Cruz on Public Lands

If this was 30 years ago I would request some of what Mr. Riley was smoking :D. Otherwise I think he's pretty alright with me.
 
James Riley said:
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.
Click to expand...

James,

The key to our ultimate success is through the political process. We need to put the focus on electing leaders who share our vision for properly managed public land, conservation of resources and restoration of habitat where we can make it happen.

I agree that we will always be fighting someone, somewhere and that there will always be people like the Wilk's & Cruz's who won't take no for an answer. The solution is through the public process as painful and difficult as that sounds. Who we send to Washington D.C. is just as important as what they do when they get there. The American Lands Council and Federalism in Action is recruiting candidates to run as we type.

Who among us is willing to put their name in the hat and run for office at the state, local or federal level?
 
Big Fin said:
At one time, I thought it to be a pie-in-the-sky idea, but no more. We have Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, who put together a budget in 2012 (?) that had a big part of revenue from selling public lands. We have Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and both UT Senators pushing usch in the Senate. I know they would have plenty of other support in the House from Bishop (UT), McClintock (CA), Lummis (WY), and other places of ID, AZ, NV, and UT.

If you added to that mix a President who, if elected. had made a campaign promise to some of his biggest donors that he intended to get these lands into private hands, I no longer think it is pie-in-the-sky. It is very real possibility under a Cruz Presidency and a Republican House and Senate. I would suggest that anyone who is concerned about this start beating the drum now and beating it loud with your Congressional Delegation.
Click to expand...
You can add Wyoming Senators Enzi & Barrasso to the list of folks that support the land transfer Fin.
 
Ben Lamb said:
Who among us is willing to put their name in the hat and run for office at the state, local or federal level?
Click to expand...

I would. If I thought I had a snow ball's chance in hell and didn't have to lie or kiss ass to get elected. I always thought I would never "run". Don't like the term. I would, however, serve, if I was asked, and asked by enough people to lead me to believe I had a snow ball's chance in hell. That ain'tagonna happen because I ain'ta gonna run. :D
 
The key to our ultimate success is through the political process. We need to put the focus on electing leaders who share our vision for properly managed public land, conservation of resources and restoration of habitat where we can make it happen.
Click to expand...


Add to that protection of existing private property rights and the right to utilize private property as the landowner sees beneficial to himself (PROVIDED that use does not damage public trust assets or the greater environment)

Checks and balances is one of the great things provided by our Constitution. I do not want my public lands sold off to the highest bidder, but neither do I want my private property rights infringed upon. I do not see the need to infringe on other's private property rights in order to protect my public lands....

Land transfer proponents try to cast this as an either/or solution. As in, "You can't have private property rights as long as the government manages public trust lands,". It does not have to be an "either/or". It is and should be a "both/and" scenario. Multiple use of public lands is a great idea and as long as the manager and the private user of public assets, act in harmony with the agreed upon policies, it can be a relationship beneficial to everyone.

Taking a hardline stance in either extreme is sure to guarantee that eventually the pendulum of opinion and law will swing against you.
 
Gerald Martin said:
Taking a hardline stance in either extreme is sure to guarantee that eventually the pendulum of opinion and law will swing against you.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, an extreme on one side without a countervailing force on the other can lead to a pendulum on one side for, oh, say a couple/three centuries. I don't like two-valued orientations or false dichotomies either but all I've ever seen is a retrograde action.
 
....to whom?....let me rephrase...on how many fronts?
 
Last edited:
noharleyyet said:
..and there it is.
Click to expand...

No false dichotomies there. We have seen the enemy and he is us. It's about time we stopped letting ourselves get away with it. About time we reign ourselves in and quit viewing ourselves through a Protagorian theory as the measure of all things.
 
You might take a sophist out of politics but you'll never take the sophistry out of a politician.
 
I've always held to the platitude that good fences make good neighbors, not taking over your neighbor's land ensures you don't have to worry about how the neighbors act.

Changing the Golden Rule from "doing unto others,as you would have..." to "doing unto others before they do unto you..." ensures Machiavellian politicians with more money, more motivation, less scruples and bigger guns than you or me end up running the show.

That's probably the inevitable end of politics anyway, but as I've said before, I've got scruples. I can only be bought by the noblest of causes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machiavellian


For noharleyyet's sake... :)


One good side benefit to internet discussions is that I've gotten much better at Google and my vocabulary has increased.:D
 
Gerald Martin said:
I've always held to the platitude that good fences make good neighbors, not taking over your neighbor's land ensures you don't have to worry about how the neighbors act.

Changing the Golden Rule from "doing unto others,as you would have..." to "doing unto others before they do unto you..." ensures Machiavellian politicians with more money, more motivation, less scruples and bigger guns than you or me end up running the show.

That's probably the inevitable end of politics anyway, but as I've said before, I've got scruples. I can only be bought by the noblest of causes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/machiavellian


For noharleyyet's sake... :)


One good side benefit to internet discussions is that I've gotten much better at Google and my vocabulary has increased.:D
Click to expand...

You guys have already beat me into submission on the proactive thing. Howsabout addressing the response side I brought up? Some clown wants to push and instead of saying "Stop that you meanie!" you push back. Find out who is up to what, where, and then go after them on that, in that location.

For instance, I don't know sh*t about anyone named Wilkes but let's pretend they are up to no good. Who are they, where are they, what are they up to? Bring some chickens home to roost. You don't even have to let them know who you are or what your problem with them is. I'm not looking for an education about them here on HT but I keep seeing their name in threat titles; so I ask rhetorically, does anyone even know where these guys live, how they make their living, what they are up to elsewhere, what is dear to them? My example I made before which remains un-addressed was the Keystone XL Pipeline; but I'm sure you get the point I'm trying to make.

Sun Tsu.

Believe me, they are not only thinking this way, they are paying people to think this way. Get your own actionable intelligence and be prepared to use it. Tump v. Bush on eminent domain. The 1% makes a living screwing little people with their own assets. They don't know no stinkin' fences, good or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Elky Welky
Zinke's Public Lands Bill
Replies
8
Views
1K
elkduds
elkduds
Sytes
Interesting BLM Alaska "D-1" Land Up For Public Comment
Replies
1
Views
608
44hunter45
44hunter45
INMT
MT Great Outdoors Conservation Easement approved by 3-2 Vote. Guess who voted No
Replies
8
Views
532
BRI
BRI
Big Fin
Oh, the irony!
15 16 17
Replies
324
Views
10K
BrentD
BrentD
marksjeep
Colorado considers using public land for affordable workforce housing
Replies
10
Views
1K
Oak
Oak

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,675
Messages
2,029,353
Members
36,279
Latest member
TURKEY NUT

Share this page

Back
Top