Post by: Vees on November 15, 2016, 01:42:28 PM
Congress is taking aim at public lands in Nevada through H.R. 1484, which would transfer Federal public land to the State of Nevada. Transferring these lands would GUARANTEE less public access and wholesale privatization of our public lands. The bill also references large public land holdings in other western states such as Idaho, Montana, WASHINGTON, Oregon, California, Utah, among others. Only a matter of time until these lands are targeted as well. They sell the idea as overcoming "government control" of land that the American people deserve to monetize. The fact is they are NOW assets of the American people, managed for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This would not help us, it would rob us of our rural economies, traditions, wildlife, recreation, and part of our identity as a country. American citizens would never be compensated for this loss and would no longer have any claim to these lands. Not to mention there are over 100 million acres of Federally owned land available for energy development already (the purpose of this legislation). Please join me in contacting our legislator in the House Committee of Natural Resources to make sure Congress knows what these lands mean to us. Once they're gone, there's no getting them back.
Dan Newhouse is a House Republican on the Natural Resources committee, who's office can be reached at 202-225-5816. I called this afternoon and the lady who answered my call indicated I was not the first person to contact their office with concerns. I think hearing from sportsmen in his district would send a meaningful message. I really believe this is the greatest sportsmen issue of our time. Seeing the public access lost in Washington (mostly through timber company policies) has reinforced just how important public lands are to the future of our heritage.
Thanks in advance for your support! Let's get the phone lines ringing before this bill gains too much traction.
-Tyler
Post by: yakimarcher on November 15, 2016, 03:13:18 PM
Post by: Vees on November 15, 2016, 03:22:38 PM
Post by: yakimarcher on November 15, 2016, 03:22:52 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 15, 2016, 04:55:16 PM
It'll be interesting times...
Post by: Bean Counter on November 17, 2016, 01:33:33 PM
Post by: baldopepper on November 18, 2016, 02:26:58 PM
Post by: Vees on November 18, 2016, 02:54:06 PM
Residents of other states (who you say are subsidizing western state residents) are benefiting tremendously from public access. I personally hunt and recreate on federal lands all across the west and will happily "subsidize" for those rights. What I believe is great about our federal public lands is that they belong to every citizen of this country, not just to those who live within certain state borders. Also, its not just hunters who benefit from federal ownership. Ranchers (through grazing leases), timber companies, etc. all benefit through federal land ownership.
Aside from the financial aspect, the fact is that our hunting and fishing heritage absolutely depends on public access. Privatization would make hunting and fishing a forgotten part of our culture, accessible only to the rich and privileged.
The land transfer issue is not a partisan issue in my opinion, it's a sportsmen issue. Not sure if you primarily hunt public or private land, but I'm asking you to reconsider what public ownership means to our heritage.
Finally, I agree that a state's sovereignty is important, but honestly, that's not what this issue is about. It's a play by BIG business to purchase public land at wholesale prices.
I for one plan to fight for our public lands the rest of my life....this fight won't end in my lifetime. Since an early age my dad has taken me out hunting and fishing, almost exclusively on public land. We aren't a rich family, and I don't have access to other places to hunt. Public lands are all I have.
Hopefully I've at least given you a few things to consider. This issue could send a death blow to what we know and love about hunting across the west.
-Tyler
Post by: bigtex on November 18, 2016, 02:55:34 PM
Yea, transfer it over to state control. Sure would be easy for anti hunting groups in this state to pass a referendum banning hunting on all state owned properties. I guarantee in Utah, with a mandate to manage all state lands for maximum profitability, they would sell off/lease off any and all prime pieces they could. I consider this idea one of the biggest threats to outdoorsmen and women to come along ever.:yeah:
Both of WA's Governor candidates were opposed to such a move in WA, not often you see that in politics. The Trump campaign/team has said they wouldn't trust states to net sell such lands.
Post by: Bean Counter on November 18, 2016, 08:45:32 PM
Yea, transfer it over to state control. Sure would be easy for anti hunting groups in this state to pass a referendum banning hunting on all state owned properties. I guarantee in Utah, with a mandate to manage all state lands for maximum profitability, they would sell off/lease off any and all prime pieces they could. I consider this idea one of the biggest threats to outdoorsmen and women to come along ever.
Just because your state legislature is more liberal than the national legislature doesn't mean that dumping your sovereignty is a constitutionally palletable solution for the nation. How about working to change your legislature and if that cannot be done: move. :dunno:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 18, 2016, 09:22:39 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on November 18, 2016, 09:27:40 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on November 18, 2016, 09:44:42 PM
Bean Counter, there is strong consensus that state ownership = selling vast tracts of public land. I agree the federal government loses SIGNIFICANT amounts of money managing our federal lands, which is exactly why they would be sold off under state ownership. There is absolutely no way any western states could afford to hold on to millions of acres of new land.
Residents of other states (who you say are subsidizing western state residents) are benefiting tremendously from public access. I personally hunt and recreate on federal lands all across the west and will happily "subsidize" for those rights. What I believe is great about our federal public lands is that they belong to every citizen of this country, not just to those who live within certain state borders. Also, its not just hunters who benefit from federal ownership. Ranchers (through grazing leases), timber companies, etc. all benefit through federal land ownership.
and 50 residents of an Alaska island were sure grateful for their representatives Ted Stevens and Don Young reaching for $400 million of federal tax dollars to build them an infamous Bridge to Nowhere to connect to the mainland. but hey, there's an "international" airport on the island, so the average Joe that lives in Missouri benefits from it, too :bash: :bash:
Quote
Aside from the financial aspect, the fact is that our hunting and fishing heritage absolutely depends on public access. Privatization would make hunting and fishing a forgotten part of our culture, accessible only to the rich and privileged.
The land transfer issue is not a partisan issue in my opinion, it's a sportsmen issue. Not sure if you primarily hunt public or private land, but I'm asking you to reconsider what public ownership means to our heritage.
I'm sensitive to this even though I have benefited from the upward mobility of the American dream. I was born into a single parent, low income household, am a top 3%'er now (its actually less money that you might guess), and should retire fairly comfortably if things go according to plan. I can afford guided hunts and private access, but still chose the free options myself
Quote
Finally, I agree that a state's sovereignty is important, but honestly, that's not what this issue is about. It's a play by BIG business to purchase public land at wholesale prices.
I for one plan to fight for our public lands the rest of my life....this fight won't end in my lifetime. Since an early age my dad has taken me out hunting and fishing, almost exclusively on public land. We aren't a rich family, and I don't have access to other places to hunt. Public lands are all I have.
Hopefully I've at least given you a few things to consider. This issue could send a death blow to what we know and love about hunting across the west.
-Tyler
Probably a sacrilegious statement on this forum, but life will go on without hunting. The hunting community has faced and survived incredible challenges before. If we cannot survive a transition to a new structure that is IMHO more important than the nature of hunting itself, maybe we don't deserve to continue the tradition.
Ok, flame on ...
Post by: JLS on November 18, 2016, 10:01:35 PM
Post by: csaaphill on November 19, 2016, 01:34:50 AM
Post by: Vees on November 21, 2016, 09:33:30 AM
For those of you who don't know much about this issue and would like to learn more, Randy Newberg (host of Fresh Tracks on the Sportsmen Channel) has put together a series of 15 videos that cover the history of land ownership, what's at stake and what we can do about it. He is a leader on this issue and is incredibly knowledgeable. Here's a link to the first video...you should be able to find the other videos through his YouTube channel:
Also, if anyone is in the Seattle area and would like to discuss this issue with like-minded hunters, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is hosting a happy hour in Seattle tomorrow evening (Tuesday). Here are the details:
Seattle Pint Night
Tuesday, November 22nd
6 - 8 pm
8 oz Burger & Co.
2409 NW Market St, Seattle
-Tyler
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 10:04:18 AM
DNR does a better job of multiple use access than the USFS does. A large part of the reason they are no longer paying thier own way is because they don't cut timber much anymore. It is also the reason why we are loosing access RIGHT NOW with road closures. IF the usfs was doing thier job instead of playing sue and settle games with environmental wackos we would have it all... like we once did in this state.
It's possible that other states may not look at the issue like we do, and I'm ok with that. I don't belive this has to be an either/or proposition. States could be given the land to hold but not sell with the requirement that the land still be open to the public for recreation.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 21, 2016, 10:52:54 AM
I personally have mixed feelings on this issue. I'm a big believer in states rights and that we need to assert them. At the same time I think these large tracts of land are special and should continue to be available to the public. Those 2 things are NOT mutually exclusive.I generally agree that keeping things more local is a good idea, but in this case, I do not trust the states to do a good job. Washington can't manage the ground they have (not the feds are doing a great job) and Idaho is doing even worse. Nevada and Utah would sell their lands off to the highest bidder. There goes any of that recreational opportunity.
DNR does a better job of multiple use access than the USFS does. A large part of the reason they are no longer paying thier own way is because they don't cut timber much anymore. It is also the reason why we are loosing access RIGHT NOW with road closures. IF the usfs was doing thier job instead of playing sue and settle games with environmental wackos we would have it all... like we once did in this state.
It's possible that other states may not look at the issue like we do, and I'm ok with that. I don't belive this has to be an either/or proposition. States could be given the land to hold but not sell with the requirement that the land still be open to the public for recreation.
I'm dubious, at best, of the states ability to use and manage these lands with a multi use principle.
Post by: Vees on November 21, 2016, 10:58:43 AM
I think it is clear that states permanently holding this land and maintaining public access is literally not possible. There is no state that could afford the expense of managing all that land. State ownership would result in land sales, with 100% certainty. Several states, including Wyoming, researched the cost/benefit and have concluded this time and again. And if you think states wouldn't have to deal with the same litigation as the federal government if they owned the lands, think again, the legal battles will continue.
Post by: cumminsbassguy on November 21, 2016, 11:10:41 AM
Post by: Stickerbush on November 21, 2016, 11:12:37 AM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 21, 2016, 11:33:40 AM
If you want to change the way the feds manage our lands, get involved. I suggest joining a group that serves your interest (whether that's ATV, Logging, Wilderness, Rafting...) and represent your interest in a collaborative to direct management. If you're not involved, you should be.
Post by: Vees on November 21, 2016, 11:53:51 AM
I think the people really pushing this transfer (Bundy, et al) are figuring that they will be getting their hands on the land. There is no reason to think that the transfer would benefit ANYONE except the wealthy folks that end up with it.
If you want to change the way the feds manage our lands, get involved. I suggest joining a group that serves your interest (whether that's ATV, Logging, Wilderness, Rafting...) and represent your interest in a collaborative to direct management. If you're not involved, you should be.
:yeah:
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 11:59:15 AM
I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 12:00:24 PM
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on November 21, 2016, 12:24:49 PM
We agree on part of this. The problem is money. The question is how does ownership change the problem?That's true about the anti loggers/grazers. The loggers have gotten better at collaboration (See NEWFC in NE WA), but the grazers are going to take a political beating if they don't stop acting like separationists. They really need to work with the other user groups and build some relationships.
I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.
We have tried reaching out to grazers and their argument is that they have everything to lose if they come to the collaborative... they might be right. But they have everything to lose if they don't, and they will not have relationships built or any trust with other groups to maintain their interests.
Post by: Vees on November 21, 2016, 12:33:02 PM
@Vees there is a book I highly recomend on the subject. The tinderbox how political correctness destroyed the usfs
Sounds good, i'll check it out!
I also think we agree that money is the issue. Ownership, however, I believe makes all the difference. I really encourage you to check out the Randy Newberg web series. He does a great job covering this topic in detail and explaining just why land ownership matters.
As far a ranchers go...I really don't understand why a rancher would support a transfer. So many of them rely on affordable federal grazing leases to operate. I highly doubt they would get the same, or better, deal under state or private ownership. I think political leanings has taken over the discussion on grazing. I definitely do not think the Bundy crew represent a majority of grazers out there, they just got all the attention.
Post by: bradslam on November 21, 2016, 12:57:14 PM
I just do not see how this is a "state's rights" issue. The land is not currently owned, managed, nor paid to maintain by the states. This is federally owned land we are talking about. The way I look at it, handing over federal land to the states would be a massive federal government giveaway, a redistribution of wealth from all U.S. citizens to certain state residents and corporate interests. Where is my compensation if the lands that I own, a as a U.S. citizen, are just given away. It would be like government wellfare on steroids.
I think it is clear that states permanently holding this land and maintaining public access is literally not possible. There is no state that could afford the expense of managing all that land. State ownership would result in land sales, with 100% certainty. Several states, including Wyoming, researched the cost/benefit and have concluded this time and again. And if you think states wouldn't have to deal with the same litigation as the federal government if they owned the lands, think again, the legal battles will continue.
Amen! Public land ownership is one of the great things about this country. Remember, if these lands are sold off they are gone forever.
Post by: JLS on November 21, 2016, 01:13:40 PM
We agree on part of this. The problem is money. The question is how does ownership change the problem?That's true about the anti loggers/grazers. The loggers have gotten better at collaboration (See NEWFC in NE WA), but the grazers are going to take a political beating if they don't stop acting like separationists. They really need to work with the other user groups and build some relationships.
I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.
We have tried reaching out to grazers and their argument is that they have everything to lose if they come to the collaborative... they might be right. But they have everything to lose if they don't, and they will not have relationships built or any trust with other groups to maintain their interests.
http://lpcinitiative.org/
A good example of collaborative efforts. Similar efforts could be directed towards sage grouse issues.
Post by: JLS on November 21, 2016, 01:17:12 PM
We agree on part of this. The problem is money. The question is how does ownership change the problem?
I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.
Depending on your take on things, there are economic analyses that show that logging and grazing may actually reduce the amount of income derived from public lands, when watershed restoration, drinking water filtration, recreational income, etc. are factored in.
It doesn't help that the funding of the USFS and BLM is a completely broken system, where they are funded to complete their mission but yet every year have to spend 50% of this on firefighting efforts.
The agencies themselves could be streamlined and made more efficient, but Congress itself is largely to blame for this debacle.
Post by: Bean Counter on November 21, 2016, 01:30:48 PM
I generally agree that keeping things more local is a good idea, but in this case, I do not trust the states to do a good job. Washington can't manage the ground they have (not the feds are doing a great job) and Idaho is doing even worse. Nevada and Utah would sell their lands off to the highest bidder. There goes any of that recreational opportunity.
I'm dubious, at best, of the states ability to use and manage these lands with a multi use principle.
You actually suppose that the federal government does a good job managing land? :bash:
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2016, 05:26:16 PM
If you read the next sentence he says that the feds don't do a good job either.I generally agree that keeping things more local is a good idea, but in this case, I do not trust the states to do a good job. Washington can't manage the ground they have (not the feds are doing a great job) and Idaho is doing even worse. Nevada and Utah would sell their lands off to the highest bidder. There goes any of that recreational opportunity.You actually suppose that the federal government does a good job managing land? :bash:
I'm dubious, at best, of the states ability to use and manage these lands with a multi use principle.
Post by: Bean Counter on November 21, 2016, 08:04:12 PM
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 08:29:53 PM
I'd love to see the support for your cost statement. As sportsmen we call and make the case to keep roads open so we don't have to hike 20miles to get to a popular lake when they decide to close a road.We agree on part of this. The problem is money. The question is how does ownership change the problem?
I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.
Depending on your take on things, there are economic analyses that show that logging and grazing may actually reduce the amount of income derived from public lands, when watershed restoration, drinking water filtration, recreational income, etc. are factored in.
It doesn't help that the funding of the USFS and BLM is a completely broken system, where they are funded to complete their mission but yet every year have to spend 50% of this on firefighting efforts.
The agencies themselves could be streamlined and made more efficient, but Congress itself is largely to blame for this debacle.
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 08:32:16 PM
If the loggers have gotten better how come we aren't cutting more? Keeping roads open. Care to give your take? @loggerWe agree on part of this. The problem is money. The question is how does ownership change the problem?That's true about the anti loggers/grazers. The loggers have gotten better at collaboration (See NEWFC in NE WA), but the grazers are going to take a political beating if they don't stop acting like separationists. They really need to work with the other user groups and build some relationships.
I you wouldn't see this push if logging, and ranching weren't hobbled like they currently are... and they would be providing the income necessary to support it.
We have tried reaching out to grazers and their argument is that they have everything to lose if they come to the collaborative... they might be right. But they have everything to lose if they don't, and they will not have relationships built or any trust with other groups to maintain their interests.
Post by: storyteller on November 21, 2016, 08:35:49 PM
Nevada was given 2.7 million acres of federal land when it became a state in 1864. All but 3,000 acres of that has been sold off.
• Utah has already sold more than 50 percent of the lands granted to it at statehood.
• Idaho has sold off 41 percent of its state lands since gaining statehood in 1890, which equates to 13,500 acres per year going into private hands.
And the history of land under state ownership is not good. A report by Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, a national sportsmen’s conservation group, cites these figures:
• In Colorado, only 20 percent of state trust lands are open to the public for hunting and fishing.
• To help ease budget woes in Wisconsin, the state is currently in the process of selling off 10,000 acres of state-owned land.
• In Oregon, as timber revenue from it has declined, the state has been forced to auction off the 92,000-acre Elliot State Forest. Oregon was originally granted 3.4 million acres and has only 776,000 acres left.
• In Idaho, a European-esque hunt club has leased state land for exclusive hunting rights.
The Modern Land Grabbers
The new leaders of the so-called “divestiture movement” are not ranchers, at least not in the conventional sense. They are inspired by the work of theorists and political appointees like Terry L. Anderson, who wrote “How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands” in 1999. They are men like Utah State Rep. Ken Ivory, of the American Lands Council, a group advocating for the transfer of public lands to the states. Ivory, who sponsored legislation that would do just that, told reporters that the transfer of the lands was “like having your hands on the lever of a new Louisiana Purchase.” (Of course, in the Louisiana Purchase, the U.S. actually bought 827 million acres from France, paying $15 million. Ivory makes no mention of buying any public land from the American people who currently own and use it.)
Rep. Ivory is not a rancher. He represents the district of West Jordan, Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City, but he knows where the money is in American land. His group receives funding from Americans for Prosperity, the main political advocacy arm of Charles and David Koch, of Koch Industries. Ivory’s bill, the 2012 Transfer of Public Lands Act, has been followed by similar bills in the legislatures of 10 Western states. The Utah legislature has passed a resolution to spend $14 million of Utah taxpayers’ money on a lawsuit against the federal government, demanding transfer of all public lands within the state.
“The difference between the land grabbers today and in past years is that they are much more organized than ever before. There is a lot more money behind them than there ever has been,” says Land Tawney, the executive director of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.
The public lands that were once viewed as useless have now attained fantastic value, on a planet of 7.3 billion people, in the fastest- growing developed nation on earth. Dramatic, huge-scale private land holdings across the nation have become the norm, from the recent purchase of 330,000 acres of ranchland in the Missouri Breaks of Montana by the Texas-based Wilks brothers, to Ted Turner’s 2 million acres, the Koch brothers’ 200,000- acre Montana ranch, or the Mormon Church’s ownership of 650,000 acres in Florida and a 201,000-acre ranch along the Wyoming-Utah border. There is little doubt that there would be a huge demand for U.S. public lands, both from our own wealthy residents, from investors, and from resource- stressed nations like Saudi Arabia and China.
Basic natural resources are most at risk. “Think about the water we’d lose access to if these lands were privatized—70 percent of the headwaters of our streams and rivers in the West are on public lands,” Tawney says. “That is why the lands were set aside in the first place. We knew that under federal management we’d be able to harvest timber and still protect the water resources. With private ownership, there was no guarantee.”
And “no guarantee” applies to hunting and fishing, too, Tawney says. “The transfer of these lands to state control would change American hunting forever. State lands have an entirely different set of rules for management. And private lands are mostly not accessible for the average hunter. The experiment, unique to our country, where the fish and wildlife and the public lands belong to the people, well, that would be the end of that.”
For Randy Newberg, whose TV shows On Your Own Adventures and Fresh Tracks are based on nonguided public-lands hunting, the transfer or privatization of public lands is what he calls a “cold dead hands” issue. “I will never give up fighting this terrible idea,” says Newberg, who has represented hunters in Congress and state legislatures. “For me, America without public lands is no longer America.”
The way to fight it? Contact your congressional representatives. “Tell them you want no part in these schemes to transfer or get rid of our public lands,” says Land Tawney. “The system works. Your voice still counts as an American. But only if you use it.”
Not all of us are top 3%ers
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 08:55:16 PM
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2016, 09:06:30 PM
Most agree that the feds aren't doing a great job at managing the lands. Most agree that state management is not great as well. One difference is that the states have a much easier process of selling/disposing of their lands then the feds. In most cases the feds need a congressional bill to pass in order for any land to be sold, let alone transferred to another agency. In comparison, WA DNR sells state land just about every month.
Who decides which DNR land gets sold?? The Board of Natural Resources which consists of the Public Lands Commissioner, the Governor or their designee, the Superintendent of Public Schools, the Director of the Univ. of WA Forestry program, the Dean of WSUs Agriculture program, and a county commissioner (currently Clallam County.) So yes, the people who are approving the sale of DNR lands are essentially people from academia......
Post by: Taco280AI on November 21, 2016, 09:06:53 PM
Have a buddy I agree with on most things but he's all for this and I'm not. Says you can just ask for permission to go hunt it. Why would you take it from the people, sell it to a private entity, and go from having access to having to ask for pemission and getting denied? Makes no sense.
If it goes to the states it will get sold off and we will lose all access, unless you have the $$$$$ to purchase access - if that's even an option.
Why would someone spend their money on something only to let others use it? Would any of you lend your car or truck to a stranger? So why would they lend you their land?
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2016, 09:08:46 PM
So then all the hard line "conservationists" need to realize some logging and ranching to pay the bills are a better option. Perhaps those in the usfs need to do a basic cost benifits analysis on thier sue and settle games vs falling timber and grazing beef.How about the feds actually increase their grazing rates too? Most states charge exponentially the amount for grazing then the feds do.
I've had more kidney stones in the past 40 years than the amount of times the feds have increased grazing fees...
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 09:48:50 PM
Probably needs to happen. You do realize however that this movement is pushback from all the bunny hugging that has cost people jobs and by extension access.So then all the hard line "conservationists" need to realize some logging and ranching to pay the bills are a better option. Perhaps those in the usfs need to do a basic cost benifits analysis on thier sue and settle games vs falling timber and grazing beef.How about the feds actually increase their grazing rates too? Most states charge exponentially the amount for grazing then the feds do.
I've had more kidney stones in the past 40 years than the amount of times the feds have increased grazing fees...
There is a LOT of mature timber on usfs land here on the west side that needs harvesting. Do we need to cut it all? Of course not. The BS spotted owl and assorted pick a critter shutting down the Forrest is the reason for this.
Post by: bigtex on November 21, 2016, 09:51:59 PM
I agree. And surprisingly there has been more timber harvesting the past few years on the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF then the previous 20. It's just that most of the harvests are small and aren't to the large scale like we used to see. But in terms of amount of trees harvested, we are starting to see an increase.Probably needs to happen. You do realize however that this movement is pushback from all the bunny hugging that has cost people jobs and by extension access.So then all the hard line "conservationists" need to realize some logging and ranching to pay the bills are a better option. Perhaps those in the usfs need to do a basic cost benifits analysis on thier sue and settle games vs falling timber and grazing beef.How about the feds actually increase their grazing rates too? Most states charge exponentially the amount for grazing then the feds do.
I've had more kidney stones in the past 40 years than the amount of times the feds have increased grazing fees...
There is a LOT of mature timber on usfs land here on the west side that needs harvesting. Do we need to cut it all? Of course not. The BS spotted owl and assorted pick a critter shutting down the Forrest is the reason for this.
Post by: Special T on November 21, 2016, 10:51:01 PM
Post by: JJB11B on November 21, 2016, 10:55:20 PM
Post by: NumaJohn on November 21, 2016, 11:08:13 PM
We all own these lands, and it should stay that way. Teddy Roosevelt and others fought hard to establish a system where even the common person without means could have open spaces to explore, hunt, and simply enjoy.
As bigtex notes, "Most agree that the feds aren't doing a great job at managing the lands. Most agree that state management is not great as well. One difference is that the states have a much easier process of selling/disposing of their lands then the feds." Outdoors enthusiasts of all stripes (including non-hunters and anti-hunters and impassioned hunters) should be rallying to oppose this land grab being supported by the Koch brothers and a host of other elites who would prefer that the federal public lands you and I now hunt be restricted for their own kind, their own development.
By the way, I do not oppose well-planned timber and mining and grazing. In fact, I support those efforts when they are part of a collaborative campaign that takes all reasonable stakeholders into consideration. The Koch brothers and their ilk are not reasonable, in my view, and they will, if left unchecked, strip us all of one of the very best aspects of our great country: the vast tracts of federal public land in the West.
John
Post by: csaaphill on November 21, 2016, 11:26:49 PM
I personally have mixed feelings on this issue. I'm a big believer in states rights and that we need to assert them. At the same time I think these large tracts of land are special and should continue to be available to the public. Those 2 things are NOT mutually exclusive.yeah ther ya go :yeah:
DNR does a better job of multiple use access than the USFS does. A large part of the reason they are no longer paying thier own way is because they don't cut timber much anymore. It is also the reason why we are loosing access RIGHT NOW with road closures. IF the usfs was doing thier job instead of playing sue and settle games with environmental wackos we would have it all... like we once did in this state.
It's possible that other states may not look at the issue like we do, and I'm ok with that. I don't belive this has to be an either/or proposition. States could be given the land to hold but not sell with the requirement that the land still be open to the public for recreation.
Post by: csaaphill on November 22, 2016, 12:08:51 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on November 22, 2016, 04:20:43 AM
...We all own these lands, and it should stay that way. Teddy Roosevelt and others fought hard to establish a system where even the common person without means could have open spaces to explore, hunt, and simply enjoy...
Teddy Roosevelt was a bully pulpit Populist that expanded tons of federal precedents that are still praised today by our Enemies on the Left. His attitude was that he could do whatever he wanted unless the Constitution forbade it, whereas a principled conservative president such as Coolidge believed he could only act as president if the constitution allowed it.
Fortunately we learned our lesson and wouldn't elect such a power hungry clown again.. oh wait :o
Post by: Taco280AI on November 22, 2016, 05:27:01 AM
Post by: baldopepper on November 22, 2016, 06:59:02 AM
...We all own these lands, and it should stay that way. Teddy Roosevelt and others fought hard to establish a system where even the common person without means could have open spaces to explore, hunt, and simply enjoy...
Teddy Roosevelt was a bully pulpit Populist that expanded tons of federal precedents that are still praised today by our Enemies on the Left. His attitude was that he could do whatever he wanted unless the Constitution forbade it, whereas a principled conservative president such as Coolidge believed he could only act as president if the constitution allowed it.
Enemies on the left? Geeze, you probably didn't mean it that harsh (at least I hope not) but I see that as one of the major problems these days. I have friends and relatives on both the right and the left, and while we disagree on many things I don't see them as the enemy. Civility seems to be a lost art in political discussions these days.
Fortunately we learned our lesson and wouldn't elect such a power hungry clown again.. oh wait :o
Post by: bracer40 on November 22, 2016, 07:12:21 AM
...We all own these lands, and it should stay that way. Teddy Roosevelt and others fought hard to establish a system where even the common person without means could have open spaces to explore, hunt, and simply enjoy...
[/quote]
Teddy Roosevelt was a bully pulpit Populist that expanded tons of federal precedents that are still praised today by our Enemies on the Left.
Enemies on the left?!?
This is the kind of thinking that deepens the divide that politicians spend millions to develop. I can think of countless people I know that hold different political beliefs than me. Some are friends, some even loved ones. I assure you, they are not my enemies in spite of what politicians, the media mouthpieces or the fake news outlets on Facebook hope I will believe.
Post by: fireweed on November 22, 2016, 08:33:43 AM
Look what happened during the last big land giveaway, when the US government gave every other section to the railroads as an "incentive" to build the tracks. Those sections were supposed to be sold to homesteaders (and a few did buy, including my ancestors) but then the rest was sold to familiar names like Weyerhaeuser. Teddy Roosevelts big land grab was rolled back, too. If you look at boundaries of most national forests as TR put them on paper, then compare that with what we have now, you might be surprised how much "roll back" of public land occurred after he left office.
But that was ok, right, since the roads and trails weaved between private and public with no access restrictions at the time.
We all know how that ended up.....
So what have we learned from history? No land transfers or sales of to anyone without written ironclad public use easements in place first.
Post by: Special T on November 22, 2016, 09:41:58 AM
I see this akin to when the wdfw rallied the sportsmen to rescue them from a merger with parks and DNR. Our thanks for rallying support was the short shafts being ignored as THE reason they exist.
I have little intrest in preserving the status quo. If the usfs wasn't such a beurocratic mess they would have seen this a mile a way and showed us some progress.
Post by: Bean Counter on November 22, 2016, 04:15:48 PM
Enemies on the left?!?
This is the kind of thinking that deepens the divide that politicians spend millions to develop. I can think of countless people I know that hold different political beliefs than me. Some are friends, some even loved ones. I assure you, they are not my enemies in spite of what politicians, the media mouthpieces or the fake news outlets on Facebook hope I will believe.
I have family members that are Leftist as well. They're family, but we're not allies. Use of the word "enemy" is NOT a call to violence, its simply a recognition that I am 100% committed to the defeat of their agenda. I once took an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. You seem to be in denial that such a reality exists(?). Do you honestly think that Barack Hussein Millhouse Benito Obama supports states rights (10th Amendment), your ability to freely own and carry a gun (2nd Amendment), supports your free expression of speech and religion (1st Amendment)? When you're opposed to life, liberty, and property, you become my enemy. Embrace your oppressors to your own folly. :twocents:
Geeze, you probably didn't mean it that harsh (at least I hope not) but I see that as one of the major problems these days. I have friends and relatives on both the right and the left, and while we disagree on many things I don't see them as the enemy. Civility seems to be a lost art in political discussions these days.
I meant what I said. and yes, I'll say it to someones face--I've done done it. That isn't necessarily exclusive of civility. I can be civil when the Collectivists are honest about their anti-Constitution agenda.
Keep in mind that this rhetoric is reciprocated by the Collectivists themselves:
Post by: bigtex on November 22, 2016, 07:38:47 PM
As to what Bigtex was saying why don't states make that a law or some amendment then, that to sell off state owned lands they need a congressional review or whatever?I assume you mean a review by the state legislature and not the actual US Congress...
Well for one, most states don't have a full-time legislature. Most are like WA which is only in session about 3 months a year (Jan-March-ish). So what happens when DNR wants to sell/buy land in June?? Are they supposed to wait until January and hope the deal is still there? And realistically, the legislature has more important things to deal with. That's why they've given this authority to the DNR Commission. It's why they've given the authority to establish hunting seasons to the WDFW Commission.
Post by: bigtex on November 22, 2016, 07:41:16 PM
How are the states that are already in the negative financially supposed to manage the land? They don't have the $$$ to. Neither do the feds but at least they're not trying to sell everything offThe majority of the states who have actually convened a study to see if they could financially manage the land have found they could not do so. I believe Montana and Wyoming were the last ones to say it financially wasn't possible for them to manage the current federal lands.
Post by: csaaphill on November 22, 2016, 09:07:48 PM
Yeah that's what I meant the states to do the same thing the feds do. And oh ok. Bummer!As to what Bigtex was saying why don't states make that a law or some amendment then, that to sell off state owned lands they need a congressional review or whatever?I assume you mean a review by the state legislature and not the actual US Congress...
Well for one, most states don't have a full-time legislature. Most are like WA which is only in session about 3 months a year (Jan-March-ish). So what happens when DNR wants to sell/buy land in June?? Are they supposed to wait until January and hope the deal is still there? And realistically, the legislature has more important things to deal with. That's why they've given this authority to the DNR Commission. It's why they've given the authority to establish hunting seasons to the WDFW Commission.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on November 27, 2016, 08:08:58 AM
The land only costs $ because the leadership of the USFS is horrible and misguided. It has been shown over and over that the usfs is either colluding in the sue and settle tactics by environment wackos or are inept.I am 100% with you on this Special T
I see this akin to when the wdfw rallied the sportsmen to rescue them from a merger with parks and DNR. Our thanks for rallying support was the short shafts being ignored as THE reason they exist.
I have little intrest in preserving the status quo. If the usfs wasn't such a beurocratic mess they would have seen this a mile a way and showed us some progress.
As Dr. Phil Says, past behavior is the best indicator of future behavior.That last sentence is SPOT ON
Look what happened during the last big land giveaway, when the US government gave every other section to the railroads as an "incentive" to build the tracks. Those sections were supposed to be sold to homesteaders (and a few did buy, including my ancestors) but then the rest was sold to familiar names like Weyerhaeuser. Teddy Roosevelts big land grab was rolled back, too. If you look at boundaries of most national forests as TR put them on paper, then compare that with what we have now, you might be surprised how much "roll back" of public land occurred after he left office.
But that was ok, right, since the roads and trails weaved between private and public with no access restrictions at the time.
We all know how that ended up.....
So what have we learned from history? No land transfers or sales of to anyone without written ironclad public use easements in place first.
Post by: Special T on November 30, 2016, 07:05:41 AM
Post by: csaaphill on December 03, 2016, 01:54:18 AM
Special T you make a good point why if they're already mucking things up on the federal level why would we keep supporting them?
Post by: bigtex on December 03, 2016, 07:34:35 AM
Are, or aren't the pay to play campgrounds Fed owned or State? If fed owned then seems like that's a viable way to go state owned? meaning since $'s speak loudly then pay to play seem like the way of the future?, but still kept public but as state owned rather than fed owned?There's fed and state (DNR) campgrounds that require fees...
Special T you make a good point why if they're already mucking things up on the federal level why would we keep supporting them?
Post by: csaaphill on December 05, 2016, 06:23:02 PM
Ah ok figured. $17 bucks a night in some I've seen. I think up on the Tucannon it's $7-$8 a night.Are, or aren't the pay to play campgrounds Fed owned or State? If fed owned then seems like that's a viable way to go state owned? meaning since $'s speak loudly then pay to play seem like the way of the future?, but still kept public but as state owned rather than fed owned?There's fed and state (DNR) campgrounds that require fees...
Special T you make a good point why if they're already mucking things up on the federal level why would we keep supporting them?