Schaaf
Well-known member
Early this week I read an article from MSSA concerning the candidates they were supporting in the upcoming elections. High on the list was our dearest friend, Senator Fielder. Fully aware that I more than likely knew the answer I decided to ask the MSSA their opinion on the Federal Land Transfer issue. Below is their response. It took them 4 days to respond after seeing my question and they provided this fact filled response.
"Hello,
I am curious to know the MSSA's opinion on the federal lands transfer issue that greatly affects hunters. Thank you."
"Before that I should have asked, do you represent the hunting community?"
"Justin - Yes, MSSA represents hunters, although there are also "green decoy" groups that make that claim too. About "federal lands transfer," first I must correct your terminology. I assume you are talking about "public lands" rather than "federal lands" because the Constitution only authorizes the federal government to own a few forts, docks, arsenals, and ten square miles of D.C. And, there is no "transfer" of lands proposed by anyone - no dirt would move. With those corrections, the proper discussion is about what entity or level of government can best manage public lands. MSSA does not have an established position on that, but acknowledges that there are plentiful examples of horrible management of public lands by the federal government, and that the states generally do a pretty good job of managing public lands. Also, hunting on all public lands is currently managed by the states, so assumption of management by the states of public lands now managed by the federal government would not change hunting management. Thus, hunters would be unaffected, except for access and land quality and carrying capacity."
Sure sounds like a position to me. I have yet to respond due to my blood pressure rising. I think it is best I let it cool down a little beforehand.
"Hello,
I am curious to know the MSSA's opinion on the federal lands transfer issue that greatly affects hunters. Thank you."
"Before that I should have asked, do you represent the hunting community?"
"Justin - Yes, MSSA represents hunters, although there are also "green decoy" groups that make that claim too. About "federal lands transfer," first I must correct your terminology. I assume you are talking about "public lands" rather than "federal lands" because the Constitution only authorizes the federal government to own a few forts, docks, arsenals, and ten square miles of D.C. And, there is no "transfer" of lands proposed by anyone - no dirt would move. With those corrections, the proper discussion is about what entity or level of government can best manage public lands. MSSA does not have an established position on that, but acknowledges that there are plentiful examples of horrible management of public lands by the federal government, and that the states generally do a pretty good job of managing public lands. Also, hunting on all public lands is currently managed by the states, so assumption of management by the states of public lands now managed by the federal government would not change hunting management. Thus, hunters would be unaffected, except for access and land quality and carrying capacity."
Sure sounds like a position to me. I have yet to respond due to my blood pressure rising. I think it is best I let it cool down a little beforehand.
Last edited: