All the land you’ll ever own – if you can keep it

[BullMooseGazette]

Read my latest BullMooseGazette column titled:
All the land you’ll ever own – if you can keep it
at
http://www.bullmoosegazette.blogspot.com/

The new edition of
HOOK ‘n BULLET DIGEST May 5, 2014
is now online at:
http://bullmoosegazette.com/hookandbullet.htm

Now follow Bull Moose Gazette on Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/bullmoose.gazette

Thanks
.... ron ....
THE BULL MOOSE GAZETTE
http://bullmoosegazette.com/

 

[Eric Albus]

Typical liberal rhetoric Ron... whilst I do not hold w/ selling off vast tracts of BLM, FS, ect....I do hold with consolidating lands, selling off isolated, inaccessable tracts is acceptable.... however, No Net Gain, that goes for state or fed....for crying out loud, neither the fed or the state can manage what they have now.

 

[shoots-straight]

“Here is your country – do not let anyone take it or its glory away from you. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skim your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance. The world and the future and your very children shall judge you accordingly as you deal with this sacred trust.”
~~ Theodore Roosevelt, 1913.

Last I heard old Theodore was a conservative, that had to leave the party because the same ugly crowd showed up then that we have showing up today.

Typical liberal rhetoric Ron... whilst I do not hold w/ selling off vast tracts of BLM, FS, ect....I do hold with consolidating lands, selling off isolated, inaccessable tracts is acceptable.... however, No Net Gain, that goes for state or fed....for crying out loud, neither the fed or the state can manage what they have now.

Do the Tea Party members even know what liberal vs. Conservative means anymore?

So were you in support of transferring the Durfee lands to the Wilks?

I agree that the article has a liberal tone to it. Now if there's any liberal twists, or half truth lies, that your contesting please enlighten the rest of us, maybe go with more than " Typical liberal rhetoric Ron"

 

[OriginalOscar]

Last I heard old Theodore was a conservative, that had to leave the party because the same ugly crowd showed up then that we have showing up today.

Does the Tea Party memebers even know what liberal vs. Conservative means anymore?

So were you in support of transferring the Durfee lands to the Wilks?

I agree that the article has a liberal tone to it. Now if there's any liberal twists, or half truth lies, that your contesting please enlighten the rest of us, maybe go with more than " Typical liberal rhetoric Ron"

Very well stated

 

[Eric Albus]

I was in support of the land exchange. Looked to me like the public stood to gain a lot of access in the breaks...and was only giving up access by helicopter onto the other ranch....helicopter access is not something for the "unwashed masses" to afford, only the elite or affluent can afford such.

Ron and his views are so politically skewed and biased that he can not effectively convey a thought without envoking "climate change"(which has been proven to be pure speculation, depending on what you choose to believe)....promoting more Gov't control by purchasing land once held in private ownership...I can go on and on....now, do not get me wrong, I am all for public lands, and the public having a place to recreate....but I am also a staunch believer in "no net gain"...if the state, fed, ect.. buys a property it should have to sell off the same number of acres....in the event of an exchange it may not have to be acre for acre, the state/fed could come out ahead, as long as it is a benefit for the public and the acres exchanged were viable......those kind of deals are tit-for-tat, the guy giving up acreage is gaining something he wants...

 

[Straight Arrow]

...for crying out loud, neither the fed or the state can manage what they have now.

That assertion is continuously written/said without explanation or example. Does that make it true? Transferring management from federal to a "welfare" state such as Montana will not enhance management. It has been shown that in the west, the largest detriment to wildlife is loss of habitat to private interest development on large tracts of land which have been poorly managed for wildlife.

envoking "climate change"

I must have misread this article. Point me to that discussion. Envoking liberalism versus conservatism into the land exchange discussion is as skewed as trying to insert "climate change" as a red herring.

Eric, if you view Moody's rhetoric as ideological or highly political, I urge you to read what you have written and attempt to glean factual information or logical reasoning from your words.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I was in support of the land exchange. Looked to me like the public stood to gain a lot of access in the breaks...and was only giving up access by helicopter onto the other ranch....helicopter access is not something for the "unwashed masses" to afford, only the elite or affluent can afford such.

The price of a chopper ride is about 1/10th the price of one of your guided deer hunts. That "exchange" idea was a bend over and break it off in the public's ass move.

 

[Oak]

The price of a chopper ride is about 1/10th the price of one of your guided deer hunts.

Ha. That's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Nameless Range]

Even though you kind of showed your whole hand with this gem.....

"climate change"(which has been proven to be pure speculation, depending on what you choose to believe)

You're dead wrong when it comes to this.

neither the fed or the state can manage what they have now.

There are hundreds of pictures on the Deer-Let's see them or the Elk-Lets see them threads that are evidence to the contrary. The recent bear hunting thread is evidence to the contrary. Everything from thousands of family trips, adventures, the proliferation of wildlife, and on and on....evidence to the contrary.

Focusing only on facts about mismanagement while ignoring facts about successful management commits the logical fallacy of understated evidence.You identify some general fact F about a topic X that is antecedently more likely on mismanagement than on good management, but ignore other more specific facts about X, facts that, given F, are more likely on good management than on mismanagement.

I think your argument is really something like this:

Neither the fed or the state can manage the land the way Eric Albus wants them to.

That's it.


The influence Public Lands have on Montana's economy is powerful evidence opposing a "no-net gain" philosophy. The Headwater's Economics study from 2012 provided slam dunk evidence showing that the more Government lands a county has, the better it will do economically to comparable counties with less public lands. People spend millions here every year because of public lands, and as population increases, a no-net gain philosophy guarantees increased per-capita pressure on public lands, and thus, fewer opportunities for solitude and a scenario where it becomes more difficult to provide many types of recreation opportunities.

So when you say the "neither the fed or the state can manage what they have now", what are you implying is mismanagement? The state of Montana manages its lands differently than the Forest Service, who manage theirs differently than the BLM. The State derives quite a net-profit from their trust lands - how would you go from that to a no-net gain philosophy? I have a feeling it isn't utilitarian in nature, but rather benefits few or provides temporary gain and costs future opportunities for the rest of us.

Sure, there is mismanagement, as would be expected, but your conclusions certainly don't follow.

 

[shoots-straight]

The price of a chopper ride is about 1/10th the price of one of your guided deer hunts. That "exchange" idea was a bend over and break it off in the public's ass move.

That one had to hurt.

 

[Eric Albus]

I hope my hunts are priced that way.

nameless...you are right, the state does not manage the way I think they should, nor the majority of the sportsmen/landowners in Reg. 6&7 w/ whom I consort....perhaps I need to narrow my statements down and be a little more specific, because there are things that the state/fed do a decent job of managing.

 

[Straight Arrow]

... the state does not manage the way I think they should, nor the majority of the sportsmen/landowners in Reg. 6&7 w/ whom I consort....perhaps I need to narrow my statements down and be a little more specific, because there are things that the state/fed do a decent job of managing.

Thank-you, Eric. Finally a critical opinion, but a balanced and reasonable statement.