Oh, the irony!

[Gellar]

If selling off some of these lands in Western states leads to those states being able to better support themselves financially, perhaps it is worth a closer look. I suspect that may be part of the “why” for states like Iowa to support something like this.

Iowa had nearly a $3.7 billion budget surplus ending fy 23. So Iowa supporting the transfer of Federal public land so they can better support themselves financially is a horrible argument and Iowa has very little Federal public land to sell so that support would not get them far.

 

[mtmiller]

Looks like AG will be Matt Gaetz.

 

[Handlebar]

I have a hard time believing that the average Republican voter in most non-Western states has any idea about returning public lands. Platform or not. Outside of the zealots that want to take it from the feds and the those of us who are aware of this issue and would fight. I just doubt that it registered with most and certainly would not be a top five voting issue.

 

[Treeshark]

So Iowa supporting the transfer of Federal public land so they can better support themselves financially

I meant that Iowa would have to spend less to support those states to the west of them if those states became financially healthier.

 

[SAJ-99]

Sorry man, you missed me with that one. Probably my end

Yeah, a bit of a stretch for this group. The whole song is about how magic happens if you just believe. You know, escape reality. And it is generally annoying.

 

[Treeshark]

Yeah, a bit of a stretch for this group. The whole song is about how magic happens if you just believe. You know, escape reality. And it is generally annoying.

I didn’t click on it. It looked like something I would not enjoy very much

 

[Irrelevant]

I do not think that personally- it seems fairly obvious (at least not public land access, private opportunities could certainly expand).

More of an equity issue for me, personally.

I'm practically 1000% against any effort to transfer public lands, and have and will continue to fight against it every chance I have.

But from a principles standpoint, I don't see how some high-horsed people can say it "makes sense" to have wildlife managed by the state strictly for the benefit of state citizens, but public land needs to be managed by the feds so that everyone can enjoy it.

"Please you must subsidize the habitat my hunting relies upon so that I can post enviable pics of wildlife I'll never grant you access to."

It's a double standard in which those who promote it are the ones benefitting the most from it. Either public resources should be managed at the fed level or the state level, but you can't philosophically have your cake and eat it too. And HT has 100% skewed me toward that opinion.

 

[Treeshark]

And HT has 100% skewed me toward that opinion.

Yessir. Been there, have that t shirt too. Such is life.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I meant that Iowa would have to spend less to support those states to the west of them if those states became financially healthier.

Boy this will be a swell deal for energy prices.

 

[Treeshark]

Boy this will be a swell deal for energy prices.

I’m interested in hearing more about this- what do you predict would happen with energy prices?

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

At the end of the day we as advocates for public lands need to reach out to our leaders and show how much we rely on those lands as hunters, personally I believe education and advocacy will be effective as it was with the lion hunting issue. I doubt the incoming administration is not going to be eager to alienate America's hunting community

 

[Ben Lamb]

I do not think that personally- it seems fairly obvious (at least not public land access, private opportunities could certainly expand).

More of an equity issue for me, personally.

if it were about equity and good stewardship, proponents would have begun aligning state laws to allow for the same freedoms on state trust lands that exist on federal.

None have done so.

The only state that actually studied this, Utah, came to the conclusion that they would lose hunting grounds, wildlife would diminish and the cost was so high that the only way to sustain ownership of those lands would be to overdevelop.

So, yeah. Not buying the argument.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’m interested in hearing more about this- what do you predict would happen with energy prices?

Compare coal, gas, oil, or renewable energy lease rates - federal/state/private. They follow that order in cost.

What do you think will happen?

 

[Treeshark]

So, yeah. Not buying the argument.

That’s ok, Ben- we can agree to disagree. I think this is largely hypothetical anyway, as I do not foresee this really going anywhere.

And where did I say anything about good stewardship? Management of states wildlife is up to the states to execute, not for me or you or any other NR to judge one way or the other.

 

[Treeshark]

What do you think will happen?

I’m not sure- probably remain relatively unchanged.

What do you think? You’re the one who brought it up- it is an interesting point.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That’s ok, Ben- we can agree to disagree. I think this is largely hypothetical anyway, as I do not foresee this really going anywhere.

I am unhappy that you have politely disagreed. Bow to my superior intellect!

Midwestern state lands offer a ton more personal freedom that western. What we get here isn't anything close to what westerners are allowed to enjoy. I think you have to keep that perspective in mind as well when discussing this issue.

 

[Treeshark]

Midwestern state lands offer a ton more personal freedom that western. What we get here isn't anything close to what westerners are allowed to enjoy.

What do you mean specifically?

Not trying to steer you to a gotcha, I am interested in your view on this if you don’t mind taking a minute to explain.

 

[TOGIE]

"Please you must subsidize the habitat my hunting relies upon so that I can post enviable pics of wildlife I'll never grant you access to."

It's a double standard in which those who promote it are the ones benefitting the most from it. Either public resources should be managed at the fed level or the state level, but you can't philosophically have your cake and eat it too. And HT has 100% skewed me toward that opinion.

you just can't throw out the 10th amendment.

we should all be well aware of the case law history that has led us to this point with many public resources being in state trust. i wouldn't be finding it a wise bet to think that will change, ergo a bad tree to bark up.

folks need to emotionally disentangle a bit from the wildlife portion of this too. federal public lands are way more than wildlife habitat or hunting grounds in the grand fiscal AND recreational/multi-use scheme.

 

[Matthew57]

Just wait until you've suffered through the 8th, 30-page diatribe detailing how every public land hunter's woes, or wildlife problems in general, are caused by WA NR hunters.

LOL. I live close to the WA border and do get that a lot in real life.

 

[Treeshark]

you just can't throw out the 10th amendment.

It’s ironic that you would bring the 10th Amendment up in an opposition position of this, as I would imagine it is a central pillar of the argument to transfer unappropriated lands back to the states.

And the case law you mentioned regarding states management of wildlife was established before cars were invented- it probably could use an update.

I can absolutely see where residents of western states would cling to the status quo: it’s a pretty sweet deal to get to call the shots on wildlife harvest allocations etc while having other people pay for the land and habitat management. I don’t blame you or others one bit for not wanting to rock the apple cart.