MT Senator Jon Tester Quietly Taking Money from Anti-gun [Brady] PAC

[Treeshark]

I dont think the idea gets thought of in completion by the people who are for it.

I’m not sure what you mean with this one @Forkyfinder?

 

[406dn]

If that is what Montana residents desire (or must do financially), then so what?

Since the state of Montana does not own the land, it is not up to Montanans to sell them, even if we want to. They belong to every American.

From time to time this gets pointed out by non resident hunters who feel that since they too own the forest service land, they should get more big game licenses.

 

[Treeshark]

Since the state of Montana does not own the land, it is not up to Montanans to sell them, even if we want to. They belong to every American.

Yea but we are discussing a scenario in which it gets transferred to the state, are we not?

I’m not sure I see a downside here. But then again, I’m a big states rights guy

 

[Forkyfinder]

Since the state of Montana does not own the land, it is not up to Montanans to sell them, even if we want to. They belong to every American.

From time to time this gets pointed out by non resident hunters who feel that since they too own the forest service land, they should get more big game licenses.

And thats whats going on here too, im sure.

I’m not sure what you mean with this one @Forkyfinder?

No one is benefitted in the long term. The management of state land would be the biggest political football, more so than it already is.

Ha - even you? I can imagine what long time R would want to do with USFS land and "out of staters"

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yea but we are discussing a scenario in which it gets transferred to the state, are we not?

I’m not sure I see a downside here. But then again, I’m a big states rights guy

NOT. The topic is gun control money to Montana Senatorial candidates and the candidates' positions.

Federal public lands to the states is covered ad nauseum in a plethora of previous threads, videos, podcasts, and other extensive media coverage. Stick to topic.

 

[406dn]

Yea but we are discussing a scenario in which it gets transferred to the state, are we not?

I’m not sure I see a downside here. But then again, I’m a big states rights guy

So, why would or should Uncle Sam just give any state land worth billions of dollars...for nothing? States are not in any position to pay fair value for those lands.

 

[Treeshark]

No one is benefitted in the long term.

That is most certainly not true. I can think of many people who would most definitely benefit!

 

[tjones]

Why not?

Just for starters the first fire season.

 

[Treeshark]

Stick to topic.

Fair enough, Straight Arrow. Sorry to dilute the thread further than it already was.

 

[Forkyfinder]

That is most certainly not true. I can think of many people who would most definitely benefit!

Another cheesey response from a collection of ignorant and selfish thoughts.

Cant wait to write FWP and ask them to dramatically increase NR prices. Its not nearly enough, apparently.

 

[Treeshark]

Just for starters the first fire season.

Sell some land to fund the fire fighters. Easy.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Sell some land to fund the fire fighters. Easy.

and... where do you have to hunt?

 

[BuzzH]

Yea but we are discussing a scenario in which it gets transferred to the state, are we not?

I’m not sure I see a downside here. But then again, I’m a big states rights guy

Been through this, do a search and find a clue.

The state would go broke trying to manage Federal lands, fire fighting alone would crush Montana.

The State of Utah, (again google it) did an exhaustive report, and there is no fiscal way for the States to manage what are now Federal lands. Even selling off the best half of the Federal Public land and using that money to manage what's left would work. The study was put together by people wayyyyy smarter than you, which I agree, wouldn't take much. But still, they're experts in the costs associated with managing public lands.

All that aside, it's an unpopular idea even for Republican voters other than the fringe right. Americans want Federal Public Lands to remain as they are.

States have proven over and over again that they simply can't be trusted to keep public lands in public hands.

 

[406dn]

Sell some land to fund the fire fighters. Easy.

I like raising non resident elk license prices more...we could put that up for a vote by Montanans

 

[tjones]

Sell some land to fund the fire fighters. Easy.

And just like that you have the reason most Montana folks are against state transfer.

 

[BigHornRam]

NOT. The topic is gun control money to Montana Senatorial candidates and the candidates' positions.

Federal public lands to the states is covered ad nauseum in a plethora of previous threads, videos, podcasts, and other extensive media coverage. Stick to topic.

And you already claimed the topic to be "political banter and speculation". The're just digging up other worn out topics to argue about.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sell some land to fund the fire fighters. Easy.

Whose honey hole ya gonna sell?
How many years will you sell til it's all gone?

OOPS! I got sucked in by the Treeshark!

 

[Treeshark]

Whose honey hole ya gonna sell?
How many years will you sell til it's all gone?

OOPS! I got sucked in by the Treeshark!

I’m a nonresident, that’s not for me to decide or worry about

You were right about derailing @Straight Arrow- I got sucked in too, I apologize.

 

[Treeshark]

The state would go broke trying to manage Federal lands, fire fighting alone would crush Montana.

Bummer. I can think of a few easy ways for them to make money to pay for it on their own

 

[BuzzH]

Bummer. I can think of a few easy ways for them to make money to pay for it on their own

Right, its easy to manage land when you don't have any to manage...clown.