Republican Party pushing hard to get rid of our public lands

[highplainsdrifter]

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.....

On the other hand if the states are as good at managing things as you claim, why don't we turn over all highway building/maintenance to them? How about defense against foreign enemies? Why not just get rid of the federal government and let the states do everything?

Our federal lands have been owned/managed by the federal government since before western states became states. For example, almost all of Wyoming was part of the Louisiana Purchase of 1803. Wyoming did not become a state until 1890. At that time the state constitution gave up all claim to federal lands. It did not give up claim to managing wildlife. The division of responsibilities between the states and the federal government on various issues has evolved over a long period of time and legal history. I see no reason to change that tradition and legal history regarding federal land ownership/management. To the contrary, I see many reasons not to.

 

[out4blood]

Not cool, state land gets sold off for development in some states. I'd hate to see my favorite spots sold off for development.

 

[WY ME]

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).

Republicans are for small government. I guess if you have the liberal view that big government will take better care of you than local and state governments, you might see that as ridiculous.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Republicans are for small government. I guess if you have the liberal view that big government will take better care of you than local and state governments, you might see that as ridiculous.

One of the main reasons I am a Republican is because the GOP is more fiscally conservative than the democrats, although neither party gets high marks in this area. But I expect budgeting to reasonable and to reflect the views of the people. There are some who have suggested the GOP has deliberately cut funding to federal land management agencies to cripple their operations and to promote the transfer/privatization agenda. They then turn around and criticize these agencies for being ineffective. I agree with grizzly. That borders on being "ridiculous". See article below:

http://www.wyofile.com/critic-starving-federal-agencies-fuels-land-transfer-push/

 

[Ridge Runner]

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.

The best reply I've read on one of these land transfer threads. The GOP is currently filled with anti government militia wannabe dip shits that are truly going to ruin it for us all. The transfer of these lands to the states is the first step of it being owned by various billionaires. The federal lands are the peoples...never to be transferred or sold to anyone.

 

[BuzzH]

Republicans are for small government. I guess if you have the liberal view that big government will take better care of you than local and state governments, you might see that as ridiculous.

Could have fooled me...TSA, Homeland Security, all the work of R's under their leadership. Pretty tough to chirp about smaller government when all they do is expand government.

Of course, there's always those pesky facts too, about what it would take to hire enough State (government) employees to manage the federal lands that would be transferred to the States. Big State Government, is, well....big Government too.

But, then again, if your real agenda is not to manage acquired federal lands, but sell them (this IS the GOP goal), then it makes total sense.

State lands are not any better managed than Federal lands, and have wayyy more restrictive use. State lands are also more vulnerable to being sold, traded, shut down to public access, etc. than Federal lands are, by a huge margin.

States are not that great at managing their lands. If they were I wouldn't have to be in the middle of fighting for public access to some of them that are currently off limits to recreation. I also wouldn't be fighting 2 really bad state land exchanges that are going to eliminate thousand of acres of otherwise/currently publicly accessible hunting, fishing, hiking, either.

Be careful what you wish for...and pay attention to what the leadership of political parties are really after.

They aren't concerned with hunters, anglers, public lands, public access, wildlife, etc. etc. We are just in the way of their "progress".

 

[Musket Man]

On the other hand if the states are as good at managing things as you claim, why don't we turn over all highway building/maintenance to them? How about defense against foreign enemies? Why not just get rid of the federal government and let the states do everything?

Good Idea!!! Lets start by turning over border security to the border states so they can stop the flood of illegals coming across. Lets give states the power to say is refuges can be settled in them. The federal government is not defending us against foreign enemy's. They are welcoming them into our country. If the federal gov is the ones doing the highway maintance then why is there such a difference from state to state? Anyone that has drove down I80 and crossed the CA/NV border will know what Im talking about.

 

[Musket Man]

The best reply I've read on one of these land transfer threads. The GOP is currently filled with anti government militia wannabe dip shits that are truly going to ruin it for us all. The transfer of these lands to the states is the first step of it being owned by various billionaires. The federal lands are the peoples...never to be transferred or sold to anyone.

I met alot of these "anti government militia wannabe dip shits" in Burns. They were the ones carrying the American Flag and supporting the constitution. I was proud to be there with them. That being anti government really says something about the government. They were all good people. I wish I could of stayed longer! How many have you met?

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Good Idea!!! Lets start by turning over border security to the border states so they can stop the flood of illegals coming across. Lets give states the power to say is refuges can be settled in them. The federal government is not defending us against foreign enemy's. They are welcoming them into our country. If the federal gov is the ones doing the highway maintance then why is there such a difference from state to state? Anyone that has drove down I80 and crossed the CA/NV border will know what Im talking about.

And I'm sure you would be in favor of the states picking up all the costs? You are judging the federal government (especially national defense) based on the actions of the Obama administration. That is a mistake. The feds have not always been this screwed up. I encourage you to read this book. You will find that even George Washington did not agree with you.

https://smile.amazon.com/Unruly-Americans-Origins-Constitution-Holton/dp/0809016435/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1469362250&sr=8-1&keywords=unruly+americans+and+the+origins+of+the+constitution

 

[BuzzH]

I met alot of these "anti government militia wannabe dip shits" in Burns. They were the ones carrying the American Flag and supporting the constitution. I was proud to be there with them. That being anti government really says something about the government. They were all good people. I wish I could of stayed longer! How many have you met?

I disagree with you on this, and I don't have to meet those clowns to know exactly what they are.

They carry on about the constitution, yet don't even have a grammar school understanding of that pocket sized one they carried in their shirt pockets.

Where in the constitution does it say they have the right to graze their cattle on public lands for free?

Where in the constitution does it give them the right to illegally enter a federal building? Hack government computers? Take over a national wildlife refuge? What claim, title or deed do they have to Federal Lands? Wrapping yourself in an American Flag and carrying a pocket constitution is not a defense for breaking the law...period.

Their agenda has ZERO to do with the Constitution or "patriotism" and 100% to do with their dead-beat agenda of thinking the laws of the United States don't apply to them and they can do whatever they want.

I'm here to tell them, they cant...and they aren't, and the law applies to everyone. We're a nation of laws, always have been, always will be.

They are learning a little something about the constitution now in regard to due process and the law...hope it was worth it. My guess is they are wishing they would have paid a little better attention during that 9th grade civics class...

 

[Ridge Runner]

I met alot of these "anti government militia wannabe dip shits" in Burns. They were the ones carrying the American Flag and supporting the constitution. I was proud to be there with them. That being anti government really says something about the government. They were all good people. I wish I could of stayed longer! How many have you met?

The Bundy's are exactly the type I'm talking about. The land's not the Bundy's, it's not the states, it's not the feds for that matter...it's the peoples!!!!!!!!!!! The transfer of lands is the first step of losing it forever...not to retards like the Bundys, but to billionaires like Donald Trump...yeah, yeah...I know he's against it, but he just wants elected.
I've met a lot of anti-gov. militia wannabe dip shits. I work in Virginia...you can pay the government extra for a "don't tread on me" license plate. You can then drive on public roads by public schools across bridges, by military bases to get to work. If you work hard your whole life you'll even get a social security check. I always get a kick out of it when I pass a "don't tread on me" license plate, and when I look in the drivers window...the guy usually looks like a "dip shit".

 

[ivorytip]

extremists , no matter what side they are on, accomplish nothing but form hate. there has to be a middle ground. has to be compromise. standing up for what you believe in is honorable and respectable but only when it goes hand in hand with an open mind. every group out there is made up up well educated, common sense people but they are also made up of close-minded one way track followers as well.

 

[Ridge Runner]

This is an example of what can happen to public lands. This transfer was during the Reagan administration.

 

[Musket Man]

View attachment 16892

This is an example of what can happen to public lands. This transfer was during the Reagan administration.

Sold by the federal government. I thought they were the ones that dont sell public land? The BLM and FS buy sell and trade land regularly. its nothing new and nothing different weather its state or federal.

 

[laxwyo]

I'm really on the fence about this topic. I think I'd just prefer the status quo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tim McCoy]

The intro to a 15 part series from Randy Newberg is worth watch, if not the entire series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvFqQuubnyI

 

[87TT]

All I know is the states have enough trouble paying their bills without more to do. There is a reason people from the east spend big bucks to come out here to hunt. A lot of times it is cheaper than trying to hunt at home and more rewarding. I just hope that it doesn't go through so my grandkids can still be able to hunt and fish with out buying land or a membership. Overall I think that the feds do a decent job balancing the uses. Not everyone will be happy all the time. Just because there are a few borderline dumb things doesn't mean we should scrap the whole deal and sell it off.

 

[swampokie]

I just cant see voting for the crook just based on this issue. The downside is that voting for her might keep federal lands in federal hands but we will only be able to carry binoculars and not a gun while we enjoy them. As hunters I hope we don't only vote for a leader based on one view. Too many huge issues like the CONSTITUTION are at stake here.

 

[swampokie]

Do you really think Hillary would make a better president than Reagan was? Or has Obama really did the country a lot of good? I don't agree with the land transfer but come on!

View attachment 16892

This is an example of what can happen to public lands. This transfer was during the Reagan administration.

 

[87TT]

Yeah, if Hillary gets elected, I'll probably be on a watch list. But so will a lot of us. And if they try to transfer the lands, the uprising will be way worse than the protests they have now.