Transfer of Public Lands

oneye

Member
Dec 24, 2015
62
0
Public land
And that's just not practical. Where do our military bases go? As I mentioned, he can't do it by fiat. As I said, he would introduce a bill to divest the federal ownership below 50% of anyone state. I believe that 5.

Does anyone know the answer to the monument question?
The monument Bill Clinton created is open to hunting. It is actually the Paunsaguant in Utah. It is one of the most amazing mule deer units in the world with some of the biggest bucks and most unique habitat of anywhere. It has open trails and roads everywhere, and access is open. The only thing that it is really protected from is industrial development. It is an amazing place. I go there every year to look for deer sheds, and have never been bothered once by anyone. There's plenty of roads and access in the area. It is all in how the monument is crafted. In a very liberal state like California, monuments are crafted in a lot of areas to minimize opportunity, in a state like Utah all it really means is that it is not open for mineral extraction anymore, other than that access stays pretty much the same as it was before. That is another danger in giving states all the power. Places like California will probably lock areas up tight with almost no access, while places like Utah will sell what they have and develop the rest. Monuments are actually a pretty great thing for us, our wildlife, and future generations. The amount of acres actually made up of monuments compared to the amount of federal land open for other uses is almost nothing. When monuments are taking up even a fraction of federal land then we'll talk about there being enough of them.

I've lived in the west all my life, surrounded by these lands. They are not bad and don't need to be transferred or sold. Managment can be improved but that can be accompished with the system that already exists. If people that live around these federally managed PUBLIC lands hate them so much, the government isn't keeping them here, they can move to the east coast or Texas and enjoy little to no public land if that is their goal in life. Leave Americas public lands that were created for an amazing purpose alone. I don't expect Cruz being a Texan to understand public land, but don't hate something you don't understand or you've been bought and told to believe.
 
Last edited:

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
Here is a link to the video where Ted Cruz is saying the federal government should own a whole lot less than 50 percent of the land in each state:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/environment/article64362377.html

Even if he was merely promoting reduction to 50%, I would disagree. It would be like the camel's nose under the tent. Where would it go next...40%, 30%, 2%? According to him 2% is too much. We need to keep the camel out of tent where he belongs.
 

SunnyInCO

Member
Oct 20, 2015
101
2
Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Are any ranchers, loggers, mineral extractors worried that if lands are sold their entire industry might go up in smoke? I guess the money oil and gas has they would be able to buy out just about everyone else? Out of these three groups (or any other), who would loose out the most if lands started to change hands (besides the citizen and users of Federal Lands)?
 

Extractor

Active Member
Jun 7, 2015
351
93
Appleton, Wisconsin
Interesting article, maybe it's time to rethink our position as sportsman and sportswomen, not "don't give the states their land to manage themselves" but rather "keep your hands off our public land, it was never yours and never will be".
 

WY ME

Very Active Member
Feb 4, 2014
549
47
Wyoming
I took a look at the article and to me the arguments seem to have a lot of holes in them and are full of half truths written by Al Gore/Obama type left coast liberals. One of the authors making an argument, John Teshy, even won the "prestigious" legacy award from the Defenders of Wildlife, an anti-hunting group. I'm not going to argue with anyone about this, but I just didn't like the article.
 

SunnyInCO

Member
Oct 20, 2015
101
2
Highlands Ranch, Colorado
I think these are the 3 groups who would benefit most from privatization.
I'm wondering if the family rancher would be the biggest looser. From what I understand the grazing fee's are an unbelievable price compared to a private fee. How would the Bundy's of the world be able to afford to outbid others and pay a possible increase in grazing fee's?
 

packmule

Veteran member
Jun 21, 2011
2,433
0
TX
Are any ranchers, loggers, mineral extractors worried that if lands are sold their entire industry might go up in smoke? I guess the money oil and gas has they would be able to buy out just about everyone else? Out of these three groups (or any other), who would loose out the most if lands started to change hands (besides the citizen and users of Federal Lands)?
Honestly, the O&G industry would be the biggest loser and still have to deal with the same Fed regulations.
 

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
I took a look at the article and to me the arguments seem to have a lot of holes in them and are full of half truths written by Al Gore/Obama type left coast liberals. One of the authors making an argument, John Teshy, even won the "prestigious" legacy award from the Defenders of Wildlife, an anti-hunting group. I'm not going to argue with anyone about this, but I just didn't like the article.
I think we should welcome the support of everyone who opposes transfer/sale. We are at war and a powerful force (the GOP) supported by groups such as the American Lands Council is lined up against us. Many liberal groups value our federal lands albeit for a different reason than we do. Some of them would prefer hiking and bird watching to hunting. We will need their voice as well as snowmobilers, ATVers and others if the GOP gets control of the Presidency, the House and the Senate. So, I think we will be forced to form a coalition of "strange bedfellows". Not my preference, but reality if we are going to win the war. (IMHO). Take a look at this article that appeared in the Cheyenne paper this morning. It was written by a democrat. Should we not welcome his support because he is a democrat?

http://www.wyomingnews.com/opinion/grijalva-stop-peddling-fairy-tales/article_66ec674c-f0bc-11e5-ab53-9b3fdc7dc3b3.html
 

WY ME

Very Active Member
Feb 4, 2014
549
47
Wyoming
I'm wondering if the family rancher would be the biggest looser. From what I understand the grazing fee's are an unbelievable price compared to a private fee. How would the Bundy's of the world be able to afford to outbid others and pay a possible increase in grazing fee's?
If the lands were ever privatized my biggest fear would be to see the Chinese or other countries purchase and control huge tracts of US soil. We could be buying US oil, gas, coal, timber, etc. from China. Of course Obama and the leftist democrats are already denying off-shore permits and drilling leases on much of our federal lands and forcing Canada to sell their oil to China because the dems don't want a pipeline.
 

packmule

Veteran member
Jun 21, 2011
2,433
0
TX
If the lands were ever privatized my biggest fear would be to see the Chinese or other countries purchase and control huge tracts of US soil. We could be buying US oil, gas, coal, timber, etc. from China. Of course Obama and the leftist democrats are already denying off-shore permits and drilling leases on much of our federal lands and forcing Canada to sell their oil to China because the dems don't want a pipeline.
That's just the feel-good headline grabber on Canadian oil with Keystone bc of the route it follows through heavily populated areas. There's already similar lines in place doing the same thing and KMI is doing one that'll come through, tie into Bakken and distribute to the gulf & Cali refineries.
 

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
I'm not at war with the GOP.
I have been a Republican for decades. Unfortunately, they declared war on federal land users/lovers when they passed resolutions in favor of transfer (see links below). Ted Cruz has taken that even further, and is promoting sale. So you may not be at war with them, but they are at war with you (judging from comments you previously made in support of federal lands).

The point of my earlier post is that we need to welcome the support of all parties who oppose transfer even if that opposition is from a liberal source.

https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/americanlandscouncil/pages/84/attachments/original/1412555697/WyGOPLands-Resolution-Feb-2014.pdf?1412555697

https://cdn.gop.com/docs/RESOLUTION-IN-SUPPORT-OF-WESTERN-STATES-TAKING-BACK-PUBLIC-LANDS.pdf
 

WY ME

Very Active Member
Feb 4, 2014
549
47
Wyoming
I have been a Republican for decades. Unfortunately, they declared war on federal land users/lovers when they passed resolutions in favor of transfer (see links below). Ted Cruz has taken that even further, and is promoting sale. So you may not be at war with them, but they are at war with you (judging from comments you previously made in support of federal lands).

The point of my earlier post is that we need to welcome the support of all parties who oppose transfer even if that opposition is from a liberal source.
The democrats have been at war with me and my way of life since the 1980's. They cost me a job through reverse discrimination and another through their anti-fur campaigns (I was a fur buyer). My life has been threatened with a pistol in my face on one occasion and I have been shot at by that same environmentalist on another occasion.

Don't think I don't know who's at war with me!