Writing is on the wall now. GOP won't be receiving a vote from me in any shape or form any time soon. GOP Platform Committee Wants Feds To Turn Fed Lands Over To States ASAP
We can't have it both ways. Conservatives can't argue for states rights and smaller federal government and on the same hand argue to allow the federal government to manage millions of acres of land within those states. I get where you're coming from as you don't want to lose access to those lands for recreational use, but there's no guarantee you will always have access to those lands while they are under control of the federal government either. This is really about fundamental beliefs in how our system of government should work. In Missouri, our state government does a nice job of providing quality recreational land and I feel that if given more to manage they would do a superior job than what the federal government could do.
No government whether Federal, State or Local should own land simply to own it. It should be done for a purpose. If they cannot provide a justification for federal ownership of that land, yes it should be returned to the States. If the states in turn can't justify ownership, it should be returned to the people.
Yes, and this sounds good but... Historically states have sold off such assets, without public consent/vote. States are often coerced, limited fiscally or litigiously on usage and place limits disenfranchising some parties or groups (like hunters). Randy Newberg (ep 10 I believe) and others like the Gritty Bowmen have spoken about these topics...worth a listen
Are the hunters willing to pay for the ownership and maintenance on all this land? This is where the problem comes in. should people who don't hike or hunt be paying for land they will never use? And will those that do want to use be willing to pay through usage fees. I hear enough complaints from boaters because they have to pay a fee to use the public boat landings, expecting that to be paid from taxes instead.
I support it and agree completely with Skywalker. Public hunters will never be without public land to hunt anyway. There's also nothing saying the federal government can't still spend money to support the states owning it.
The federal government has done a very poor job of making public lands accessible to the public. There are nearly 4 million acres of federally managed public land that has no access for the public already. If you have ever tried to plan a public land hunt out west, you run into extreme difficulties in finding accessible public lands in areas where you can actually get an out of state tag. Landlocked and checkerboard lands are of no use to the public and not even manageable by the federal government. Public lands with no way in: New report details access problems
Don't get me wrong, generally I'm all for smaller Govt and more state rights. But take a listen to Newberg or BHA or others on this particular topic so you're well informed. States have done equally (or worse) jobs, imho. Lands which are limited in use (no camping, no hunting), litigation tying up their use, budgets blown trying to manage the land forcing them to outright sell...
You do pay for hunting licenses, permits and taxes (state, fed, local, sales and atop your hunting gear), no?
Beagle, you have a legitimate concern. It is very well documented that federal lands are handled better long term for outdoor recreation use versus their same state counterparts. I agree with you, we do not want the states taking over Federal land. I consider myself environmentally liberal and socially/fiscally conservative, etc. Anyone that agrees with one party 100% is full of ****.
I used to believe states should have it until I became more informed on the issue. The fact is, if the federal government does not have the land, it is state trust land. State trust land has the sole purpose to make money. Selling that land is usually the end result and unfortunately it isn't the everyday guy that gets to buy it. The Koch Brothers and other conglomerates can outbid nearly anyone. Nevada was given 2.7 million acres at statehood. They have 3000 acres left. The Las Vegas Strip... That was state trust land. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes my part of my permits, and licenses and ptaxes go to fund for the care and maintenance of public land I do not use. I only hunt on privately owned land. Should I have to pay higher taxes, or license fees for public land I will never use? Or should the cost be paid by those who use it. Why should the federal government and federal dollars go towards land the majority of the population will never even think about using? If the hunters and recreators who want to use this land are willing to pony up the funds through usage fees to pay for it being kept public, fine leave it public. If not and there is no other justification for government to own it sell it.
We can all agree that the federal lands need to be managed better. There's a lot of things that could improve if the parties came together, but the right refuses. They want management agencies spending money on things other than managing. That's the main issue here. And to say the states won't sell is going against history. New Mexico started out with 13 million acres. They now have 9 million. Utah started with 7.5 million acres. They now have 3.4 million. Oregon started with 3.4 million acres. They now have 776,000. Nevada started with 2.7 million. They now have 3,000. You can see the same path with the other Western states.
What makes people think this land should be public in the first place? Seems like this is a lot of people wanting to use land without really having to pay for it.
Fair point, but no guarantee the states would move to a "pay by the drink" model, so you're still likely to pay for it via taxes even if it were state owned. National parks and lands (that are accessible) are available to the public for use, which is sort of the point. There are many government services which are available and many you can't use either; you really don't get to pick and choose what you pay for... the original notion was to reserve some land as future assets (natural resources, public use, preserved habitat, etc). The concern is fed turns land over to states, states sell it off to corporations/wealthy as precedent shows in many states west of the Mississippi.
So lets just not have any public land? That's a great way to promote hunting, camping, fishing, biking, hiking, and the outdoors in general. Not everyone can own private land.
