Post by: bigtex on January 03, 2017, 08:40:20 PM
House GOP rules change will make it easier to sell off federal lands
By Juliet Eilperin
January 3 at 5:41 PM
House Republicans on Tuesday changed the way Congress calculates the cost of transferring federal lands to the states and other entities, a move that will make it easier for members of the new Congress to cede federal control of public lands.
The provision, included as part as a larger rules package the House approved by a vote of 233 to 190 during its first day in session, highlights the extent to which some congressional Republicans hope to change longstanding rules now that the GOP will control the executive and the legislative branches starting Jan. 20.
Many Republicans, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), have been pushing to hand over large areas of federal land to state and local authorities, on the grounds that they will be more responsive to the concerns of local residents.
House Natural Resources Committee spokeswoman Molly Block said in a statement that “in many cases federal lands create a significant burden for the surrounding communities,” because they cannot be taxed and can be “in disrepair.”
“Allowing communities to actually manage and use these lands will generate not only state and local income tax, but also federal income tax revenues” she added, as well as reduce the need for some federally-supported payments. “Unfortunately, current budget practices do not fully recognize these benefits, making it very difficult for non-controversial land transfers between governmental entities for public use and other reasons to happen.”
But many Democrats argue that these lands should be managed on behalf of all Americans, not just those living nearby, and warn that cash-strapped state and local officials might sell these parcels to developers.
Under current Congressional Budget Office accounting rules, any transfer of federal land that generates revenue for the U.S. Treasury — whether through energy extraction, logging, grazing or other activities — has a cost. If lawmakers wanted to give such land to a state, local government or tribe, they would have to account for that loss in expected cash flow.
Bishop authored language in the new rules package that would overturn that requirment, saying any such transfers “shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.”
Rep. Raul Grijalva (Ariz.), the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter Tuesday to fellow Democrats urging them to oppose the rules package on the basis of that proposal.
“The House Republican plan to give away America’s public lands for free is outrageous and absurd,” Grijalva said in a statement. “This proposed rule change would make it easier to implement this plan by allowing the Congress to give away every single piece of property we own, for free, and pretend we have lost nothing of any value. Not only is this fiscally irresponsible, but it is also a flagrant attack on places and resources valued and beloved by the American people.”
Environmental groups were quick to criticize the move.
Alan Rowsome, senior government relations director for The Wilderness Society, said in a statement, “Right out of the gate, Congressional Republicans are declaring open season on federal lands… This is not Theodore Roosevelt-style governing, this move paves the way for a wholesale giveaway of our American hunting, fishing and camping lands that belong to us all.”
The immediate impact of the rules change is that lawmakers cannot raise a budgetary point of order if a land transfer bill comes to the floor. Under existing House rules, any measure that costs the U.S. Treasury money must be offset by either budget cuts or a revenue-raising provision.
While the official GOP platform endorses the idea of transferring federal land to the states, neither President-elect Donald Trump nor Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.), his pick to head the Interior Department, embrace that approach. Zinke quit his post as a GOP convention delegate this past summer over the issue, and Trump expressed opposition to the concept a year ago in an interview with Field & Stream magazine.
“I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble?” he said at the time. “And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land.”
The overall rules package became ensnared in a controversy over a different provision, which would have eliminated an independent congressional ethics office. But once that part of the package was removed, the measure passed on a largely party-line vote.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/03/house-gop-rules-change-would-make-it-easier-to-sell-off-federal-land/?utm_term=.91681bc18974
Post by: olyguy79 on January 03, 2017, 08:48:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 03, 2017, 09:30:19 PM
Lifelong republican but I hate my party's view on this!When one party goes to one extreme, the other usually goes to the opposite.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote
But many Democrats argue that these lands should be managed on behalf of all Americans, not just those living nearby, and warn that cash-strapped state and local officials might sell these parcels to developers.I don't think making everything into a park for environmentalists is management for all Americans. Nor is full extraction.
Post by: Special T on January 03, 2017, 09:54:54 PM
Post by: JODakota on January 03, 2017, 10:13:43 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 03, 2017, 10:34:31 PM
And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
Post by: pianoman9701 on January 06, 2017, 11:49:33 AM
Post by: wooltie on January 26, 2017, 03:53:18 PM
I agree with you that the FEDs could allocate more resources to these lands, and thereby make these lands more 'usable' and user friendly. But I am not sure that reason justifies transferring the land to the States who, presumably, have even fewer resources to allocate to these lands.
So if the problem is allocating resources, then I think the question is which branch of .gov has more resources to allocate.
M
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2017, 04:05:40 PM
And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2017, 04:08:32 PM
I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand, there were several closed campgrounds in the GPNF this year because the feds couldn't staff or maintain them. That sucks. Is it possible they'd be open if put under the umbrella of the Discover Pass and state parks? On the other hand, our legislature has an unholy relationship with big landowners and I could see much of this land being sold to then through backroom deals, limiting even further public access to good hunting land. I'd like to see the language in these rules. Does anyone have the entire addendum?
Ask Central Ferry State Park in SE WA how that worked out for them. It's closed.
(there are others too)
Post by: Special T on January 26, 2017, 04:57:28 PM
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2017, 05:34:50 PM
Post by: Special T on January 26, 2017, 05:59:15 PM
Post by: wooltie on January 26, 2017, 06:08:42 PM
Why isn't that a concern for DNR land currently?
I agree with the concern. I assume the concern is based upon the State's lack of funds to maintain/enhance the lands.
I can't cite specifics, but I have heard of examples where FED lands in other western States were transferred to State ownership, and the State eventually sold the lands (or is in the process of selling) to private interests because the State cannot support the lands. I am researching this issue further. This issue is just another way to tollbooth the economy.
This is the outcome organizations like BHA are trying to prevent.
M
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2017, 07:39:29 PM
Why isn't that a concern for DNR land currently?
Refer to Chief Timothy (used to be state) park on the Snake in Clarkston. Refer to Central Ferry (used to be state) park also on the Snake. It is a concern. They can't afford them so they shut them down and sell them(chief Timothy)or block off access if they can't sell them(central Ferry). Just a couple quick examples of what could happen to state land.
Post by: jackelope on January 26, 2017, 07:43:27 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 26, 2017, 07:58:26 PM
And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?
I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.
Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west? :dunno:
Post by: Jimmybelltown on January 26, 2017, 08:38:01 PM
Help me out here.. you trust the cash strapped states with budget holes not to sell off to highest bidder and restrict access? I do not.And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?
I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.
Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west? :dunno:
Post by: Bean Counter on January 26, 2017, 08:47:24 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 26, 2017, 10:32:50 PM
Why isn't that a concern for DNR land currently?It is. Just about every month DNR sells chunks of land to outside entities. It's worse in other states.
Post by: Skyvalhunter on January 27, 2017, 05:23:50 AM
Post by: andersonjk4 on January 27, 2017, 06:02:38 AM
Soapbox rant over. Carry on.
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 07:12:47 AM
And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?
I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.
Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west? :dunno:
:rolleyes:
I don't. Please expand. I think I know what you're trying to say. Just want to make sure.
Post by: westsidehntr on January 27, 2017, 07:15:19 AM
If the states were to guarantee the lands were kept open and accessible and they followed the same management goals as the Feds currently do (provide opportunities across all user groups) then I would be all for state transfer. But we all know by looking at the past and at the states current laws regarding land that for the land. The states number one objective is to make money on the land and if they can't do that then they sell it. And a lot of states have that stipulated in their constitution. And regarding access. Pretty much every state has stricter restrictions or regulations than USFS or BLM (discover pass fees, no camping, no target shooting, etc.) Teddy Roosevelt fought hard to get these lands set aside for all Americans, and all people really, to enjoy. Not to let the states do what they want with them. As it stands now they are open and accessible, mostly for free, for all citizens and for all visitors of the US. I am surprised that people who claim to want to put freedom first want to take this huge freedom away from the people. The Feds might not be doing a great job managing the lands right now, but I would much rather push them to do their jobs and start managing the land better than to give it to the states and give up access and risk loosing the land to privatization. :twocents:
Soapbox rant over. Carry on.
Saying they are open for free is like Bernies "free" college for everyone.
Post by: westsidehntr on January 27, 2017, 07:16:39 AM
Post by: lee on January 27, 2017, 07:20:38 AM
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"!!!
Lee
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 07:37:24 AM
This is what I am concerned 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"!!!
Lee
Someone is reading with both eyes open!! Thank you, Lee.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 27, 2017, 08:25:02 AM
This is what I am concerned about.Ding, Ding, Ding. Winner.
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"!!!
Lee
Post by: wooltie on January 27, 2017, 08:38:17 AM
And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?
I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.
Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west? :dunno:
If I am interpreting your statement correctly, then are you saying that the federal .gov provides stuff that's cheap or free but at the expense of your freedom?
If so, please explain how one associates the fed .gov and less freedom.
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 08:43:29 AM
And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?
I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.
Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west? :dunno:
If I am interpreting your statement correctly, then are you saying that the federal .gov provides stuff that's cheap or free but at the expense of your freedom?
If so, please explain how one associates the fed .gov and less freedom.
He's ok with Republicans in the government because they will ensure his freedoms, even if that means they're going to enable/simplify the selling of our public lands, because he will still have his freedom.
Post by: kentrek on January 27, 2017, 09:00:23 AM
And it begins....
:whoo: :rockin:
You're cheering because we're one step closer to the sell off of public lands?
I'm cheering because we're one step forward to thumbing the federal government in the eye. I love nice stuff that's cheap or free, but I love my freedom even more.
Do you like the fact that wolves are ravaging big game populations across the Rocky Mountain west? :dunno:
If I am interpreting your statement correctly, then are you saying that the federal .gov provides stuff that's cheap or free but at the expense of your freedom?
If so, please explain how one associates the fed .gov and less freedom.
He's ok with Republicans in the government because they will ensure his freedoms, even if that means they're going to enable/simplify the selling of our public lands, because he will still have his freedom.
All because of wolves....
I'l take wolves any day over having to rely on private access and a draw system in order to kill big bulls
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 09:01:24 AM
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/
Post by: wooltie on January 27, 2017, 09:03:29 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 09:51:08 AM
Essentially Washington State has the same problem with State Parks. I served on Inslee's State parks Task Force, I brought up allowing venders to offer services in State Parks so that income is generated to help pay for the operation of the State Parks. But the liberals don't want to allow any private entity to operate, they want Parks to be increasingly subsidized by the legislature (tax payers). The state is having trouble coming up with money to pay for education, state parks is not going to get more money from the legislature because they don't have any extra money and state parks are probably going to continue to close because the liberals will not budge on allowing other uses that would create revenue to help fund park operations. If the state does have a few dollars they will use it to buy more land that they already can't afford to manage.
I do not want to see any public lands sold although I have no issue with public lands being traded when it results in easier or better management as is already being done. I am definitely in favor of allowing local or state management of federal lands because the forest service has been a terrible land manager. I would like to see legislation that somehow allowed local management but restricted any net selloff of public land. Another words land could be traded or land could be sold as long as other land was bought to replace what was sold. Trump is a smart business man and his boys (close advisers) are staunch hunters and public land advocates, I have faith we are going to see better USFS and BLM management in the very near future! Trump could bring back logging, mining, and oil extraction to public lands which would generate revenue for the federal government, better public land management, and revenue for local economies. I expect to see something positive within this year!
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 10:04:29 AM
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!
Post by: Katmai Guy on January 27, 2017, 10:07:51 AM
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 10:24:49 AM
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.
Post by: grundy53 on January 27, 2017, 10:34:05 AM
:yeah: 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.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.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: grundy53 on January 27, 2017, 10:35:36 AM
Those five points are fact. Not propaganda. I don't agree with BHA as a whole. But I do on this topic.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!
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 27, 2017, 10:51:25 AM
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 11:01:55 AM
1. States manage their lands to make money, not to provide opportunities for recreation.
2. States can’t afford to manage our public lands and would be forced to either raise taxes (a nonstarter) or sell them to corporations or wealthy individuals.
3. Public lands are good for the economy.
4. Currently, many state lands across the country don’t allow hunting or camping…or even hiking.
5. You already own them. As a U.S. citizen, you own our public lands. The government is just the caretaker. Once you lose them, you’ll never get them back.
It's all right here:
http://backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/
The problem with the propaganda you are reading is that it comes from an organization with preservationist beginnings. I agree with keeping public land public but there has to be revenue from our lands or the tax payers will have to increasingly pay more and the federal government will increasingly go further in debt. Local economies depend on use in our public lands. BHA's answer seems to be to make more and more wilderness which does nothing to help our economy, in fact it worsens it. I'm all for keeping the roadless areas that we have, but we don't need to make half the country wilderness. I would much rather hunt land that has been managed with logging as a tool, far more game abounds there than in over aged forests that tax payers have to support.
Half the county where I live would be wilderness if BHA had their way!
Can't say I wasn't waiting for that response.
Propoganda...isn't this all propaganda? Even what you just posted is propaganda. Just depends on your personal views on this sort of thing and which side of the propaganda you decide to put value in.
I'm not for everything turning into wilderness either, but I'm also not ok with everything being turned into a state park.
Yes it's all propaganda LOL. I do definitely agree with everything you just said in your last post. :) :tup:
Here's more propaganda:
What I see in BHA is an organization created by preservationists like Conservation Northwest to further their goal of getting more wilderness. They have ushered in a large following of sportsmen (who have sincere good intentions) to help them achieve their original goal. While I don't disagree with all their points, I do know that if they achieve their original goal it means many of my friends and neighbors will have less work and my local area economy will suffer. Yes, if half my county was wilderness I could make more money hauling in hunters on horseback (hunters who couldn't hike in to hunt without help) but I am not going to overlook the good of the community for my own personal gain.
Every year I talk to thousands of hunters looking for hunts, many of these hunters who are older aged or out of shape simply can't hike miles into a wilderness and then try to hunt. Lots of younger guys supporting more wilderness forget that someday they will be the older guy who needs a road to get closer to the hunt area! :twocents:
Post by: baldopepper on January 27, 2017, 11:02:17 AM
Post by: Naches Sportsman on January 27, 2017, 11:09:43 AM
Launch a major investigation into why things don't get doneand fire or demote the people responsible.
Rebuild the structure of the forest circus and find people high in the rankings thar will pushow projects through. Many of us at the bottom of the todemn pole who see the forest's health declining want change.
There has to be a way around it and believe Trump can fix it without selling the land off.
Post by: kentrek on January 27, 2017, 11:10:09 AM
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....
Post by: bigtex on January 27, 2017, 11:23:48 AM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 11:34:43 AM
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!
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 11:36:53 AM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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!
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 11:57:36 AM
"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]
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 12:26:40 PM
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?
Post by: jackelope on January 27, 2017, 12:27:28 PM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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/
Post by: lamrith on January 27, 2017, 12:28:46 PM
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 :rolleyes: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.
Post by: kentrek on January 27, 2017, 12:30:31 PM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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....
Post by: baldopepper on January 27, 2017, 12:34:52 PM
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 beenBearpaw-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 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.
Post by: kentrek on January 27, 2017, 12:40:55 PM
"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
Post by: grundy53 on January 27, 2017, 12:42:16 PM
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.:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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!
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 27, 2017, 12:44:50 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 12:48:36 PM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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?
Post by: Naches Sportsman on January 27, 2017, 12:52:13 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 12:53:34 PM
"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
:tup: 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! :tup:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 27, 2017, 12:54:48 PM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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?
Post by: Naches Sportsman on January 27, 2017, 12:58:06 PM
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 01:02:45 PM
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.
Post by: kentrek on January 27, 2017, 01:03:42 PM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 27, 2017, 01:03:49 PM
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. :peep:
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 01:05:28 PM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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. :tup:
I don't know about Chille, too much time in the woods I guess... :chuckle:
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on January 27, 2017, 01:09:08 PM
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. :bash:
But hey the National Park Service is the same way.
Once the greenies are in control, hard to get them out.
Post by: grundy53 on January 27, 2017, 01:11:07 PM
Bearpaw,I agree. This is the route I would hope to go. They are appointed positions so Trump could easily fix this.
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.
Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
Post by: kentrek on January 27, 2017, 01:17:11 PM
:yeah::yeah: 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.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.
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. :tup:
I don't know about Chille, too much time in the woods I guess... :chuckle:
Time in the woods is a double edge sword.....but it does create the best "views"
:tup:
Post by: Naches Sportsman on January 27, 2017, 01:58:35 PM
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. :peep:
Yep.
Post by: Rainier10 on January 27, 2017, 02:07:39 PM
I really like these kinds of conversations.
Carry on.
Post by: blackveltbowhunter on January 27, 2017, 03:12:00 PM
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.
Post by: bearpaw on January 27, 2017, 03:22:19 PM
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"!
Post by: kentrek on January 28, 2017, 07:21:37 AM
Post by: JLS on January 29, 2017, 03:52:56 PM
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.
Post by: JLS on January 29, 2017, 03:56:19 PM
(http://hunting-washington.com/smf/index.php/topic,208238.msg2772573/topicseen.html#new)
Go to reply #5 for what you can do.
Post by: wooltie on January 29, 2017, 04:03:55 PM
Public lands should remain public. (No sell off to private interests, period.)
Managing public lands needs improvement. (Need more local input, oversight, and planning regardless of whether the FEDs or the State ctrl the land.)
Sustainable management needs to allow for some economic activity but not at the expense of irreversibly damaging the lands themselves. (Logging is sustainable and benefits the forest, but I think oil extraction poses way too many risks and generally damages the environment...we can figure this out later :)
What we're seeing now is a planned effort to sell off public lands via transferring them first to States, then to the highest, most connected bidder. Republicans legislatures and the $$ behind them, for the most part, support this legislation. People who care about public lands needs to stop voting these folks into office.
I mean read the freaking bill in WA that Vincent Buys, the 42nd rep, supports--95% of revenue from the State sale of public land goes to the FEDs. The States retains 5% to be deposited into some education fund.
This legislation contains no State interest at all...it's just a shell game.
Post by: bearpaw on January 30, 2017, 03:24:52 PM
Post by: csaaphill on January 30, 2017, 06:06:59 PM