Republican Party pushing hard to get rid of our public lands

[shootbrownelk]

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 Feds own the land but the States citizens own the wildlife. You can come out here to Wyoming and birdwatch, hike and view wildlife for free on Federally owned BLM & NF lands....on State lands you cannot camp nor have a campfire. And access on State leased land is at the whim of the leaseholder. You are not familiar with our Agricultural/Rancher controlled legislature. They'll sell the land off just as soon as the ink dries on the deed.

 

[ivorytip]

thank you for your service

 

[genesis27:3]

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

His initial post(s) did seem to be that. I've seen on many forums where people only post just to cause trouble. However, "disagreeing" is totally different. His later post is just that and doesn't appear to want to cause any problems, but discussion, and I now have to disagree with what I had said and called him.

So, Mrfudd, my apologies! Now we can carry on with the discussion. Although I still disagree with your views on this! And above all, thank you for your service!

 

[mrfudd]

His initial post(s) did seem to be that. I've seen on many forums where people only post just to cause trouble. However, "disagreeing" is totally different. His later post is just that and doesn't appear to want to cause any problems, but discussion, and I now have to disagree with what I had said and called him.

So, Mrfudd, my apologies! Now we can carry on with the discussion. Although I still disagree with your views on this! And above all, thank you for your service!

No problems guys. My point of reference is Georgia. We have a fair amount of state owned and leased land. Our DNR does a pretty good job of managing the land. We pay user access fees (WMA stamp) on some lands. Fees are charged for hiking, camping, hunting, etc... I have a lifetime hunting and fishing license, so I don't pay additional fees. We also
have a state constitutional right to hunt.

My point about the out of state licenses is that you can charge higher rates to offset management costs. Hotel or tourism taxes would also take off some of the load. I would prefer to pay user fees in exchange for reducing fed taxes. Crooked politicians and special interests are everywhere. They seem easier to defeat at the local level.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

No problems guys. My point of reference is Georgia. We have a fair amount of state owned and leased land. Our DNR does a pretty good job of managing the land. We pay user access fees (WMA stamp) on some lands. Fees are charged for hiking, camping, hunting, etc... I have a lifetime hunting and fishing license, so I don't pay additional fees. We also
have a state constitutional right to hunt.

My point about the out of state licenses is that you can charge higher rates to offset management costs. Hotel or tourism taxes would also take off some of the load. I would prefer to pay user fees in exchange for reducing fed taxes. Crooked politicians and special interests are everywhere. They seem easier to defeat at the local level.

In my experience, local politicians are more likely to focus on economic development (profit). I have seen them time and time again put money above recreation interests.

Wyoming is currently facing a several hundred million dollar budget deficit. The Governor is under pressure for making cuts to try to balance the budget. If the state owned a bunch of federal land and had to pay millions of dollars to manage it, how long do you think it would take for legislators to say let's sell some of it? Our federal lands would end up subsidizing a lot of government programs that have nothing to do with outdoor recreation: healthcare, welfare, education, etc. There is no end to a politician's desire to spend money. Give them a source of revenue, such as millions of acres of public land to sell, and Katie bar the door! And the good people on this forum can start looking for another place to hunt.

 

[87TT]

Amen. Exactly.

 

[ivorytip]

YUP, One thing about lost western states is there is still a bunch of public lands to be recreated on, you don't have to be rich to enjoy the outdoors. id rather pay taxes then pay a trespass fee to hunt private land.

 

[oneye]

No problems guys. My point of reference is Georgia. We have a fair amount of state owned and leased land. Our DNR does a pretty good job of managing the land. We pay user access fees (WMA stamp) on some lands. Fees are charged for hiking, camping, hunting, etc... I have a lifetime hunting and fishing license, so I don't pay additional fees. We also
have a state constitutional right to hunt.

My point about the out of state licenses is that you can charge higher rates to offset management costs. Hotel or tourism taxes would also take off some of the load. I would prefer to pay user fees in exchange for reducing fed taxes. Crooked politicians and special interests are everywhere. They seem easier to defeat at the local level.

mrfudd, I think all of us understand where you are coming from. We have had the idea the federal government is bad our entire lives, so how could they actually be better or the safer bet at something, right? Well there is a good track record of the state governments selling public lands, and the federal government retaining it.

I live in Utah, the main state pressing for this, you mention in your state constitution, it gives you the right to hunt, well in my state constitution at the time of statehood this clause is written in there:

"The people inhabiting this State do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States"

Now you mentioned in an earlier post about states reclaiming the land. Well they never owned it in the first place, it has always been federal land, it never belonged to the state. The federal land existed before my state ever had been established, and in the constitution when becoming a state they forever gave up "all right and title" to these lands within my states borders. That has been upheld in the supreme court dozens of times. The land is not the states, it never was.

Also, as has been mentioned above, access to forest service lands and BLM lands is amazing, and usage fees do not exist on probably 90% of these lands for 90% of activities. Since you are from the east I understand why you don't get why so many of us do not want the states getting a hold of these lands. Being out west, and I hope you come out here and hunt one day, you have the opportunity to leave your house every day and have access to millions of acres of forest service and BLM land that you can go where you please, and answer to no one. You can wake up, don't have to call anyone for permission, and step on a section of land that you can walk until your legs fall off and still have a million more acres to go. There are camping, hiking, biking, atving, hunting, angling, and more opportunities available out here on federal lands. If you want those same opportunities on states lands, you better hope the state wildlife agencies pays for you to have those privileges or have a rule book handy because it just is not the same on state land. I would also tell you, I've been on plenty of state ground, it is no better managed than federal ground. Many WMA's in my state are nothing more than overgrown weed patches. The feds aren't perfect by any means, but they are better than the state in managing these vast amounts of public land. I want to know my kids, their kids, and their kids after that will have the same or better opportunities than me, and I feel much safer with these lands being in the feds hands than the state politicians hands and I'm 100% sure about that.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

mrfudd, i think all of us understand where you are coming from. We have had the idea the federal government is bad our entire lives, so how could they actually be better or the safer bet at something, right? Well there is a good track record of the state governments selling public lands, and the federal government retaining it.

I live in utah, the main state pressing for this, you mention in your state constitution, it gives you the right to hunt, well in my state constitution at the time of statehood this clause is written in there:

"the people inhabiting this state do affirm and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries hereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any indian or indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the united states"

now you mentioned in an earlier post about states reclaiming the land. Well they never owned it in the first place, it has always been federal land, it never belonged to the state. The federal land existed before my state ever had been established, and in the constitution when becoming a state they forever gave up "all right and title" to these lands within my states borders. That has been upheld in the supreme court dozens of times. The land is not the states, it never was.

Also, as has been mentioned above, access to forest service lands and blm lands is amazing, and usage fees do not exist on probably 90% of these lands for 90% of activities. Since you are from the east i understand why you don't get why so many of us do not want the states getting a hold of these lands. Being out west, and i hope you come out here and hunt one day, you have the opportunity to leave your house every day and have access to millions of acres of forest service and blm land that you can go where you please, and answer to no one. You can wake up, don't have to call anyone for permission, and step on a section of land that you can walk until your legs fall off and still have a million more acres to go. There are camping, hiking, biking, atving, hunting, angling, and more opportunities available out here on federal lands. If you want those same opportunities on states lands, you better hope the state wildlife agencies pays for you to have those privileges or have a rule book handy because it just is not the same on state land. I would also tell you, i've been on plenty of state ground, it is no better managed than federal ground. Many wma's in my state are nothing more than overgrown weed patches. The feds aren't perfect by any means, but they are better than the state in managing these vast amounts of public land. I want to know my kids, their kids, and their kids after that will have the same or better opportunities than me, and i feel much safer with these lands being in the feds hands than the state politicians hands and i'm 100% sure about that.

great post< well said.

 

[tttoadman]

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 am a poor bastard from OR, and can afford to hunt in one other state every other year. Judging from your hunting past, you could afford to buy land out here when it goes up for sale, so forgive me for questioning your motives. Additionally, I find it very selfish that you are willing to give away all of our federal public land in the west because they won't let you build an F'ing pond on your property 3000 miles away from where the fight really is. Sorry for making this a little personal, but it is.

 

[Ikeepitcold]

Take it easy fella's. Keep this discussion in good taste please, no personal attacks.

Thanks

 

[dan maule]

I am totally ignorant on the issue and my goal is to keep public lands public for ranchers and outdoor enthusiasts. What is the Republican Party using as motivation to push such a controversial issue? They are on the ropes and can't afford to lose the votes of people that I think would otherwise be on their side so who's vote are they trying to get by pushing this issue? Has Trump taken a stand on the issue. It is hard to totally understand the issue coming from the east because here the state has larger land holdings than federal but the one thing I know is that state governments can make rash decisions about land to cover short term budget crisis. Other than the obvious motivation of money I don't understand why the Republicans would take this on.

 

[87TT]

If you need to see how states can mess things up just look at Ca. They would sell off the land to finance their bullet train. Or make the Sierra off limits for some endangered critter. Heck they already charge a "fee" for fire protection if you live close to a forest even if you have a fire department that you already pay for.

 

[buckbull]

I am totally ignorant on the issue and my goal is to keep public lands public for ranchers and outdoor enthusiasts. What is the Republican Party using as motivation to push such a controversial issue? They are on the ropes and can't afford to lose the votes of people that I think would otherwise be on their side so who's vote are they trying to get by pushing this issue? Has Trump taken a stand on the issue. It is hard to totally understand the issue coming from the east because here the state has larger land holdings than federal but the one thing I know is that state governments can make rash decisions about land to cover short term budget crisis. Other than the obvious motivation of money I don't understand why the Republicans would take this on.

They ultimately want the lands to be sold to the private sector. Big mineral extractors, oil, gas, etc. who contribute lots of cash to GOP candidates. It always boils down to money. Trump has spoken against public land transfer. Your correct about states selling lands when they get into a pinch as most western states have sold hundreds of thousands (some millions) of acres. There is a proven track record of what states do with land that they own.

But you know, mrfudd can't build a pond in his backyard so to hell with the feds and all the guys that recreate on public lands and the opportunities that they provide. And why should he care, with 4 African safaris and 2 Scotland red stag hunts all on a serviceman's pay he obviously has no problem paying to hunt in a private land system.

 

[dan maule]

How can us "eastern" folk help other than contacting our representatives. Are there any petitions started that can be signed?

 

[oneye]

Join Backcountry Hunters and Anglers which is a $25 membership fee and you get a magazine. Contact your representative, vote for the rep. That are against the land transfer, sign this petition: http://sportsmensaccess.org. And TRCP is also a good organization to donate to that is fighting against this transfer. Thanks for your interest to stop this silly idea.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

How can us "eastern" folk help other than contacting our representatives. Are there any petitions started that can be signed?

Since this transfer push heated up a couple of years ago, I have signed petitions and contacted my elected officials until they are sick of hearing from me. I have donated to several outdoor organizations that are fighting this battle including the Wyoming Wildlife Federation, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). In addition, I have written numerous letters to the editor in several newspapers. I suggest you consider doing some of the same.

I think it is important to get the word out to the general public. Surveys show the public is against transfer. Transfer proponents are hoping they can slip this past the public's attention. When the issue does get the attention of the public, transfer proponents try the sell the idea by tugging at the local control heart strings. On the surface the idea of state control sounds appealing. Public education is needed so the public will understand what it would mean if our federal lands are turned over to the states. With that education, I am convinced we can win this battle because so many people use our federal lands for hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, ATVing, snowmobiling, firewood collecting, wildlife watching, etc.

Another thing to do is to keep an eye on The House Committee on Natural Resources. That is the committee through which transfer legislation will originate in the House of Representatives. It is infested with transfer proponents. Currently, the committee is pushing a couple of smaller scale transfer bills (discussed elsewhere on this forum). I think they realize that full scale transfer would be too unpopular. But these smaller scale bills involve millions of acres, and they would be the camel's nose under the tent. The committee has a website that makes it easy to comment on proposed legislation: https://naturalresources.house.gov/

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

As stated in the title to this thread, the Republican Party has this in it's now released platform. I am so fed up with the republicans (been one for 53 years since I was old enough to vote) and can't stand the dems either, it's time to start a new party. I think we should start another Bull Moose party like Teddy Roosevelt did. I'm not a happy camper....GRRRR.

 

[Musket Man]

lets do away with all the state wildlife agencies and turn all wildlife management over to USFWS. If the federal government can manage land better they should be able to manage animals better too.......They did a great job with the wolves.....

 

[grizzly]

The ridiculous part is its the conservative Republicans that cut the budgets of Federal land managers, and then they complain about the poor Federal management.

I'll vote for Trump since he is anti-transfer, but other than that there will be a lot of Democrats getting votes on my ticket (never thought I'd say that).