Oh, the irony!

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

This is a fair point. You can also make a compelling argument that state ownership is the sweet spot for public land as well.

But history doesn't support that in the west.

History suggests most western states are more interested in selling off their lands, and historical state management of wildlife has been pretty successful.

There are of ways for states to make money off of public lands.

I can think of a big one right off the top of my head- seeing as this is a hunting forum, I bet you could even guess what it is!

Can't imagine most cattle grazers would rather pay their respective state fee vs the feds AUM...

 

[Treeshark]

Selling off land

It does not need to be sold necessarily.

If that’s what states decide, that’s what states decide. Just like wildlife management, that should be left up to the residents of each state. It’s the only logically consistent arrangement.

 

[Forkyfinder]

There are of ways for states to make money off of public lands.

I can think of a big one right off the top of my head- seeing as this is a hunting forum, I bet you could even guess what it is!

Why do you want for that?

Youre strange

 

[Treeshark]

Can't imagine most cattle grazers would rather pay their respective state fee vs the feds AUM...

With all do respect, so what?

If they can’t make a go of it, sell the ranch. It’s not like the US is in any sort of danger of a food shortage any time soon. We all have to make tough choices in life- it shouldn’t be up to the citizens of the rest of the country to carry a business that isn’t viable.

 

[SAJ-99]

It does not need to be sold necessarily.

If that’s what states decide, that’s what states decide. Just like wildlife management, that should be left up to the residents of each state. It’s the only logically consistent arrangement.

I think that is the point. You currently have lands owned equally by all citizens of this country transferred, not sold but transferred, to state ownership so they can be sold off. What do the owners that live in the other 49 states get? Other than bent over…

 

[Treeshark]

Why do you want for that?

Youre strange

I don’t want for that, necessarily.

I operate by a code you may or may not understand. What is right? What is fair?

These are the questions I lay awake at night wrestling with.

 

[Treeshark]

What do the owners that live in the other 49 states get?

Financial relief. And paradoxically, increased hunting opportunity in many cases.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Financial relief. And paradoxically, increased hunting opportunity in many cases.

There is no access to the vast majority of private lands in in Southern oregon.

I don't believe you're genuinely interested in understanding an alternative perspective.

 

[mukbowhunt]

I will fight with you on this effort. We can’t sit by and watch our public lands get destroyed eliminated.

I spent the past week filling a b tag in MT and while most of the elk were on private, I was still able to find a few on public.

I am DIY public land diehard!

 

[SAJ-99]

Financial relief. And paradoxically, increased hunting opportunity in many cases.

Financial relief? That’s a joke, right? If I get financial relief I want 1) states to pay fair market value for these lands and 2) legal freedom from the obligation to fund disaster relief. Meaning the next time a wildfire that starts on these state lands burns a town, don’t come looking for a handout from FEMA. That shit isn’t going to happen. What Utah wants is another handout.

 

[Treeshark]

There is no access to the vast majority of private lands in in Southern oregon.

None? Like, couldn’t even pay for access?

Or do you mean no public access?

 

[Treeshark]

What Utah wants is another handout.

You’re very likely right. As I said before, I am approaching this from a hypothetical position as I don’t think it is likely to come to fruition.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

None? Like, couldn’t even pay for access?

Or do you mean no public access?

Weyerhauser is permit only, and those permits aren't so dissimilar from drawing your hated non resident tags. Green diamond thankfully still allows some public access, but stakeholders subsidize that. Most of the small timber companies are zero access.

All of my childhood hunting ground was Fruit Growers Supply Co until about 5 years ago. Got bought out by an out of state timber company and I can't hunt the tens of thousands of acres I grew up with.

Edit: all is a bit hyperbolic. More accurately about 40% of the thousands of acres of land I grew up hunting is no longer accessible.

 

[SAJ-99]

You’re very likely right. As I said before, I am approaching this from a hypothetical position as I don’t think it is likely to come to fruition.

And what is annoying to me, and @Irrelevant apparently, is that people keep thinking "Don't worry that, will never happen" while voting for those actively trying to make it happen. Kind of the pinnacle of a #@)(*%* up cognitive dissonance. I assure you, the wheels of motion on this process were started long ago, and continue to move today.

 

[Big Fin]

It does not need to be sold necessarily.

If that’s what states decide, that’s what states decide. Just like wildlife management, that should be left up to the residents of each state. It’s the only logically consistent arrangement.

The contradiction some are trying to paint is not consistent.

Never have the states relinquished their rights to wildlife. They have relinquished their rights to claims to any Federal lands as part of their admittance to the Union. That's the big difference that many seem to forget. The USSC hasn't forgotten and has consistently applied the 10th Amendment to those two different scenarios.

In one instance, wildlife, the states retained the rights and the states rights to that asset has been upheld by the USSC. As it should under the 10th.

In another instance, lands, the states relinquished their rights for the benefits of statehood. Another fact that has been upheld by the USSC when states have tried to assert new claims previously relinquished for the benefits of statehood. As it should under the 10th.

Consistency requires application of the Constitution, specifically applying the 10th Amendment based on whether states did/didn't relinquish their rights. The USSC has done that consistently, and thus we are in this strange position where one asset (wildlife) was retained by states and is now the purview of states, while another asset (claims to any Federal lands) was relinquished and now is the purview of the Feds.

I know it doesn't always fit our preference and those outcomes might create situations where some hunters will tell public land states to pound sand. Yet, that is where we are, and not due to the decisions of any of us, rather due to the decisions of states retaining/relinquishing rights over the last 200+ years and due to the USSC consistently applying the Constitution to these two issues.

 

[TheTone]

I’ve had a number of responses typed up here and keep deleting because I don’t want put in time out or banned.

I’m not sure why we have posters here, on a board largely about public land hunting, that just can’t see why land is best left in public hands and wildlife/hunting opportunity is best not being privatized

 

[Southern Elk]

I’ve had a number of responses typed up here and keep deleting because I don’t want put in time out or banned.

I’m not sure why we have posters here, on a board largely about public land hunting, that just can’t see why land is best left in public hands and wildlife/hunting opportunity is best not being privatized

I just used the ignore button for the first time. I’m tired of reading what certain trolls keep posting.

 

[Treeshark]

wildlife/hunting opportunity is best not being privatized

Speaking for myself as a NR to all western states, it’s because hunting opportunity is unfortunately heading in a direction in which privatization may actually be a better (in some cases only) option.

*I say that as a 100% public land hunter who has never taken a big game animal on private land in my life.

 

[Nick87]

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Speaking for myself as a NR to all western states, it’s because hunting opportunity is unfortunately heading in a direction in which privatization may actually be a better (in some cases only) option.

*I say that as a 100% public land hunter who has never taken a big game animal on private land in my life.

Plenty of opportunity if you move past glory tags. I can put you onto otc deer hunts in thousands of acres of public land.

It won't be as good of hunting as eastern Montana in 2001, but hardly anything is anymore. It will get you out into some beautiful country after some cool critters though, and that's what it's actually about.