny huggers vs. hunters, etc. If the common hunter wants access, the time is now to speak up, write letters, resist.

My two cents,

John

Agreed

[TriggerMike]

Keep public lands in public hands. Mismanagement of state owned property will end up sold to the private sector. There goes your access. Go to sportsmensaccess.org and sign the petition. This is important ladies and gentlemen!!

X2. Keep it public! And sign the petition at www.sportsmensaccess.org

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[bracer40]

Takes 60 seconds. Completed and submitted.

[wildmeat]

In order to find a reasonable solution you really have to define the problem accurately. Federal ownership wouldn't be an issue if  Bunnie Huggers weren't pushing so much ESA nonsense.  If our now best practices of mining, drilling, grazing and logging were actually taking place this wouldn't be an issue.

  You nailed it on the head. Im a small scale miner/hunter/fisherman/trapper and all around outdoors man. If you put "Federal land" which is our Public Land into state controlled land you can kiss you access good by. They will slowly start removing roads which will deny access to some who cant walk in.

[davk]

Bad idea ... period.  There are a ton of issues that need to be resolved before it would ever be considered a sliver of a good idea.  You wont ever see the people pushing for this trying to fix those problems.  It will be "well fix it once this is in place" or some other bs.  If you believe them ... give me all your money with no written/legal contract.  Ill double it and give it back to you.

[Bean Counter]

You get what you pay for.

http://sportsmenreport.com/update-judge-orders-destruction-of-data-from-illegal-idaho-elkwolf-collaring-in-wilderness//

"Judge orders destruction of data from illegal Idaho elk/wolf collaring in wilderness..

...In this ruling, a FEDERAL Judge did not simply remove one of the “tools” from the wolf management “tool bag”, but exposed the real problem, which is FEDERAL control of land and the misapplication of the WILDERNESS ACT and the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT..."

[baldopepper]

Personally I can't see how  "manage for maximum profit" and "free public access" are compatible.  I can only imagine what the cost of a discovery pass might be.  This idea should be truly repulsive to any person who is a true outdoors person.  People pushing this see our great outdoors as a bank full of money just waiting to be robbed. Just my 

[Seabass]

It seems that people believe "public" is only applicable to Federal. State owned lands are also "public". Am I wrong?

[fish vacuum]

It seems that people believe "public" is only applicable to Federal. State owned lands are also "public". Am I wrong?

State's don't have the budget to manage additional state land and would likely sell.

[CementFinisher]

Also many state and county lands no access to limited access. only fed land in WA must provide public access. look at past state granted land in the western states. most state have sold off more than 65% of the allotted  land.

[wheels]

state land easier to be sold so we all lose it  short of it

[swanny]

Can a mod move this to the main forum? This really should be at the forefront for all to see and discuss, not hidden in the deer area. 

[haus]

Considering the fact that the private sectors current answers to hunting involve exclusion and exclusivity until which time the land is holding of more value to be developed, I don't see that route as the best direction. That leaves a buffet of state and federal agencies. State agency control of public land is like playing Russian roulette when compared to federal control. I'd rather stick with the feds in this case.

Sure the USFS has its short comings, unmitigated logging was counter punched with basically the 'do nothing' management policy we currently have. The impact on hunting, especially on the west side has been significant.

Due to the land management policy change coinciding with our states abandonment of aggressive predator control plus various diseases it's difficult to absolutely claim which factor had the greatest influence. That being said it's blatantly obvious that the USFS management choices have had an impact on the westsides deer and elk populations.

Conservation organizations are making progress though and in several NF parcels that I frequent the changes they've made are helping improve the habitat.