Transfer of Public Lands

[oneye]

I'll still vote for him over Hillary or Sanders. I disagree with both of them on WAY more than this one issue with Cruz. If he's the nominee and ends up winning as president let's hope he gets enough push back that he changes his views on this. Really feels like we're in trouble in one way or another with any candidate.

For me, I can't vote for a man who would change some of the most important parts of my lifestyle completely. I will vote for Trump and will not vote for Cruz if he is the nominee no matter who his opponent is. Sanders despite having some stretched views I believe is the most honest and sincere candidate in the race. I don't agree with many of his views but he is true to what he believes, and seems like an honest and good man. I could vote for Bernie before Cruz. I would rather vote for a good man I disagree with on policies than a politician like Cruz who is bought and paid for and a proud puppet of those who fund him. I think it is also naive to believe in 4 years Bernie Sanders will ever accomplish the things I disagree with him on anyway and his past record shows he is not a big supporter of gun control measures. There is a republican dominated congress, a Supreme Court seat up for grabs, and if Cruz is elected president, I don't think people really understand how the public land theft is actually really aligning well to actually occur if Cruz is our president. There is a strong possibility a vote for Cruz will end in the sale of your access or favorite hunting spot. There is much less chance in the next 4 years our country will be flipped on its back and become a socialist country where our guns are taken away in my opinion.

In the end if it comes down to Hillary or Trump I'll vote Trump. If it comes down to Cruz and Sanders or Clinton, I'll go against my grain and vote for the democratic nominee. As Randy Newberg puts it though, voting for the lesser of two idiots, is still an idiot, Cruz is just the idiot I absolutely will not vote for.

 

[CoHiCntry]

For me, I can't vote for a man who would change some of the most important parts of my lifestyle completely. I will vote for Trump and will not vote for Cruz if he is the nominee no matter who his opponent is. Sanders despite having some stretched views I believe is the most honest and sincere candidate in the race. I don't agree with many of his views but he is true to what he believes, and seems like an honest and good man. I could vote for Bernie before Cruz. I would rather vote for a good man I disagree with on policies than a politician like Cruz who is bought and paid for and a proud puppet of those who fund him. I think it is also naive to believe in 4 years Bernie Sanders will ever accomplish the things I disagree with him on anyway and his past record shows he is not a big supporter of gun control measures. There is a republican dominated congress, a Supreme Court seat up for grabs, and if Cruz is elected president, I don't think people really understand how the public land theft is actually really aligning well to actually occur if Cruz is our president. There is a strong possibility a vote for Cruz will end in the sale of your access or favorite hunting spot. There is much less chance in the next 4 years our country will be flipped on its back and become a socialist country where our guns are taken away in my opinion.

In the end if it comes down to Hillary or Trump I'll vote Trump. If it comes down to Cruz and Sanders or Clinton, I'll go against my grain and vote for the democratic nominee. As Randy Newberg puts it though, voting for the lesser of two idiots, is still an idiot, Cruz is just the idiot I absolutely will not vote for.

You made some good points. Some I agree with and some I don't. I'm not a single issue voter so I will still vote for Cruz if he ends up being the nominee. Definitely makes me less excited to vote for him knowing his stance on this issue though... There are other issues I find just as important as this one. I do wonder like you mention how much validity there is in the thought that anyone could take our guns away or turn us into a socialist country in a short time with all the opposition that would surely take place. I don't support abortion, gay marriage, or most government entitlement programs and do support the 2nd ammendment which leaves me leaning pretty hard right. I try not to demonize candidates on the other side as my hope is we're all trying to do what's best for our country. That being said, I've yet to vote for a Democrat and doubt I ever will as long as our view points are so drastically different. The hard part is I'm usually not to crazy about voting for most Republicans either. Especially this go around!

 

[MOHunter]

I shared the Cruz ad on FB and my negative comments. I'm a fairly strong republican, so this came as a surprise to many. A fellow from church, who is an intelligent and analytical conservative had this to say. We have a long way to go.
Ok, I understand you point. Thanks, I really was at a loss for understanding why anyone wanted the Federal government to own so much land. Your position makes sense to me now.

Having said that I am still at a bit of a loss in a couple of respects. First, I grew up in Oklahoma, Kansas and Missouri (mostly Kansas). I grew up within walking distance (for us back then anyway) of Grand Lake. We never had any problems with lands being available We always had plenty of land for hunting boating, fishing etc. and Oklahoma has great state parks. The federal government owns 1.6% of the land in Oklahoma, 0.6% of the land in Kansas, and 3.8 percent of the land in Missouri.

Second, I lived in Utah where the federal government owns 66.5% of the land. I remember just before leaving office Bill Clinton took more of Utah's land for the federal government. This land was not being used for hunting and fishing or the like, it was being used for mining. People were put out of work because the government took the land to prevent the citizens from being able to make a living off the oil, coal, copper and other natural resources provided by this land.

81% of Nevada, 61% of Alaska, 61% of Idaho, 53% of Oregon, 48% of Wyoming, 47% of California, 42% of Arizona, and 36% of Colorado are owned by the federal government. The highest percentage of federal land in a state east of the Mississippi is 13.5% in New Hampshire. New Hampshire has a great deal of hunting, fishing, hiking, photography, etc. Only 4.8% of Tennessee is own by the federal government. I spend a lot of time in TN and I can tell you hunting fishing, camping, hiking, etc are major activities in TN with only 4.8% of the land owned by the federal government.

I know when I lived in Utah many people asked why states out east didn't let the federal government have most of the land in their states if it was such a good idea. They were angry that they could not use their natural resources to help their economy and provide work for their families. I sympathize with them.

Maybe we are debating different issues but I struggle to believe that if the federal government kept it's land ownership in states to under 20% and maybe under 10% that any outdoor activities would suffer. After all 10% is nearly triple the federal lands in Missouri, over five times the federal land in Texas and over six times the federal lands in Oklahoma. If we got to those levels the anger and even the issue itself would largely if not completely go away.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Don't forget that those who will introduce legislation and vote on it, before sending it to the President for approval or veto are our elected Representatives and Senators. We MUST write them and voice our opinions. A President cannot introduce Legislation. Also from what I heard and read Cruz is not the most popular Senator in the Senate. He might have trouble getting anything into legislation.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Don't forget that those who will introduce legislation and vote on it, before sending it to the President for approval or veto are our elected Representatives and Senators. We MUST write them and voice our opinions. A President cannot introduce Legislation. Also from what I heard and read Cruz is not the most popular Senator in the Senate. He might have trouble getting anything into legislation.

I emailed my Wyoming Senators and our lone Representative. They are 100% for this transfer. And from the response I got, it seems they do not care what the sportspersons who utilize these lands think. It's their way or the highway. They have solid support from our Rancher top-heavy legislature and our Governor Mead is himself a rancher. It looks as if we're screwed. I'll keep sending e-mails until they (or their staff flunkies) are sick of them. I know how to be a PITA.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

I emailed my Wyoming Senators and our lone Representative. They are 100% for this transfer. And from the response I got, it seems they do not care what the sportspersons who utilize these lands think. It's their way or the highway. They have solid support from our Rancher top-heavy legislature and our Governor Mead is himself a rancher. It looks as if we're screwed. I'll keep sending e-mails until they (or their staff flunkies) are sick of them. I know how to be a PITA.

They will care when they lose their jobs. I really think this issue is going to tear down the Republican party in the West if they don't change course.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Maybe we are debating different issues but I struggle to believe that if the federal government kept it's land ownership in states to under 20% and maybe under 10% that any outdoor activities would suffer. After all 10% is nearly triple the federal lands in Missouri, over five times the federal land in Texas and over six times the federal lands in Oklahoma. If we got to those levels the anger and even the issue itself would largely if not completely go away.

I disagree with the assumption that outdoor activities would not suffer if federal land ownership in the west went to 20 percent or less. Here's one reason: The west is mountainous. Because of this, most big animals go through seasonal migrations. Migration is dependent upon open migration corridors. Elk, antelope and deer are not going to freely migrate through housing developments, oil fields, coal mines, etc. If they can't migrate and are forced to stay in one location, their numbers will dwindle. If their numbers dwindle, the preference points that many of us have been accumulating will not be worth diddley! I could list many other reasons such as reduced access, but this one is as good as any.

 

[Fink]

I disagree with the assumption that outdoor activities would not suffer if federal land ownership in the west went to 20 percent or less. Here's one reason: The west is mountainous. Because of this, most big animals go through seasonal migrations. Migration is dependent upon open migration corridors. Elk, antelope and deer are not going to freely migrate through housing developments, oil fields, coal mines, etc. If they can't migrate and are forced to stay in one location, their numbers will dwindle. If their numbers dwindle, the preference points that many of us have been accumulating will not be worth diddley! I could list many other reasons such as reduced access, but this one is as good as any.

Not only that, but the land hunts totally different. You can stick 10 rifle deer hunters on a section here in Missouri, and they won't see each other until it's time for dinner back at the cabin. One other hunter on a section of BLM in Central Wyoming, and you've got yourself a crowded hunt.

I just cant understand how someone can give a pass to Cruz for his stance on this issue. To me, it's a direct assault on the iconic American West as it's currently known. It's an assault on the way of life for many people, and an assault on some of the last truly free places we have left.

I was talking to my dad about it the other day, and voiced my concern about Cruz, and the fact that I would not vote for him.. He says "there's more important things in this world than having a piece of ground in Wyoming for you to hunt on."
He's right, there are more important things.. Things like keeping some semblance of Americana is important. Making sure that not every square inch of this country is turned into an oil well or a wind farm is important. Not shutting people out just because they aren't uber wealthy, is important. And, having politicians that won't sell their damn soul to the devil for a few more votes is important.

I'll never vote for a criminal like Hillary, or an Econ 101 flunky like Bernie... But damn, these options are tough...

 

[MOHunter]

Fink, I believe Senator Blunt is in favor of transfers.

 

[Fink]

Fink, I believe Senator Blunt is in favor of transfers.

The Republican party has left its constituents high and dry.

 

[ivorytip]

I think tomorrow when I go do primary voting im writing CC in on the ballot, all those in favor?

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I think tomorrow when I go do primary voting im writing CC in on the ballot, all those in favor?

Thanks....but no thanks! I hate politicians, except for my wife who is a former Mayor and City Councilwomen. Now if I could emulate Teddy, on second thought, no one can! LOL

 

[RICMIC]

I think you would fit into Teddy's mold quite well C.C. One of his goals in pursuing the outdoor lifestyle was to, "Enhance the principles of manliness." This upcoming election scares me to death, and I see no good end result.

 

[CoHiCntry]

For those of us who consider ourselves "conservatives"... we don't want another Clinton in the white house because we're afraid of their attack on our second amendment rights. We don't want a self proclaimed socialist either like Sanders because we don't want to live in a socialist country. The fact is though, we've lived through many years with a Clinton in the white house and now Obama for all these years. We've been hearing how they are gonna strip us of our 2nd amendment, yet in all these years it's never happened. Not from lack of trying, they just couldn't get it done due to push back. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that Sanders will not be able to turn us into a socialist country due to the same opposition. This makes me wonder... if Cruz does end up being the nominee & gets into the white house will he really be able to push this through? Is there enough support for this that it wouldn't be just as vigorously opposed making it hard to get it pushed through? Curious what others think about it?

Appreciate everyone's positive responses on this thread, no matter which side you tend to lean. I don't usually like to talk politics especially on hunting forums because it usually turns nasty pretty quick. I think this topic warrants some constructive conversation though since it affects something we all dearly love. Without public land hunting we would all have to play golf or something equally as bad...

 

[WY ME]

The democrats have attacked my way of life for as long as I can remember. Their attacks on legal gun owners and the 2nd amendment is only one part of their war against the kind of America I grew up in. They now use the Endangered Species Act to erode away our hunting heritage rather than its original intent of bringing back endangered species to sustainable levels. They use the EPA to ban bullets and lead sinkers, etc.
No candidate is perfect to anyone of us and no candidate ever will be but in general the Democrat Party has turned so far to the left that in no way are they of any benefit to hunters, fisherman and trappers. The democrats are a party of the urban crowd who have little interest or understanding of today's sportsmen other than the propaganda put out by the liberal media.

Forty years ago there was a lot of shared beliefs and ideas between the Dems and the GOP...today they're like oil and water.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

For those of us who consider ourselves "conservatives"... we don't want another Clinton in the white house because we're afraid of their attack on our second amendment rights. We don't want a self proclaimed socialist either like Sanders because we don't want to live in a socialist country. The fact is though, we've lived through many years with a Clinton in the white house and now Obama for all these years. We've been hearing how they are gonna strip us of our 2nd amendment, yet in all these years it's never happened. Not from lack of trying, they just couldn't get it done due to push back. It was mentioned earlier in this thread that Sanders will not be able to turn us into a socialist country due to the same opposition. This makes me wonder... if Cruz does end up being the nominee & gets into the white house will he really be able to push this through? Is there enough support for this that it wouldn't be just as vigorously opposed making it hard to get it pushed through? Curious what others think about it?

Appreciate everyone's positive responses on this thread, no matter which side you tend to lean. I don't usually like to talk politics especially on hunting forums because it usually turns nasty pretty quick. I think this topic warrants some constructive conversation though since it affects something we all dearly love. Without public land hunting we would all have to play golf or something equally as bad...

Just some thoughts...First, would Cruz have the ability to push through his agenda? The RNC has already passed a resolution to transfer federal lands to the states. So one can assume most Republican members of the House and Senate would be be under pressure to vote for transfer. Having a President Cruz openly advocating transfer would be an additional threat to sportsman that makes me VERY uncomfortable.

As far as voting Democrat...I am reluctant because of their position on gun control. On the other hand, the NRA has done a good job of opposing gun control and I don't think the Democrats could successfully push gun control if a Democrat president was elected. If they couldn't do it with Obama, I don't think they could do it with Clinton.

So we have a strong national organization to stop gun control (NRA), but we don't have a strong national organization to stop federal land transfer. To me, there is more danger that federal lands will be transferred than that strict gun control will prevail. So, if forced I might vote Democrat and count on the NRA to do its job.

The best option is convince Republicans that they should protect our guns AND our federal land. I think that should be our focus.

 

[buckbull]

Good article concerning the defunding of the BLM and Forest Service.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-conservationist/selling-public-land-isn’t-the-solution-to-budget-cuts?dom=fas&loc=contentwell&lnk=selling-public-land-isnt-the-solution-to-budget-cuts

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

For me its more than one or 2 issues. I believe that the feds are way too big in their reach and power. If left up to most of the states lots of the things we like would be just fine, others not so fine. But state government is much easier to have influence with for the average tax payer. Sure states like Nevada and Utah want all the land the feds control, but others don't. Like others mentioned, the President represents the party that elected him/her and the party platform lays out what they want to do.

I personally intend to reregister as an independent after this years elections are over, just to let the party I know am registered with how dissatisfied I am. I'll probably have to redo it again in a couple of years, especially if I want a voice in local affairs.

 

[WY ME]

Why would the Dems be opposed to the sales of federal lands when it's my understanding that 95% of the proceeds would be returned to the federal gov't. That's more money for them to spend on welfare.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Good article concerning the defunding of the BLM and Forest Service.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/the-conservationist/selling-public-land-isn’t-the-solution-to-budget-cuts?dom=fas&loc=contentwell&lnk=selling-public-land-isnt-the-solution-to-budget-cuts

Very Good!