FI460
Well-known member
Ted Cruz is not against this due to a procedural argument. A number of these representatives are overtly anti public lands.
Great American Outdoors Act
- Thread starter FlatlanderAZ
- Start date
Ted Cruz is not against this due to a procedural argument. A number of these representatives are overtly anti public lands.
seeth07
Well-known member
That's pretty harsh as I really don't know of one senator that is completely anti public lands. Some have ideas and desire to change how some public lands look and operate sure. Even for selling some of them. But purely anti public lands isn't really correct. Prove me wrong though, you're welcome to try.
Schaaf
Well-known member
What the hell would you call promising to sell and give off public land?
FI460
Well-known member
Hmm
Blog
www.adventure-journal.com
"For Cruz, that’s not even close to enough. In Idaho, he noted that the U.S. owns two percent of the land in his home state of Texas. “I gotta tell ya, in Texas we think that’s two percent too much.” "
Ted Cruz attacks Donald Trump for wanting to leave public land in feds' hands
Of all the controversies associated with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, his position on federally owned land tends
www.politifact.com
"I believe we should transfer as much federal land as possible back to the states and ideally back to the people," he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in December."
From the Republican Party Platform:
"Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole."
I'm not going to bother with any of the others. Ted Cruz and the GOP platform are enough for me. If you'd like you can read up on Mike Lee, the Utah Delegation, and their allies.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
The only reason the maintenance funding had to be tacked on to this in the first place is because the can has been kicked so far down the road through deferred maintenance. If you never put any money into your car, is the car a piece of shit or is it your fault for not funding basic maintenance?
The LWCF funding was never meant to cover NPS maintenance and that’s a sham of an excuse.
Hmm
Blog
"For Cruz, that’s not even close to enough. In Idaho, he noted that the U.S. owns two percent of the land in his home state of Texas. “I gotta tell ya, in Texas we think that’s two percent too much.” "
"Cruz, on the other hand, takes a more libertarian stance on public land issues and said the amount of land owned by the federal government is "unacceptable."Ted Cruz attacks Donald Trump for wanting to leave public land in feds' hands
Of all the controversies associated with Republican frontrunner Donald Trump, his position on federally owned land tends
"I believe we should transfer as much federal land as possible back to the states and ideally back to the people," he told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in December."
From the Republican Party Platform:
"Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of those lands, identified in the review process, to all willing states for the benefit of the states and the nation as a whole."
I'm not going to bother with any of the others. Ted Cruz and the GOP platform are enough for me. If you'd like you can read up on Mike Lee, the Utah Delegation, and their allies.
Thanks for saving me the typing...
seeth07
Well-known member
@FI460 your just showing me information about the idea of taking federal ownership out of the federal lands. I honestly don't really disagree with this idea. I would much rather the states manage all the public lands the way they see fit. That is no where near the same thing as being anit public land
FI460
Well-known member
Most states have shown us that they will auction off public lands whenever convenient.
Attachments
FI460
Well-known member
seeth07
Well-known member
Those that already sold off their state lands are mostly the states that don't have a large amount of public land. Also, many of those states now are regretting that decision. And then there are a few states that have lots of state land for income, continue to buy them and then just don't open those up to the public to use...I won't state names *cough* Neeeeeeebrassssssssssska *cough*
If lets say 100% of the FS and BLM was transfered to each state, I just don't see any state doing anything different with it. Yes, its a burden now on them to manage but I really do feel that the States themselves would do a lot better job at it and provide a better public land for use. They manage the wildlife, let them manage the land on it as well for the wildlife. So much more they would have the power to do such as what they do with wildlife management areas where they work on habitat specifically for species. That doesnt happen at all on BLM land....
BuzzH
Well-known member
I 100% disagree with the states "managing" or owning federal lands. Its wayyyyyyy easier for local politics to become a serious issue in things like State land transfers, state lands being peddled off to friends, family, etc. Plus, in many cases, the State land boards (usually top elected officials) get to make the decisions. That sounds all fine and dandy, until you realize that the State lands are mandated typically just to maximize profit for the State Trusts. Many times, the maximizing of profits is at the expense of outdoor recreation, wildlife, etc. and favors extractive uses over all else.
So, no, I would rather federal lands remain under federal control so that EQUAL consideration is given to recreational values, wildlife values, and the transfer and sale of them isn't determined by the good old boys club.
You need to do some more research before proclaiming that federal lands transferring to state ownership or control isn't "anti public land" because in many cases, that is exactly what it means. Some states have even made sure that state lands are NOT even considered public lands anymore (Arizona for example).
Do some searches on this site, this issue has been discussed a lot.
BuzzH
Well-known member
You're naïve...and that's putting it as politely as I can...
seeth07
Well-known member
I take it by that you just mean I have a different perspective.
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
Dude, Western states have mandates to manage their lands to make money. Land no make money, land get sold.
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
No, it means your perspective in and of itself is naive and uninformed.
I walked around on some state land today for work; it was a mess of thinned regen that was a nightmare to walk through, pioneered atv trails and weeds. When your management is how to generate revenue those things truly don’t matter nor do I really have any way to hold them accountable.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
Looks like Buzz was typing at the same time I was. See above...
seeth07
Well-known member
And I would say yours is for looking through such a tight narrowed vision of what this could be.
I'm just saying the potential is there for something to result from this resulting in a much better product.
My opinion is based on my life experience in Wisconsin, decent exposure to Nebraska public lands and extremely limited exposure to Colorado, Wyoming, Alaska.
Fact: Federal lands are generally poorly maintened and often neglected.
Some national forests are gems but they are outliers. So are poorly managed state lands (here in Wisconsin).
Why can't the lands be transfered with a sticker "hey here you go, but by the way, you can't ever sell it"
Similar threads
