Should States take control over Federal lands?

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:20 am

The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Image
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 56117
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana


Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Sun Apr 20, 2014 9:49 am

Absolutely not!

Wanna see more strip mines in wilderness areas? (I know where there are some already but don't think there are pictures available to post, and if you try to get to a place where you can take pictures (or just go fishing or hiking), you will run into armed guards that will threaten and turn you away ... and this is inside a national wilderness area.)

Wanna see more wild lands turned into playgrounds for the wealthy at the exclusion of median or lessor income folks? It's bad enough right now that the well-to-do politically-connected are able to acquire land bordering national forests or other public lands (land swaps, etc.) and prevent access for the rest of us, thereby making those1000's of acres of public lands an amenity for them and their hunting buddies, where the costs are borne by the general public and they pay no taxes for their private use of public land.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby ScaupHunter » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:23 pm

The problem is not having the fed own the lands. It is in having this administration and others abuse their responsibilities to the people of the US who own the lands in question.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby Rat Creek » Sun Apr 20, 2014 5:57 pm

I have no issues with national parks, but the federal government owns entirely too much land that would be better served by the states. Dude, why do you put so much trust in a Big Fed Gov, which has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted, yet you put so little faith in local governments where you can actually get an appointment to go meet with your representative? :huh: Seems like very odd logic if you are truly trying to preserve land and be better represented. :huh:

And as the Federal Government has proven a horrible steward of financial responsibility, I say it is time to repossess these lands and auction them off to the highest bidder. :hammer:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
hunter
 
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby timberdoodle » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:17 pm

I vote yes.
timberdoodle
hunter
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 7:24 pm

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby Boatman » Sun Apr 20, 2014 6:50 pm

The feds land grab is out of control. They now own 47% of the land west of the mississippi.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2
There are still things worth dying for and 1 of those things is freedom.

I love Geese

Genesis 27:3 Now then, get your weapons, quiver and bow, go out in the fields and hunt some wild game for me.
User avatar
Boatman
hunter
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 4:10 pm
Location: Atlantic

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby cartervj » Sun Apr 20, 2014 7:52 pm

Yep, sale ALL the Federal lands.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7189
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:03 am

A big hell no.

They should do with the land as they did with much of the land acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. Give it to the people and not to the state government.

I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that limits government ownership of land to maybe a maximum of 20%, that is state and local combined and I put the feds at no more than half of that. And even 1 out of 5 acres may be too high.

Now I would exclude open access easements and that kind of thing. The game commission purchasing rights to hunt, fish, camp, etc. I have no problem with that and that access could be retained on some of that land when they give away the land.

The states are better than the feds and the counties are better than the state, but the people are better than the local government when it comes to ownership of land. So no, I don't want to give it to the states. I want it to go to the people and I think giving it away is the right thing to do, but I'm OK with auctioning it off as well.

Just think how much good Obama could have done if he had gifted a lot of land to hospitals in low income communities so they could sell it to raise revenue for their hospital. There are many ways to do this and there is precedent for it.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15804
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:34 am

The West operates far differently than much of the East Coast. Giving the land away or selling it to private interests is a horrible idea for a thousand reasons. While we should reduce total lands held by the Federal Government, we don't need to create the cluster fluck you have back east.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby shoveler_shooter » Mon Apr 21, 2014 8:46 am

ScaupHunter wrote:The West operates far differently than much of the East Coast. Giving the land away or selling it to private interests is a horrible idea for a thousand reasons. While we should reduce total lands held by the Federal Government, we don't need to create the cluster fluck you have back east.

:ditto:
After seeing the map of the percentages of Federal land per state it seems a little excessive, and I could see handing some of it over, but definitely don't wanna overdo it.
UmatillaJeff wrote:This load would drop ducks and geese like thors hammer in my hands, I would bet the equity in my house on it.
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 3217
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Stillwater and Owasso

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Apr 21, 2014 9:45 am

We have huge tracts of federal lands that are open to a variety of uses by all citizens. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc..... Selling those all off would lock them away from the ordinary citizen pretty much forever. The West had many lands held by the government for those reasons and most of them should stay that way.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby shoveler_shooter » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:45 am

ScaupHunter wrote:We have huge tracts of federal lands that are open to a variety of uses by all citizens. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc..... Selling those all off would lock them away from the ordinary citizen pretty much forever. The West had many lands held by the government for those reasons and most of them should stay that way.

Is all of it open to the public though? I was gonna make a similar comment but I wasn't sure.
UmatillaJeff wrote:This load would drop ducks and geese like thors hammer in my hands, I would bet the equity in my house on it.
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 3217
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Stillwater and Owasso

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Apr 21, 2014 10:55 am

shoveler_shooter wrote:
ScaupHunter wrote:We have huge tracts of federal lands that are open to a variety of uses by all citizens. Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc..... Selling those all off would lock them away from the ordinary citizen pretty much forever. The West had many lands held by the government for those reasons and most of them should stay that way.

Is all of it open to the public though? I was gonna make a similar comment but I wasn't sure.



The answer is no for a variety of reasons. Military bases are a great example. The Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and Umatilla Army Depot are others. Other lands have been locked up in leases and illegally closed to the public. Those lands should be reopened per law, or the lease holders forced to pay the land taxes just like they own them. Other areas are closed to the public as well. Many of those closed areas could be sold off to the people or corporations using them.

Also consider the idea that selling all that land would lead to way more conflicts over ESA listed animals, environmental protection, etc.... Then consider the increase in employees, cost, etc... for the dramatically increased number of Federal employees needed to "police" presently undisturbed / undeveloped areas. Lots of reasons not to shake the tree overly hard.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 21, 2014 11:14 am

I knew there was a bunch of closet communist freeloaders looking for the government to give them free stuff, in this case land access.

According to the data I have, the federal government owns over 20,000 square miles in WA. Hanford I believe is 400 or 500 of those. Most of what they own is vast empty land, most of which they have no excuse to be in the hands of the feds or the state.

I suggested a maximum of 20% federal, state, and local combined. That would still be over 13,000 square miles. That's a lot of land for open access (parks, hunting, etc.) even after all the military and other restricted access uses. Even that is probably far more than is reasonable.

However, nobody ever wants the free lunch to end once it is started. This welfare program like all others will never end for the same reason. Nobody gives up the freebies and there is a never ending list of reasons they claim they should keep them.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15804
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby ScaupHunter » Mon Apr 21, 2014 12:57 pm

Your clueless on this one Spinner. It is not free access. We pay access permits, park permits, hunting and fishing licenses, etc.... Your F'd up East side of the US can stay F'd up with it's ridiculous trespassing issues, over population, and socialist ideals that come with it. Why do people dream of a hunt out west? Because they can actually come out and hunt. No one gets a free ride, unless of course you want to say everyone gets a free ride. We all own it and can use it.

Go ahead, sell it off. Watch the animal populations crash, watch the limits and bans get tossed in place. Watch the people you think would be helped get ripped off by being out bid by corporations that don't care about the land.

Keep your East Coast and Central US crap where it belongs and leave the West alone. We are not messing with you and your way of life. By the way can we ship Crapifornia out to join the socialist states of the East? None of us want it here! :beer:
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6398
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby beretta24 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:11 pm

I'm am baffled as to why some people are against this. A National Park can stay just that, but now the employees are paid by the state. No one is proposing fed lands get handed over and then auctioning every bit of them off to the highest bidder. If anything I think it would harder to do so because there will be less possible players in the game.
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5366
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:16 pm

Rat Creek wrote:I have no issues with national parks, but the federal government owns entirely too much land that would be better served by the states. Dude, why do you put so much trust in a Big Fed Gov, which has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted, yet you put so little faith in local governments where you can actually get an appointment to go meet with your representative? :huh: Seems like very odd logic if you are truly trying to preserve land and be better represented. :huh:

And as the Federal Government has proven a horrible steward of financial responsibility, I say it is time to repossess these lands and auction them off to the highest bidder. :hammer:

It's not that I have so much faith in the Feds, rather, I have even less faith in the states, and when the Feds are in charge there are many more folks (nationwide) scrutinizing them than there would be if it were left up to individuals, or poorly funded state watchdog groups.

Same thing with local governments. Bad as the Feds can be they are not quite as susceptible to corruption, and less susceptible to discovery than state, county and locals

Just cuz you can get an appointment with a representative doesn't mean they won't blow you off after you have your say. I had that happen just recently here in Idaho. They thanked me for my concern and went the other way anyway because the issue at hand helped a small but influential group over the interests of the general public.

Anyone watching what the State of Wisconsin has done (and is doing) to dismantle their environmental laws to aid a big, very big, political contributor with taconite mining? Think Kock brothers and American's for Growth/Prosperity .... what a euphemism.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby macdaddy » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:22 pm

dudejcb wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:I have no issues with national parks, but the federal government owns entirely too much land that would be better served by the states. Dude, why do you put so much trust in a Big Fed Gov, which has proven time and time again that it cannot be trusted, yet you put so little faith in local governments where you can actually get an appointment to go meet with your representative? :huh: Seems like very odd logic if you are truly trying to preserve land and be better represented. :huh:

And as the Federal Government has proven a horrible steward of financial responsibility, I say it is time to repossess these lands and auction them off to the highest bidder. :hammer:

It's not that I have so much faith in the Feds, rather, I have even less faith in the states, and when the Feds are in charge there are many more folks (nationwide) scrutinizing them than there would be if it were left up to individuals, or poorly funded state watchdog groups.

Same thing with local governments. Bad as the Feds can be they are not quite as susceptible to corruption, and less susceptible to discovery than state, county and
Just cuz you can get an appointment with a representative doesn't mean they won't blow you off after you have your say. I had that happen just recently here in Idaho. They thanked me for my concern and went the other way anyway because the issue at hand helped a small but influential group over the interests of the general public.

Anyone watching what the State of Wisconsin has done (and is doing) to dismantle their environmental laws to aid a big, very big, political contributor with taconite mining? Think Kock brothers and American's for Growth/Prosperity .... what a euphemism.


I'll take the Koch Bros. over Soros & Terri Heinz-Kerry any day.
Last edited by macdaddy on Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm the guy your Mother Goose warned you about.
macdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 10:18 am
Location: Mercer/Lawrence Co's. W. Pa

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby beretta24 » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:23 pm

Most the folks I know is WI are happy with the economic impact. Walker has made big changes in a largely blue state. WI is in a fiscally stronger position and all but some hippies deadbeats in Milwaukee and Madison seem to support him. Granted, he's given less money to the deadbeats, but I half support that. :hi:
User avatar
beretta24
State Moderator
 
Posts: 5366
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 6:54 pm
Location: MN

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby MNGunner » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:48 pm

Boatman wrote:The feds land grab is out of control. They now own 47% of the land west of the mississippi.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2


Just for historical perspective, this isn't some new "Federal Land Grab" from the states. The Federal Gov't bought a HUGE chunk of land in 1803 from Napoleon in the Louisiana Purchase. It then won a very large chunk in the Mexican American War in 1848. Finally it bought several more parcels (Alaska from Russia and the Gadsden Purchase from Mexico) and won the entire northwest in arbitration from England.

So basically west of the Misissippi was at one point ALL Federal land. This all happened before there were ANY states in this area!! It was then divided into various US territories like the Utah Territory, Minnesota Territory, Oregon Territory, etc (no different than Guam, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, etc. is today). Land was then granted/sold to various entities from settlers (via homestead acts) to railroads, etc. while lots of it remained Federally owned. All Constitutionally and Congressionally approved.

Here's a great timeline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territoria ... ted_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... quisitions
MNGunner
hunter
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:43 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:54 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Your clueless on this one Spinner. It is not free access. We pay access permits, park permits, hunting and fishing licenses, etc.... Your F'd up East side of the US can stay F'd up with it's ridiculous trespassing issues, over population, and socialist ideals that come with it. Why do people dream of a hunt out west? Because they can actually come out and hunt. No one gets a free ride, unless of course you want to say everyone gets a free ride. We all own it and can use it.

Go ahead, sell it off. Watch the animal populations crash, watch the limits and bans get tossed in place. Watch the people you think would be helped get ripped off by being out bid by corporations that don't care about the land.

Keep your East Coast and Central US crap where it belongs and leave the West alone. We are not messing with you and your way of life. By the way can we ship Crapifornia out to join the socialist states of the East? None of us want it here! :beer:

If you are paying the full freight, then your local government can use those fees and buy all the land from the Federal government.

Have the animal populations or any of that in the east crashed since modern management practice have been adopted? :no:

Like I said, anger is the response when the welfare tit is withdrawn.

Why do people dream of hunting in the west? Because they have DIFFERENT species.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/deer_general.html
31,144 deer harvested :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

That's an order of magnitude and then some less than PA.
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_120883_0_0_43/http;/pubcontent.state.pa.us/publishedcontent/publish/marketingsites/game_commission/content/wildlife/research/harvest_information/harvest_maps.html?qid=46612243&rank=3

Maybe it is black bears that really draws them.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/harvest/2012/bear_general.html

Oops, 1,633 bear in WA versus 3,633 in PA. Damn, they sure have screwed that up :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

I'll give you that the 6,000 elk in WA is a lot better than the 60 in PA, but does that really make up for over 300,000 deer killed by hunters? :no:

And we haven't even got to turkeys where again, PA kills 50,000 versus 5,000 in WA.

I've lived in both PA and WA. WA is NOT a wildlife paradise. There are far higher wildlife densities in the east for a very obvious reason. It's not Image dry like it is in vast portions of the west. But yes, if you want a much better shot at an elk, or a shot at a mule deer or pronghorn sure, you must go west, but if you want to see a lot more game, go east. There are so many deer and turkey in some places they are practically unlimited and other than around urban centers, access is not a problem. Well except in an around the monster buck factories in parts of Illinois. However, if that land was managed by the state, would it have become the big game mecca that it has. I doubt it. That's what private citizens have chosen to do with their land.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15804
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby MNGunner » Mon Apr 21, 2014 2:54 pm

dudejcb wrote:Absolutely not!

Wanna see more strip mines in wilderness areas? (I know where there are some already but don't think there are pictures available to post, and if you try to get to a place where you can take pictures (or just go fishing or hiking), you will run into armed guards that will threaten and turn you away ... and this is inside a national wilderness area.)

Wanna see more wild lands turned into playgrounds for the wealthy at the exclusion of median or lessor income folks? It's bad enough right now that the well-to-do politically-connected are able to acquire land bordering national forests or other public lands (land swaps, etc.) and prevent access for the rest of us, thereby making those1000's of acres of public lands an amenity for them and their hunting buddies, where the costs are borne by the general public and they pay no taxes for their private use of public land.


Given that most of where I hunt is all Federal public land (Chippewa and Superior National Forest and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge), and how I see how much people down south have to pay to lease hunting spots (sometimes $1000's/year), I'd rather see it stay Federal and public.
MNGunner
hunter
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:43 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 21, 2014 3:01 pm

MNGunner wrote:Given that most of where I hunt is all Federal public land (Chippewa and Superior National Forest and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge), and how I see how much people down south have to pay to lease hunting spots (sometimes $1000's/year), I'd rather see it stay Federal and public.

Minnesota has less than 6% of their land in the hands of the feds. Nevada on the other hand has almost 85% of its land in the hands of the feds. The MN fraction of 6% seems like a good target number too me. I am not talking about going to zero. I'm talking about 10% max or more than 50% more land in federal hand than currently exists in MN. We are talking about a very different situation. Apples and Oranges. Just think what MN would look like if 85% of the land was owned by the feds or even 30% as in WA. Would you really want that? I doubt it.

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15804
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby MNGunner » Mon Apr 21, 2014 4:57 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
MNGunner wrote:Given that most of where I hunt is all Federal public land (Chippewa and Superior National Forest and the Upper Mississippi National Wildlife Refuge), and how I see how much people down south have to pay to lease hunting spots (sometimes $1000's/year), I'd rather see it stay Federal and public.

Minnesota has less than 6% of their land in the hands of the feds. Nevada on the other hand has almost 85% of its land in the hands of the feds. The MN fraction of 6% seems like a good target number too me. I am not talking about going to zero. I'm talking about 10% max or more than 50% more land in federal hand than currently exists in MN. We are talking about a very different situation. Apples and Oranges. Just think what MN would look like if 85% of the land was owned by the feds or even 30% as in WA. Would you really want that? I doubt it.



So you're saying I'd have have 14 times as much hunting land if I lived in Nevada along with legalized gambling and prostitution??? Where do I sign up? :lol3:

Well, the feds have controlled that land since long before these were states as I posted earlier. A lot of these settlers got incentives including free land to homestead that area. If it weren't for the Federal gov't, those Nevadans would currently be in a part of Mexico (maybe battling it out with the cartels). If they don't like it, they never should have moved west. They knew the deal when they went out there that the Feds owned the majority of that land--it was like that when these states were admitted to the Union.
MNGunner
hunter
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 5:43 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Should States take control over Federal lands?

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 21, 2014 6:31 pm

macdaddy wrote:I'll take the Koch Bros. over Soros & Terri Heinz-Kerry any day.

That proves you're insane.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 5243
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Next

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests