I think you joined the wrong site. If your all about privatizing public land your not going to find support here. Not sure if your just trolling, or if your jealous that you don't have close access to public land so nobody should, or maybe a stretch, but maybe your a paid social media blaster for the Cruz campaign. Repeating that he only wants 50% ownership when there is interviews that state otherwise tells me your not interested in conversation, just trying to get people to believe something that's not true, and your not going to find that on this forum.
Looks like Cruz will win UT
- Thread starter MTHunter
- Start date
Fieldmouse
New Member
- Mar 21, 2016
- 24
- 0
Lol, that's a good one. I'm certainly not a paid for spokesman from the Cruz campaign but I have been donating my money to his campaign. I guess I should congratulate him on his big win yesterday. I'm looking forward to him being sworn in come Jan 20, 2017.
As for the land issue, I strictly look at the numbers. I do feel states should be able to control their own destiny. They can't do that if the federal government own the majority of the state.
On the flip side, I agree with global warming and the need to reverse the man made effects on the planet as long as we begin by converting DC back to the swamp land it once was.
As for the land issue, I strictly look at the numbers. I do feel states should be able to control their own destiny. They can't do that if the federal government own the majority of the state.
On the flip side, I agree with global warming and the need to reverse the man made effects on the planet as long as we begin by converting DC back to the swamp land it once was.
ColoradoV
Very Active Member
- Oct 4, 2011
- 820
- 941
Ok Field we understand that you are mad at the Gov maybe rightfully so but I have to say your position on Crusie is statistically inconsequential. Or I am a stats guy and I like to bet. Not sure if you know but the best odds maker in Europe has your boy at 28 - 1... They have not missed a pic on a presidential election since they started putting odds on the us presidential election.
Now if you believe in your candidate I would be putting all that money you are giving him and get in on 28 - 1 on line.. But how I see it transferring the public land out here is well just about as stupid as betting on crusie to become president.
Now if you believe in your candidate I would be putting all that money you are giving him and get in on 28 - 1 on line.. But how I see it transferring the public land out here is well just about as stupid as betting on crusie to become president.
Fieldmouse
New Member
- Mar 21, 2016
- 24
- 0
Cruz is in excellent shape to win come November. Trump doesn't have party support. He has yet to win a single closed primary with a majority of republicans. So unless he gets enough delegates come convention time, he won't get enough on the second vote. Cruz on the other hand has won several states with the majority of party support. So if he doesn't have enough delegates to win come convention time on the first vote, he will be the eventual winner. You see, under the rules, only Trump or Cruz can have their name in the running when it comes to convention votes in the second round and beyond. So, I'm not worried in the least.
No one should be worried about the land issue either. As I pointed out, Cruz's position was to submit a bill to congress for the feds to divest ownership of land in anyone state to below 50%. This i believe pacts 5 states. This requires an act of Congress to implement. There will be plenty of time to debate the merits of doing so. It certainly isn't going to happen overnight with a pen and a phone.
Cheers!
No one should be worried about the land issue either. As I pointed out, Cruz's position was to submit a bill to congress for the feds to divest ownership of land in anyone state to below 50%. This i believe pacts 5 states. This requires an act of Congress to implement. There will be plenty of time to debate the merits of doing so. It certainly isn't going to happen overnight with a pen and a phone.
Cheers!
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
You continue to ignore the video of Cruz saying 2 percent federal land is too much. And that he prefers private ownership to state ownership. I will not vote for Cruz no matter what!!
I suggest you reconsider the wisdom of coming on a western hunting forum and promoting a candidate who has declared war on our western hunting heritage/tradition
Fieldmouse
New Member
- Mar 21, 2016
- 24
- 0
Please, not ignoring that at all. It doesn't matter when the facts are actually reviewed. There is a process that's the legal legitimate rule of law involved. It's defined under our constitutional form of government. Any of this transfer of land must go through congress. It has happened many times in the past. We have several military facilities which have been sold off recently in the past few decades. Trump bought the old postal building in DC and is currently building a hotel. A hundred years ago we had settlement aprovals in place for people who are willing to squat on land. Anyone here ever benifited from that? My family has and still owns the rights. There isn't a single thing you can point to that Cruz believes in a pen and a phone when congress doesn't act. In fact, he is the only one running in this race that believes in our constitution and the rule of law.
This isn't only about hunting land and preserving it. I believe if the real issues involved were actually learned and debated, it would/could boost access rather than whats truly coming down the pike. Not 100% of the land is huntable land. I trust many here have been out west and seen the vast amount of land you drive through that you wouldn't stop for 5mins to hunt. If it were, why do we spend so much time scouting for the right spot?
This isn't only about hunting land and preserving it. I believe if the real issues involved were actually learned and debated, it would/could boost access rather than whats truly coming down the pike. Not 100% of the land is huntable land. I trust many here have been out west and seen the vast amount of land you drive through that you wouldn't stop for 5mins to hunt. If it were, why do we spend so much time scouting for the right spot?
Are you a politician? You sure talk around things like one.
Here in Wyoming public state land is as far way from public land as you can get, certain leased land you can't walk on ever! You can't camp on ANY state land, you can have a fire on ANY state land. Your argument of access just got shot straight in the ass. What point you want to stand on next, because everything your bringing up is a big load of crap!
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
These issues have been discussed extensively on this forum. Have you bothered to read the discussion?
Yes of course Congress would have to approve any sale or transfer. But why elect a president who supports it? Especially when we already have a Republican controlled House and Senate. And the RNC has already passed a resolution in favor of transfer. We would be stacking the deck against ourselves.
And I STRONGLY object to your characterization that some of the federal land is not huntable and therefore of little value. It is probably used for other outdoor recreation. And has been discussed on this forum, even if it isn't huntable for some reason (let's say lack of access) it could have a big role in big game production because it is a migration corridor, calving/fawning area, winter range, etc.
You have a lot to learn about the west. I suggest you listen carefully to those of use who live/hunt here, rather than try to tell us what you think is best.
Fieldmouse
New Member
- Mar 21, 2016
- 24
- 0
FYI, Wy isn't one of the states that has more than 50%. It's right done the middle so it's good under the Cruz bill.
Btw, with concern about western state vs..... Last I checked it's was federal land. I've seen many posts it's our land. Why doesn't everyone else's opinion matter than?
Btw, with concern about western state vs..... Last I checked it's was federal land. I've seen many posts it's our land. Why doesn't everyone else's opinion matter than?
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Wyoming may be right down the middle on Cruz's 50 percent proposal, but we are not down the middle on his less than 2% proposal. WHY do you continue to ignore the video??
As for someone else's opinion...we welcome the opinion of all sportsmen and outdoor enthusiasts. However, it would be nice if they knew what they were talking about when they offer an opinion. When they don't know what they are talking about, you can bet they will be responded to accordingly.
For example, you claim to have made a determination that some of our federal lands are useless for hunting based on a "windshield survey" you conducted while passing through the state. That is ridiculous! Even I, who have lived here for 33 years couldn't do that. IF I was to attempt to determine which federal land was valuable for big game hunting, I would at least consult the Game and Fish Department and look at migration maps, winter range maps, etc. Your off the cuff assessment of our federal lands is highly offensive...especially when you propose to vote for presidential candidate based on your superficial assessment.
Wyoming generated 3.3 Billion taxable dollars last year in public land tourism. Public land goes away, many, many jobs and tax revenue goes away. This land is already drilled, grazed, and some logged. How you making all the jobs back that will be lost? Where will all the people do when their business goes bankrupt? And the whole people will start logging all that pine isn't a argument, the pine isn't worth anything. Maybe if your actually listening to some of these comments, you'll start to realize this isn't just I don't want my hunting spot screwed up, it peoples lively hoods in most cases, it's the economy for regions of many states.
Wyoming isn't the only state that has crazy laws about state owned public land, many western states do.
Fieldmouse
New Member
- Mar 21, 2016
- 24
- 0
I would actually turn it over to the state. That would be my first choice. Several folks say its all of ours so the locals shouldn't gain control of that unless you pay for it. I truly believe you locals are better at this choice than a politician's from the east. Certainly better than a democrat. Jmho.
Btw, done more than just windshield time but I have always thought about taking the ultimate offroad vehicle on whatever that trail in CO is. I know their are several. My my best friend from college lives out there and he says it's awesome in his jeep.
Btw, done more than just windshield time but I have always thought about taking the ultimate offroad vehicle on whatever that trail in CO is. I know their are several. My my best friend from college lives out there and he says it's awesome in his jeep.
oneye
Member
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
I was wondering if you had done more than "windshield time" in the west. For someone from North Carolina, you claim to have special knowledge about federal lands and western big game management. So perhaps you could enlighten us on how you acquired your skills. Do you have a college degree in environmental or wildlife management? Have you ever worked in the field of environmental or wildlife management? How many years have you been so employed? How many times have you visited a western state? Have you ever hunted in the west?
Extractor
Active Member
Why in the world would any sane person give away their birthright to OUR federal lands that I have been paying taxes for my entire life. That makes no sense whatsoever. The states already benefit from having federal lands within their borders secondary to tourism, ranching, mineral development and all the ancillary spending associated with these practices. All states go through spending budget problems from time to time, they will sell these lands to the highest bidders, read this as " not you joe hunter". Say goodbye to your public land. Jmho.
PlainsHunter
Active Member
Going to jump in and ask a question- How would transferring the land increase access?
Yup, I am convinced there are average Joe hunters who support the transfer and they believe somehow they will end up with a nice piece of hunting ground. You need look no further than the Texas billionair Wilkes brothers. They are Montana's largest private land owners and they gave Cruz 15 million bucks... Cruz will be the end of all Americans public land. FM why would you support an end to my land, your land
RICMIC
Veteran member
I've been biting my tongue guys and trying to stay out of this. I do agree on the general thought expressed by most on this forum about federal lands. Yeah, I may be an easterner in the eyes of many, but I have made over 40 trips to the great west and spent a great deal of time in places where few people go. My county is 80% public, mostly federal, and my property is surrounded by National Forest. I am also a disabled vet (USMC) as is my wife. My biggest concern on this whole election season is what I feel may be the imminent demise of out second amendment rights. We only kept it by one vote on the Supreme Court, and our biggest supporter (Antonin Scalia) is no longer with us. Hillary has stated many times that her biggest priority as president will be gun control. If she becomes our next president, I think we will have a far bigger fight on our hands. I strongly dislike Trump, but if we don't support whoever the Republican candidate come through on top (Even Cruz for some of you), then Hillary will be choosing our Supreme Court. Sorry if I opened the floodgates, and I really don't want any personal animosity here.
PlainsHunter
Active Member
Really stinks when our apparent choices are - keep your guns and have no place to hunt unless you have money - or - have places to hunt and possibly lose some of our rights to own firearms.