quarterhorse
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 138
I used to think it was Pie in the Sky too. I don't think that way anymore. Either way it's an issue we need to slam the door shut on as soon as possible.
Cruz on Public Lands
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Apparition
Member
From an PA stand point, Im having a hard time grasping why having the states take over the federal land would be such a catastrophe. Here in PA we have over 3.5 million acres of state land between the state forest and state game lands, not to mention state parks, almost all of it open to public hunting and fishing and a slew of other outdoor activities. For the most part everyone seems pretty happy with the process. So in a nut shell, are people out west afraid that because of the small sphere of influence, that rich land owners will corrupt the state governments to the point where they will sell the land to the highest bidder?
In a nut shell, it is two big reasons, if one is willing to discount the idea of screwing the rest of America out of these lands.
1. State governments in the west are currently selling land and have sold millions and millions of acres previously granted to them. So it is not some new corrupt government getting "to the point," rather existing state governments that are really good at selling the land. The stated goal of these groups is to get the land in private hands. The states are already set up to accomplish this stated goal and they have a great track record of doing so.
2. Unlike your state lands in PA, the western states do not all treat these lands as public lands when held by their state land boards. In CO you cannot hunt these state lands unless the state leases the hunting access (a small % where they do). In NM and WY you cannot camp on these lands. In some of these western states, only residents can apply for tags on state management areas. In MT, you can only hunt state lands by paying a fee. The list of obscure state laws related to state lands is long. And state legislatures are always trying to find new laws that impact uses of state lands.
Lots of other reasons, but those are the two biggest reasons. Some folks think western states treat their state lands the same as state lands are operated in PA, or MN, or MI, or ..... That is far from the case.
PA has _?Millions of taxpayers and 3.5 million acres. Montana has 1 Million people, about half of which pay taxes, and I don't know how many acres of public land off the top of my head, but its exponentially more than 3.5 million.
Our state could not afford to fight fire, maintain road, campgrounds, etc..
Our state could not afford to fight fire, maintain road, campgrounds, etc..
Apparition
Member
That makes perfect sense.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
30 million acres according to the articles I've read. I don't think I can afford to have my taxes raised enough to cover the cost of management and the land itself sure can't produce enough timber and energy to keep from either exploiting the resource detrimentally or having to sell it.
That comment could open up a huge can of worms with why states need to be careful about pricing nonresidents out of being able to come to their states to enjoy doing things that take place on federal land. I have seen many posts that some states are not as affordable for nonresidents to visit and hunt as it used to be. How much less do you think they would care if that federal land was sold if they knew they would not use it anymore? I know we should keep thing on track, but this is a legit point that some states need to think about. You can take the "we wont miss you" attitude but see what that gets you in the long run with returned sentiment. I am in the boat where I can afford it (not as much anymore) and support keeping our lands public but I bet guys who cannot afford to come to those states with high percentage of federal lands might feel different. And what about those who don't hunt, fish, hike, or camp at all? What's in it for them? Unfortunately we are a minority of the population and is looks like we are not helping ourselves sometimes. I do see guys from Western states who say they do understand why the constant hiking of NR rates is disturbing, but there are more that are happy with others flipping the tab while they are flipping the bird.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I think it's also important to compare constituencies.
Using rough figures:
In Pennsylvania it sounds like they have the equivalent of a block of land about 75 X 75 miles square. Now, take the population of Pennsylvania of, say, 13 million. Those 13 million people would probably fight pretty damn hard to keep those lands in public ownership, funded and maintained. The individuals and businesses that benefit from those lands are probably fairly well settled, dug in, and have worked some contentious but nevertheless workable agreements over use.
Now, let's say Colorado has a block that is 200 X 200 miles square of public land (instead of 75 X 75) and 5 million people (instead of 13 million people). (We won't even talk about MT or WY).
Human nature would have Colorado's population increase, or it's public land decrease, to a ratio comparable to that of Pennsylvania before things settled down.
Remember, the lands in question would be State land, not federal land, and thus the voice of a Pennsylvania resident in Colorado would not mean squat.
As it is, there are about 320 million Americans as constituents of Colorado's 200 X 200 block.
I'm no mathematician, but I think if we compare the population (constituency) per square mile under each scenario we can see just how precious each square mile becomes, and why we don't want to even flirt with the idea of being happy with a 75 X 75 block shared by 13 million people.
This land is YOUR land. It is Pennsylvania citizen land and EVERY American's land.
And, in my not so humble opinion, in order to maintain it, we can not simply defend it or compromise it, because if we do so we will eventually end up like Pennsylvania. Rather, we must go on the offensive and start grabbing up *more* land, especially from the enemy. So, let's say there is a 1%er Republican who owns a big ranch in Colorado and he champions the idea of transfer of federal land to the States and eventual sale; we should condemn his land with eminent domain, take it from him and give him a little parcel in New York City. And take his cowboy hat away, and his horse. We'll let him keep his guns because he's gonna need 'em in New York City.
End rant.
P.S. In accord with Schmalts post, we all need to welcome constituents to support and defend THEIR land. They won't do that if they don't have an interest in it. This goes not only to hunters, but inner city urban types who have never seen a star at night.
Using rough figures:
In Pennsylvania it sounds like they have the equivalent of a block of land about 75 X 75 miles square. Now, take the population of Pennsylvania of, say, 13 million. Those 13 million people would probably fight pretty damn hard to keep those lands in public ownership, funded and maintained. The individuals and businesses that benefit from those lands are probably fairly well settled, dug in, and have worked some contentious but nevertheless workable agreements over use.
Now, let's say Colorado has a block that is 200 X 200 miles square of public land (instead of 75 X 75) and 5 million people (instead of 13 million people). (We won't even talk about MT or WY).
Human nature would have Colorado's population increase, or it's public land decrease, to a ratio comparable to that of Pennsylvania before things settled down.
Remember, the lands in question would be State land, not federal land, and thus the voice of a Pennsylvania resident in Colorado would not mean squat.
As it is, there are about 320 million Americans as constituents of Colorado's 200 X 200 block.
I'm no mathematician, but I think if we compare the population (constituency) per square mile under each scenario we can see just how precious each square mile becomes, and why we don't want to even flirt with the idea of being happy with a 75 X 75 block shared by 13 million people.
This land is YOUR land. It is Pennsylvania citizen land and EVERY American's land.
And, in my not so humble opinion, in order to maintain it, we can not simply defend it or compromise it, because if we do so we will eventually end up like Pennsylvania. Rather, we must go on the offensive and start grabbing up *more* land, especially from the enemy. So, let's say there is a 1%er Republican who owns a big ranch in Colorado and he champions the idea of transfer of federal land to the States and eventual sale; we should condemn his land with eminent domain, take it from him and give him a little parcel in New York City. And take his cowboy hat away, and his horse. We'll let him keep his guns because he's gonna need 'em in New York City.
End rant.
P.S. In accord with Schmalts post, we all need to welcome constituents to support and defend THEIR land. They won't do that if they don't have an interest in it. This goes not only to hunters, but inner city urban types who have never seen a star at night.
Last edited:
True. I think it's been said here before, but the distance between right and left is growing and it's taken on a life of its own. We've lost the ability to think critically and create our own opinions based on facts. I can't have a conversation with my conservative friends without anti-Obama bombs flying within seconds, regardless of the topic. I dislike just about everything Obama stands for, but there's rarely a straight line from him to any outcome.
bigskyblueman
Member
The Big Timber fire a few years ago burned one million acres and lasted for months. The state of Montana has no capacity to cope when a fire turns into a natural disaster.
Could not agree more. This country is moving in one direction on certain social issues and that direction will never pull a U turn and head back in the way some conservatives would like. Stop spending time on something that will never happen and start focusing on things that are on our doorstep today. The desire to sell OUR public lands to the highest bidder is a very real threat today and why we as a hunting/fishing/outdoor community should be educating those who are not aware of the issue. It really come down to, in my opinion, informing those who generally vote republican, about the stance their candidates have on public lands and what that means to everyone who steps foot on those sacred grounds. Listening to the republican nominees speak about their desire to transfer public lands, especially that wack job Cruz, is so infuriating to me. But posing a well rounded, FACTUAL based explanation to people without getting too fired up is something I have been working hard on.
Gerald Martin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2009
- Messages
- 8,643
How do I say this delicately?..... What a stupid idea. This kind of sentiment plays right into the transfer crowd's argument about the fed's grabbing land from private citizens.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Yeah, wouldn't want to make your enemy stand up where you can see him do what he's doing to you anyway. He might get mad and, well, do more of it.
If you are weak and unsure of your convictions, then yes, it's best to let them keep gaining ground with our moderation and "reasonable" compromises. Or you can sit back and let your defense do all the work like the Broncos and see how long that lasts. They had a time limit. This encroachment has been going on since forever and there is no end in sight because we keep splitting the baby. Time to take it back.
Last edited:
Yeah, wouldn't want to make your enemy stand up where you can see him do what he's doing to you anyway. He might get mad and, well, do more of it.
For every action, there is an equal, and opposite reaction.
Eminent domain would not be used. You'd have to convince the politicians that taking private property is a net plus for them, and so far, only Trump is in that camp. It would also cause a political backlash that we don't need, while weakening current statutes designed for collaborative conservation.
Private property rights are sacrosanct. I would also hate to be on the other side of that issue and think that by engaging in the democratic process and seeking to advance a political cause would lead to the elimination of my farm or ranch. There are better ways to win the war than by scorching the earth.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Okay, okay, I'll stand down. The hyperbole and rhetoric got me. BUT, to use Trump's rhetoric, how would you guys feel if the hypothetical Republican 1% ranch owner was a champion of the Keystone XL pipeline and running his suck up and down the media waves about the need to condemn Farmer Brown's fields so they can plow their pipe through and make Republican 1% ranch owner even richer, using tax payer dollars?
Could we then, pretty please, say: "Okay sucker, you want to do that? Well, we are going to take your ranch because, well, it will bring more hunting and recreation dollars into the state and we need that for the public good and the economy." ?
In other words, if for every action there is a reaction, then where in hell has been OUR reaction to the last 200 years of loss? I just hear a giant sucking sound of the Earth into humanity with no return. That, my friends, is called a bubble. And it WILL burst if we don't start letting some of the air out now.
Last edited:
Here's Cruz for you. I think he still has the same aspirations.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-teen-world-domination-218148.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-teen-world-domination-218148.
Nemont
Well-known member
Wow, first you identify other American Citizens as "enemies" based on their politics and then you want to use government to seize lands and then state that only Republicans are 1%ers?
I guess facts don't ever cloud your world view.
Nemont
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Yeah, wouldn't want to make your enemy stand up where you can see him do what he's doing to you anyway. He might get mad and, well, do more of it.
Tactics matter. And just taking some dude's ranch is tactically stupid. Eminent Domain is unpopular with most people - transfer proponents or not. Pointing out the stupidity in the transfer, and letting the opposition grow from the arguments alone worked well across state legislatures in the west. The Government taking some guy's land because his management policy opinions are incredibly stupid would only exceed that stupidity, and would easily be translated to tyranny. It would be pouring gas on a fire that is burning out.
To the OP, I think Cruz is a fool. His social beliefs are a remnant of the fuddy-duddys that society moved on from years ago. His public land ideas are atrocious. He has a slimy, Machiavellian bent. Etc...
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
1. Surely you read but ignored my qualification.
2. Like Jeb, you also failed to address the issue of eminent domain and how it is already used to seize lands.
3. I never said only Republicans are 1%ers. They just happen to be the only 1%ers I know of who champion the transfer of public lands to states and/or the private sector. Both they and eminent domain seek to use legislation for the transfer of land from one owner to another against the will of the owners. But, since it's done through government, it's okay if they do it, but not someone else.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Sorry, I didn't know it was burning out. HT has me all up in arms about the imminent threat, cold dead hands, etc. I thought we were going to get our war on. I'll stand down and let the more reasonable minds deal with it. They got this. :W:
