This land is your land... for now

[BuzzH]

Fires should be left alone and homes shouldn't be built on public land.

The land was fine for billions of years before humans came along.

The Feds send plenty to States so that argument is flawed.

If you do want to fight the fire, Fema can sell some trailers and send the money.

We have a 17 Trillion dollar debt. Money is not the problem anymore. You just have the feds fire up the printing press.

I'm not advocating for this, but I also don't want some boogyman excuses either.

How about giving management control without giving the land to the States?

This Country is in the hole because of Washington.

Great ideas!!! You're swinging for the fences now!

Go try to sell your "idea" of fires being left alone to burn, to every homeowner on the urban interface.

I'm sure the public will rally behind you in your efforts to do away with wildland fire fighting.

When you get done with that, you can move onto your next idea, taking away private property rights. Try to tell them they cant build a home on their PRIVATE land because you dont think they should be allowed to live in the "woods".

Are there any other private property rights you want to take away from U.S. Citizens?

You're getting sized up...and its clearly going to be XXL for sure.

 

[shoots-straight]

Why?

If you read carefully, I am not advocating giving the land to the States.

Having a discussion and trying to cover all bases leads to good decisions.

This is from your post last year:

BigRack

Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 203

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobG
From the Helena Hippee of course: http://onyourownadventures.com/huntt...d.php?t=256426

In a nutshell, they are trying to sell off 3.3 million acres of public land to the highest bidder "to reduce the deficit." I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to calculate how little that will reduce the deficit and how much it will help mining/logging/oil and other private interests/campaign donors.

Some google info: https://www.google.com/#q=republican...active&start=0

I still don't see what that has to do with the Tea Party.

I think the Feds should sell the land to the States. I would rather have the States manage the land.

 

[BigRack]

This is from your post last year:

Correct. And then I went and read the posts Big Fin linked for me and changed my mind.

I do want State Management.

 

[Musket Man]

I agree, like water and sewer systems, Insect control, law enforcement, vehicle registration, senior citizen centers, road maintenance, mail delivery etc.

Management of my public lands..............NO!

Why would you rather have decisions about public land near you made by someone 1000's of miles away instead of local people that the decision will effect?

 

[BigRack]

Great ideas!!! You're swinging for the fences now!

Go try to sell your "idea" of fires being left alone to burn, to every homeowner on the urban interface.

I'm sure the public will rally behind you in your efforts to do away with wildland fire fighting.

When you get done with that, you can move onto your next idea, taking away private property rights. Try to tell them they cant build a home on their PRIVATE land because you dont think they should be allowed to live in the "woods".

Are there any other private property rights you want to take away from U.S. Citizens?

You're getting sized up...and its clearly going to be XXL for sure.

Buzz,

Here's a novel idea,

Reduce the Federal tax rate to 2% and raise the State tax rate to 13%.

As for private property rights. Are you drunk? Read what I posted. Don't let homes be built on public property.

Buzz, are you 13?

 

[BuzzH]

Why would you rather have decisions about public land near you made by someone 1000's of miles away instead of local people that the decision will effect?

What makes you think locals will always make the correct, or even best, decisions?

 

[BigRack]

What makes you think locals will always make the correct, or even best, decisions?

What makes you think Feds will?

 

[BigRack]

In about five minutes, I found links to ones I was previously aware of.

Utah - https://secure.utah.gov/trustlands-sales/landSales-past.html

AK Land and Mining agency sales - http://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/landsale/otc/

AK Mental Health land sales - http://www.mhtrustland.org/documents/TLO 2013 Winter Land Sale Apparent High Bidders.pdf

AK University fund land sales - http://www.ualand.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=LandSales.Home

Arizona - http://www.azland.gov/programs/realestate/auctions/scheduled.htm

Colorado - http://trustlands.state.co.us/Sections/RealEstate/Pages/REProjects.aspx

Montana has employees assigned for just that purpose - http://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/LandBanking/Default.asp

And here is how MT sells other state lands not owned by DNRC - http://dnrc.mt.gov/Trust/LandBanking/NonTrustLandForSale.asp

Nevada was given a ton of land as settlement for their statehood agreement. They sold every acre by 1987. And they sold it at discounted rates to those who had the best deal for the politicians.

Wyoming's original grant was 4.2 millions acres. They have 3.5 million remaining and are currently selling properties that are nominated as candidates for selling - http://www.statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/wyoming.html

Plenty more than these.

BTW Randy,

Thanks for the links. I didn't realize there was all of this State land for sale.

 

[shoots-straight]

As for private property rights. Are you drunk? Read what I posted. Don't let homes be built on public property.

So how many homes are being built on public property? Who's drunk?

 

[BigRack]

So how many homes are being built on public property? Who's drunk?

I can name one in Montana.

Who's drunk now?

 

[BigRack]

BTW,

You are responsible for your own fire protection if you build your house in a forest away from the fire department.

It's common sense.

 

[shoots-straight]

Why would you rather have decisions about public land near you made by someone 1000's of miles away instead of local people that the decision will effect?

At the state level of politics in the west, there's very little concern for Wildlife or their habitat. I spend all my time running back and forth every legislative session in Montana fighting bills brought forth by greedy politicians. I would need to rent a home in Helena if our state had control of all the public lands.

Most of the people in the USA want to know their public lands are taken care of for the better good of all. Most of the lands are in "Multiple use" I believe, but Buzz might know better on that. The states want the revenue and manage that way.

Our sportsman's club had to sue the state of Montana over grazing lease usage. They didn't care if cattle or sheep grazed the acreage as long as they got paid, even if that land was used by Big Horn Sheep. We won the suit and the state had to consider the consequences of arbitrarily allowing different animals on state land leases .

Lands that sportsmen purchase are managed differently and mainly for wildlife. Although other uses do exist on much of those lands.

 

[shoots-straight]

I can name one in Montana.

Who's drunk now?

There's some cabins on state lands. Another reason to keep them away from state ownership.

 

[BigRack]

At the state level of politics in the west, there's very little concern for Wildlife or their habitat. I spend all my time running back and forth every legislative session in Montana fighting bills brought forth by greedy politicians. I would need to rent a home in Helena if our state had control of all the public lands.

Most of the people in the USA want to know their public lands are taken care of for the better good of all. Most of the lands are in "Multiple use" I believe, but Buzz might know better on that. The states want the revenue and manage that way.

Our sportsman's club had to sue the state of Montana over grazing lease usage. They didn't care if cattle or sheep grazed the acreage as long as they got paid, even if that land was used by Big Horn Sheep. We won the suit and the state had to consider the consequences of arbitrarily allowing different animals on state land leases .

Lands that sportsmen purchase are managed differently and mainly for wildlife. Although other uses do exist on much of those lands.

Vote in better politicians.

 

[BigRack]

There's some cabins on state lands. Another reason to keep them away from state ownership.

I'm not advocating State ownership. I'm advocating State control except in Montana since you guys seem to have a problem with politicians.

Just because Montana has a problem doesn't mean other States do.

 

[shoots-straight]

Vote in better politicians.

Are you willing to gamble with our public lands on that one?

You've said repeatedly that politicians are the problem. Is it just Federal politicians, R's D's just what. Toss me a bone here.

What is a better politician? I'd really like to know.

 

[Musket Man]

At the state level of politics in the west, there's very little concern for Wildlife or their habitat. I spend all my time running back and forth every legislative session in Montana fighting bills brought forth by greedy politicians. I would need to rent a home in Helena if our state had control of all the public lands.

Most of the people in the USA want to know their public lands are taken care of for the better good of all. Most of the lands are in "Multiple use" I believe, but Buzz might know better on that. The states want the revenue and manage that way.

Our sportsman's club had to sue the state of Montana over grazing lease usage. They didn't care if cattle or sheep grazed the acreage as long as they got paid, even if that land was used by Big Horn Sheep. We won the suit and the state had to consider the consequences of arbitrarily allowing different animals on state land leases .

Lands that sportsmen purchase are managed differently and mainly for wildlife. Although other uses do exist on much of those lands.

As far as I know wildlife is managed by the states. The feds introduced wolves which have taken a huge toll on wildlife on alot of areas. I dont believe this would have happened if the states managed the land and the states and counties had the say in it.

 

[Musket Man]

What makes you think locals will always make the correct, or even best, decisions?

Because the locals will be effected by the decision the most.

 

[BigRack]

Are you willing to gamble with our public lands on that one?

You've said repeatedly that politicians are the problem. Is it just Federal politicians, R's D's just what. Toss me a bone here.

What is a better politician? I'd really like to know.

If you don't like how your State is run, elect new leadership.

 

[Sytes]

I look at our public lands as national treasures. Yellowstone, glacier, Grand Canyon should not become a price point for the highest bidder. our National Forests and wilderness are treasures for our future generations.

the nuts and bolts of my thoughts I would rather have one governing body for our land then 50 making our country a checkerboard of clear-cut land, mineral depleted, water diverted for state only purpose, high fence private hunting / outdoor grounds... to the highest bidder goes our land.

this is our land. this is not Ted Turner's nor is it SFW's politically parceled private land.

Theodore Roosevelt had it right. thank God we can bitch about 1 governing body over our land than having to bitch about each individual state selling it off to the highest bidders. Once our land is sold to daddy warbucks... it is gone forever.