Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 268
  1. #241
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks
    164
    Thanked 423 Times in 312 Posts
    Congratulations
    155
    Congratulated 84 Times in 13 Posts

    One question concerning the Feds lessened involvement with the states, what are the states going to do if 30-50% of their annual budgets get taken away bc it comes from the Fed? The amt of money most folks will donate to the state in the form of state income tax to make that up would have bought some mighty nice vouchers somewhere.

  2. #242
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    Topgun,
    Yes, I live in the west and because of federal intrusion I have seen an economic downfall of many western communities. That causes me to have no love, or trust, for our federal government. I used to work for them, the Feds, as well.
    One can limit access by motorized traffic, authorized roads excepted, by enforcement of laws and regulations sans the wilderness designation.
    From your post one can only conclude that you want more federal intrusion. Not being of the west yourself I don't think you should have a day in how the west is managed. I wouldn't tell you how to manage the land in the middle west so what gives you the right to tell us how to live?
    I liken you to the railroad barrons of old that came to the west to get rich. You come to hunt.
    Stay in your midwestern state and hunt the game animals you have there. Don't like the opportunities where you are? Then work, by campaigning and voting to change things where you are and quit telling us what to do.
    The same goes for the,now feral, government.

  3. #243
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,359
    Thanks
    123
    Thanked 394 Times in 295 Posts
    Congratulations
    53
    Congratulated 52 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by vince View Post
    Topgun,
    Yes, I live in the west and because of federal intrusion I have seen an economic downfall of many western communities. That causes me to have no love, or trust, for our federal government. I used to work for them, the Feds, as well.
    One can limit access by motorized traffic, authorized roads excepted, by enforcement of laws and regulations sans the wilderness designation.
    From your post one can only conclude that you want more federal intrusion. Not being of the west yourself I don't think you should have a day in how the west is managed. I wouldn't tell you how to manage the land in the middle west so what gives you the right to tell us how to live?
    I liken you to the railroad barrons of old that came to the west to get rich. You come to hunt.
    Stay in your midwestern state and hunt the game animals you have there. Don't like the opportunities where you are? Then work, by campaigning and voting to change things where you are and quit telling us what to do.
    The same goes for the,now feral, government.
    You need to take a break and calm down before a Mod bans you because IMHO you are going way overboard in this last post! I've tried to limit this discussion to the facts and your last two posts have taken the thread down to a personal vendetta and it sucks. I have no love for the Federal Government either and again you're making false statements about me wanting more intrusion from the feds or anyone else as far as that goes. As long as there are Federal lands, I have as much say as you or any other citizen, regardless of what you think or feel. Too bad you have such a bad attitude towards the NRs that are holding up most of the G&F Departments out west and it's you that is exhibiting the "me me me" attitude, not me, as was really evidenced in you rlast two paragraphs.

  4. #244
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,359
    Thanks
    123
    Thanked 394 Times in 295 Posts
    Congratulations
    53
    Congratulated 52 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    One question concerning the Feds lessened involvement with the states, what are the states going to do if 30-50% of their annual budgets get taken away bc it comes from the Fed? The amt of money most folks will donate to the state in the form of state income tax to make that up would have bought some mighty nice vouchers somewhere.
    That's exactly why moving Federal lands to state control would bankrupt a state in short order unless the Federal money continued to pour in. Why would the feds continue to pour money into the state if they had no say in how it was spent? In case, you're not aware of it, we have been singling out Wyoming since this website is based there and Wyoming doesn't even have a state income tax and relies on the energy industries to stay afloat!

  5. #245
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dolores, Colorado
    Posts
    5,025
    Thanks
    1,313
    Thanked 1,921 Times in 1,099 Posts
    Congratulations
    263
    Congratulated 312 Times in 85 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    I tend to look at things just a wee bit differently and would rather be totally independent when it comes to hunting. I'd rather not have to worry about accessing any form of public land or worry about who I may run into while hunting. Here, the private sector mgmt completely blows the public mgmt out of the water when it comes to wildlife.
    I have a slightly different take. I am not going to say what Texas does (or has for that matter) is wrong, they just do it different. I lived there for several years while I was serving Uncle Sam and have hunted there numerous times. Texas has very little public land (state or federal) and is mostly private. Being private they do pretty much as they please. High fences, exotic game and mostly pay for you hunting, that's their right as it stands now.

    But my view is that if the feds or states starts selling off public land, we will turn into something akin to the situation is Texas. As it stands now in most of our western states we still have lots of unfettered access. There are a few areas that the feds are charging an access fee, but it is limited near large population areas. I sure would hate to see that happen everywhere. My problem with the feds turning the land over to the states is that the lots of states are so cash strapped, I fear them seeing the land as a cash cow and selling it. Try hunting then without a trespass fee.

    The system we have now is not perfect and can be made better, but surely not by removing public lands from federal control.
    Colorado Cowboy
    Cowboy Action Shooter; Endowment Life Member-NRA, NRA certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Rifle Instructor, RMEF, Boone & Crockett Club.
    The Original Rocket Scientist-Retired
    "My Father always considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church going."
    Aldous Huxley

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Colorado Cowboy For This Useful Post:


  7. #246
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Reno Nv
    Posts
    7,430
    Thanks
    2,688
    Thanked 1,611 Times in 1,128 Posts
    Congratulations
    708
    Congratulated 711 Times in 118 Posts
    Keep this down to not belittling and personal attacks
    ... because every picture tells a story

  8. #247
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    401
    Thanks
    16
    Thanked 58 Times in 52 Posts
    Congratulations
    36
    Congratulated 9 Times in 1 Post
    Amazing how scared people are of trying to be more efficient than the federal government. I'd guess that states could easily operate with 25% less $ and do a better job. Obviously some federal money would be needed to manage the land, I dont think anybody is suggesting the land be transferred and states would be 100% responsible for the cost of managing.

    I can't think of one thing that I believe the federal government is really good at except wasting $. But any alternatives we have discussed all get shot down because "the land will be sold and hunting public land will be lost forever". Except there are not examples of this ever happening and plenty of examples of land purchased by conservation organizations or donations where the state is managing the land and even examples of federal land being transferred to the state while keeping public access. I was at one of these pieces of property yesterday looking at a job we are bidding. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1770.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	97.2 KB 
ID:	10530

    The state operates the land as a WMA but it is owned by conservation groups and funded by these groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and even the state lottery. Yes it can work and this is yet another example that proves this.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1771.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	96.8 KB 
ID:	10531

    So would you be opposed if the states managed the land but still retained federal ownership? Seems like that would prevent the sale of the land like you seem to think will happen. Give the states a % of the current budget used to manage those lands and it would seem like everyone wins except the lazy government employees that the state wont' hire because they don't really want to work. Sounds like a good deal to me. Save taxpayers money, better management for the land, and get rid of the dead weight. All while not risking the scenario you have described where all public land will be sold to private interests and end public land hunting forever.

  9. #248
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,359
    Thanks
    123
    Thanked 394 Times in 295 Posts
    Congratulations
    53
    Congratulated 52 Times in 10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Colorado Cowboy View Post
    I have a slightly different take. I am not going to say what Texas does (or has for that matter) is wrong, they just do it different. I lived there for several years while I was serving Uncle Sam and have hunted there numerous times. Texas has very little public land (state or federal) and is mostly private. Being private they do pretty much as they please. High fences, exotic game and mostly pay for you hunting, that's their right as it stands now.

    But my view is that if the feds or states starts selling off public land, we will turn into something akin to the situation is Texas. As it stands now in most of our western states we still have lots of unfettered access. There are a few areas that the feds are charging an access fee, but it is limited near large population areas. I sure would hate to see that happen everywhere. My problem with the feds turning the land over to the states is that the lots of states are so cash strapped, I fear them seeing the land as a cash cow and selling it. Try hunting then without a trespass fee.

    The system we have now is not perfect and can be made better, but surely not by removing public lands from federal control.
    Exactly CC! I hunted several different Texas ranches that my Dad leased until not too long ago when he died. We would have stayed on just one, but every few years someone with lots of money would come in and offer the rancher a lot more money and Dad would be out looking for another lease. Many average people can't afford to hunt in Texas because it's almost all private land and costs 4 or 5 digits to even have a chance to deer hunt a place. It would be a shame if that happens out west and there is no reason it has to.

  10. #249
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Dolores, Colorado
    Posts
    5,025
    Thanks
    1,313
    Thanked 1,921 Times in 1,099 Posts
    Congratulations
    263
    Congratulated 312 Times in 85 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post

    I can't think of one thing that I believe the federal government is really good at except wasting $. But any alternatives we have discussed all get shot down because "the land will be sold and hunting public land will be lost forever". Except there are not examples of this ever happening and plenty of examples of land purchased by conservation organizations or donations where the state is managing the land and even examples of federal land being transferred to the state while keeping public access. I was at one of these pieces of property yesterday looking at a job we are bidding. Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1770.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	97.2 KB 
ID:	10530

    The state operates the land as a WMA but it is owned by conservation groups and funded by these groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and even the state lottery. Yes it can work and this is yet another example that proves this.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_1771.jpg 
Views:	13 
Size:	96.8 KB 
ID:	10531
    .
    Not true. I DO know of several instances where National Forest lands were "traded" to private parties and were then private property. It happens more than we know when the feds want a piece of private property to add to a National Park or Monument and cannot buy it, they trade for it. I know of a section of prime NF land in Az that was traded away to private. Others in californis too.
    Colorado Cowboy
    Cowboy Action Shooter; Endowment Life Member-NRA, NRA certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Rifle Instructor, RMEF, Boone & Crockett Club.
    The Original Rocket Scientist-Retired
    "My Father always considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church going."
    Aldous Huxley

  11. #250
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    2,234
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 178 Times in 134 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 17 Times in 5 Posts

    Easy boys....

 

 
Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 152324252627 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •