Oh, the irony!

[Forkyfinder]

Speaking for myself as a NR to all western states, it’s because hunting opportunity is unfortunately heading in a direction in which privatization may actually be a better (in some cases only) option.

*I say that as a 100% public land hunter who has never taken a big game animal on private land in my life.

Hey man, have you checked out SCI?

 

[Treeshark]

The USSC has done that consistently, and thus we are in this strange position where one asset (wildlife) was retained by states and is now the purview of states, while another asset (claims to any Federal lands) was relinquished and now is the purview of the Feds.

This is what I view as inconsistent. I understand and agree with what you’ve posted regarding the respective decisions and the precedent set by each. However, not every decision reached by the SCOTUS is a good one. At the very least, they can become antiquated.

My personal view is that they are logically at odds with one another.

 

[Forkyfinder]

This is what I view as inconsistent. I understand and agree with what you’ve posted regarding the respective decisions and the precedent set by each. However, not every decision reached by the SCOTUS is a good one. At the very least, they can become antiquated.

My personal view is that they are logically at odds with one another.

 

[BrentD]

I just used the ignore button for the first time. I’m tired of reading what certain trolls keep posting.

+1

 

[SAJ-99]

Speaking for myself as a NR to all western states, it’s because hunting opportunity is unfortunately heading in a direction in which privatization may actually be a better (in some cases only) option.

*I say that as a 100% public land hunter who has never taken a big game animal on private land in my life.

This is a different conversation. Don’t confuse it by pretending that these public lands won’t be privatized post transfer.

 

[Treeshark]

Don’t confuse it by pretending that these public lands won’t be privatized post transfer.

I haven’t said that and I don’t disagree.

 

[SAJ-99]

I haven’t said that and I don’t disagree.

The argument that they would be better managed at the state level is exactly that argument. The states have a history of selling the land. The states don’t have the funds and can’t print money or issue debt in quantities necessary to fund some of it. Scale is why the federal government takes over some tasks. One moderately bad fire season would blow through budgets of any of these states.

 

[FI460]

The argument that they would be better managed at the state level is exactly that argument. The states have a history of selling the land. The states don’t have the funds and can’t print money or issue debt in quantities necessary to fund some of it. Scale is why the federal government takes over some tasks. One moderately bad fire season would blow through budgets of any of these states.

And the states are going to run into all the same litigation that the feds currently see, without the budget to stand up in court to the same degree. I think the notion that state lands get away with more timber harvest has a lot to do with it being small potatoes compared to the USFSof BLM in the eyes of the litigators.

 

[Hammsolo]

Is it what the people who elected them want though?

"I wonder if anyone pointed out to them that their support of the "State Transfer" effort would eliminate recreational shooting on over 400 million acres where it is currently allowed in the west?"

I feel like this bit was probably overlooked and I can't imagine any Republicans would really support that bit.

You can’t imagine? You can’t imagine any that value millions of dollars more than 2A? Be careful of speaking in absolutes.

 

[Hammsolo]

Speaking for myself as a NR to all western states, it’s because hunting opportunity is unfortunately heading in a direction in which privatization may actually be a better (in some cases only) option.

*I say that as a 100% public land hunter who has never taken a big game animal on private land in my life.

Privatization of land? Privatization of wildlife? Why would it be better? What is opportunity? Quality? Quantity?

 

[Irrelevant]

Selling off land is a strange way of “managing”.

Not all Western states sell their lands. WA has more now than at statehood.

The contradiction some are trying to paint is not consistent.

Never have the states relinquished their rights to wildlife. They have relinquished their rights to claims to any Federal lands as part of their admittance to the Union. That's the big difference that many seem to forget. The USSC hasn't forgotten and has consistently applied the 10th Amendment to those two different scenarios.

In one instance, wildlife, the states retained the rights and the states rights to that asset has been upheld by the USSC. As it should under the 10th.

In another instance, lands, the states relinquished their rights for the benefits of statehood. Another fact that has been upheld by the USSC when states have tried to assert new claims previously relinquished for the benefits of statehood. As it should under the 10th.

Consistency requires application of the Constitution, specifically applying the 10th Amendment based on whether states did/didn't relinquish their rights. The USSC has done that consistently, and thus we are in this strange position where one asset (wildlife) was retained by states and is now the purview of states, while another asset (claims to any Federal lands) was relinquished and now is the purview of the Feds.

I know it doesn't always fit our preference and those outcomes might create situations where some hunters will tell public land states to pound sand. Yet, that is where we are, and not due to the decisions of any of us, rather due to the decisions of states retaining/relinquishing rights over the last 200+ years and due to the USSC consistently applying the Constitution to these two issues.

BF you are confusing "right" with legally correct. The federal public lands legally belong to the feds and wildlife (management) legally belongs to the State. There's no argument from anyone about that. @Treeshark has readily acknowledged as much.

But neither of those points are intrinsically right or wrong but simply what lens you view the issue through. It's frustrating that there is no room for a philosophical discussion about equitable allocation of resources; for federal lands (which I disproportionately benefit from) or wildlife which I'm preventing from accessing.

Honestly it feels like the extremes of both political party, you are either completely with us or completely against us. A position I loathe more and more each year. Almost as much as I loathe listening Montanans blame Washingtonians for shittier deer hunting.

Again, in practice, I'll never work against federal public land management, but it's for completely selfish reasons. I wouldn't fault someone from Iowa from thinking otherwise. They are subsidizing my easy access to wilderness untold out my backdoor, potentially without ever enjoying the asset they pay for. That's a very real inequality.

 

[brocksw]

Someone can check my numbers but I believe the discretionary budget for the USFS and BLM in 2024 is something like 10.82 billion dollars combined. The BLM brought in over 7 billion in revenue. Not sure what USFS revenue is.

So, assuming population of ~340 million, each American paid roughly 31 bucks to manage and have access to hundreds of millions of acres of BLM and USFS land.


Anyone know of a private land hunting lease in that price range?

 

[Irrelevant]

Someone can check my numbers but I believe the discretionary budget for the USFS and BLM in 2024 is something like 10.82 billion dollars combined. The BLM brought in over 7 billion in revenue. Not sure what USFS revenue is.

So, assuming population of ~340 million, each American paid roughly 31 bucks to manage and have access to hundreds of millions of acres of BLM and USFS land.


Anyone know of a private land hunting lease in that price range?

31 bucks that no one from my wife's extended family, have ever benefited from.

It's only comparable to a hunting lease if you have the ability to hunt, correct?

 

[brocksw]

31 bucks that no one from my wife's extended family, have ever benefited from.

It's only comparable to a hunting lease if you have the ability to hunt, correct?

I’d say it’s better. I get access 24/7/365.

I’m sure they’ve never been to space either. Should we make it so only the 379 Americans who have are the ones who have to pay the 20+ billion dollar annual bill to fund NASA?

In all seriousness, I would argue they have benefited from it, even if indirectly. Clean air, clean water, the American frontier spirit. Have you ever shared meat with them that you took from public lands or waters? Have they ever been inspired or in awe of the beauty of such places, dreamt of visiting them? Some things are more intrinsic.

But even if they can say no to all of the above. I still believe that there are a host of things we pay for as citizens, through taxes, that benefit our nation as a whole. Public lands is one of them.

 

[shoots-straight]

31 bucks that no one from my wife's extended family, have ever benefited from.

It's only comparable to a hunting lease if you have the ability to hunt, correct?

You see that's where you and I differ. These lands we are talking about are my children's, your children's, and all their future (extended family's) heritage. Just because I won't be able to use all of those lands, or hunt game animals on lands in your state doesn't mean I won't fight for that future.Once it's gone there's no turning back, and any chance of recreating on what's left is gone. This fight is going to get real, and IMO, at an accelerated pace. The paint's not even dry on the Red Wave that took place 8 days ago. One of my county commissioners just tried to get the others on board with him to join in the current frenzy towards the transfer movement. Thank God the other two commissioners voted NO. BTW the "FEDS" are you, not some foreign entity. You must be making great dough to think your going to be able to hunt on these future private lands. Maybe so.

For me, the only time I'm truly free is when I'm out on those public lands.

 

[texwest44]

I don't understand how any member of the general public can be in favor of reducing their potential access to public assets or benefits.

 

[antlerradar]

But history doesn't support that in the west.

History suggests most western states are more interested in selling off their lands, and historical state management of wildlife has been pretty successful.




Can't imagine most cattle grazers would rather pay their respective state fee vs the feds AUM...

Hard to say, most would not want to pay the the higher fee, but most would also be happy with the fewer regulations and red tape. Many would also be worried that the land would be sold for a price far beyond what they can afford to pay.

 

[Mallardsx2]

Can anyone on here tell me why the United States set aside BLM lands and State Trust Lands in the first place? I don’t know if I have seen that mentioned yet. The original intent for those lands that is.

Everyone just talks and parrots about not wanting to see them get sold or transferred and how bad that is and I don’t disagree.

I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t so you could set up gongs at 1200 yards and shoot your fancy 7prc on Saturdays and it wasn’t for hunters to kill the last walking mule deer.

Your states are bleeding drop by drop.

This entire situation is 100% everyone’s fault who has showed up to the polls and voted/elected people who are not fiscally responsible even on a 3rd grade level.

 

[Addicting]

Is @Treeshark Senator Lee’s troll account?

 

[3855WIN]

I’ve had a number of responses typed up here and keep deleting because I don’t want put in time out or banned.

I’m not sure why we have posters here, on a board largely about public land hunting, that just can’t see why land is best left in public hands and wildlife/hunting opportunity is best not being privatized

It might be a good time to try to convince that poster that your argument is a good one. If your idea doesn’t convince here, how will it play to the rest of America?