Selling off Federal Land

General Sporting Dog Discussion

Moderator: Moderator Pack

Selling off Federal Land

Postby AverageGuy » Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:15 am

I expect a large number of us utilize Federal and State Public Land for the recreation that is near and dear to our hearts. I am a small Gov conservative but I do not support this movement to sell off Federal Public lands and or transfer control to underfunded State Agencies. We need unspoiled places to hike, train, hunt, fish, camp ...

I encourage all to read this and if you are like minded, to contact your members of Congress and express your views on this. Not wanting to start a political debate, just hoping we can use our voices to keep the public lands in the public trust so we and future generations can enjoy and use them.

http://blog.trcp.org/2016/06/15/opening ... gislation/
AverageGuy
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:05 am

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby carramrod » Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:15 pm

Agree 100%, and really like Trump's pick for depth. Of interior for that reason. I was very worried he might go the other way with it.

Want a way to get people to quit hunting quickly? Take away their access. This is a big reason so many people want to hunt in the west, because there are still spots where you don't have to pay insane cash to have decent hunting.
Winston II vom Jagdkonig
carramrod
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2014 1:17 pm
Location: Kansas City

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby Chadwick » Sat Dec 31, 2016 12:17 pm

The link at the bottom of the page that your link leads to is very interesting.
AverageGuy wrote:http://blog.trcp.org/2016/06/15/opening-shots-fired-as-house-considers-public-land-transfer-legislation/
Chadwick
Master Poster
Master Poster
 
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 2:22 pm

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby Bruce Schwartz » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:49 pm

Chadwick wrote:The link at the bottom of the page that your link leads to is very interesting.
AverageGuy wrote:http://blog.trcp.org/2016/06/15/opening-shots-fired-as-house-considers-public-land-transfer-legislation/


the sponsor of the bill, Don Young, is always trying to get more land into (Alaska) state hands so they can use the weaker state laws to exploit timber for profit. All the ruckus about shifting stuff to the states just exposes whatever program to folks where there is no money or expertise in dealing with it. Say what you want, but I don't see anything good coming from Trump or his cabinet picks with respect to our environment, either nationally, or globally. I'm cautiously optimistic about his Interior pick but time will tell. I look to see more fracking on public lands, loss of portions of Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, reversal of Obama's national monuments, etc. Sad.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... vironment/
User avatar
Bruce Schwartz
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 4:52 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby AverageGuy » Sat Dec 31, 2016 2:57 pm

Bruce the point of my post is to urge others to contact their members in Congress and tell them voting Sportsmen do not support selling off or transferring Federal Lands.

Trump has been elected, debating his merits before he even takes office accomplishes nothing and is off the subject of what I tee'd up.
AverageGuy
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:05 am

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby Bruce Schwartz » Sat Dec 31, 2016 5:30 pm

AverageGuy wrote:Bruce the point of my post is to urge others to contact their members in Congress and tell them voting Sportsmen do not support selling off or transferring Federal Lands.

Trump has been elected, debating his merits before he even takes office accomplishes nothing and is off the subject of what I tee'd up.



Not off the subject at all. The bill (H.R. 3650) was passed by the Natural Resources Committee last June but hasn’t moved forward. The vote was 23 in favor ( all Republicans) to 15 opposed (all Democrats except Rep. R. Zinke, a Republican from Montana, and who is Trump’s pick for the Interior Secretary). As Secretary of the Interior he will be in charge of most federal lands (the ones we hunt) and their natural resources (read: mining, oil drilling, fracking, etc) and he will likely have a role in whether H.R. 3650 goes forward. His views are not well known but he's flip-flopped on climate change ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ene ... 37f60a5f60). I might suggest that sportsmen write to him as well. Note that the National Forests, to which this bill pertains, are managed by the Department of Agriculture and the person to head that has yet to be chosen by Trump. Of course that person will undoubtedly reflect Trump's views and have a huge role regarding this bill as well. Write to him/her also.

Thanks for bringing this up AG ... good to be aware of.
User avatar
Bruce Schwartz
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 955
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 4:52 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby ryanr » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:24 pm

Bruce Schwartz wrote:
Chadwick wrote:The link at the bottom of the page that your link leads to is very interesting.
AverageGuy wrote:http://blog.trcp.org/2016/06/15/opening-shots-fired-as-house-considers-public-land-transfer-legislation/


the sponsor of the bill, Don Young, is always trying to get more land into (Alaska) state hands so they can use the weaker state laws to exploit timber for profit. All the ruckus about shifting stuff to the states just exposes whatever program to folks where there is no money or expertise in dealing with it. Say what you want, but I don't see anything good coming from Trump or his cabinet picks with respect to our environment, either nationally, or globally. I'm cautiously optimistic about his Interior pick but time will tell. I look to see more fracking on public lands, loss of portions of Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, reversal of Obama's national monuments, etc. Sad.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... vironment/


As a grouse hunter and someone who is thankful for toilet paper there's few things I like seeing more than a working forest. Zinke is on record stating public land belongs to the public and he is against removing it from the public trust. He is strongly supported by the Back Country Hunters & Anglers group and several Tribal Nations. He has also stated that he supports the utilization of our natural resources, including energy development, but that certain wild areas should not be touched. It's ironic that you fear for the environment under Trump, yet it isn't Trump's administration that is selling off federal public land. Of course private ownership of land does not automatically mean public access ceases, as evidenced by states like Maine where 90-95% of publicly accessible hunting & fishing land is privately owned.

Timber and natural gas are natural resources that should be utilized so long as it is done properly and uses the best practices available in regards to reasonably protecting our environment. Yes our National Forests are in Federal hands and largely due to the Environmentalists irrational fear of the chain saw, our public forests have actually become unhealthy, lacking in a diversity of forest habitat and harboring large forest fire fuel loads. IMO the extreme environmentalist "movement" of the last 20 years has pushed aside sound conservation principles. Clear cutting is not evil.

Excellent point though Bruce about the importance of the next Dept of Ag Secretary being tied to the future utilization of our National Forests. I sure hope the next Secretary supports more timbering.
Last edited by ryanr on Sun Jan 01, 2017 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's a Drahthaar, there is a difference."
ryanr
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 1945
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:54 pm
Location: Lehighton, PA

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby GONEHUNTIN' » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:57 pm

" The grouses greatestbfriend is the chain saw". Correct utilization of forest provides employment for people and habitat for all game. I am not a fan of climax forest and even a lesser fan of the Fed's or local governments selling OUR land.
I just hate seeing birds die of natural causes unless I'm that natural cause.
User avatar
GONEHUNTIN'
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 870
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:39 pm

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby JASmith » Sun Jan 01, 2017 10:07 am

Well as a Minnesota resident, I'm a fan of the state owning the land over the feds. We've got a TON of great land owned by the state - if we could take back some of the Fed stuff it would be even better.

Like anything... it depends more on how something is done, than what.
Rock Creek Gooseberry (Rebel)
JASmith
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 10:04 am
Location: Savage, MN

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby bhennessy » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:36 pm

I believe Teddy Roosevelt got it right. Some portion of this great country belongs to all of us, regardless of state boundaries and narrower local commercial interests, to which the states are more prone to acquiescing to through lobbying and a relentless thirst for tax dollars.

Roosevelt felt that without the resources and protection of the federal government, there would eventually be little left of our birthright as Americans to pass down to our children and grandchildren.

Arguments can certainly be made about trade offs in, federal land size, location, state's rights, etc., but the fact that as an American, Bruce (for example) has a birthright to enjoy and hunt in Louisiana is unassailable to me. Only the federal government can guarantee that right. Try flying over what is left of the bayous east and south of New Orleans and tell me Louisiana has done a good job protecting its land from careless development in the name of energy production for example. Endless miles of canals cut for energy exploration, but never filled in or blocked off later now promote massive erosion and let salt water intrude at high levels into marshes that can't survive at higher salinity levels.

The tendency to talk about the federal government as a monolith, interested only in satisfying some appetite for "more" at the expense of the states falls short for me in this case. The thought that Nevada, for example, could possibly afford to manage the currently public lands within in its borders effectively without maneuvering to keep the federal tax dollars of the other 49 states citizens or allowing wanton development is laughable. So if it is my land, and I'm paying for it, I want control and guaranteed access.
bhennessy
Senior Poster
Senior Poster
 
Posts: 131
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:20 pm

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby AverageGuy » Sun Jan 01, 2017 4:27 pm

Yes the general case is the western States where the most Federal Land is located, lack the necessary funds at a State level to properly care for the Federal lands within their boarders. And I do not favor State only politics and voters having the only say on managing these currently Federal Land parcels.
AverageGuy
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:05 am

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby gwp4me2 » Sun Jan 01, 2017 5:47 pm

What is sad is how so many of these decisions are political and so subject to those is power. Living in Utah the last 2 presidents have chosen, as lame ducks, to appease their liberal friend by creating millions of acres of national monuments. They have no support in the state anyway so who cares what the local people think. Their tree hugging anti hunting supporters applaud them and talk about their 'legacy'. The Forest service is becoming pretty anti-hunting as a whole to those of us who deal with them in our back yard. Politically those of us in the mountain west have ZERO influence nationally. There are more people in L.A. than UT, ID, MT, WY, CO combined. I would rather have people who understand the local environment making the decisions. I would say that part of the deal should be eternal public access.
gwp4me2
Master Poster
Master Poster
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby AverageGuy » Sun Jan 01, 2017 6:36 pm

I think the Senate side of passing a bill with two votes per state provides adequate protections against the population centers in NY and CA in the legislative process. I bowhunted with a 5th generation rancher in MT who lamented the growing influx of "new residents from CA" in Bozeman were out voting him in his own state. So State level is not necessarily a guarantee of an outcome that favors Sportsman either.
AverageGuy
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:05 am

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby gwp4me2 » Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:18 pm

How many senators voted for the national monuments? How many will vote for policy changes within federal agencies? At least people who move in see the reality of things like winter kill.
gwp4me2
Master Poster
Master Poster
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 1:17 pm

Re: Selling off Federal Land

Postby AverageGuy » Sun Jan 01, 2017 9:52 pm

Never been done but Congress can reverse a National Monument designation. That may happen for the first time with Obama's latest moves. And Congress could repeal the law that gives Presidents that authority in the first place.

Congress can easily affect the funding of Agencies which write the regulations.

I do not think these parcels being put up for sale are candidates for National Monuments.
AverageGuy
Champion Poster
Champion Poster
 
Posts: 1098
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2014 8:05 am

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests