seeth07
Well-known member
I don't know so much about getting rid of it as using it to make more money for the state rather than see the profit from the federal land going to federal.
119th house rules - transferring federal land
- Thread starter Hydrophilic
- Start date
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Treeshark, do you not acknowledge the political platform goals clearly written at national and state level to support PLT? Those deeply etched words are not "hypothetical"!
BrentD
Well-known member
It does not matter that the budget is red or black. Here in Iowa we have substantial state surpluses and the IDNR is slashed to bits. It is a political thing, not a fiscal thing. We will continue to see the DNR kneecapped further while corporate welfare will only increase.
I suspect most red states are roughly similar. Blue states only differ having slightly better DNR (or equivalent) funding.
Not in the manner portrayed here- I have not seen evidence of that becoming reality.
BrentD
Well-known member
The wildlife, and much of the water in national parks will be threatened because none of them are really self-sustaining in and of themselves. They are all connected strongly to their surrounding, mostly public, lands. But we have repeatedly seen one party's whittling down on the extents of some parks.
It will get worse, and it will happen eventually. How soon and how fast are all that is on the table right now.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Denial is more than a river in Egypt. Like grandpa said, "You can deny and bury your head in the sand ... but then your butt is exposed!"
44hunter45
Well-known member
Obfuscate and misdirect is the name of the game. Right out of the Berman and Company playbook.
That is why this is so hard. PR firms like Berman (et al) have been pulling strings and twisting facts for a long time on this. SOMEONE is paying them large sums to come up with Green Decoy and other smear campaigns to marginalize opponents of the land grab agenda. To create bogus think tanks like the "Environmental Policy Alliance" to spread disinformation.
The American Farm Bureau website states they oppose any legislation reducing access to public lands.
Grazing on Public Lands
www.fb.org
You are right, we have bigger problems in our own western hunter population who seem to blindly support anything that can virtue signal their hatred for "da gubment." A number of those folks lurk here or share posts from here. Posting what I do is for lurkers and others to read and is one way to try get them more information about this topic.
I'm not trying to convince Seeth or TS. I understand where they are coming from and I think their perspectives are close to a lot of people who aren't down in the weeds of it as I am. I might disagree with the frame they want to put around the discussion, but their perspective reflect their life experiences and how they see it. Having this discussion among different perspectives is helpful to all reading the thread, not just the folks posting.
Almost every post I make on HT is for the thousands of lurkers to have additional information and perspectives, not to try prove that someone needs to believe what I believe. And that is why I try to post what I do, with the history and facts, and try to keep the discussion on the points relevant to the topic.
seeth07
Well-known member
WI BCPL is sellers to this day but to the entity the WI residents would want to see - to the WDNR.
The Governor in his approved budget outlines it here to authorize the WDNR to spend up to 1mil to purchase BCPL lands.
EDIT: Since 2008, the amount of acres managed by the BCPL has remained almost unchanged and this is the first time this appears in the WDNR budget.
BuzzH
Well-known member
That's pure horseshit too.
The states get a boat load of money from that federal land and they risk nothing to get it.
It's their fault their profit margins aren't any better.
If states like Montana, Alaska, Wyoming were worried about increasing profit why have they always allowed resource extractors/private industry to rape them of their resources?
Why isn't there a Wyoming oil corp? Montana lumber company? Alaska oil corp?
Easy answer, they can take a small, but lucrative cut, to privatize the profits of the States resources and take the lazy way out.
If they gave a shit about truly maximizing profits, they wouldn't in the case of Wyoming, allow big oil companies to take a lions share of the profit. We could develop and market our own resources and realize those profits instead of Exxon Mobile, Shell, Marathon whatever. We could lease BLM instead of oil companies, as well developing our state lands
Truth is, the State level politicians are bought and paid for by the profiteers, the same way they're being bought by those that are trying to profiteer off public lands via PLT.
They've raped us of our natural resources, now they want the last thing of value, the public lands.
Guys like you make it easy for them.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It shouldn't take a leap to envision the park's land remaining in the name of the NPS, but everything run like it is a corporation. Companies like Xanterra already run the lodging and food, you already need a reservation to enter Glacier, etc. Look at the website (https://www.xanterra.com/our-brands-properties/). Maybe they would need to get NPS approval before building a new hotel in Lamar Valley, but I certainly can't dismiss the chance it would happen. There would certainly be an increase in fees (that I would argue is probably justified in keeping the land in natural state, but not justified in the name of profit) . But yeah, technically you would be correct as fee title on the land would remain public.
2. Debate the acreage but you have willful blindness to not see that is the intent of this.
3. Again, I don't know what the numbers for WI, but the statement doesn't meet the definition of being intellectually dishonest. Change WI to IL and it is absolutely true. Only major federal public land remaining is Shawnee NF and the public state stuff is mostly river bottom flood plain. The state certainly has more pressing financial problems to fund than acquiring more land. To @Nick87 point, give the state land and it will definitely get sold.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Big Fin expressed an important point regarding dissemination of good information. And that information is received differently by various HTers. Admittedly, as a senior lifelong Montanan who has witnessed many, many changes to this state and its treasured public lands, I have a protective perspective and see these national and local political and financial trends as harbingers of adverse impacts on what I have loved about Montanan and wish to protect and conserve for my grandkids and their grandkids.
surely in all of your recent research of different fallacies you've come across the "fallacy fallacy" right?
For me to be guilty of that, I would have to have been correct about the fallacies to begin with right?
Another reason for me posting what I do on this topic is to try to get people to understand that the frustration about federal land management is purely a congressional problem.
Congress has let it happen and Congress could fix it. Yet it is some in Congress, who are on the dole of these groups, who refuse to fix the problem because their bait for this trap would go away.
There is not a single thing we are discussing here that Congress could not fix. Congress may continue to absolve themselves of this responsibility, but so long as I have platforms, I intend to be a pain in their ass in whatever way possible when they shirk their responsibility to properly manage our public lands via policy, legislation, and funding.
That’s really at the crux of this - are we going to pressure Congress to to do their job or are we too busy/disinterested to hold their feet to the fire. The other side sees Congressional apathy and laziness as their opportunity.
I guess time will tell which side prevails.
Congress has let it happen and Congress could fix it. Yet it is some in Congress, who are on the dole of these groups, who refuse to fix the problem because their bait for this trap would go away.
There is not a single thing we are discussing here that Congress could not fix. Congress may continue to absolve themselves of this responsibility, but so long as I have platforms, I intend to be a pain in their ass in whatever way possible when they shirk their responsibility to properly manage our public lands via policy, legislation, and funding.
That’s really at the crux of this - are we going to pressure Congress to to do their job or are we too busy/disinterested to hold their feet to the fire. The other side sees Congressional apathy and laziness as their opportunity.
I guess time will tell which side prevails.
BrentD
Well-known member
BF, while I agree with your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, I do not agree with the first one. Congress is the symptom, not the cause. It is the American public that lets them do this even encourages and outright pushes them to this. The attempts at PLT will not end until the people decide that they have had enough BS and insist that they remain public. I do not see that happening in what is left of my lifetime.
If I knew how to sway the public, I would have done it already. Maybe we need to enlist Taylor and Beyonce and similar folks. Because what we are doing right now (trying to persuade people with logical argument and facts) just does not work.
The vast majority of hunters that I know and hunt with, those that work hard to run local conservation organizations like DU or PF are overwhelmingly conservative and will not change their votes (read the anti-Kamala comment above), and seem to be completely willing to go down with the sinking ship. That has to change. But I see no sign that it is or will.
If I knew how to sway the public, I would have done it already. Maybe we need to enlist Taylor and Beyonce and similar folks. Because what we are doing right now (trying to persuade people with logical argument and facts) just does not work.
The vast majority of hunters that I know and hunt with, those that work hard to run local conservation organizations like DU or PF are overwhelmingly conservative and will not change their votes (read the anti-Kamala comment above), and seem to be completely willing to go down with the sinking ship. That has to change. But I see no sign that it is or will.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Agree it is completely political. My argument is the political game plan is to attack the fiscal side. It is easier to make an argument to the masses when it is about money. The masses largely don't care because they don't enjoy the use of anything beyond the local park, and those they remember only from smoking weed there as teenagers. As seeth07 pointed out to me in PM, politicians promise things people love conceptually, especially when they don't have to pay for it. "Cut my taxes" always gets a lot of thumbs up.
Let’s pause to take a moment to recognize @Nameless Range and his introduction to my world, and hopefully most of yours, the delightful term “honeydicked.”
I am thankful.
Now, let’s continue.
I am thankful.
Now, let’s continue.
44hunter45
Well-known member
Short of converting Utah to glass, I'm doubt this will ever go away. These ideologues sleep when the administration is hostile, wake up when it is favorable.
Trust me, I have spent considerable hours fighting for the removal of this from the Idaho Republican platform. All it has earned me (Someone who has been a registered Republican since I was 18.) is being called a tree hugger. Welcome to IdaTah.
Last edited:
Similar threads
