Transferring/Selling Public Land

.

 

I do not agree with the Feds holding all the land they do and dictating what happens on that land, funny little thing called states rights that the federal gov't likes to ignore more and more.

 

Freedom is expensive and difficult.

 

If the states begin to gain control of the lands you can kiss a large portion of your public access good bye.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There is plenty of federal land that does not allow public access as well.

 

So....? Screw it, let's allow the closure of more lands?

What exactly are you getting at?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I would rather see the land out of the gov't ownership and control.

 

And when your state is short on money and a developer offers to buy a section of state land?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Lets not change the topic we are talking about Federal lands. Do realize the % of land the feds "own" in the western states?

 

30% in my state or nearly 30,000,000 acres.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Private land to you is a bad thing?

 

Considering 80% or more of Western hunters rely on public, yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Then your a moron. Plain and simple makes sounds like you never been off your postage stamp property.
Transfering federal land the states has been a disaster for access, take a look at what has happened in places like Utah New Mexico and California , and is currently happening in the upper west.
You can kiss public access and the North America model of conversation good by if this comes to fruition.

 

Trial I have spent parts of 12 summers in different western states in parts of National Forests rarely seen by the public, I have an appreciation of what is there. I do believe in states rights more than how the Feds dictate is all.

 

I know of at least 3 parcels of private land that have been turned in Wildlife Management areas open to public hunting in Anoka County alone in the past 2 years, seems Minnesota is not running out of hunting areas. California is hardly an example to use to bolster the case against state land ownership and access.

 

Why don't you call this transfer what it's is and look to who is lobbing for it. Big farming, agra corporations, mining conglomerates and the oil and gas industry are all lobbying for this so the purchase ( read rape) the states who sell.

States records are abysmal in regards to their handling of Federal school trust lands that were turned over to them. Look at the percentage of lands that are actually still owned by those states and tell me that has worked for the public good. It hasn't in the least.
This goes way beyond hunting. The federal lands are own by all Americans regardless of the location.

Tell me how the sale of federal lands in Montana for example is a benefit to someone living in South Carolina for example? It isn't he won't see a dime for sale yet he and everyone else loses potential access to it.

 

So if you didn't hunt out west would you still be passionate about it? If you are so against mining, and logging and drilling are all needed to produce the things we use, it has to come from somewhere.You do grasp where the money the Feds use come from right?

 

Any sportsmen or person that values open spaces and public access should be against this. So yes I would be against this no matter where I hunted.its short sited and convoluted.
I am all for private companies providing resources for profits however I am not for further subsidization of private companies by the American tax payers. Look deep and that is the obvious motivation and if it isn't then these companies are fools for spending millions lobbing for it.

 

I would like to see Greg Abbott gain some traction, my main objection is my lack of faith in the Federal Gov't to run anything properly.

 

I understand where you coming from and honestly when the issue first stated hitting the radar I felt the same way. That was until I started digging deeper.
Two thing gong became very clear. First the states have a worse record of managing lands in many cases make the Feds looks adept in land Managment. Further more they (states) have less money and resources then the fed and their prognoses for any better or cheeper management with similar public access and use is almost impossible.
This leads point leads the the second reason for my change of opinion. Corporations understand full well they the states can not afford to manage these lands and have history huge sell offs when if has taken place in the past. The amount of lobbying that is taken place is insane. The motivations are clear and again it becomes a tax pay subsidizing corporate profits.

Take listen so some pod cast by Randy Newburgh and Steve Reinella as they give good insite and clarity to the issue and discussion.