Post by: nwmein199 on December 19, 2024, 10:53:28 AM
There have been 12 states that have signed an amicus briefed siding with the state of Utah: Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, & Texas.
States that currently ban target shooting on public lands: California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Those 4 states currently have 130,000,000 acres of federal land. If this were to go through, you would lose to ability to target shoot on over 130,000,000 acres of public land. You would loose access to camping on 23,500,000 acres in Colorado if this were to go through. You would loose access to camping on 30,000,000 acres in Wyoming.
https://senate.utah.gov/utah-files-landmark-lawsuit-challenging-federal-control-over-most-blm-land/
https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-638-tktktktktk-bradbrooks-davewillms great discussion about this lawsuit with a lawyer
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/hunters_cannot_dismiss_the_magnitude_of_utah_s_public_lands_lawsuit
https://www.hcn.org/articles/why-utah-is-suing-the-u-s-for-control-of-public-land/
The Elk Talk Podcast episode #137: Access to Elk, Complications Abound (2nd half of the podcast explains this lawsuit well)
Post by: Naches Sportsman on December 19, 2024, 11:45:48 AM
Federal Lands is a hot topic same with federal land manangement activities around fire. Expect more acres to burn if some of the republican elected officials get their way.
Post by: baldopepper on December 19, 2024, 11:59:37 AM
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 19, 2024, 12:29:33 PM
Just imagine how many people could file a claim against a state that took ownership of the land and blocked them from doing what they historically did on the land that was owned by them, the tax payer.
Post by: boneaddict on December 19, 2024, 02:13:10 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2024, 02:21:40 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 19, 2024, 02:46:33 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2024, 03:11:29 PM
A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.
USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.
Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on December 19, 2024, 03:18:34 PM
A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.
USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.
Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
I'm confused by your first comment and your last comment. Are we lucky or unlucky? Those two comments are seemingly contradictory. Is the incoming commissioner going to take away our access or not?
Post by: MeepDog on December 19, 2024, 03:34:14 PM
Unfettered access to state lands is a bit of a stretch. We do have it good don't get me wrong, but our state closed all access to DNR land because it was hot outside a couple years back, and they close premium habitat and call it a natural area. I love that we can access random chunks of state land, even with farms on them, but they have the power to shut us out and recently did start using it.A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.
USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.
Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Fidelk on December 19, 2024, 05:39:28 PM
States that currently ban target shooting on public lands: California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Those 4 states currently have 130,000,000 acres of federal land. If this were to go through, you would lose to ability to target shoot on over 130,000,000 acres of public land. You would loose access to camping on 23,500,000 acres in Colorado if this were to go through. You would loose access to camping on 30,000,000 acres in Wyoming.
I don't think that any State can impose its rules on "federal land". The federal government has Supremacy.
Post by: dwils233 on December 19, 2024, 06:17:04 PM
A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
USFS doesn't have a ban on logging federal lands. I was literally in an active logging unit today watching some work get done. It absolutely changed in the late 80's/early 90's but even the most hardened forester I know these days will concede that our forestry practices for much of the 20th century were unsustainable and ecologically unsound. The pendulum swung from one extreme to the other, but logging has never full-stopped. It needs to be efficient and effective, and balanced for intentional outcomes....you can't do those things fast or at the scale needed right now, but plenty of folks are trying (and it only takes a few to slow things down).
Millions upon millions of board feet come off FS lands in WA each year. We just have 10's of millions that constantly need treatment
Post by: baldopepper on December 19, 2024, 08:27:39 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 19, 2024, 08:40:56 PM
Well im confused on how you're confused.A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.
USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.
Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
I'm confused by your first comment and your last comment. Are we lucky or unlucky? Those two comments are seemingly contradictory. Is the incoming commissioner going to take away our access or not?
You appear to say that states may do more logging if they controlled the land. May be true for most states but not in WA where the incoming DNR Commissioner wants to cut back on logging.
My only comment on access is in the last paragraph where I say we have unfettered access to state lands in WA as compared to many other states.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Humptulips on December 19, 2024, 08:46:26 PM
Post by: baldopepper on December 19, 2024, 09:00:51 PM
Much ado, never happen.
Couple phrases I've learned in my life to never use- "I'll never do it" and "It'll never happen". Seems like that last one was commonly used years ago when our newly elected president first declared his intentions to run for president. Not much really surprises me anymore.
Post by: slavenoid on December 20, 2024, 05:20:59 AM
Post by: BIGINNER on December 20, 2024, 07:22:45 AM
Don't assume the states will own or manage any of the land. The lawyer on the meat eater podcast pointed out the legal procedure is that the land would go to the highest bidder.
That only applies if the last in transering to private ownership. It has to go on public auction, it cannot just be a private market sale. However if the land is being trasnfered from one government entity to another it is exempt from this rule, and can be transered without going to public auction.
Post by: nwmein199 on December 20, 2024, 08:01:49 AM
Much ado, never happen.
According to the state of Utah, they filed this lawsuit based on “Decades of legal analysis”. Those decades started back in the 70s with the Sage Brush Rebellion Movement. This land grab is not new and will continue to happen - similar to how anti-hunting activists will never stop trying to end hunting. On the meat eater podcast it was stated that one reason this lawsuit was put out now is one of the Supreme Court justices mom helped start the sage brush rebellion movement. That’s also why the state of Utah did something out of the ordinary and went straight to the Supreme Court with this lawsuit.
Post by: dwils233 on December 20, 2024, 08:26:54 AM
Much ado, never happen.
one of the Supreme Court justices mom helped start the sage brush rebellion movement.
Is that Gorsuch? I hadn't heard that before about his mom.
In general he is the most interesting of all the SC Judges, particularly his staunch positions on Tribal stuff which don't align with his party or even religious background. I think he is the justice to watch on this one...I could see him saying if it's not federal it needs to go back to the Tribes before it goes to the states
Post by: baldopepper on December 20, 2024, 09:05:50 AM
Post by: Fidelk on December 20, 2024, 09:23:33 AM
A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today.............. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.
Post by: CarbonHunter on December 20, 2024, 09:32:50 AM
Don't assume the states will own or manage any of the land. The lawyer on the meat eater podcast pointed out the legal procedure is that the land would go to the highest bidder.
That only applies if the last in transering to private ownership. It has to go on public auction, it cannot just be a private market sale. However if the land is being trasnfered from one government entity to another it is exempt from this rule, and can be transered without going to public auction.
Federal land must first be offered to the state then the tribes before it can go up for public auction. There is a standing process for transferring of federal land and that is why the cattlemen who think it should be sold to them need to realize they are way down the pecking pole before they could even bid on it.
Post by: baldopepper on December 20, 2024, 09:48:10 AM
A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today.............. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.
So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut? No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.
Post by: LDennis24 on December 20, 2024, 10:03:36 AM
Post by: Fidelk on December 20, 2024, 10:08:53 AM
A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today.............. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.
So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut? No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.
Lumber is a commodity......subject to ups and downs. A housing shortage should create a demand. Or, sell it to Japan. I was thinking that a ban on logging was counter productive in forests that are on fire. Are you saying that lumber prices are depressed and there is no profit to be had from logging federal lands? Didn't know that.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 20, 2024, 10:11:34 AM
Already see military aircraft training over fed land, seen SF on conditioning hikes in national parks.
Post by: dwils233 on December 20, 2024, 10:37:15 AM
A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today.............. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.
So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut? No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.
Lumber is a commodity......subject to ups and downs. A housing shortage should create a demand. Or, sell it to Japan. I was thinking that a ban on logging was counter productive in forests that are on fire. Are you saying that lumber prices are depressed and there is no profit to be had from logging federal lands? Didn't know that.
The one thing I keep learning about logging is the complexity of the industry and financial networks. The distance to a mill has a huge impact on profitability (as does supply and demand), as well as other costs built into the contracts like stewardship work and removing green waste. then there is the secondary markets for chips and sawdust, contractor availability, sunk costs in equipment.... Every time I learn more about the timber industry, the more I'm impressed by the folks that can succeed in it.
When the market drops or supply runs slow, it's the local mills that close down. those mills are the ones that had the potential to make a profitable product with lower overhead and proximity to the forest...once the mills close, there's no one to take the logs coming out of the forest. ...exacerbating the fuels buildup.
That said, plenty of logs still come off the forest from prescriptions that call for the removal of a lots of timber. It's just a very delicate balance that can have catastrophic long-term consequences when it goes a little sideways
Post by: baldopepper on December 20, 2024, 10:51:28 AM
Lumber, like most of our natural resources is controlled by a few large corporations. They are very good at matching supply to profitable (profitable being the key word) demand. They have no interest in seeing huge tracts of national forests opened to logging and upsetting the supply level they diligently control. They are way more responsible for the demise of small logging and mill operations than anything the forest service did. Kind of the same thing happened to small, independent gas stations. Big boys keep control of the supply and make sure it's kept at profitable levels. States like Utah want a piece of that pie. What we don't comprehend is what a big, profitable business hunting is becoming. Just look at the prices being paid for special privilege hunts. Very naive to think there aren't some big interests looking to get control of that supply also. Currently mostly controlled on a state level, so give states more to work with as they are easier and cheaper to influence and control than the feds.A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today.............. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.
After the disastrous and deadly 1910 fire season.......an emphasis was put on fighting forest fires. The USFS pretty much went to a policy of quickly and aggressively battling every fire start. This included the use of aviation. They were very good at stopping fires when they were fairly small. A lot of forest fuels built up as a result of this policy. Fire was largely taken out of it's role in managing forest health. This reduction in fire activity was probably more responsible for wildfire damage today as opposed to banning logging. I think the forests should be heavily logged and the wood used, since it's all going to burn up anyway.
So, what do they do with all.that lumber once it's cut? No company is going to go in and log it when they can't profitably sale it. Nation wide there are thousands of both public and private timberlands available for logging, but there's no profitable demand for it. Many of our forests need thinning and better control, but there's no easy answer for it.
Lumber is a commodity......subject to ups and downs. A housing shortage should create a demand. Or, sell it to Japan. I was thinking that a ban on logging was counter productive in forests that are on fire. Are you saying that lumber prices are depressed and there is no profit to be had from logging federal lands? Didn't know that.
Post by: nwmein199 on January 16, 2025, 10:00:38 AM
https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/supreme-court-declines-utah-public-lands-lawsuit/
Post by: Feathernfurr on January 16, 2025, 10:17:42 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2025, 12:13:07 PM
I believe Idaho was trying to go down this same road.:yeah:
There were about a dozen states that signed on to it.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on January 16, 2025, 12:15:53 PM
They chalked up Utah's case to one thing...$$$. Utah was trying to get the BLM lands in the state for its mineral resources. They weren't trying to get Forest Service, Reclamation, etc lands. They wanted the BLM lands so they can get the $ that's under the land.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: baldopepper on January 16, 2025, 12:58:15 PM
Post by: nwmein199 on May 07, 2025, 09:41:59 AM
"After a marathon budget session the House Natural Resources Committee green-lit a measure that would sell about 11,000 acres of BLM and Forest Service land"
Post by: nwwanderer on May 07, 2025, 11:10:37 AM
Post by: nwmein199 on May 07, 2025, 11:13:03 AM
That is .002% of BLM/FS ownership. Still worried?
Yes
Post by: baldopepper on May 07, 2025, 11:19:17 AM
.002 they sell. Gotta believe it includes some of their prime holdings or it wouldn't sell.
Post by: pianoman9701 on May 07, 2025, 12:22:23 PM
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 07, 2025, 02:57:54 PM
It would be even more suspicious if there was value to the land as that should be auctioned to the highest bidder or as I said leased and taxed.
And yes .002% is a big deal especially if it’s where you hunt.
Post by: baldopepper on May 07, 2025, 03:13:59 PM
Post by: bigtex on May 07, 2025, 03:30:31 PM
It think it's possible that mineral rights might play a big part in the sales.That's already done thru leasing, not outright sale of the land.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 07, 2025, 03:47:54 PM
Sale of federal land to help balance the budget has been a priority for a number of Western Republicans, most notably the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Utah’s Mike Lee.
Post by: kodiak06 on May 09, 2025, 12:51:22 PM
Post by: nwmein199 on May 12, 2025, 12:48:14 PM
https://apnews.com/article/west-public-lands-sale-republicans-e153dcb4d4391dd849e4409123bfecfe
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/05/09/hageman-and-house-committee-open-up-sale-of-federally-owned-public-land/
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/house-republicans-federal-lands-sale
Post by: jackelope on May 12, 2025, 08:53:20 PM
I was wrong, it is not 11,000 acres of federal land approved for sale (mis-read the article) - it is 460,000 acres of public land to be sold.
https://apnews.com/article/west-public-lands-sale-republicans-e153dcb4d4391dd849e4409123bfecfe
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/05/09/hageman-and-house-committee-open-up-sale-of-federally-owned-public-land/
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/house-republicans-federal-lands-sale
It’s a gateway drug.
Any sportsman, hunter, fisherman, outdoorsman who’s not concerned with this clearly has the blinders on. It’s 460k acres now. Whats it going to be next month? Another 460k in a different state? Between states like WA working to eliminate hunting and our federal govt selling off public land, we’re doomed in short order.
Unless you’re loaded and can afford to buy your own hunting paradise or pay someone else for access to theirs.
It’s a good time to be a billionaire I guess.
Post by: Jake Dogfish on May 13, 2025, 02:14:40 AM
:yeah:I was wrong, it is not 11,000 acres of federal land approved for sale (mis-read the article) - it is 460,000 acres of public land to be sold.
https://apnews.com/article/west-public-lands-sale-republicans-e153dcb4d4391dd849e4409123bfecfe
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/05/09/hageman-and-house-committee-open-up-sale-of-federally-owned-public-land/
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/house-republicans-federal-lands-sale
It’s a gateway drug.
Any sportsman, hunter, fisherman, outdoorsman who’s not concerned with this clearly has the blinders on. It’s 460k acres now. Whats it going to be next month? Another 460k in a different state? Between states like WA working to eliminate hunting and our federal govt selling off public land, we’re doomed in short order.
Unless you’re loaded and can afford to buy your own hunting paradise or pay someone else for access to theirs.
It’s a good time to be a billionaire I guess.
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 13, 2025, 04:39:20 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Twispriver on May 13, 2025, 10:38:42 AM
Post by: Tinmaniac on May 13, 2025, 10:59:19 AM
Post by: bigtex on May 13, 2025, 12:54:03 PM
I have no problem selling fed land within city limits that poses no recreational, biological, etc importance. This is very common in Nevada but there's also BLM lands within the city limits of Richland, WA. But as others have said, what happens when the sale line starts shifting from within city limits to within half of a mile of a city, 5 miles of a city, 20 miles of a city, etc.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 13, 2025, 01:01:53 PM
The feds have been selling BLM land in Vegas city limits for decades. It's to the point now there is actually BLM land for sale that nobody's bought. The difference is the proceeds from these sales go back to future land purchases by the feds. The Republicans are now proposing selling fed lands to just put the money into the federal coffers, not going back to purchasing more fed lands.
I have no problem selling fed land within city limits that poses no recreational, biological, etc importance. This is very common in Nevada but there's also BLM lands within the city limits of Richland, WA. But as others have said, what happens when the sale line starts shifting from within city limits to within half of a mile of a city, 5 miles of a city, 20 miles of a city, etc.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
This is spot on. It’s not that land is being sold or traded it’s the reason they are selling and the process. If the politicians are deciding what gets sold and where the money goes it’s not going to be in the best interest of the national citizens it will be in the best interests of their donors.
And keep in mind when it comes to Nevada, this state originally sold all the checker boarded land that was assigned to them at statehood to line their pockets and that is why the only public land is federal land.
Post by: Platensek-po on May 13, 2025, 01:11:16 PM
It's pretty simple really,if we aren't growing we are dying.How is everything supposed to boom if we lock it up and don't touch it? Can't have it both ways fellas,careful now you'll be tree huggers before you know it.
Who says we don’t touch it? How is this helping anything grow other than private industries pockets and the real estate portfolios of the mega rich? Keep this up and in order to be able to hug a tree you will have spend big bucks to access private land.
Post by: baldopepper on May 13, 2025, 03:42:29 PM
It's pretty simple really,if we aren't growing we are dying.How is everything supposed to boom if we lock it up and don't touch it? Can't have it both ways fellas,careful now you'll be tree huggers before you know it.
Not sure where this idea that we gotta keep growing or we're dying came from. Some of my favorite towns have not grown or changed much in years. People living there are quite content to just to have things the way they are. Moved to Washington in 1980, Seattle was a laid back town that we often went into with no problems. Now, 44 years later, it's grown into just another big dirty city that I avoid if at all possible. For me, that idea that you gotta keep growing is nonsense.
Post by: Alan K on May 13, 2025, 07:30:09 PM
I'm all for getting lands in the hands of those who can and want to actively manage them. The federal beurocracy has gotten itself so bound up that nothing meaningful is done for management anymore. Just be sure they're encumbered with public access conservation easements prior to sale, and I'm on board! Without, nope.
Post by: jackelope on May 13, 2025, 07:31:14 PM
It's pretty simple really,if we aren't growing we are dying.How is everything supposed to boom if we lock it up and don't touch it? Can't have it both ways fellas,careful now you'll be tree huggers before you know it.There are lots and lots of things I don’t need to see boom. I’m 100% ok with that.
Post by: mburrows on May 13, 2025, 07:43:30 PM
I was wrong, it is not 11,000 acres of federal land approved for sale (mis-read the article) - it is 460,000 acres of public land to be sold.
https://apnews.com/article/west-public-lands-sale-republicans-e153dcb4d4391dd849e4409123bfecfe
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/05/09/hageman-and-house-committee-open-up-sale-of-federally-owned-public-land/
https://www.livenowfox.com/news/house-republicans-federal-lands-sale
It’s a gateway drug.
Any sportsman, hunter, fisherman, outdoorsman who’s not concerned with this clearly has the blinders on. It’s 460k acres now. Whats it going to be next month? Another 460k in a different state? Between states like WA working to eliminate hunting and our federal govt selling off public land, we’re doomed in short order.
Unless you’re loaded and can afford to buy your own hunting paradise or pay someone else for access to theirs.
It’s a good time to be a billionaire I guess.
Nailed it. Kind of like first it was just hound hunting, then spring bear, then baiting...
Post by: MADMAX on May 21, 2025, 07:44:35 PM
https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/public-land-sales-amendment-withdrawn/
Post by: jackelope on May 21, 2025, 07:52:30 PM
Good newsThis is a good start. I assume we’re not done discussing this topic yet. Kudos to Ryan Zinke and co.
https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/public-land-sales-amendment-withdrawn/
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 21, 2025, 08:02:29 PM