Transfer of Public Lands
- Thread starter npaden
- Start date
micropterus79
Active Member
Yeah, a little wordy but it's been slow at work. The point is, it scares the hell out of me that politicians do no listen. Its not even that they are out to get us, they simply don't care beyond achieving the office that they seek. But then again, is this really different from how it has every been? We are in a paradox here where no side is going to really advance the full spectrum of hunter values because our values cross what have become very clear, idealistic political boundaries; if you want access to public land then you're a tree hugger and you believe in wasting precious resources (that's not exactly how they put it but that is the point that comes across), and if you vote the other side, well we have seen over the last 6.5 yrs. what that can bring. Not to mention that DYI public land hunters are becoming an increasingly small group compared to other recreational groups, especially hikers.
The other interesting angle here, I think, is public land was a progressive idea to begin with. So does that mean if you feel access to public land is a priority that you're a progressive? If you go to your average progressive website, I think most of us (maybe not all) would not exactly align themselves with the overall agenda.
As sportsmen/women, it feels like we can't win and it makes me afraid. Maybe not for my kids, but my grandkids. But then again, how many people over the generations have felt uncomfortable with how things progress?
Seems bleak.
Last edited:
RyanHughes
Member
An issue I am very passionate about, especially being a hunter from Nor Cal, where public land is scarce and the hunting on it is rough. I wrote an article on the topic a few months ago. Message me if anyone wants to read it!
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
I hate to beat a dead horse, but you don't have to fit into any box. You can take a position on an issue based on the merits of the issue. If someone agrees with you on that issue, you don't have to agree with them on every issue, or even ANY other issue.
This "with us or against us" polarizing attitude is the number one problem with politics today, especially for those with interests that span many issues, like us backcountry hunters.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Last week, the NRA held its annual convention in Nashville. Many of the leading republican presidential candidates spoke in an attempt to garner the pro-gun vote. As a longtime NRA member, I appreciate their support. However, I find their support for the second amendment to be incongruent with their position on federal land transfer. Some of these candidates are United States senators that just two weeks earlier voted for a budget amendment calling for transferring/selling public lands. All are republicans whose party recently passed a resolution calling for the the transfer of public lands.
Don't they realize that many (perhaps most) gun owners are hunters? Don't they realize that most hunters place a high value on public access to hunting property?
I am struggling to understand how a conservative candidate can think he can gain votes by being pro-gun, and at the same time thinks he will not lose votes by promoting federal land transfer.
I suggest that we hunters should inform these candidates that they need to be both pro-gun and pro-federal land. None of them will get might vote unless he is both.
Don't they realize that many (perhaps most) gun owners are hunters? Don't they realize that most hunters place a high value on public access to hunting property?
I am struggling to understand how a conservative candidate can think he can gain votes by being pro-gun, and at the same time thinks he will not lose votes by promoting federal land transfer.
I suggest that we hunters should inform these candidates that they need to be both pro-gun and pro-federal land. None of them will get might vote unless he is both.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Last week, the NRA held its annual convention in Nashville. Many of the leading republican presidential candidates spoke in an attempt to garner the pro-gun vote. As a longtime NRA member, I appreciate their support. However, I find their support for the second amendment to be incongruent with their position on federal land transfer. Some of these candidates are United States senators that just two weeks earlier voted for a budget amendment calling for transferring/selling public lands. All are republicans whose party recently passed a resolution calling for the the transfer of public lands.
Don't they realize that many (perhaps most) gun owners are hunters? Don't they realize that most hunters place a high value on public access to hunting property?
I am struggling to understand how a conservative candidate can think he can gain votes by being pro-gun, and at the same time thinks he will not lose votes by promoting federal land transfer.
I suggest that we hunters should inform these candidates that they need to be both pro-gun and pro-federal land. None of them will get my vote unless he is both.
Don't they realize that many (perhaps most) gun owners are hunters? Don't they realize that most hunters place a high value on public access to hunting property?
I am struggling to understand how a conservative candidate can think he can gain votes by being pro-gun, and at the same time thinks he will not lose votes by promoting federal land transfer.
I suggest that we hunters should inform these candidates that they need to be both pro-gun and pro-federal land. None of them will get my vote unless he is both.
micropterus79
Active Member
Yep, and I think that most Americans, regardless of political affiliation, probably agree on how the govt should better handle things like taxes, the economy, and personal liberties in a general sense. I don't think it is the individual PEOPLE that are the problem, it is the elected officials. How do we reach these thick headed politicians? On your point, I was listening to an interview with Ralph Nader on a book he recently published the other day and I was agreeing with him. It was very shocking to me.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Guy Eastman makes comments about public land sell off in his monthly newsletter:
http://blog.eastmans.com/public-land-sell-off/?utm_source=Eastmans.com+Monthly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=af81809465-E_News_August_208_19_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_aec388f646-af81809465-9855573
Thanks Guy for fighting for our public lands!!
http://blog.eastmans.com/public-land-sell-off/?utm_source=Eastmans.com+Monthly+Newsletter&utm_campaign=af81809465-E_News_August_208_19_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_aec388f646-af81809465-9855573
Thanks Guy for fighting for our public lands!!
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
More than 100 outdoor organizations send letter to congress opposing federal land transfer/sale:
http://blog.trcp.org/2015/04/14/sportsmen-to-congress-we-wont-stand-idly-by-if-you-sell-off-our-public-lands/
I am encouraged that we sportsmen are finally getting motivated and organized! Let's not quit until this idea is dead and buried deep.
http://blog.trcp.org/2015/04/14/sportsmen-to-congress-we-wont-stand-idly-by-if-you-sell-off-our-public-lands/
I am encouraged that we sportsmen are finally getting motivated and organized! Let's not quit until this idea is dead and buried deep.
shootbrownelk
Veteran member
If your Senators are anything like our two in Wyoming you are in for a long wait. Followed by a curt, if not snotty elitist response.
"Go join a group and protest". How's that for a response to a residents query? The said they were doing what's best for the State, I think they do what's best for them and the folks who generously donate to their re-election campaigns. They're all bitches to the almighty dollar in my opinion.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
I just received the following email from Senator Enzi in response to my complaint about his vote in favor of the land transfer budget amendment. He says he is an avid outdoorsman, really??
April 16, 2015
Dear xxxx:
The budget contains language for land acquisition and conservation efforts, but it cannot and does not sell, transfer, or exchange any property. The amendment (S.A. 838) sponsored by Senator Murkowski (R-AK) to the Senate budget resolution ensures any sale, transfer, or exchange of land between the federal government and state or local governments would not cost the federal government or raise revenues. This amendment specifically excludes transfers involving National Parks, National Preserves, and National Monument land.
If Senator Murkowski's amendment is included in the final budget resolution, Congress would have to pass another bill that would facilitate the exchange or sale of any federal land because the budget resolution is a nonbinding statement of intent that also serves as a framework to guide the future work of Congress. I am disappointed several groups sought to characterize this vote as they did without considering the text of the amendment.
Federal control of public lands has long been a controversial issue. As an avid outdoorsman, I believe that the people who live on the land are the best stewards of our natural resources. I have secured specific land transfers of federal land in Wyoming back to local governments in the past. Regardless of whether public land is under the management of the federal government or state it should be managed with close consultation of local stakeholders. It’s exciting though to see a formal dialogue on this issue taking place at the state and federal levels. I believe more conversations are needed if we are to stop an increasingly overreaching federal government and I will continue to follow this issue.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Enzi
United States Senator
MBE:AC
April 16, 2015
Dear xxxx:
The budget contains language for land acquisition and conservation efforts, but it cannot and does not sell, transfer, or exchange any property. The amendment (S.A. 838) sponsored by Senator Murkowski (R-AK) to the Senate budget resolution ensures any sale, transfer, or exchange of land between the federal government and state or local governments would not cost the federal government or raise revenues. This amendment specifically excludes transfers involving National Parks, National Preserves, and National Monument land.
If Senator Murkowski's amendment is included in the final budget resolution, Congress would have to pass another bill that would facilitate the exchange or sale of any federal land because the budget resolution is a nonbinding statement of intent that also serves as a framework to guide the future work of Congress. I am disappointed several groups sought to characterize this vote as they did without considering the text of the amendment.
Federal control of public lands has long been a controversial issue. As an avid outdoorsman, I believe that the people who live on the land are the best stewards of our natural resources. I have secured specific land transfers of federal land in Wyoming back to local governments in the past. Regardless of whether public land is under the management of the federal government or state it should be managed with close consultation of local stakeholders. It’s exciting though to see a formal dialogue on this issue taking place at the state and federal levels. I believe more conversations are needed if we are to stop an increasingly overreaching federal government and I will continue to follow this issue.
Sincerely,
Michael B. Enzi
United States Senator
MBE:AC
Last edited:
micropterus79
Active Member
He very well might be an avid outdoorsman; on private ranches and preserves that he and his colleagues have the money and juice to get access to.
I like the part about the overreaching federal government as if that is even related. So you're going to screw up a Wyoming resident's hunting opportunities in the name of a smaller federal govt but all the while the IRS, EPA, ATF, FBI, etc..etc... expand.
Sounds logical to me (sarc off)!
I like the part about the overreaching federal government as if that is even related. So you're going to screw up a Wyoming resident's hunting opportunities in the name of a smaller federal govt but all the while the IRS, EPA, ATF, FBI, etc..etc... expand.
Sounds logical to me (sarc off)!
shootbrownelk
Veteran member
Sure he can. If the "Stakeholders"..."Stewards of the Land" "People who live on the Land" that's a hoot. What he means is Weathy Ranchers/Developers/Outfitters (the ones that thought this up are the same ones who gave you "No non-resident hunting" in wilderness areas. Enzi serves these folks and the ones in mining/energy and of course..agriculture. And as we know, if it's good for agriculture, it's bad for everyone else. That response was pure gobble-de-gook and double speak, and B.S.
Thanks for nothing Enzi and Barrasso.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
"As an avid outdoorsman, I believe that the people who live on the land are the best stewards of our natural resources."
Hmmmm. Very concerning language there. Live on the land? Sounds like a slick way to say "makes a living off public lands." That surely doesn't include public land hunters, and most certainly DOES include extractive industry. Somehow I don't see them as the most responsible public land stewards.
Hmmmm. Very concerning language there. Live on the land? Sounds like a slick way to say "makes a living off public lands." That surely doesn't include public land hunters, and most certainly DOES include extractive industry. Somehow I don't see them as the most responsible public land stewards.
shootbrownelk
Veteran member
Againstthewind
Very Active Member
Its hard to argue with this stuff about Enzi. I think most people know, but I was just going to point out that he also has strong energy ties from his Gillette days, and the good ole boys club here is about as strong as anywhere, so he could still find a place to hunt and stuff even if it was all private. Anyway, some of the other points made before apply especially to Enzi. The overreaching federal gov't deal is classic for this area if anybody listens to Glenn Woods and his rants about the EPA and things like that. I am not sure how far his listening area goes.
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Barrasso, Enzi and others have been promoting federal land transfer under the banner of local control. Apparently they think it is safe political ground to stand on.
In my opinion local control would result in more for-profit decision making benefiting those who are in position to make the decisions. Profitable uses such as oil, gas, timber harvest, grazing, real estate development would proliferate. Less profitable uses such as recreation would suffer. Local profiteers would be happy. Recreationists would not.
Somehow we need to convince the public that on this issue local control is not synonymous with baseball, motherhood and apple pie. I consider this our biggest challenge. Make no mistake about it, this issue will be resolved in the court of public opinion.
In my opinion local control would result in more for-profit decision making benefiting those who are in position to make the decisions. Profitable uses such as oil, gas, timber harvest, grazing, real estate development would proliferate. Less profitable uses such as recreation would suffer. Local profiteers would be happy. Recreationists would not.
Somehow we need to convince the public that on this issue local control is not synonymous with baseball, motherhood and apple pie. I consider this our biggest challenge. Make no mistake about it, this issue will be resolved in the court of public opinion.