Oh, the irony!

[TOGIE]

It’s ironic that you would bring the 10th Amendment up in an opposition position of this, as I would imagine it is a central pillar of the argument to transfer unappropriated lands back to the states.

only in reference to the remarks that public resources should all be federal or all be state, not mixed.

the 10th helps explain, if not being entirely foundational, as to exactly why there is a mixture there in authority and management over different resources. that is not problematic or ironic to me.

 

[Treeshark]

the 10th helps explain, if not being entirely foundational, as to exactly why it is mixed. that is not problematic or ironic to me.

It still would be- this is specifically addressing unappropriated lands, not all federal holdings.

 

[BrentD]

you just can't throw out the 10th amendment.

Want to bet?

And the case law you mentioned regarding states management of wildlife was established before cars were invented- it probably could use an update.

I can absolutely see where residents of western states would cling to the status quo: it’s a pretty sweet deal to get to call the shots on wildlife harvest allocations etc while having other people pay for the land and habitat management. I don’t blame you or others one bit for not wanting to rock the apple cart.

You have some ridiculous posts in this thread, but you know, the 2nd amendment was written before primers were invented. U suppose it could probably use an update too, eh?

 

[SAJ-99]

It’s ironic that you would bring the 10th Amendment up in an opposition position of this, as I would imagine it is a central pillar of the argument to transfer unappropriated lands back to the states.

And the case law you mentioned regarding states management of wildlife was established before cars were invented- it probably could use an update.

I can absolutely see where residents of western states would cling to the status quo: it’s a pretty sweet deal to get to call the shots on wildlife harvest allocations etc while having other people pay for the land habitat management. I don’t blame you or others one bit for not wanting to rock the apple cart.

Western states ceded title to the Federal Government when they were granted statehood. Property Clause has supported for a loooong time. Now it will be determined by SCOTUS.

Here is an argument after Bundy pulled his stunt that says it is even stronger than the Prop Clause.

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2-Ablavsky.pdf

 

[TOGIE]

It still would be- this is specifically addressing unappropriated lands, not all federal holdings.

i'm still zoomed out.

arguing that all public resources should fall under either a state or the feds would be dismantling the 10th in my mind, because apparently it's not necessary anymore.

they are mixed because of the 10th, and they will remain mixed because of the 10th. so i find it a moot point of discussion.

 

[The_Jim]

I have a hard time believing that the average Republican voter in most non-Western states has any idea about returning public lands. Platform or not. Outside of the zealots that want to take it from the feds and the those of us who are aware of this issue and would fight. I just doubt that it registered with most and certainly would not be a top five voting issue.

This^^^

Growing up in Eastern Nebraska I was in my 20's before I used any federal public land for recreation. Besides a couple national parks I had no idea it existed.

 

[Treeshark]

You have some ridiculous posts in this thread, but you know, the 2nd amendment was written before primers were invented. U suppose it could probably use an update too, eh?

I’m sorry you find my opinion ridiculous.

And for sure it could! That has to be the most debated and attacked sentence in the history of the world. It would be outstanding if we could provide more clarity to ensure our rights to keep and bear reasonable arms are never at risk in the future. But that’s a red herring and I do not wish to derail the thread- if you’d like to discuss, happy to do so in private.

 

[Treeshark]

Western states ceded title to the Federal Government when they were granted statehood. Property Clause has supported for a loooong time. Now it will be determined by SCOTUS.

Thanks for posting that info @SAJ-99.

As I said previously- I do not see this effort really going anywhere.

 

[Irrelevant]

only in reference to the remarks that public resources should all be federal or all be state, not mixed.

the 10th helps explain, if not being entirely foundational, as to exactly why there is a mixture there in authority and management over different resources. that is not problematic or ironic to me.

Migratory birds are managed at the federal level because they annually migrate across state lines. Yet the more we look the more we find so does all the other wildlife.

 

[Irrelevant]

we should all be well aware of the case law history that has led us to this point with many public resources being in state trust.

case law has nothing to do with a person's view of right or wrong, just ask those on either side of the abortion issue.

 

[grizzly63]

I'm practically 1000% against any effort to transfer public lands, and have and will continue to fight against it every chance I have.

But from a principles standpoint, I don't see how some high-horsed people can say it "makes sense" to have wildlife managed by the state strictly for the benefit of state citizens, but public land needs to be managed by the feds so that everyone can enjoy it.

"Please you must subsidize the habitat my hunting relies upon so that I can post enviable pics of wildlife I'll never grant you access to."

It's a double standard in which those who promote it are the ones benefitting the most from it. Either public resources should be managed at the fed level or the state level, but you can't philosophically have your cake and eat it too. And HT has 100% skewed me toward that opinion.

I once suggested that maybe the NFS should manage the wildlife in the forest: The room went silent.

 

[TOGIE]

Migratory birds are managed at the federal level because they annually migrate across state lines. Yet the more we look the more we find so does all the other wildlife.
View attachment 348919

exceptions to every rule. but this exception exists for a pretty clear reason.

it would be one thing of the vast majority of colorado's elk and deer wintered in kansas and nebraska. it's another when i would guesstimate 90ish% of them never leave the state.

water is the worst of all in its (in)ability to recognize the boundaries of the state that claims it as its public's property, yet here we are. we can argue that designing the legal structures of it all differently might've been better but the point i'm trying to make is this: it's moot.

 

[TOGIE]

case law has nothing to do with a person's view of right or wrong, just ask those on either side of the abortion issue.

you may find it wrong but it ain't changing. or, i'd at least find it unwise to bet it would.

so, why throw out the baby with the bathwater?

the disposal of public lands across the west would undoubtedly, in time, be a large net negative to wildlife populations across the western US - a lot of lands may become wildlife havens, many would see development, many would see their characteristics altered irreparably beyond recognition. if people only care about hunting, that's a bad thing, if people only care about the existence of wildlife, that's a bad thing, if people only care about western fly fishing, that's a bad thing, if people only care about the existence of trout in the west, that's a bad thing.

maintaining a grudge on the conundrum of mixed ownership and management is a bad reason to root for bad things.

 

[ImBillT]

I have not had time to read the entire 4 pages, and have mostly skimmed what I did read, but @BigFin definitely hit on what I believe to be a better political solution that I usually see proposed here. That is to disagree with people we voted for.

I am represented in DC by some people who are not very friendly toward public land, but frankly, I can’t see myself voting for their Democrat opposition. I just disagree with their opponents too strongly, and on too many issues. That does not mean that I have to agree with my representatives on public land issues. I have written to two of them specifically to make them aware that I would like them to be more supportive of public lands and public hunting, and have responded to emails I received from their offices relating to some of their votes regarding public land issues. I’m not a big donor, and I’m not exactly sure how to make a bigger shift on this issue, but I don’t believe that urging Republican voters to vote for Democrat candidates because Republicans are bad on public land is likely to be a winning strategy for public land in the long term. It may be an excellent strategy for a particular Democrat candidate in the short term, but not for public land in the long term. I think it’s better to let Republican candidates know that lots of Republican voters value public land and public hunting, and also potentially to sort that out in primary elections rather than general elections. I don’t know how best to do that, but I’m all ears.

I would much rather shift the Republican Party on this issue than vote for someone that I disagree with on almost every other issue. I’m not a single issue voter, but I would prefer not to loose public land or public hunting.

 

[Irrelevant]

maintaining a grudge on the conundrum of mixed ownership and management is a bad reason to root for bad things.

That's a fair point, but it is, in many ways, a reality. If HT members had their wish Washingtonians would never be allowed within Montana/WY/ID. But I'm supposed to sit over here and give-a-shit that those same members elected idiots who want to divest themselves of the greatest asset they've ever had? And not just care, be actively participate in their efforts to oppose their own elected officials?

 

[Treeshark]

But I'm supposed to sit over here and give-a-shit that those same members elected idiots who want to divest themselves of the greatest asset they've ever had? And not just care, be actively participate in their efforts to oppose their own elected officials?

I believe our old friend DouglasR would refer to that as being a “cuck.”

 

[TOGIE]

That's a fair point, but it is, in many ways, a reality. If HT members had their wish Washingtonians would never be allowed within Montana/WY/ID. But I'm supposed to sit over here and give-a-shit that those same members elected idiots who want to divest themselves of the greatest asset they've ever had? And not just care, be actively participate in their efforts to oppose their own elected officials?

a lot of the electorate probably think a "department of the interior" is where melania will go to plan white house decorations.

this stuff isn't even on their radar, if they have one.

 

[Irrelevant]

a lot of the electorate probably think a "department of the interior" is where melania will go to plan white house decorations.

this stuff isn't even on their radar, if they have one.

The HT electorate is damn sure aware.

 

[elkduds]

If you see federal public lands as anything besides our priceless treasure, recognized and preserved in the hour of it's destruction by legislators with foresight, as an irreparable and irreplaceable legacy for the future of this nation, it's people and environment;

Have a talk with Roosevelt, Pinchot, Muir, Stegner, Marshall, Leopold, Yard, Abbey, Newberg. . .

 

[TOGIE]

The HT electorate is damn sure aware.

it's a rock and a hard place for some.

for me if it is between Governor Polis and some moderate republican governor that would sign on to the state transfer train, i think i'd choose the moderate repub.

one has and is pulling very strong, very real, levers that are actively threatening the heritage of hunting. the other is gonna sign on to some bat shit idea that really might not be going anywhere, but at least will put some normal thinking humans on my wildlife commission.

on most days, one actually seems like a greater threat to my hunting, and it's not the republican.

that might be really shortsighted. it's hard for me to actually say though