Republican Party pushing hard to get rid of our public lands
- Thread starter oneye
- Start date
Are you saying the feds are better at paying their bills? We are 20 trillion dollars in debt!
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
The difference is the feds would have a difficult time politically selling our federal lands to pay the national debt. The states would sell those lands in a heart beat! Do you want Wyoming public lands sold to pay for healthcare, welfare, roads, education, etc. If you do, then give Wyoming politicians the option of selling them to balance the budget. When I worked for the legislature, I learned very quickly that Wyoming legislators care about balancing the budget. They WILL balance the budget. On the other hand the federal budget is out of control and the feds can't get a handle on it. Irresponsible budgeting at the federal level protects our federal lands. Responsible budgeting at the state level would be very bad for sportsmen!
This is a very simple issue folks. Do you want millions of acres of public land to hunt on or not? I can't understand why some sportsmen are still struggling with it!
Last edited:
highplains , by that arguement , california would be the most logical state to turn our lands over to. I cannot believe any sane or rational person would want that.
the feds are milking profits from these lands and using them to waste billions of dollars each year around the world. propping up puppet governments , giving weapons to said nations, actually paying our enemies to be our enemies. this money does not come from taxes as most believe it comes from the pillaging of our lands. why on earth would the feds wish to sell off that golden goose?
yes the states would sell some off, but is it a stretch to believe they might actually be better equipped to manage them? the only reason they cannot afford to do so now is that the feds steal all profits from the lands now.why would it be a bad thing for all that money to go to the states instead of iraq, iran ,egypt,russia, ect,ect....
I AM NOT at this moment in favour of doing it but can also see the logic of it.
lets hear the pros and cons of the arguement without all the political hype and emotion.
why is it a good idea?
why is it a bad idea?
the feds are milking profits from these lands and using them to waste billions of dollars each year around the world. propping up puppet governments , giving weapons to said nations, actually paying our enemies to be our enemies. this money does not come from taxes as most believe it comes from the pillaging of our lands. why on earth would the feds wish to sell off that golden goose?
yes the states would sell some off, but is it a stretch to believe they might actually be better equipped to manage them? the only reason they cannot afford to do so now is that the feds steal all profits from the lands now.why would it be a bad thing for all that money to go to the states instead of iraq, iran ,egypt,russia, ect,ect....
I AM NOT at this moment in favour of doing it but can also see the logic of it.
lets hear the pros and cons of the arguement without all the political hype and emotion.
why is it a good idea?
why is it a bad idea?
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
This is a relatively new thread focusing mostly on the position of the Republican Party toward federal land transfer. The pros and cons of transfer (in a broader sense) have been discussed extensively in another thread on this forum. I suggest that anyone wanting to know the good and the bad read that lengthy thread carefully. I think every argument has been sliced and diced several times. The vast majority on that thread have come to the conclusion that federal land transfer would be bad for sportsmen. See link below:
I am finding that as soon as someone criticizes the GOP (such as is the title of this thread), some sportsmen get defensive. It is like they can't separate their love of federal lands from their loyalty to the GOP. I can tell you this, if I have to choose between loyalty to a political party or defending my access to public land, there is no question which will prevail. Politicians will loose this battle with me EVERY time. I suggest as sportsmen, we all put our public lands first and our political loyalties second.
http://forum.eastmans.com/showthread.php/9831-Transfer-of-Public-Lands
Right now the federal land belongs to everyone, me included. I have the rights and privilege to use it for outdoor pursuits. It is protected and saved for our future generations. If the states take it over, it will belong to the states. Even if they don't sell it off, which they will for sure, they will control access. You think out of state license and tag fees are high now, just wait until you also have to pay to just access the land. Once it's gone there is no going back. Sure the feds aren't always great at managing the land and resources but the alternative is way worse. I don't agree with some of the ways the feds restrict the uses. Maybe some of the local ranchers and miners could do a better job at that level but imagine the patchwork maze of rules and trespass issues that would then be put in place. I have seen what happens when the state legislators get involved with things they have no clue about. Just look at California. The legislators not the Fish and Game outlawed mountain lion hunting ignoring the biologists for fish and game. They charge outrages license fees on cars and gas taxes. I guarantee you if they could sell land they would to help build that stupid bullet train that no one will ride. Ask the hunters in Texas if they wished there was more federal land to hunt? The state land I saw in Texas was was closed to hunting and every thing else was mostly private and way out of my budget to pay to hunt on.
I don't care if it's Republican, Democrat or any one else, I will fight them to keep my (our) land.
I don't care if it's Republican, Democrat or any one else, I will fight them to keep my (our) land.
Colorado Cowboy
Super Moderator
thanks highplains. I am checking that thread out as I freely admit there is much I COULD LEARN ON SUBJECT.
this post of yours pretty much explains why I am for keeping lands with the feds.
01-25-2015, 04:35 PM #13
highplainsdrifter
highplainsdrifter is online now
Senior Member
Join Date
May 2011
Location
Wyoming
Posts
372
Thanks
84
Thanked 241 Times in 136 Posts
Congratulations
42
Congratulated 45 Times in 12 Posts
At the federal level it takes an act of congress to sell federal land.
At the state level, in Wyoming, all it takes is the majority vote of the state's five highest elected officials that comprise the Board of Land Commissioners. Three people can decide a sale.
Since congress can't agree on much of anything, I feel that federal land is a lot more secure.
THIS POST BY MUSKETMAN is a pretty rational argument for striping the lands from the feds. we can all agree that the feds cannot be fiscally responsible, ever, period.
Musket Man
Musket Man is offline
Senior Member
Musket Man's Avatar
Join Date
Jul 2011
Location
colfax, wa
Posts
6,367
Thanks
1,835
Thanked 1,054 Times in 830 Posts
Congratulations
456
Congratulated 127 Times in 36 Posts
Only the federal government could own that much land and loose that much money on it. The land could pay for its self but the feds have been doing everything they can to make it unproductive and dig it into a hole for years. They have done everything they can to do away with productive things like logging and ranching and replace them with things that cost alot of money like forest fires, wild horses, and wolves.
"Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I fee. One is the colors that fly high and proud The red, the white,
Musket Man
Musket Man is offline
Senior Member
Musket Man's Avatar
Join Date
Jul 2011
Location
colfax, wa
Posts
6,367
Thanks
1,835
Thanked 1,054 Times in 830 Posts
Congratulations
456
Congratulated 127 Times in 36 Posts
Only the federal government could own that much land and loose that much money on it. The land could pay for its self but the feds have been doing everything they can to make it unproductive and dig it into a hole for years. They have done everything they can to do away with productive things like logging and ranching and replace them with things that cost alot of money like forest fires, wild horses, and wolves.
"Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I fee. One is the colors that fly high and proud The red, the white,
this is very true. very true. my biggest problem, be it selfish it may be, is states will sale, a lot more ranches and private property will take over our public lands. as much as I love the rancher life style a huge majority of ranches that cover large parcels of land wont let anyone onto the property to recreate unless they know them or unless they pay a large fee. hunting then soon becomes a rich mans game. I don't care how much money a guy makes, we should all have the privilege to recreate, hunt and fish in our mountains and hills with freedom, without needing to take a mortgage out on the house just to do so. there is already way to much landlocked land that belongs to us that we are unable to use, and I don't want to hear the argument that all you need to do is pay someone to fly you in.... the point is, I shouldn't have to be flown into to public lands. I want access to my, to our public lands. yes, I understand that the money that goes into maintaining backcountry rds, and fighting fires needs to come from somewhere. as far as I'm concerned, a lot of single track rds that run the back country can be forgotten about and done away with and be allowed to be grown over with grass, trees and flowers. stiffer fines should be handed out to violators, more groups need to be formed that raise money that goes towards the backcountry maintenance, money that doesn't get cut off the top to make someone rich, but money that goes straight to our backcountry.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
The argument that the feds are fiscally irresponsible is true...oh so true. But that is a good thing for sportsmen. If the states get control, they almost certainly will be more fiscally responsible. They will have to be. They don't have the option of printing money like the feds do. So be prepared for the states to balance their budgets even if that means extensively developing public land or selling some/much of it. The for-profit management model the states will need to use, would result in a big change in western land management. It would not be good for sportsmen. It is something we all should fight if we want to preserve our public land hunting heritage.
http://blog.eastmans.com/trophy-hunters-nightmare-public-land-selloff/
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Musket Man
Veteran member
I disagree. That thread was not a discussion. Trying to have a discussion about this if you are for the transfer is like trying to have a discussion about gun control with liberals. Its not possible.
There isn't any good pros as far as sportsman go. Just because we have some bad management doesn't mean we should give it away. The current system needs help and changes but is way better then the alternative. You going to turn over Yellowstone and the Grand canyon?
So I have to choose between the chance of feds selling land ( highly unlikely as only about 12 states and thier reps are pushing this) or voting to give up my guns and other personal freedoms think I'll take freedom and fight within the system to mqke resonable choices with public lands. Something along the lines of no more national monuments or wilderness areas and land exchanges for private lands that protect wild life and habitat and open land for all. Need to stop the government strangulation of access and accessibility
if the states had control of the lands and opened them back up to logging and mining and the feds no longer stole all that money from the states ,would the states not then be able to afford to manage ,lands without the help of the feds?
I ask this because , the feds money ain't coming from taxes alone, most of it comes from these lands.
(actually, most of it comes from thin air ,through the printing of money)
would not stripping this income from the feds, help reign in big gov?I ask this because if we don't do THAT, this whole conversation is irrelevant because the system in place is unsustainable.
if the feds are allowed to keep the lands there are many things must be done.
1.abolish EPA
2. open lands back up to mining, logging. we have a deficit only because our own gov sabotages our growth.
3. no more money to the green movement. technologies should stand or fail on their own merits.(which brings me to #4)
4. abolish affirmative action.workers need to stand on merits ,same as technologies.
5. not one more penny given to any foreign country until deficit is ZERO
just a few things off the top of my head. this merely scratches the surface of what MUST be done if we are really gonna save our public lands.these things must be done regardless of who controls the land,be it feds, state or private individuals.
it is easy to lose sight and point at feds, state or private and scream ,"they bad". truth is, the reason this nation stinks of decay is ,WE ARE ALL TO BLAME. each and every one of us.but none will admit it. it is easier to point the finger at others.
everybody wants to change this and change that. makes no difference what gets changed just so long as something does.(don't believe me? explain obama and trump.)
change makes us feel good. never mind that we never address the real problems.
to sum up, it really makes no difference who controls the lands, unless the true problems of this nation are addressed, we iz goana lose em ,either way.
I ask this because , the feds money ain't coming from taxes alone, most of it comes from these lands.
(actually, most of it comes from thin air ,through the printing of money)
would not stripping this income from the feds, help reign in big gov?I ask this because if we don't do THAT, this whole conversation is irrelevant because the system in place is unsustainable.
if the feds are allowed to keep the lands there are many things must be done.
1.abolish EPA
2. open lands back up to mining, logging. we have a deficit only because our own gov sabotages our growth.
3. no more money to the green movement. technologies should stand or fail on their own merits.(which brings me to #4)
4. abolish affirmative action.workers need to stand on merits ,same as technologies.
5. not one more penny given to any foreign country until deficit is ZERO
just a few things off the top of my head. this merely scratches the surface of what MUST be done if we are really gonna save our public lands.these things must be done regardless of who controls the land,be it feds, state or private individuals.
it is easy to lose sight and point at feds, state or private and scream ,"they bad". truth is, the reason this nation stinks of decay is ,WE ARE ALL TO BLAME. each and every one of us.but none will admit it. it is easier to point the finger at others.
everybody wants to change this and change that. makes no difference what gets changed just so long as something does.(don't believe me? explain obama and trump.)
change makes us feel good. never mind that we never address the real problems.
to sum up, it really makes no difference who controls the lands, unless the true problems of this nation are addressed, we iz goana lose em ,either way.
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
I also struggle with who to vote for. I can't bring myself to vote for Democrats who want to take my guns away and spend like drunken sailors. But I also will not vote for the GOP who recently inserted into their platform a resolution to transfer federal lands to the states which would be disaster for sportsmen. So, I have decided to hammer the GOP until they change their ridiculous position on this issue. They used to represent sportsmen (think Teddy Roosevelt). But they abandoned us. They are supposed to listen to all Republicans when developing their platform, not just a fringe group in the Party.
If we hope to get them to change their position, some of us need to develop a thicker skin and quit being so sensitive about criticizing the GOP. Criticizing them is the only way to get them to change their position on this. I agree with 80-90 percent of their platform, but this is a deal breaker for me. It should be for all sportsmen. Let's stand up and be heard!
I don't really struggle to much with who to vote for in this case. it is really very simple this time.
if HILLERY is elected, the DEMS WILL CERTAINLY try to take our guns (and she will succeed through the scotus judges she will get to appoint) and by doing so take every other right we enjoy. while if a repub(TRUMP) is elected it will not CERTAINLY happen , but merely PROBABLY , happen.
if HILLERY is elected, the DEMS WILL CERTAINLY try to take our guns (and she will succeed through the scotus judges she will get to appoint) and by doing so take every other right we enjoy. while if a repub(TRUMP) is elected it will not CERTAINLY happen , but merely PROBABLY , happen.