SELL the public lands!!!

[Big Fin]

Hot off the press is this mash from the Mountain States Legal Foundation, as far out on the "sell your public land" fringe as you can get. The same group that gave us James Watt and Gayle Norton as public land guardians when they were Secretary of Interior.

Now you have if folks. No more "transfer" to the states. Time to get serious and tell the world what they really mean - "Sell the public lands!"

See this story below. The title shown below is how it appears in this journal of the far right.


The Federal Government Should Follow the Constitution and Sell Its Western Lands by William Perry Pendley, an attorney, is president of Mountain States Legal Foundation in Denver.


I thought they had learned their lesson in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but evidently not. MSLF does not want to beat around the bush with this new Utah idea of "transfer." They are now back in their old position of SELL! Sell now and sell fast!

This is the first time in a decade that they have felt embolden enough to restart their old mantra of "Sell the public lands." Guess their support on the far right makes them comfortable in thinking they no longer have to disguise what the end plan really is, a full scale liquidation of your public lands.

If anyone tries to tell you this is not about selling your lands, give them this article; an article by one of the leaders of the movement, and show them what they really want to do with your public lands.

Sheesh, I never thought they would throw that one out there. They can have these lands when they pry them from my cold dead hands. Until then, time to start kicking a few people in the political crotch.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Probably a strategic mistake. Sell is a lot more alarming than transfer to the states. Unfortunately we will have to hurry up and wait to see how it plays out. Good luck leading this fight we all owe you a debt of gratitude.

 

[shoots-straight]

I can't for the life of me understand why we would want to protect a bunch of "Barren Ground" that's just being wasted by environmental regulations. Sell baby sell!:W:

 

[Eric.MN]

Tonight i made my first step in the right direction, sent off emails to the links you provided in another post. I will follow up with more sharing and reaching out to ones i know. thanks for always keeping us unformed Randy.

 

[grizzly_]

This is terrifying. Thx for the link. This will help shut up the hunters that deny the conservatives' true intentions.

 

[hank4elk]

I sent e-mails to all the folks listed in the recent post you made BF.
This is a make or break point I stated in my vote this year and many folks I know.
So far no reply, but requests for $......

 

[smarandr]

I'm curious: Where in the Constitution are these nitwits, er i mean, constitutional scholars finding it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own land?

 

[Big Fin]

I'm curious: Where in the Constitution are these nitwits, er i mean, constitutional scholars finding it's unconstitutional for the federal government to own land?

In their own minds. The courts have debunked their theories since the first case went forward. They are just tired of paying legal fees to get an ass whoopin' in court. The business strategy now is that Congress is a better return on the investment, given most in Congress don't know the Constitution from the Contradiction.

 

[James Riley]

In their own minds. The courts have debunked their theories since the first case went forward. They are just tired of paying legal fees to get an ass whoopin' in court. The business strategy now is that Congress is a better return on the investment, given most in Congress don't know the Constitution from the Contradiction.

This is true. As opined in another thread, the Mountain States Legal Foundation is NOT afraid of litigation. They have some awful smart (and evil?) lawyers, and yet they have not taken up the cause of Bundy, et al, because they know they will get their socks rolled. Thus, they pursue legislation. Public lands are not a right and they know it.

 

[Cornell2012]

Probably a strategic mistake.

Could very well be a strategy. It is the whole "frame of reference" thing. If some group is pushing to sell the public lands outright, "just" transferring them won't sound so bad.

 

[James Riley]

Could very well be a strategy. It is the whole "frame of reference" thing. If some group is pushing to sell the public lands outright, "just" transferring them won't sound so bad.

True. The fringe always makes the middle appear more "reasonable".

If they want 100,000 acres for a bombing range, they shoot for 1.5 million. In the end, instead of 50,000 acres they get the 100,000 acres that they really wanted all along. They can always come back for more with the same strategy later on.

Someday the last slice of pie will be thinner than the knife we propose to cut it with, but hey, we are compromising, right? We are being reasonable, right? Compromise is a good thing, right?

Mark my words: Mountain States Legal and their ilk, including their lesser transfer-to-states little brothers, will get the national conversation going in the same direction as the Wilderness discussion: Permanent Protection vs Hard Release. We'll have this big national debate where compromise will be seen as 1/3 gets permanent Federal ownership, 1/3 goes to the States and 1/3 goes up for sale to the highest bidder. The sale proceeds will likewise be offered as carrots to various factions. At the end of the day the politicians and negotiators will go home patting themselves on the back for having been so "reasonable" and "bi-partisan" and evidence of how America should work, blah blah blah. And the media will soak it up.

Then, years later, after a new generation with no sense of history comes along, that 1/3 Federal land will be looked at once again and the new baseline will be that 1/3 as 100% of the land under discussion. And it will start over again.

The only way to stop this is now, with unreasonable, uncompromising, rabid, all out attacks on the greed and stupidity of those liars who aspire to "gravitas" and "reason". They need to be shamed and beaten into Bundyesque jokes that will never be taken seriously because they have been neutered.

When the stakes are this serious, we should never fall for the old mantra that "reasonable minds can differ." BS. You want our Federal Lands? You are prima facie unreasonable. You've got virtually the entire east, Texas and substantial chunks of the west to rape and from which you can exclude the public with "NO TRESSPASSING" and "Pay Only" signs.

Fight fire with metric shit-tons of Willy Peter.

End rant.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

Could very well be a strategy. It is the whole "frame of reference" thing. If some group is pushing to sell the public lands outright, "just" transferring them won't sound so bad.

Gotcha, in other word crazy like a fox! This really is a bad issue for sportsmen. It stradles political lines, divides us against ourselves, and confuses us as where to go. I never thought I would vote for Trump, but what the heck do you do when there's only one candidate that remotely represents your sensibilities?

 

[James Riley]

As the population of the U.S. grows, so too will the pressure on our public lands. The pressure will be two pronged: 1. Increased urbanization will result in loss of a public land constituency and the consequent demand for sale and/or apathy; and 2. Increased use and lack of elbow room and decent experiences (which will add to #1).

The answer to this (and to Mountain States, et al) is for us (we the people) to start buying up more land from willing sellers, especially "good" lands appurtenant to existing federal lands. Who should pay for it? We all should, but just for the hell of it, let's make those who want to sell our public lands pay for it. They want to push? We should push back. Who are "they"? Five will get you ten they are those who have lobbied for and received a system which allows them to honestly say they are obeying the law when they don't pay taxes. Fix the tax code.

And I thought I was done with my rant. Sorry.

 

[MT_elk]

Almost unbelievable. However, I shouldn't be surprised at their antics anymore. James Riley, you are right on. The pressure is going to continue to increase. We must all stand together, or we will surely all hang separately!

 

[Ben Lamb]

They go back and forth on whether it's sell or transfer.

The reality has always been: Transfer & Sell.

 

[u1299]

Well, here I go again. I've always been 100% aware, at least in my mind, who the real enemies of sportsmen-hunters truly are, and I've never been shy or bashful about letting anyone who would listen know how I felt. Until someone can convince me I'm wrong and that hasn't happened yet, and this latest stated assault on our public lands by the "conservative" MSLF only proves I've been right all along. Sorry if this comes off as me being a boisterous blowhard, but do you really think I'm wrong? So what do we as ethical fair chase public land hunters do now? Elect men and women who we are certain won't sell our public lands would be a great place to start. If they waffle even a little bit when asked the question (do you support the sale and or transfer) don't vote for them, period!, and let anybody and everybody you know they shouldn't either. Something else to think about, when a candidate knocks on your door asking for your vote, ask them 2 simple questions.

1. Do you support the sale or transfer of our public lands?

2. Do you believe in the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation?

If they answer Yes or maybe to #1 and No to #2 please don't support them regardless of their issue on guns and the second amendment.

Damn, why does Teddy Roosevelt have to be dead? We could really use him. Keep up the good work Randy Newberg and thanks for all you do!

 

[Nameless Range]

The comments on that article are something else. Heck of a lot of experts in Internet Mythology.