Jump to content
FRIENDLY REMINDER ABOUT HUNTING REPORTS/TOPICS... Read more... ×
Spin

proposed reduction in size of Federal Wilderness Lands and National Monuments

Recommended Posts

salmontogue
16 minutes ago, Spin said:

The state of Michigan has a public use and access program that has been long standing and highly successful granting a tax advantage to 'Private " land owners who allow such use. There is also timber harvest allowed on state and federal lands there but it is closely controlled and supervised. Generally speaking Federal lands are left alone and have successfully resisted several attempts at partial or wholesale sell offs.

   I will as you suggested, look over the program you suggested when I get just a bit more time. I am sure it will help in understanding all sides of the issue in debate.

Thanks.

 

I am strongly against the sell-off of Federal lands but I also understand that Federal management has been rife with incompetence, corruption and just plain old ignorance.  I would hope improvement is coming but I may be suffering from wishful thinking.   The Michigan plan, as I understand it, is quite similar to the Maine plan.  My greatest objection is to public ownership that does not always allow for reasonable public access and use.  If we support that ownership and management through our tax dollars and, at the same time, forego tax revenue income due to these properties being removed from the tax list, we ought to be able to reasonably access and use those lands.

 

Perk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spin
1 hour ago, salmontogue said:

 

I am strongly against the sell-off of Federal lands but I also understand that Federal management has been rife with incompetence, corruption and just plain old ignorance.  I would hope improvement is coming but I may be suffering from wishful thinking.   The Michigan plan, as I understand it, is quite similar to the Maine plan.  My greatest objection is to public ownership that does not always allow for reasonable public access and use.  If we support that ownership and management through our tax dollars and, at the same time, forego tax revenue income due to these properties being removed from the tax list, we ought to be able to reasonably access and use those lands.

 

Perk

So it seems that the 3 of us have a common point of agreement on accessibility and public use. Very good! There is however the aspect of sale and development occurring in this "reduction of size". One more thing, and now I'm speaking strictly for myself here, it's been my experience that cumbersome and yes,at time perhaps poorly managed, public lands are far more secure when under Federal control. This can be proven through example after example. It is I believe true beyond a doubt that private interests and yes smaller governmental bodies are much more prone to desert the preservation of natural resources in favor of the fast buck or relatively small local desires.

Remember please we are talking here about National lands. It's very true that Big Money interests find it's much easier, quicker and cheaper to bend smaller governing bodies (state, county, township and pretty much in that order) to their wills and wants then the Federal entities. Frankly the scary thing to me in this instance is the threat

herein this instance is generated in Washington even if there is opposition from governing bodies as well. From the general public as well. I've spent countless hours blogging on several prominent newspapers for a number of years and never seen the numbers in opposition to any similar proposed plan in all that time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
juneboy1

i am going to Bears Ears next week while its still a monument and not a gas range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Big Dog

FWIW, this is my opinion on the federal governments ownership of land. Not buildings, military bases, just bare land. They should not own land. All land ownership should be private. When the gov needs to build a military base, office building, etc., the gov must go on the open market and buy land from the private market.

 

With that said, private ownership does not mean "for profit ownership". The land could be in environmental trusts or owned by groups such as Nature Conservancy. The management of the land would be by stakeholders that have skin in the game such as sportsmen, backpackers, mineral developers, forestry, etc.

 

I do not think the fed gov is a good manager.

 

In our last national election, there were record number of voters. Still, only 61% of eligible voters voted. It would not be hard to extrapolate from these voter numbers that a whole lot less number of US citizens give a flying cow turd about the Federal Lands. I would prefer folks that have control of the lands, have skin in the game.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406dn

Most of us are appreciative of the fact that some land is in public hands. I think a very large percentage of citizens think National Parks are a good idea. Just because there is a sizable number of people who don't participate in our civc responsibilities, that does not mean their lack of concern should somehow effect public policy.

 

Thinking that groups such as the Nature Conservancy, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other worthy groups could successfully compete with corporations and wealthy individuals for land ownership is naive. 

 

I know that in my state I prefer how the federal land is managed when compared to how the state manages their land. The reality is that when so many competing interests lobby for a particular land use, no one is going to be totally pleased with the outcome. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Big Dog
7 hours ago, 406dn said:

Thinking that groups such as the Nature Conservancy, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and other worthy groups could successfully compete with corporations and wealthy individuals for land ownership is naive. 

 

Why would we let them compete? Stipulate that the organization purchasing the Gov lands be non-profit. Have the stakeholders decide how the organization be organized and funds raised. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406dn
14 hours ago, Kansas Big Dog said:

 

Why would we let them compete? Stipulate that the organization purchasing the Gov lands be non-profit. Have the stakeholders decide how the organization be organized and funds raised. 

 

It ain't ever going to happen. Do you REALLY think corporations and well connected wealthy individuals would not have input into the selling of public land that would benefit their interests? REALLY?? I greatly prefer the status quo to opening a Pandora's box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Big Dog
4 hours ago, 406dn said:

It ain't ever going to happen. Do you REALLY think corporations and well connected wealthy individuals would not have input into the selling of public land that would benefit their interests?

 

With attitudes such as this, it will never happen. Who are all these corporations and well connected wealthy individuals? Are you sure they are not figments of your imagination hiding in the shadows. 

 

I find it interesting that all the folks that are afraid of "corporations and well connected wealthy individuals", never name anyone that is interested, and never put forth a strategy to make any changes to the Federal Ownership. I guess you are satisfied with the status quo?

 

Even if you disagree with these findings, saying "the committee is stacked with oil and gas people," or "corporations and rich folks are going to swoop the land up." Well, if that is all you got, which is really, really weak, then, you will have to accept what happens. But, if you think there is a better solution, what is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Eden

Tick tock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
juneboy1

"I find it interesting that all the folks that are afraid of "corporations and well connected wealthy individuals", never name anyone that is interested, and never put forth a strategy to make any changes to the Federal Ownership. I guess you are satisfied with the status quo?"

 

Koch Brothers (Koch Industries).

Also the status quo works great for me. I spend most of my hunting and fishing on public land until I get to Texas , and Kansas in pursuit of  Gentleman Bob. I pay a lease fee in Texas and knock on doors in Kansas. The lack of public land in these two states forces me to pay a toll.  I much prefer to recreate on my public land. It is the best deal going in the outdoors,  but the "tragedy of commons"  will soon be the end of that at this pace. 

I also have been around wealth my whole life and have no illusion that the intent of most is to keep you and me separated from them and their pursuits. Whether recreational or exploitation. I have tried to keep my reply civil and further the conversation, it is a needed one so I hope others continue to do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406dn
4 hours ago, Kansas Big Dog said:

 

With attitudes such as this, it will never happen. Who are all these corporations and well connected wealthy individuals? Are you sure they are not figments of your imagination hiding in the shadows. 

 

I find it interesting that all the folks that are afraid of "corporations and well connected wealthy individuals", never name anyone that is interested, and never put forth a strategy to make any changes to the Federal Ownership. I guess you are satisfied with the status quo?

 

Even if you disagree with these findings, saying "the committee is stacked with oil and gas people," or "corporations and rich folks are going to swoop the land up." Well, if that is all you got, which is really, really weak, then, you will have to accept what happens. But, if you think there is a better solution, what is it?

 

I'm not going to do your homework for you. If you want a few clues,,,, Google "Durfee Hills" and follow the various leads that takes you to. Then after you exhaust the leads there google,,, Ruby River stream access" and follow up on those leads including all the various law suits that landowner has filed. 

 

Each of those landowners can easily compete with anyone for any piece of land they might like. 

 

I do think there is a better solution,,,, leave well enough alone. I know you don't really like it, but I do.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Big Dog
44 minutes ago, 406dn said:

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

 

It is not my argument, it is your argument. Still not convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406dn
1 hour ago, Kansas Big Dog said:

 

It is not my argument, it is your argument. Still not convincing.

 

I'm not the one that needs to convince anything to anyone,, the status quo works for me. You are the one needing to convince a whole bunch of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kansas Big Dog
10 hours ago, 406dn said:

 

I'm not the one that needs to convince anything to anyone,, the status quo works for me. You are the one needing to convince a whole bunch of people.

 

This thread is about a report that suggests changing the status quo. Your argument is how you want the status quo to remain. You have not convinced me that we need to keep the status quo. I do not need to convince anybody about any thing. You do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
406dn
2 hours ago, Kansas Big Dog said:

 

This thread is about a report that suggests changing the status quo. Your argument is how you want the status quo to remain. You have not convinced me that we need to keep the status quo. I do not need to convince anybody about any thing. You do?

 

I am not interested in convincing you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×