Why would a new state have to affirm and agree to forever disclaim all right and title to the land if the federal ownership of said land was covered by the constitution. that itself is a contradiction.
Very simple it prevents people like you from making the argument that proximity supersedes ownership. By your logic I should be transferred my neighbors land because he resides in a NJ and his property is in NY. Federal ownership of land and its management in the publics interest has been upheld by even the most states rights courts that were ever seated.
That is not even close to what I'm talking about, you totally missed the point. My point was, I don't want to hear them complain about pay to play when land owners are paying property taxes, which is just that, pay to play. Maybe they should buy land and do the same. Federal lands aren't subject to state and local taxes, so the state is missing out on the money that could be used to manage the habitat and land, but instead they're worried which bankrupt system (either the federal government or the state government) is going to pay to manage the land. If the land was owned by the state, any money made within those public lands would also be taxed (by the state) and the state would be making a lot more money than they are today. Taxes are taxes, regardless of whether the lands are funded by the federal government or the state government, so long as the transfer is done so that the state keeps the land for the same uses that it's being used for now, they can come up with a plan on how to manage it, including financially, just like the rest of the states that already do it. So I don't see what the difference is if the transfer is done correctly and the land will be used the same as it is now, even if a small percentage of it is sold off in private auctions. One thing I will agree on is the Constitutionality you speak of. You are absolutely right. What I don't agree with is that it should remain. I think it should be changed. The purpose was all started with the Louisiana purchase and the purchasing of territories. There is nothing more to purchase so my belief is that it serves no more purpose and therefore the land should be transferred to the states. My opinion of course, hence the debate.
EDIT: I kept thinking about this whole thing and you know what, regardless of who owns the land, I would stand up with you guys for the simple fact that the land means something to you and you hunt it. Although we may have a different idea on who should own the land, the most important thing is keeping the land available for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc.,. So with that being said, I have no more reason to debate, I simply want what's best for the land to remain as it is, and if that means staying in control of the federal government, then that's what should happen. I'm glad you guys are passionate about it and I learned a lot in this thread, even if there are still differences, I appreciate the conversation and information you provided. When I post and debate I hope everyone understands that I don't mean to argue just to argue, we all just have different opinions. What we may disagree on in this thread I leave completely at the door, I just hope no one makes judgments of me from disagreeing on one topic to the thread of another topic, because I surely don't. We are hunters and need to stick together! Peace!!
This is a tough issue. Across the board keeping it how it is would be best for hunters.... That said, up here it's actually the Feds who keep adding rules and restricting access more and more. In fact, the Feds are grossly over reaching their authority in my state (imo) by enacting closures on federal lands for certain activities. Recently closed a Caribou unit when they technically don't even control the animals. They also have restricted baiting for brown bears on public land, again this is not their place. They manage land, the state manages the animals. They get around it by restricting access to the land instead of the animals directly. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any insight as to how or why? I know Alaska is sort of it's own creature up there... Do you think there are special interest groups behind the funny limitations? Sort of reminds me of Wyoming's Wilderness areas. Federal Land, but you can't be on it without a guide. Assuming that is state mandated but I am not certain.
Yeah the Feds themselves are a special interest group. Lol have you ever interacted with many of them? Total greenies with an end goal of having zero human intrusion into many of these pristine areas. The less humans utilize the land, the better. I have no clue how they got around closing a caribou hunt down, except for native subsistence use (the native corporation up there was super happy with that). Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
