- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
H.R. 621 - The battle over our federal public land begins
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:25 pm
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:25 pm
quote:
H.R.621 - To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes
Congress.gov
As a sportsman and outdoorsman I don't like this one bit. I don't trust the states to manage the resource and not exploit it in a way that doesn't support conservation, recreation, and public access...hell I don't trust them to even not outright sell it to private interests. All I foresee is no trespassing signs across vath swaths of once public land - access to which I consider one of the greatest benefits of being an American.
I suggest you go here to learn about this issue if you value public land for hunting, fishing, camping, off roaring, and other recreation activities.
https://sportsmensaccess.org
I'll be out in Montana fly fishing this summer enjoying public land. Hopefully it isn't my last time and I get to share that experience with my grandchildren one day.
18
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:27 pm to gamatt53
It's the states land and not the federal governments. They can do what they want with it.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:28 pm to Bourre
quote:
It's the states land and not the federal governments. They can do what they want with it.
Wrong. It's mine and your land and they can't yet. They are trying to take it away though
This post was edited on 1/27/17 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:32 pm to gamatt53
The federal government shouldn't own huge tracts of land. That land should be opened for settlement. Programs similar to homesteading should be implemented
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:34 pm to gamatt53
quote:It's fun how you psychos genuinely believe that the people most familiar with a particular are the least likely to value it.
s a sportsman and outdoorsman I don't like this one bit. I don't trust the states to manage the resource and not exploit it in a way that doesn't support conservation, recreation, and public access..
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:36 pm to gamatt53
So another words you want free shite from your government.
1 they are not selling national parks.
2 states can purchase for public use
3 private citizens can purchase (you?) and rent use to outdoorsmen (you?)
4 proceeds will reduce the deficit and your grandchildren's share of it
1 they are not selling national parks.
2 states can purchase for public use
3 private citizens can purchase (you?) and rent use to outdoorsmen (you?)
4 proceeds will reduce the deficit and your grandchildren's share of it
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:36 pm to Bourre
quote:
It's the states land and not the federal governments. They can do what they want with it.
Actually, it's not. This land has been owned by the Federal Government since before statehood. And in Nevada, and perhaps some or all the other states, Federal ownership of land within its border is enshrined in the state's constitution, so that would have to be changed by amendment as well.
Back in the day, these states with their tiny populations had no way of administering the vast lands within their borders. They wanted and needed the Federal government, and specifically Federal troops and law enforcement to keep order. That is arguably still the case with regard to natural resources, and in my opinion that is the unspoken agenda of this movement. They cannot, and have no intention of administering this land themselves. They will sell off much of this property, and in particular the most desirable parts, to private entities. That will be the end of public access in much of the West.
Trump and his Interior nominee have said they are not in favor of selling off public lands. They will have an opportunity to prove it by opposing this movement.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:37 pm to ShortyRob
i actually read an article about this issue re: Wyoming
the state and its citizens are worried about the added costs of managing the land, which is a legit concern
the state and its citizens are worried about the added costs of managing the land, which is a legit concern
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:38 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
So another words you want free shite from your government.
I pay taxes mutherfricker. Shove your free shite arguement
This post was edited on 1/27/17 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:40 pm to Gaspergou202
1 they are not selling national parks.
We don't know whether they will or not, eventually. There are some in this movement who want to do exactly that.
2 states can purchase for public use
Or for whatever the frick they want to. Just because it's currently public use doesn't mean it will stay that way.
3 private citizens can purchase (you?) and rent use to outdoorsmen (you?)
Or gate it off. Ironically there was a thread on the OT the other day about people losing access to the marsh because landowners are putting gates across canals.
4 proceeds will reduce the deficit and your grandchildren's share of it
I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that.
We don't know whether they will or not, eventually. There are some in this movement who want to do exactly that.
2 states can purchase for public use
Or for whatever the frick they want to. Just because it's currently public use doesn't mean it will stay that way.
3 private citizens can purchase (you?) and rent use to outdoorsmen (you?)
Or gate it off. Ironically there was a thread on the OT the other day about people losing access to the marsh because landowners are putting gates across canals.
4 proceeds will reduce the deficit and your grandchildren's share of it
I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that.
This post was edited on 1/27/17 at 12:49 pm
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:41 pm to bencoleman
quote:
The federal government shouldn't own huge tracts of land. That land should be opened for settlement. Programs similar to homesteading should be implemented
As a taxpayer I'd be pissed if that happened.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:41 pm to gamatt53
I like our park system and don't want to end it. However, the federal and state governments control way too much land. They could re-privatize a lot of land without affecting the vast majority of our parks.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:44 pm to gamatt53
quote:
I pay taxes mutherfricker
So do nonsportsmen who don't use the land for free. You just want extra free services from your government!
If you don't want your muther fricked lock her up.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:45 pm to gamatt53
quote:
It's mine and your land
No, it's not my land. I live in Louisiana, that is where my land is. People tend to forget that each state is sovereign and we are citizens of our individual states, in addition to the federal government. If the citizens of those states want their elected state governments to administer the lands within their states border, then fine by me.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:46 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
It's fun how you psychos genuinely believe that the people most familiar with a particular are the least likely to value it.
Oh, they value it. But not necessarily for the same reasons the rest of the country does. In a state like Wyoming, agriculture and extractive mineral industries run things. So land use decisions will cater to them in almost every instance.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:51 pm to Bjorn Cyborg
quote:
They could re-privatize a lot of land without affecting the vast majority of our parks.
It was never private in the first place. Ever.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:55 pm to gamatt53
I would understand your point if it was more inline with the rest of the states, but all the states in H.R.621 have had their land stolen from them and thery cannot use to generate revenue and help their citizens like all the other states. It really is terrible the percentage of land that the federal government owns in the west.
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:56 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
So do nonsportsmen who don't use the land for free. You just want extra free services from your government
So because some tax payers don't use public land I'm getting extra free services? Wtf are you talking about
. Does the same apply for people who don't drive? Paying for roads is just extra free shite for us drivers?
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:57 pm to Bourre
quote:
It's the states land and not the federal governments.
false
Posted on 1/27/17 at 12:57 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
You just want extra free services from your government!
That's dumb.
When "freedom" ends with only the few (wealthy) able to access the great outdoors, that's too much freedom.
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News