Republican Party pushing hard to get rid of our public lands

[oneye]

Thank Zinke, he's the only republican worth a s*** on this issue right now

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/zinke-resigns-delegate-post-over-public-lands-disagreement-still-will/article_8109f084-d199-50dd-b223-9fd3557a738d.html

Here's another article on what the Republican Party has decided on public land:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/zinke-resigns-delegate-post-over-public-lands-disagreement-still-will/article_8109f084-d199-50dd-b223-9fd3557a738d.html


The GOP draft platform reads: "Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to the states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power of influence to urge the transfer of those lands identified."

 

[mrfudd]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let the states manage their own resources.

 

[genesis27:3]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let the states manage their own resources.

Does it? The states will simply sell them off before trying to manage their own land.

This short video will explain it much better than I can:
https://youtu.be/x0XKOTE4e4w

 

[kidoggy]

yep. sounds good up front but the long term ain't so bright.

I have no doubt most will fall for this scam. all one needs to sway the public is a promise of of something. anything really, makes no difference what is promised ,so long as they think they get something.

 

[sneakypete]

Sounds like the biggest mistake since 7 1/2 years ago! The states have no money to manage there own property let alone millions apron millions of acres!

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Let the states manage their own resources.

It would be a disaster. States can't afford to manage millions of acres and would end up selling some/most of it. Have you read the 906 posts on the Transfer thread? Please take the time to do so.

At the current time, there is a lot of animosity toward the feds and certain elements in the Republican Party are taking advantage of that to promote their transfer agenda. Sportsmen should have enough smarts to not let them get away with it. The future of western hunting will depend on whether hunters and other outdoor recreationists can be hoodwinked.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Have you read the 906 posts on the Transfer thread? Please take the time to do so.

Your kidding...right? With all of 2 posts, bet he hasn't read much here and won't take the time to read much.

 

[6mm Remington]

Bad idea, really bad idea! Now the folks who we elect need to listen to us and do what the voters want, not what they want to do! That is why we elect them, to be our voice. We have to stop the transfer of Public lands.

 

[mrfudd]

Your kidding...right? With all of 2 posts, bet he hasn't read much here and won't take the time to read much.

Yes, I have 2 posts and I have read the other threads. I believe in the original intent of the founding fathers and do not think that they would support the vast overreach of the federal government. The power should reside at the state level. Some lands may be sold, but hopefully stupid rules concerning roads and undergrowth clearing will be reversed.

 

[Umpqua Hunter]

If they would only reopen logging in the NW and generate some income off these amazing timberlands.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Yes, I have 2 posts and I have read the other threads. I believe in the original intent of the founding fathers and do not think that they would support the vast overreach of the federal government. The power should reside at the state level. Some lands may be sold, but hopefully stupid rules concerning roads and undergrowth clearing will be reversed.

If you had read the 906 posts in the transfer thread, including the links to other information, you would know that federal land ownership does not violate the constitution and therefore does not violate the intent of the founding fathers. But just in case you missed it, here is a link you might want to check out:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34273.pdf

Even the venerable Wyoming Republican Senator Alan Simpson thinks it would be a bad idea to transfer federal lands to the states (see the half way point in this video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXBxSc6pdfM

 

[oneye]

Yes, I have 2 posts and I have read the other threads. I believe in the original intent of the founding fathers and do not think that they would support the vast overreach of the federal government. The power should reside at the state level. Some lands may be sold, but hopefully stupid rules concerning roads and undergrowth clearing will be reversed.

So I guess you get to ignore state constitutions that say clearly they forever gave up right and title to those lands. You must have missed the part in the constitution about the Supreme Court, because these lands and agencies have been upheld in over 100 cases over the past 100 years. I guess you just get to disregard the parts of the constitution you didn't agree with the founding fathers on. When someone brings the constitution argument in I quickly discredit them because they make it clear they have done no research and have no idea what they're talking about. But go ahead continue with your GOP ideological fantasies.

 

[Wyoming Hart]

If they would only reopen logging in the NW and generate some income off these amazing timberlands.

Exactly. Instead of just letting it rot to nothing and get nothing out of it. Happens too often in the state parks here in PA.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Yes, I have 2 posts and I have read the other threads. I believe in the original intent of the founding fathers and do not think that they would support the vast overreach of the federal government. The power should reside at the state level. Some lands may be sold, but hopefully stupid rules concerning roads and undergrowth clearing will be reversed.

Somebody doesn't live or hunt in the western states affected by this land transfer scheme I would guess. Keep drinking the Kool-aid.

 

[ivorytip]

do some people just surf the net looking for discussions on random stuff just to make a statement? im trying to figure out why someone would come to a hunting forum and have first post be a political one.

 

[genesis27:3]

I wouldn't entertain him. It's easier to not feed the troll!

 

[mrfudd]

I wouldn't entertain him. It's easier to not feed the troll!

Been called lots of things, but never a troll. Thanks for adding to the list. No, I don't live in the west. I'm a Tarheel by birth and live in Georgia. I have hunted antelope in WY twice, Africa four times, and am about to hunt stags in Scotland for the second time. I learned about this forum while deployed to Afghanistan a few years ago and joined to learn more about elk and mule deer hunting. I'm deployed again and was looking for a hunt on my return to the states.

I would prefer to have the states reclaim land and authority from the feds. I would hope that my neighbors could make better decisions for the community than some bureaucrat in DC. For instance, the state would allow me to build a pond on my farm, but the CoE and EPA will not allow it. States could charge user fees to maintain campgrounds, roads, etc... To take the argument further, if the Feds own the land, why do I have to pay higher out of state rates to hunt out west? My federal taxes help pay for the upkeep, so I should get the same deal as everyone else.

 

[kidoggy]

they won't do that. the feds goal is to destroy the U.S. in order to usher in "the new world order".

the eco movement is merely a tool to achieve that ultimate goal. as are the fools which would sell off our lands.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Been called lots of things, but never a troll. Thanks for adding to the list. No, I don't live in the west. I'm a Tarheel by birth and live in Georgia. I have hunted antelope in WY twice, Africa four times, and am about to hunt stags in Scotland for the second time. I learned about this forum while deployed to Afghanistan a few years ago and joined to learn more about elk and mule deer hunting. I'm deployed again and was looking for a hunt on my return to the states.

I would prefer to have the states reclaim land and authority from the feds. I would hope that my neighbors could make better decisions for the community than some bureaucrat in DC. For instance, the state would allow me to build a pond on my farm, but the CoE and EPA will not allow it. States could charge user fees to maintain campgrounds, roads, etc... To take the argument further, if the Feds own the land, why do I have to pay higher out of state rates to hunt out west? My federal taxes help pay for the upkeep, so I should get the same deal as everyone else.

The higher rates you pay to hunt out of state have nothing to do with who owns the land. Even states with very little public land charge higher fees for nonresident hunters. Hunting license fees are typically set by the state Game and Fish Departments and/or the state legislatures. If Wyoming (for example) all of sudden owned all federal land, your license fees would not drop. You would be paying a nonresident license fee, plus you would probably have to pay private landowners for access to hunt because there would be no free public land to hunt.

Thank you for your service to our country.

 

[WY ME]

I wouldn't entertain him. It's easier to not feed the troll!

You can disagree, but calling him a troll?...real mature.