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

Kansas Big Dog
2 hours ago, 406dn said:

 

I am not interested in convincing you.

How about all the other folks that their opinion matters, you know, like the citizens of the US when it comes to selling, or reduction. They will be more like me, probably worse.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy S

I know I don't want to be part of a generation that decided we have too many protected wild places and too few privacy fences.

 

  

Share this post


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

How about all the other folks that their opinion matters, you know, like the citizens of the US when it comes to selling, or reduction. They will be more like me, probably worse.  

 

I'll cross that bridge when I get to it, if I get to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jacquidog

A little off topic but the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area is a 80,000 acre treasure located less than 100 miles from NYC and visited by 4 million people each year.  All outside legal activities are allowed. An example of the  U.S. Govt actually working for the people. I think location and local politics are a large part of the final decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henryrski

KBD, take a look at some of the private ownership. Ted Turner, for instance, has purchased thousands of acres, primarily in the West, which coincidently surrounds public lands. Ergo, no access to the public land because he has closed the roads to it. This is not an uncommon situation throughout the West. As for "rich people" buying up land I can give you several examples, as a start think the major manufacturer of gun powder.

 We need public ownership to insure public access and use.States

 can't afford to care for these places. Just look at your state they can't even afford janitors for the schools.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
john mcg

Just a thought--I don't like the idea of the 'federal government' owning and continuing to buy up land or to re-designate land as 'federally protected'. See the antiquities act of 1906.

I am for a 'selling off' of much federal real property and some carefully picked real estate (land) in order to pay off the national debt.

A British Prime Minister did this to great affect. The feds own a great deal of the most valuable real property on earth and a whole lot of it sits vacant and wasted and ill-maintained.

 

I propose a possible status quo change--transfer appropriate federal wilderness and parks to the states and return tax dollars and revenue generated by aforementioned sales to said states to help develop management programs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Randy S

I do understand a need and desire to pay off the national debt. However, I fail to see how transferring federal lands to the states can be rationalized as retiring federal debt. And I don't see how the states can possibly stand to benefit from the transfer without reselling/leasing the land to private interests. The feds are already paying the states in lieu of taxes on all fed lands. In state ownership this tax base will be lost. 

 

In all of this debate, I have yet to see any examples presented that states have access to funding sources that the feds don't have. Or that states have some novel approach to land management that they haven't shared with their federal counterparts.

 

There seems to be some absolute trust in local government and equal distrust in federal government by parties in favor of transfer. Yet I wonder what the political roots are of our federal representatives? Federal officials were not spawned from some independent federal nation. Federal officials started out as local and state officials. One would presume that the best of the local officials move on to become federal officials. Remember, they got to federal office by first receiving local support and votes. So those who distrust federal officials have trust in the fledgling local officials who aspire to one day be federal figures? 

 

I have a basis of reasoning for my position: There are checks and balances in government (representative votes). The higher up in government, the more checks and balances exist. I believe that delegates from 50 states determining the best practice for public land is preferable to a couple of representatives of one state deciding how to divvy newly acquired resources. There can't be any doubt that those who stand to gain nothing from a transfer of public lands can be most trusted to determine what fair use is. There are far more states with nothing to gain from these transfers than states who see some financial windfall from acquisition.  I believe the probability of the local official receiving financial support from private interests in exchange for awarding access to these lands is the true motivation of state governments, not some altruistic view of the greater good of a nation.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
john mcg
On 10/30/2017 at 7:05 AM, Randy S said:

I do understand a need and desire to pay off the national debt. However, I fail to see how transferring federal lands to the states can be rationalized as retiring federal debt. And I don't see how the states can possibly stand to benefit from the transfer without reselling/leasing the land to private interests. The feds are already paying the states in lieu of taxes on all fed lands. In state ownership this tax base will be lost. 

 

In all of this debate, I have yet to see any examples presented that states have access to funding sources that the feds don't have. Or that states have some novel approach to land management that they haven't shared with their federal counterparts.

 

There seems to be some absolute trust in local government and equal distrust in federal government by parties in favor of transfer. Yet I wonder what the political roots are of our federal representatives? Federal officials were not spawned from some independent federal nation. Federal officials started out as local and state officials. One would presume that the best of the local officials move on to become federal officials. Remember, they got to federal office by first receiving local support and votes. So those who distrust federal officials have trust in the fledgling local officials who aspire to one day be federal figures? 

 

I have a basis of reasoning for my position: There are checks and balances in government (representative votes). The higher up in government, the more checks and balances exist. I believe that delegates from 50 states determining the best practice for public land is preferable to a couple of representatives of one state deciding how to divvy newly acquired resources. There can't be any doubt that those who stand to gain nothing from a transfer of public lands can be most trusted to determine what fair use is. There are far more states with nothing to gain from these transfers than states who see some financial windfall from acquisition.  I believe the probability of the local official receiving financial support from private interests in exchange for awarding access to these lands is the true motivation of state governments, not some altruistic view of the greater good of a nation.      

This cannot be adequately replied to without violating the 'Prime Directive'--which I won't do. However, its not necessary. Good ideas and thoughts are being presented and this is good for more cogitating by all.

:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snapt

And so it begins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Big Al
1 hour ago, snapt said:

And so it begins.

 

Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Eden
On 10/13/2017 at 2:24 PM, Brad Eden said:

Tick tock.

 

Tick tock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henryrski

KBD, the corporations are; Great Northern Paper, Weyerhauser, Plum Creek to name a few. Individuals include the duPonts, Carpenters, Ted Turner. There are more but this should give you a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snapt

From a bird hunting perspective (I'm trying to stay within the confines Brad!) It's hard to see it as good for my bird hunting prospects in the future if this trend continues? But I hunt mostly public land and can't afford trespass fees or clubs so I guess if that's your thing it might be less impactfull.

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

×