GOP Platform Committee wants to take away your land

One solution. One.

Here's one as well. Start treating large forest fires as a natural disaster. The forest service budget gets drained when they have to fight these large scale fires, making it impossible to manage the federal lands to the best of their ability.

 

I saw a few solutions throughout the thread, more than just one. I like mine best of course!! I agree with that, forest fires are a nasty thing out west. How did we make it the past 180 years out west with forest fires? What are we doing differently now that either results in more forest fires or a more costly response? Is it simply the increase of population and bureaucracies of government? Subjective question, I'm not meaning that in a rude way.

 

So are all these lands out west owned federally or does the state own some as well? If it's spit what difference would it really make who overseas it, if it goes back to the state each state already has a idea of the money they bring in off that land so why would they turn around and get rid of it the first chance they'd have? Would think it'd help out even more if the state owned the land so that all money spent from the user would go back into the state.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

 

Very good question. The budget for the forest service etc has been getting cut more and more every year, and every year compounds because of the forest fires and the fact that fighting those fires comes out of the budget. So when a nasty fire comes through, the budget that was supposed to be used to maintain roads and access is getting sucked up.


I think I speak for the other public land advocates here, when I say that the system is not perfect. There are plenty of changes to be done, but the folks in charge of making those changes are also the ones who are trying to rid themselves with the responsibility of it aka Congress.
The theory that the states could do a better job is just that... A theory. There are some states that do a pretty decent job of managing trust lands. Could they manage an extra million acres as efficiently? What about the states that don't?
To me, transferring the federal lands is as much of a slippery slope (or worse) than outlawing AR's or certain sized clips or semi automatic firearms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sorry I missed this before, must have been typing as you posted. Another good question.

The lands we are discussing are the Federal Lands, such as BLM, Forest Service, or Fish and Wildlife Service lands.

The state has State Trust Lands, which have the sole purpose of making money to fund their schools. State WMAs, Walk-in areas, and Game and Fish areas are a different entity.

If the Federal Lands get transferred to the states, they get transferred to the State Trust land. No debate, no questions asked, that is where it goes.
Here is a link that shows some info on State Trust land, which was granted to each state at the time of statehood, when they did all of the legalities to join the Union (the whole Union, not just the north during the Civil War).
http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-comparisons.html
I think the trend is clear, and in most cases, is not a positive one.

 

I strongly urge the guys on here who may be uninformed and want to learn more, or those who are on the opposite side of this than I, to please watch these videos. They aren't long, and the information given is legitimate and much more articulated than reading it on a screen.

PUBLIC LAND TRANSFER - Introduction to State Transfer (Episode 1 of 15)

 

Some of that information is misrepresenting at least for WI. While it may technically be correct, that WI originally got 1.3million and only has 77,000 of that remaining. What it doesn't tell is what the state has of open land for hunting today.

1.2million acres public land plus around 5 million acres of private land open to the public.

Trying to portray this as they sold all the hunting land away is false.

And if you look at the western states, trying to say what was done ages ago under different circumstances is what would be done today is nothing but a biased propaganda. Colorado is used most often. The federal government owns almost 37% of the land of Colorado. So yes they have to use what is left to them to earn the revenue they need. Yet they still have 500-800k acres open for recreation today. The idea that they would take all the additional land and close it is not based on anything but scared opinion.

 

That's what I was going to say as well. That may be a typical land transfer from the past but that's why you need to work with your state to ensure that they require the land transfer is done properly and favorable for hunters, fishers, campers, and for the state game commission. It needs to be mutually beneficial. The state needs to be properly funded and have a plan to manage the game and land, and the federal government has to work with the state to make the transfer work. It's obvious that some states are already doing it, your state needs to work with those states who already do it and find out what works and find out what needs improvement so your state can do it right from the start. I agree that a full on transfer without a proper plan is bad, but that's where legwork from hunters and fishers in that state need to step up.

 

Guys, please watch the videos.
Spear, your optimism is nice to see. Wish I could share it, but I can't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

A solution? Pretty obvious that the only solution from the side of federal land remaining federal is to not turn it over to the state, wouldn't think the obvious had to be stated.

 

That's not a solution, that's letting something happen and just complaining about it. These bills are likely to pass eventually so if they have fears of how it might happen, then they best get to thinking and start calling their state to ensure they don't get screwed. Maybe the land does stay in the hands of the federal government and if that's the case then in order to stop the call of legislation being put through to transfer the land to begin with then they need to help find a stop gap so it works for both sides. Doing nothing is not a solution.

 

This fight is happening right now, that's why it's a topic on this forum. A few posts on some hunting forum I agree is a waste of time. You act like something more than maybe some awareness is supposed to happen on a forum.

 

I know nothing is going to be magically fixed here on a forum but just arguing about which side is right doesn't accomplish anything either, which is why I provided a solution. Awareness is great but unless the purpose of the thread was to rant, a forum is meant for response and discussion. Sorry for participating, I'll gladly bow out.

 

Pretending like it wouldn't happen today is ignorance. There has been at least one sale or proposed sale in the last year. I think it was in Oregon.

It's unlikely the states would agree to anything that prevented them from selling this land. Minerals and logging will only go so far and it costs a lot to maintain that much land.

 

A federal government which can force towns across America to accept hundreds of thousands of unvetted "refugees" from across the Third World is not one I trust to handle our public lands. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I'd rather have my local legislature who is more answerable to us (well, not here in IL, but in 37 other states) handle public lands.

My home state of Michigan (which doesn't do much else right,) does do pretty good job of managing and protecting public land access and use. There's hardly any federal land, but tons of state land to hunt.

 

If you are a hunter, there is only one side of this argument you should be on. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. As frustrating as this is for me to keep going, there is no choice but to keep beating the drum. Our wild places and wild things depend upon it.

If that were not true, I need answers to why the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership are against it.

This issue is bigger than your 40 that you've grew up on and hunted your whole life, or Grandpa's farm, the lease you've had for however many years. This issue is about the future of hunting as we know it. The post about the North American Model of Conservation... read those articles if you need to. None of it is made up.

The biggest threat to the future of hunting is not someone trying to take your guns away. The biggest threat is loss of access, which in turn, leads to less hunter recruitment. Seems like a vicious circle to me.

The biggest threat to wildlife is loss of habitat. Seems funny that habitat and access are somewhat along the same lines in a lot of cases. Not all, because if someone comes in and buys that lease you've had and continues hunting it, the habitat is still there but YOUR access is not.

Here is a link (big file) to the National Shooting Sports Foundation's big study on hunting, the loss of hunters, access, etc.
The tip of the iceberg is on page 15. Take some time and digest it. There is a lot there to learn.
https://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/HuntingAccessReport2011.pdf

 

Ignorance is thinking things are the same today as they were over a hundred years ago in different times and different circumstance.

I provided you prime example with WI. In excess of 6 million acres of land open to the public. the federal government only owns 5.5% which basically consists of a national forest and military installations. There is no justification for the federal government owning that land out west. Sure it cost to maintain that land and it should those that actually use the land who pay for it. which is easier to accomplish at the state level.

Look at all the Midwest states with excellent hunting and fishing, where the Feds own a minimum amount of land. why can they all manage but the West cant?

 

Delete, wrong thread. Haha.

 

Here's a little paragraph right out off the Missouri Department of Conservation site. It illustrates the willingness and ability to grow and maintain public lands at the state level. My state has been a leading example of conservation and how to do it right. They have grown public land opportunities over my lifetime, not shrunk it. Why do we believe western states would do it any differently?

"Missourians have long supported conserving lands for public use and to support wildlife. Beginning in the 1970s, the Department made a pledge to embrace a broader conservation approach called the Design for Conservation. It was a plan to preserve the best examples of forests, prairies, marshes and glades; to obtain land for recreation, forestry and protection of critical habitat; to increase services to the public in the areas of wildlife and forest conservation; and to create a system of conservation nature centers throughout Missouri. Voters approved the Design for Conservation plan in 1976 with a one-eighth of 1 percent sales tax, providing reliable funding for fish, forests and wildlife conservation.

“This citizen-led initiative created an interconnected and accessible network of public lands that conserve natural resources while providing the public with quality recreational and educational opportunities,” says MDC Deputy Director Tim Ripperger.

Prior to Design for Conservation, the Department managed 294,000 acres of public land. During the initial 20 years of implementing the Design, the Department purchased an additional 440,000 acres to serve as conservation areas. These early efforts were based on broad guidelines and willing sellers. While the combined acreage of Missouri’s conservation areas is remarkable, it totals less than 3 percent of the state.

Incredibly, a full 20 percent of MDC’s public land holdings were donations. “Donations of land are the ultimate expression of the commitment to conservation and to the future that a landowner can make,” Ripperger says.

Today the Department holds approximately 789,000 acres in public trust and manages another 197,000 acres owned by conservation partners, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, The Nature Conservancy and others. The Department’s emphasis has shifted away from acquiring substantial new acreage, and is now more focused on improving infrastructure and access to existing conservation areas, as well as ongoing efforts to manage habitat to benefit wildlife."

 

Can you show me where you're getting your figures from? My searches have turned up different, but unclear answers.
I've been trying to view this thread as a debate between two sides, not between a few different posters, and trying not to make it a pointed argument, with (hopefully) silent onlookers gaining information trying to form an opinion.

I'm curious, since you "provided a prime example," have you looked at or read any of the links myself and others have provided? Skywalker provided some good info and links for his viewpoint, and the folks on the side of the argument I am on completely understand his concerns. The BLM and Forest Service are not perfect.
Remmet, you're not understanding the information given to you, or you're ignoring it. Should the land transfer go through, it becomes state trust land. Not DNR land, not walk in areas, or anything else. It goes from the Federal Trust to the State Trust.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk