Interested in what some of you Oregon guys know of, or think of, the sale of this state forest in Oregon. It is the classic example of the strategy that the Privateers are employing to reach their goal of ridding the public of their lands.
States are Constitutionally mandated to manage their lands for the school systems. When they cannot manage profitably, they are required to rid the unprofitable lands. That is the case in this Oregon example.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/12/elliott_state_forest_sale_woul.html
As the serial litigators move their target from the Feds, to the states (if the states ever did get control), the states cannot fight endless litigation that is sure to follow. End result - sell the lands, exactly what the promoters of the "divestiture movement" are hoping for.
If the divestiture crowd was serious about land management improvements, they would advocate for eliminating the abuses that are used to tie up land management. But they are not advocating such change, as that would destroy their current hope that the states get control and will have to sell them. If you stated goal is to eliminate public land, you don't want reform to the abuses, rather you want abuse to continue increasing the frustration and make the states be the bad guys who sell the public lands.
This issue will probably be the biggest issue of my adult hunting life. And unfortunately, we have many fringe politicians in many states who are taking marching orders from groups promoting this scheme.
Sorry to see Oregon have to make these decisions due to the serial litigators. Even more sorry to see the divestiture crowd working behind the scenes to screw us out of the public lands.
And if we think land management is difficult now, wait until the entire inter-mountain west is under ESA protections due to listing of the sage grouse. Coming soon to a state legislature near you - selling your public lands.
States are Constitutionally mandated to manage their lands for the school systems. When they cannot manage profitably, they are required to rid the unprofitable lands. That is the case in this Oregon example.
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/12/elliott_state_forest_sale_woul.html
As the serial litigators move their target from the Feds, to the states (if the states ever did get control), the states cannot fight endless litigation that is sure to follow. End result - sell the lands, exactly what the promoters of the "divestiture movement" are hoping for.
If the divestiture crowd was serious about land management improvements, they would advocate for eliminating the abuses that are used to tie up land management. But they are not advocating such change, as that would destroy their current hope that the states get control and will have to sell them. If you stated goal is to eliminate public land, you don't want reform to the abuses, rather you want abuse to continue increasing the frustration and make the states be the bad guys who sell the public lands.
This issue will probably be the biggest issue of my adult hunting life. And unfortunately, we have many fringe politicians in many states who are taking marching orders from groups promoting this scheme.
Sorry to see Oregon have to make these decisions due to the serial litigators. Even more sorry to see the divestiture crowd working behind the scenes to screw us out of the public lands.
And if we think land management is difficult now, wait until the entire inter-mountain west is under ESA protections due to listing of the sage grouse. Coming soon to a state legislature near you - selling your public lands.