Gary Johnson - Pro Transfer of Public Lands
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
Southern Elk
Well-known member
So he just came right out and said he would sell it to private landowners. He won't get my vote. Not that I ever considered voting for him anyway.
Last edited:
To be completely fair, what is worse?
Leasing a landlocked section of 'public' land at an AUM price that costs more to administer than the payment is, or sell it?
Obviously a land swap in which private land is consolidated and public land is consolidated into a Useable size is superior to both.
If he had a chance of winning I would still probably reconsider whether or not I'm voting for him based on this issue.
Since he doesn't and i despise the unmentionable word and dislike trump, and HATE the two party establishments system, I'll still vote for him, because he's the only other person on the ballot.
Leasing a landlocked section of 'public' land at an AUM price that costs more to administer than the payment is, or sell it?
Obviously a land swap in which private land is consolidated and public land is consolidated into a Useable size is superior to both.
If he had a chance of winning I would still probably reconsider whether or not I'm voting for him based on this issue.
Since he doesn't and i despise the unmentionable word and dislike trump, and HATE the two party establishments system, I'll still vote for him, because he's the only other person on the ballot.
Last edited:
If that were his answer - to use FLTFA & FLPMA to consolidate and trade parcels to block up public lands, that's great and certainly one I can get behind & support.
However, he's talking about more than the checkerboard. He's talking about all of BLM & FS lands not designated as wilderness, based on his quote. He says nothing about National Parks, Monuments, etc, which means he's either really not paying attention to this, or he's simply not being truthful with what the libertarian party wants to do with your public lands.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
Or making corner hopping legal, so that we can access OUR land.
Very true.
It kind of already is. I do it all the time. Nobody yet is willing to cite me. I'm not brave enough to do it hunting though.
Maybe I misunderstood what you wrote. What I got out of it, was that he doesn't go along with transfer on FS or Wilderness but he does on checker boarded BLM.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
If those were my choices, I'd say retain ownership and eat the loss.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I read it like you read it. Nevertheless, while consolidation is okay, liquidation is not, even if it is rock and dirt. In my opinion.
I can see that. My take is that he stopped short of saying anything on FS lands, but did say no transfer of wilderness (which is an ALC talking point) while advocating for transferring & selling BLM land using checkerboard as an example.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
I just wish we had some clarity. I'm afraid someone might throw the book at me being a NR if I tried it.
Sorry to hijack your thread Ben. I think it's very clear that he's pro transfer from that interview. I always assumed a libertarian would be anyway.
No need to apologize.
Corner crossing is a tough issue, and one that won't be easily fixed. It's a good thing to talk about in terms of access and to highlight other options, like trades & swaps so long as they benefit the public. I do think we have some constitutional hurdles with corner crossing & Ag has made it known that they won't entertain it, but I think there are better solutions to the problem that bring folks together rather than set rigid lines that keep neighbors from talking to each other.
Straight from the Libertarian Party Website:
By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.
For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.
Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.
Indeed, ownership of wildlife can literally save endangered species from extinction. Between 1979 and 1989, Kenya banned elephant hunting, yet the number of these noble beasts dropped from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe during the same time period, however, elephants could be legally owned and sold. The number of elephants increased from 30,000 to 43,000 as their owners became fiercely protective of their "property." Poachers didn't have a chance!
Similarly, commercialization of the buffalo saved it from extinction. We never worry about cattle becoming extinct, because their status as valuable "property" encourages their propagation. The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.
If a candidate isn't clear, I have no choice but to assume they agree with their party's platform. In the case of the libertarians, when it comes to public land, that is scary. Very scary.
By turning to government for environmental protection, we've placed the fox in charge of the hen house -- and a very large hen house it is! Governments, both federal and local, control over 40% of our country's land mass. Unfortunately, government's stewardship over our land is gradually destroying it.
For example, the Bureau of Land Management controls an area almost twice the size of Texas, including nearly all of Alaska and Nevada. Much of this land is rented to ranchers for grazing cattle. Because ranchers are only renting the land, they have no incentive to take care of it. Not surprisingly, studies as early as 1925 indicated that cattle were twice as likely to die on public ranges and had half as many calves as animals grazing on private lands.
Obviously, owners make better environmental guardians than renters. If the government sold its acreage to private ranchers, the new owners would make sure that they grazed the land sustainably to maximize profit and yield.
Indeed, ownership of wildlife can literally save endangered species from extinction. Between 1979 and 1989, Kenya banned elephant hunting, yet the number of these noble beasts dropped from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe during the same time period, however, elephants could be legally owned and sold. The number of elephants increased from 30,000 to 43,000 as their owners became fiercely protective of their "property." Poachers didn't have a chance!
Similarly, commercialization of the buffalo saved it from extinction. We never worry about cattle becoming extinct, because their status as valuable "property" encourages their propagation. The second step libertarians would take to protect the environment and save endangered species would be to encourage private ownership of both land and animals.
If a candidate isn't clear, I have no choice but to assume they agree with their party's platform. In the case of the libertarians, when it comes to public land, that is scary. Very scary.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
deleted
Last edited:
Which, from a hunters perspective, is pretty bad. 350 species of wildlife & fauna live on sage brush steppe lands. Elk through grouse, Moose through mouse all depend on those lands, as do hunters who chase them.
I completely agree. My comment doesn't mean I support his position.
Thanks for finding that info. Pretty much knocks him from my list with Trump,Clinton in lead of off list.
It sounded of same vaguely familiar tone of Libertarian stances on most things in my book. They always sound like they don't want to be a country. Just some private finance/property kingdom of for each his own.
His idea on NM would remove hundreds of thousands of acres just in my unit & make all state lands pretty much the unaccessable too.
BLM lands in my unit are heavily checker boarded & the ranchers who pay next to nothing, and are not good stewards of the BLM land at all.Most heavily over graze it.I do know many ranchers who are very good stewards of their own land.But they really have no respect for government at all here. Funny,this is the last place homesteaded in the lower 48,and not that long ago.All ranches & property here was Government before 1900-40's. A few ranches survived Spanish & got along with Apaches enough to be around after Geronimo was caught.
I got a hint recently on his no new or raising taxes while harping on the deficit. Who if not the people & corperations that got big or total tax cuts & caused the massive deficit will pay for it,let alone reduce it? Who?
How about the $billions on NP lands & monuments in deferred maintenance costs? How will that be corrected?
Who is going to pay....?
Oh yeah,us peons in the bottom one percent...excuse me 90%.
He just lost my vote.
Heads Billy Barty,Tails Jill Stien....
It sounded of same vaguely familiar tone of Libertarian stances on most things in my book. They always sound like they don't want to be a country. Just some private finance/property kingdom of for each his own.
His idea on NM would remove hundreds of thousands of acres just in my unit & make all state lands pretty much the unaccessable too.
BLM lands in my unit are heavily checker boarded & the ranchers who pay next to nothing, and are not good stewards of the BLM land at all.Most heavily over graze it.I do know many ranchers who are very good stewards of their own land.But they really have no respect for government at all here. Funny,this is the last place homesteaded in the lower 48,and not that long ago.All ranches & property here was Government before 1900-40's. A few ranches survived Spanish & got along with Apaches enough to be around after Geronimo was caught.
I got a hint recently on his no new or raising taxes while harping on the deficit. Who if not the people & corperations that got big or total tax cuts & caused the massive deficit will pay for it,let alone reduce it? Who?
How about the $billions on NP lands & monuments in deferred maintenance costs? How will that be corrected?
Who is going to pay....?
Oh yeah,us peons in the bottom one percent...excuse me 90%.
He just lost my vote.
Heads Billy Barty,Tails Jill Stien....
Last edited:
Similar threads
