GOP Platform Committee wants to take away your land

I don't have the link available at this time. I will try to add it later when I have more time.

But I provided the information. yes if you look at just State Trust land, WI went from 1.3 million acres to 77,000. but that really doesn't matter. We as hunters shouldn't care if the land is "State Trust Land" or DNR managed land. All that should matter is, we we as hunters have access to land. And in WI that is a big yes to the tune of in excess of 6million acres. I don't care if that is State owned land, county owned land, or Privately owned land open to the public. All I care about is that we as hunters and recreationists can use the land.

 

If you truly believe that the Midwest has equal/superior hunting opportunities to the west, or that they are even comparable... then the debate isn't worth having. Hunting whitetails is fine and dandy but it doesn't compare in any way shape or form to the multitude of species out west and the vast areas they roam.


I'm scared of this issue personally. Not enough to ever vote Blue, but still leery of how open several Republican front runners were about their wishes to sell off public land. It's a scary thought for those who like to explore.

 

That isn't an Federal vs State land issue. that is a difference in where different species of animals live.

 

Thank you ahead of time for finding that. The DNRs link is vague.


Your last paragraph there, that's all the guys on my side want as well. Lots of state trust land has either limited access, or no access, and that is our beef with it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

My point is that you are using a midwest model of land management as a reason why western states shouldn't worry about land transfers.... Managing for whitetail tree stand hunting is no where near the same as elk, mulies, sheep, etc. These animals roam huge chunks of land, and migrate during the winters... I'm not one to feel entitled to free land access, just confused why people are in a huge rush to possibly jeopardize it. If the transfer includes a clear cut plan that states can't sell the land ever, or restrict access, then I'm all for it (not sure what it accomplishes other than placing even more financial burden on states).

 

that is why I say look at the states where the feds don't own such big chunks of the land. I can guarantee you that if the Federal government owned 40% of the land in WI, how the state managed the rest of it would change. when they are basically told they have to generate all their revenue on only 60% of the land or less of course they have to do things different.

 

Every species needs it's own management plan. I don't think he's saying take a cookie cutter plan that works for whitetail deer and applying it to elk in Colorado...lol. But you are exactly right with the following (although I think selling part of the land in a private auction may help shore up some of the heavy costs):

That's exactly what I said in the solution I mentioned. To make sure that the transfer was done in a manner so that the land and habitat remained for public use of hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc.,. Included with that would be a state game habitat and wildlife plan to ensure the habitat and wildlife remained healthy. Additionally, I don't think it's such a bad thing to sell small parcels of the land in a private auction to help with the costs. They could do it in a manner so that 90% of the land to be transferred must go back to the state as public land. I mean we are talking millions of acres here, 10% of land sold in a private auction rather than going back to a state may sound like a lot but that money could go directly towards the costs of the transfer AND towards the state game habitat and land management.

What I think it will accomplish is, it gets rid of the excessive taxation on people who don't live in those states. Unless we plan to have a national hunting license and tag system, it's not fair that people out of state should be funding habitat and wildlife management for a state that we can't hunt with in state prices. Likewise, you aren't funding public lands for states that manage their own habitat and wildlife, would you be ok to start paying taxes for that?

 

I don't see the jeapordy looking at the states that don't have federal government owning the states land.

And when you mention financial burden, that is the single biggest reason I see to give it back to the states. I've stated a few times. why should tax dollars of people who will never go hunting or hiking on the land pay that financial burden? I believe the states are in better position to recoup that cost from those who actually use the land. If you want to keep it all federal, fine as long as there usage fees to generate the revenue for any cost to manage and maintain those lands.

 

Frankly I'm surprised at some of the responses here, in the simplest terms, public land is public...we as citizens "own" the land and are able to utilize it for numerous outdoor activities. Why risk losing a great thing? There is absolutely no guarantee that land turned over to the states will ever be opened up for all again...in fact, some states have made it very clear that they do not have the money to manage it and would seek private ownership to step in, making a quick buck along the way and shutting the public out of what once was theirs. The public lands out west are a national treasure for all Americans to enjoy, this is a bad course to be on because once it is lost, we will never get it back. A future of "pay to play" will dominate the region vice the great opportunity that we have now.

 

This wouldn't be a one time land sale. The first sale would be band aid until the next year when they don't have the budget. Then the year after that. Twenty years later, half of the land has been sold just to pay for the rest of it.

Keep on taxing me for the land, even if I don't use it or have to pay NR prices. In my opinion, that's money well spent.

 

That's why a small percentage of the land can be sold in a public auction and the money from that can be used to manage the land and wildlife. If that state doesn't have the money, is it not their fault? Other states have state owned public game lands, how are they doing it? Our federal government surely doesn't have the money to manage the land as we are $19T in debt What difference does it make if the federal government owns it or if the state owns it as long as it's public land? The whole key here is to work with the state and federal government to make sure the transfer requires that it remains public land. You guys talk as if the federal government has money that the states don't. NO ONE HAS MONEY. It's already a financial burden, so you might as well manage the land and habitat locally and help the state figure out a solution.

You also have to think about all the jobs that would be created in those states for the habitat and game management. More jobs means more taxes being paid. Additionally, federally owned public land isn't subject to any state or local taxes so in the hands of the federal government, that land isn't generating any money for the state right now, if the state owned it, it would start generating money for the state. If you want to discuss "pay to play" how about we discuss property taxes. I pay, do you?

 

That land already has game and land managers employed... Land by the Feds. States manage game
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Wouldn't there be a ton more if the state managed it though? I doubt the federal government employs enough to manage federally owned public land properly. I am also curious how much money the states are missing out since federally owned public land isn't subject to state or local taxes.

 

Pay to play. that is the way it should be. Rather than people who are not playing paying.

 

So the state would pay themselves property tax? Ah no. The states would have to dispose of the land before the can collect taxes on it. Which is a primary motivation.
Secondly while we are speaking of revenue generation why doesn't any of the bills propose making the states pay fair market value for the land? After all it's owned by the federal government( read citizens of the United States) shouldn't we be fairly compensated? We already know the answer to that question.
Look deep into who is lobbing for this. Follow the money and it will be crystal clear the motivations for this.


Several people have asked for solutions and along those lines I propose a much simpler idea. We should recognize the extraordinary success of the North American model of wildlife and conservation that has been built through access and public ownership of wildlife. It has caused us to value and conserve wild life and wild places because they are worth more than short-term profits . Our model is extraordinary in that it allows public access for both recreational use and private enterprise while preserving and protecting wild places. We should be building upon that success rather then dismantling it for profit, anything less will be a national tragedy.

 

States pay for land that should be theirs already. Now that is funny.

 

What nots funny is your ignorance on the matter. You might want to read ARTICLE IV, SECTION 3, clause 2

The citizens of the United States own the land not just the citizens of the state the property resides in.

 

Federal land is visited over a half billion times a year.

Do you think the highest & best use of Federal land is recreational?

Who wins?

 

Article 4 section 3, clause 2 as intended was to give federal government "control" of territory outside of the jurisdiction of individual states. Once new states were created the jurisdiction over the land within its bounderies should have been passed to those states.

 

Your convoluted version is Absolutely incorrect. The constitutionality of the federal ownership of lands has been up held by every Supreme Court ruling going back all way back to Light vs The United States. Even going as far as affirming that the government has the right to manage the land and wildlife for the public interest...for example Kleppe v. New Mexico
426 U.S. 529 (1976).

Furthermore you even more grossly incorrect that jurisdiction passes to the state. When in fact in order for a Territory to be admitted to statehood the part of each affirmation was for example in Utah's case ...to swear

That the people inhabiting said proposed State do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof; and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes; and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States."