Page 4 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 260
  1. #31
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Good point!
    Quote Originally Posted by tbrass View Post
    Corner crossing would be a moot point if the proposed public land sell-offs were to occur. Before we can talk about providing better access to public lands, we need to put this anti-federal land hoopla to rest. While there's many of great ideas, programs and organizations out there that are working on the issue of public land access, it's all a waste if the land we're trying to get access to ends up being sold off.

  2. #32
    Eastmans' Staff
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 167 Times in 64 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    I would like to see some states like WY and CO that have large mineral revenues dump some of that Tax revenue money back into buying up smaller, key pieces of private land and add that back into the pot and under state control. But sometimes even the mention of that sends the cattlemen into orbit. -G
    N. Guy Eastman
    Publisher
    Eastmans' Hunting Journals

  3. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Reno, Nevada, United States
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 166 Times in 125 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 6 Times in 3 Posts
    Tim,
    I believe the states would be subsidized by Uncle Sam if that was the case.

  4. #34
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,742
    Thanks
    69
    Thanked 1,064 Times in 357 Posts
    Congratulations
    3
    Congratulated 46 Times in 24 Posts
    Tbrass makes an incredibly valid point! We have to have the land to be able to access it for hunting and fishing purposes. Actively let your politicians know that you don't want it sold and it won't be. They value their jobs and know that you hold the keys to their offices with your vote.

  5. #35
    Eastmans' Staff
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    170
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 167 Times in 64 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    I agree 100%. Great organization that is protecting the very thing we love and use the most. Its great to see a non specie specific org fighting for land and not individual herds or species. -G
    N. Guy Eastman
    Publisher
    Eastmans' Hunting Journals

  6. #36
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Umpqua Hunter View Post
    I wonder about something like F&G installing signs at the corner crossing points. No sign…it's illegal to cross. The surveys are done in many areas and the survey hubs are in place.
    That's a good idea except for signs are expensive and the state agencies are struggling financially the way it is. Placing signs on corner crossings would be a really expensive endeavor.

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Umpqua, Oregon
    Posts
    2,579
    Thanks
    478
    Thanked 602 Times in 375 Posts
    Congratulations
    90
    Congratulated 101 Times in 13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by tbrass View Post
    Corner crossing would be a moot point if the proposed public land sell-offs were to occur. Before we can talk about providing better access to public lands, we need to put this anti-federal land hoopla to rest. While there's many of great ideas, programs and organizations out there that are working on the issue of public land access, it's all a waste if the land we're trying to get access to ends up being sold off.
    There are around 640 million acres of Federal land. Our national debt is $17.5 trillion. They would have to sell all of that land at $27,000 an acre to pay it off. Most of it isn't worth a fraction of that.

  8. #38
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Umpqua Hunter View Post
    There are around 640 million acres of Federal land. Our national debt is $17.5 trillion. They would have to sell all of that land at $27,000 an acre to pay it off. Most of it isn't worth a fraction of that.
    EXCELLENT point!!! Just shows how much our debt is and how tough it will be to pay it off.

  9. #39
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,742
    Thanks
    69
    Thanked 1,064 Times in 357 Posts
    Congratulations
    3
    Congratulated 46 Times in 24 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Umpqua Hunter View Post
    There are around 640 million acres of Federal land. Our national debt is $17.5 trillion. They would have to sell all of that land at $27,000 an acre to pay it off. Most of it isn't worth a fraction of that.
    Good point on the dollar figures involved, but the real question is how would the money actually be spent and is what it would be spent on worth losing the resource of public land with multiple use?

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    North Umpqua, Oregon
    Posts
    2,579
    Thanks
    478
    Thanked 602 Times in 375 Posts
    Congratulations
    90
    Congratulated 101 Times in 13 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by MulyBux7077 View Post
    EXCELLENT point!!! Just shows how much our debt is and how tough it will be to pay it off.
    I think passing second grade math should be a requirement for a federal office.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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