Arizona Land Grab...courtesy of Republicans

[MThuntr]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/23/14643160-arizonans-to-vote-on-taking-grand-canyon-other-lands-from-federal-control?lite

This is Republican Land Grab stuff is really starting to piss me off!!!!!

 

[AH64DMatt]

I live here, and I can tell you that the amount of federal regulations that are imposed (or selectively not enforced) on this state are ridiculous. I'm all for states managing their land as they see fit. It isn't a Republican or a Democrat thing, it's a how-does-Washington-DC-know-what's-best-for-us thing...

In addition to the restrictions on land use, we have to put up with federal lands that are high-traffic corridors for illegals, drugs and weapons (war zones in our back yards) . We have DC telling us how we can enforce our laws.

For people who just drop in to hunt trophy Elk or Lopes, I'm sure it's an outrage. But for those of us who see the absolute hypocrisy of the federal government's view of Arizona, it's a good thing.

 

[smarandr]

I don't typically agree with Sierra Club folks, but I like how the guy in the article asks how the state plans to manage the extra land when it can't even fund the land it already owns.

I don't know where it started, but this idea that anything that has to do with Washington is automatically bad from a conservative standpoint has got me pulling my hair out. I say this all the time, but I think it bears repeating. The lack of any critical thought and the blind allegiance to party ideology is going to be the undoing of this country.

 

[AH64DMatt]

I can assure you, the difference between state land and BLM land here is staggering. State land is better taken care of while BLM land is a giant trash heap, thanks to the tens of thousands of drug smugglers. Where is the Bureau of Land Management when it comes time to clean up the trash??? Nowhere.

I believe that the idea that Washington DC is the great father figure who knows best about our back yard, is an absolute joke. Nobody is going to mine the Grand Canyon if this passes. All they're asking for is to be able to do a better job managing the land than the Feds are doing (which is nothing).

 

[hawaii5hoe]

I'm all for limiting Democrat's access to any public lands....

 

[Ben Lamb]

I can assure you, the difference between state land and BLM land here is staggering. State land is better taken care of while BLM land is a giant trash heap, thanks to the tens of thousands of drug smugglers. Where is the Bureau of Land Management when it comes time to clean up the trash??? Nowhere.

I believe that the idea that Washington DC is the great father figure who knows best about our back yard, is an absolute joke. Nobody is going to mine the Grand Canyon if this passes. All they're asking for is to be able to do a better job managing the land than the Feds are doing (which is nothing).

Okay,

So you take over all Federal Lands in AZ. That means us taxpapyers are no longer on the hook to pay your PILT payments, Secure Rural Schools and host of other education funding, county government funding and we get to have the cost savings of not having a DOI/USDA presence in AZ. I like it.

The question of who's going to pay for it is a great one. You can take the individual tax savings at the federal level, and then you can apply those to your state taxes. AZ is currently running almost a billion dollar deficit. Who pays?

Also, what makes you think that the illegals and drug smugglers give 2 shits who owns that land? If the state owns it, what guarantees will there be that they will enforce differently than they already do (Because your state troopers and county sheriffs already have jurisdiction). Are you willing to hike up your property taxes or your state taxes to make up for the increased enforcement necessary to police the entirety of the state while removing enforcement officers from the BLM and USDA?

Also, judging by the Arizona State Land Department's website, if you want to camp, you have to have a permit and you are limited to 14 days all year long. Furthermore, you cannot recreate on lands that are leased to agricultural interest. This will lessen the amount of ground have to hunting and fishing.

How much of that federal public land is leased for grazing, and under state management will those leases be conveyed? There is no guarantee, like on federal public lands, that wildlife values have to be looked for at all on state lands, since the primary purpose of state lands is to benefit the 14 trustees. If those trustees don't think that elk are valuable, but an open pit mine is, then you lose hunting opportunity without any recourse.

As stated on the ASLD website: State lands are not public lands.

You will have fewer rights to access them than you do now because your state doesn't want you on your state lands. The reason that Peay and SFW love bills like this is that it kicks public hunters off of public ground, furthering their cause to privitize wildlife. The reason the exctractive industries love bills like this is because they get to decide for you at the state house what the new rules will look like.

Fewer public lands = fewer freedoms.

So, go for it.

 

[shoots-straight]

Another case of the "Haves" manipulating the "Havenots", into thinking they would be better off if they changed they got the Federal Government out of the way. The timber industry did this in Montana for years. Those people carrying the signs and doing the bidding for the Lumber Barrens, ended up with no pensions, and no money. They fill the bars still beating the same drum. Sad really.

 

[AH64DMatt]

Honestly, I can see your point, Ben Lamb. I didn't think of it like that, and you are definitely making me think.

The disappointment of the federal government is pretty thick with me because while I understand and kind-of agree with your point, it still boils my blood that we, the tax-paying citizens of Arizona are threatened in our streets and land by drug and gun runners. I have a friend who was out for a hike near a military reservation and was brutally attacked by an immigrant with a box cutter. He almost shot my friend after making his chest and abdomen look like tattered paper. The federal authorities did nothing. No search, no added presence, no nothing. He was told "we can't do anything to him anyway, except turn him back to the Mexicans."

I will give this a lot more thought. One thing I have always lived by is that just because I think I'm right doesn't mean that I have the only answer. An issue like this has so many facets that are valid points.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I share that frustration with the Fed. I'm sorry to hear of your friend.

The drug smuggling is a tough issue. Low populace, easy crossings, etc can't be stopped. Either can the insatiable demand for drugs by the American public. We've been fighting this war for 30 years and we're no better off than when we started, and in fact, much worse thanks to the cartels.

I'm up for pre-emptive strikes on those SOB's.

 

[AH64DMatt]

I just have to add this: I hope this can be a discussion. A respectful discussion. I understand everyone's passionate about their own beliefs, but there are also people (like myself) who want to hear more valid points and less sh#t-talking.

 

[MThuntr]

I can't agree with Ben anymore. Except I wasn't 100% aware that AZ State Lands didn't have legal access once leased for Ag use. That right there would grab my "no" vote if I were a resident.

Also a lot of the mgmt policies that have been enacted on Federal Lands are a result of lost legal battles by several environmental groups. While some of those policies are good, many are bad. I'd be willing to bet that these same environmental groups would be right down the State's throat with the same litigation...only to use the legal precedence set by their lawsuits against the Feds. I would be worried about the manipulation of the ESA especially.

 

[MThuntr]

BTW I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican as implied above

 

[wyoming556]

I can't agree with Ben anymore. Except I wasn't 100% aware that AZ State Lands didn't have legal access once leased for Ag use. That right there would grab my "no" vote if I were a resident.

Also a lot of the mgmt policies that have been enacted on Federal Lands are a result of lost legal battles by several environmental groups. While some of those policies are good, many are bad. I'd be willing to bet that these same environmental groups would be right down the State's throat with the same litigation...only to use the legal precedence set by their lawsuits against the Feds. I would be worried about the manipulation of the ESA especially.

My understanding of state land in Wyoming is that if cultivated for ag use you don't have legal access to hunt or cross. I know of a ranch that uses alfalfa fields to block access.

 

[1_pointer]

Along with the Ben's comments on paying for the management of those lands if transferred to state ownership; what about a big fire year? Is the state of AZ (or any state that considers this path) ready to pony up the millions it takes for fire suppression, stabilzation, and rehab. Without the last two, many semi-arid and arid lands will be lost as wildlife habitat once they burn.

Though I suspect the "science" behind it, a public policy prof at Utah State Univ. did a project in looking how the state would fund management if all federal lands in Utah were transferred to the state. The conclusion was that slightly over 1/2 (the better half) would have to be sold in order to be able to afford the rest. IMO, that is the biggest reason many folks push for these kinds of bills. IME, it's easier for the state to sell land than Uncle Sam...

 

[RUT JUNKEY]

I share that frustration with the Fed. I'm sorry to hear of your friend.

The drug smuggling is a tough issue. Low populace, easy crossings, etc can't be stopped. Either can the insatiable demand for drugs by the American public. We've been fighting this war for 30 years and we're no better off than when we started, and in fact, much worse thanks to the cartels.

I'm up for pre-emptive strikes on those SOB's.

i agree. . .something needs to be done about the illegals and drugs having such easy access. Its all about the money. . .as always. Sad.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Along with the Ben's comments on paying for the management of those lands if transferred to state ownership; what about a big fire year? Is the state of AZ (or any state that considers this path) ready to pony up the millions it takes for fire suppression, stabilzation, and rehab. Without the last two, many semi-arid and arid lands will be lost as wildlife habitat once they burn.

Though I suspect the "science" behind it, a public policy prof at Utah State Univ. did a project in looking how the state would fund management if all federal lands in Utah were transferred to the state. The conclusion was that slightly over 1/2 (the better half) would have to be sold in order to be able to afford the rest. IMO, that is the biggest reason many folks push for these kinds of bills. IME, it's easier for the state to sell land than Uncle Sam...

Wait a minute. You don't think that people are using scare tactics and misinformation to sway public opinion in order to support an agenda that would ultimately reduce their freedom do you?



It's the same battle that's been raging since TR was kicked out of the Republican party for bucking the masters and party bosses.

 

[1_pointer]

Wait a minute. You don't think that people are using scare tactics and misinformation to sway public opinion in order to support an agenda that would ultimately reduce their freedom do you?



It's the same battle that's been raging since TR was kicked out of the Republican party for bucking the masters and party bosses.

You do remember where I used to live, right?

 

[Bambistew]

I thought AZ had more fedral lands? About 40% of all Federally owned land resides in Alaska, and more than half of all state owned land in the US is in Alaska. I think we have the lowest or second lowest population...

http://www.propertyrightsresearch.org/2004/articles6/state_by_state_government_land_o.htm

 

[Oak]

AZ has a whole lot of land in reservations, so the percentage of public land seems lower than it really is when including those reservations.

 

[dustinf]

The drug smuggling is a tough issue. We've been fighting this war for 30 years and we're no better off than when we started

The war on drugs has been flawed from the beginning. Addiction is not like economics, it does not trickle down. All the money wasted on attacking supply should have gone to attacking the demand.