Relax, Everything is Going to be Okay!

[jimh406]

Just another org to fatten the wallets of those that created it. No, I didn't look at their finances, but most are. Seriously though, they seem to have zero focus wrt public land.

How about working to add a plank to each political party that focuses on public land? There are people who like public land that hate the second amendment and don't fish or hunt.

There are lots of improvements to be made to public land. For sure, it's currently mismanaged. I know some want to pretend that everything is great and any change would be awful.

 

[Straight Arrow]

How about working to add a plank to each political party that focuses on public land?

Republican Party at national and state level already has one. It advocates for goal of transferring federal public lands to the states.
Why not work to eliminate that plank? Work to have Reps and Dems protect, conserve, and support public lands.

 

[BuzzH]

Republican Party at national and state level already has one. It advocates for goal of transferring federal public lands to the states.
Why not work to eliminate that plank? Work to have Reps and Dems protect, conserve, and support public lands.

Do you actually think that R's are going to hold their team accountable on the anti-public lands plank? I don't.

 

[elkduds]

They have some nice gear at the fresh tracks gear site that might help if worn in the right places. An example:

Just ordered one. On sale, less then $20.

 

[jimh406]

Republican Party at national and state level already has one. It advocates for goal of transferring federal public lands to the states.
Why not work to eliminate that plank? Work to have Reps and Dems protect, conserve, and support public lands.

Do you have a link or links?

 

[BuzzH]

Do you have a link or links?

Right here, I think the R's should read it again, this time with the comprehension on.

2024 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

 

[Wildabeest]

Land Tawney retired from leading BHA several years back I believe.

I think a lot of orgs support public lands but this new one is doing it more directly and clearly, which I think is perfect for this time and need.

BHA is a 501(c)(3) whereas AHA Action Network is a 501(c)(4). So I would assume this new org will be more focused on lobbying and influencing policy.

 

[jimh406]

Right here, I think the R's should read it again, this time with the comprehension on.

2024 Republican Party Platform | The American Presidency Project

www.presidency.ucsb.edu

I think you forgot to read it, or maybe you are against everything in this statement which is the only mention of federal land.

1. Housing Affordability

To help new home buyers, Republicans will reduce mortgage rates by slashing Inflation, open limited portions of Federal Lands to allow for new home construction, promote homeownership through Tax Incentives and support for first-time buyers, and cut unnecessary Regulations that raise housing costs.

 

[Bonasababy]

BHA is a 501(c)(3) whereas AHA Action Network is a 501(c)(4). So I would assume this new org will be more focused on lobbying and influencing policy.

Tawney can be a bulldog.

American Hunters & Anglers Action Network on Instagram: "In their first move of 2025, Congress made a dangerous decision you NEED to know about. Hidden in the new House Rules package, they quietly included language stating: “The Congressional Budge

735 likes, 38 comments - americanhuntersanglers on January 24, 2025: "In their first move of 2025, Congress made a dangerous decision you NEED to know about. Hidden in the new House Rules package, they quietly included language stating: “The Congressional Budget Office… will effectively...

www.instagram.com

American Hunters & Anglers Action Network on Instagram: "NATIONAL PARKS ARE GETTING SCREWED. 🚨 1,000 rangers—GONE. 🚫 Seasonal hiring—CANCELED. 🏕️ Parks—OVERLOADED & FALLING APART. 💀 And who’s letting it happen? Senator Steve Daines. Instead of sa

260 likes, 4 comments - americanhuntersanglers on March 20, 2025: "NATIONAL PARKS ARE GETTING SCREWED. 🚨 1,000 rangers—GONE. 🚫 Seasonal hiring—CANCELED. 🏕️ Parks—OVERLOADED & FALLING APART. 💀 And who’s letting it happen? Senator Steve Daines. Instead of saving our parks, he’s gutting them...

www.instagram.com

 

[Straight Arrow]

Do you have a link or links?

Montana Republican party platform June 2024
https://mtgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024_Party_Platform.pd
Federally Managed Public Lands
The Montana Republican Party supports relinquishing federally managed public lands to the states in order to secure statehood equality and provide for better management of public lands.
Page 13

Similar, maybe stronger, language at national Republican party level.

This has been long established and pointed to as a real concern for public land advocates.

 

[jimh406]

The Montana Republican Party supports relinquishing federally managed public lands to the states in order to secure statehood equality and provide for better management of public lands.

Did you read the conditions under Natural Resources? Seems like there is more to the story.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Did you read the conditions under Natural Resources? Seems like there is more to the story.

Yes, I did! However, the plain language of the advocacy for PLT is certainly not justified or a reasonable, logical conclusion.
As you may conclude, I am adamantly opposed to PLT for a vast, well documented array of reasons, which have been thoroughly laid out on this forum and by audio and video documentation and many articulate presentations by Big Fin and others.

I am surprised at your seemingly perspective-come-lately, somewhat lacking of information regarding this issue. Your rhetoric smacks of support for PLT. Please explain your perspective.

 

[jimh406]

I am surprised at your seemingly perspective-come-lately, somewhat lacking of information regarding this issue. Your rhetoric smacks of support for PLT. Please explain yourself.

Actually, the rhetoric seems to be coming from you, and that's ok.

Without concrete proposals, it's hard for me to be against all land sales or transfers. Here's one example of a land sale that's actually happened that I'm not against. Maybe you are against in on principle, and that's ok, too.

It's 76.85 acres of the 245 Million acres managed by BLM.

Las Vegas public land sale nets more than $16.5 million for state projects | Bureau of Land Management

BLM conducted a competitive online sale through the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, offering 10 parcels/76.85 acres in the Las Vegas Valley. Eight parcels/41.85 acres sold and generated $16,575,000.

www.blm.gov

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, I did! However, the plain language of the advocacy for PLT is certainly not justified or a reasonable, logical conclusion.
As you may conclude, I am adamantly opposed to PLT for a vast, well documented array of reasons, which have been thoroughly laid out on this forum and by audio and video documentation and many articulate presentations by Big Fin and others.

I am surprised at your seemingly perspective-come-lately, somewhat lacking of information regarding this issue. Your rhetoric smacks of support for PLT. Please explain your perspective.

Like I said, there's no way that the R's are going to hold their team accountable...excuse after excuse is the best you'll get. Divesting public lands has been on the plank of the R's since Reagan.

Some people are perfectly fine living in denial and voting against themselves.

No use in pointing out the facts, they won't believe it.

Wyoming is no different:

Water and Land Rights

19. The Wyoming Republican Party believes in the state’s primacy over water, wildlife, minerals, and natural resources, and the lands within Wyoming that were unappropriated to the state on July 10, 1890, and supports any actions which assures Wyoming’s primacy over its water; i.e. the doctrine of prior appropriations, and the land within its borders.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Actually, the rhetoric seems to be coming from you, and that's ok.

Without concrete proposals, it's hard for me to be against all land sales or transfers. Here's one example of a land sale that's actually happened that I'm not against. Maybe you are against in on principle, and that's ok, too.

It's 76.85 acres of the 245 Million acres managed by BLM.

Las Vegas public land sale nets more than $16.5 million for state projects | Bureau of Land Management

BLM conducted a competitive online sale through the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act, offering 10 parcels/76.85 acres in the Las Vegas Valley. Eight parcels/41.85 acres sold and generated $16,575,000.

www.blm.gov

I do understand your support of this small acreage sale. Generally, I would say on principle it's concerning, but as the article explains, there are some postive gains for Nevada. But this is a direct federal lands sale, not an example of PLT. This does boil down to a difference between Nevada and most western states when it comes to public lands and selling them.

However, it is not even close to a good reason to support PLT. As you may or may not know, this is consistent with the history of Nevada and public lands. At statehood, the Enabling Act granted Nevada with ownership of vast acreages of state trust lands. Nevada has sold or otherwise relinquished something like 93 percent of those lands. There are stories of corruption and cronyism in some of those transactions. Nevada is not a great state to cite as a good example of reasons for PLT. Au contraire!

 

[jimh406]

However, it is not even close to a good reason to support PLT.

I'm not in support or against. I'm just saying it depends on what the reasoning is for the transfer. I'm certainly not for all transfers.

I think there is a lot of room for improvement.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I'm not in support or against. I'm just saying it depends on what the reasoning is for the transfer. I'm certainly not for all transfers.

I think there is a lot of room for improvement.

Not meant to be disrespectful, but way back in Psych 101, that would be referred to as a "glittering generality".

 

[jimh406]

Not meant to be disrespectful, but way back in Psych 101, that would be referred to as a "glittering generality".

You're not impressing anyone.

 

[elkduds]

You're not impressing anyone.

Say that in the mirror. Hard No from me on any policy which, like the ones in state GOP platforms, aims to reduce public land holdings by federal gov't. It used to be a plank in the national GOP platform, Google search back to about 2020), then the felon-in-chief decided if there was no platform it would be simpler to do whatever echoes around between his ears. So in 2024 he eliminated the GOP official platform. Most of us weren't fooled.

 

[jimh406]

then the felon-in-chief

Relax, everything is going to be ok!