One third of our public lands

[Nameless Range]

Leave it to Texans

http://www.examiner.com/article/bill-calls-for-sale-of-a-third-of-forest-service-and-blm-property

There is now a bill in Congress that would require the forest service and BLM to sell off one third of their holdings over the next five years.

Public land users are under attack. The future of outdoor recreation in America will be contingent on who comes out on top.

 

[BuzzH]

The Republican party brain trust in action...hope they keep it up. The more attention they draw to this dumb idea, the quicker it will be shot down.

 

[shoots-straight]

As many Dems moved towards gun restrictions and control there was a backlash from the American voters that still reverberates today. My hope is there will be such a sting to this miscalculation that they learn a very hard lesson from it.

 

[Gr8bawana]

The Republican party brain trust in action...hope they keep it up. The more attention they draw to this dumb idea, the quicker it will be shot down.

It's always the republicans pushing this. From a lot of posts on this forum you would think the republicans are the chosen ones who can do no wrong.

Watergate
Iran-Contra scandal
No new taxes
Jack booted thugs of the NRA
Hurricane Katrina
Mission accomplished

The list goes on and on

 

[bigskyblueman]

As the makeup of Congress is not likely to change that much in the next election, a presidential veto may be the only thing that stops this train. The immediate task at hand is to get these congressional Republicans to back off this idea. Obvious, and nothing new, but worth mentioning, nonetheless.

 

[katqanna]

Texas - 1.9%

And next to none of that 1.9% is BLM or FS, so Texas wont be contributing much to this economic discussion, but I am sure they have plans for the money.
Federal Land Agency Map (map was too big for the forum)

 

[James Riley]

Texas - 1.9%

And next to none of that 1.9% is BLM or FS, so Texas wont be contributing much to this economic discussion, but I am sure they have plans for the money.
Federal Land Agency Map (map was too big for the forum)

What I don't get is why those Texans would not be livid about losing their hunting grounds up here. They may have plans for the money, but have they planned for paying to hunt on what used to be their land?

 

[Whiptail]

What I don't get is why those Texans would not be livid about losing their hunting grounds up here. They may have plans for the money, but have they planned for paying to hunt on what used to be their land?

I suspect states like Montana, which charges nonresidents 27X more, and New Mexico, which only allocates 6% of tags to DIY nonresidents, keeps them from caring. Greed can have unintended consequences.

 

[James Riley]

I suspect states like Montana, which charges nonresidents 27X more, and New Mexico, which only allocates 6% of tags to DIY nonresidents, keeps them from caring. Greed can have unintended consequences.

In Colorado it seems every other plate in the state is from Texas during hunting season (and ski season; many resorts are on leased USFS land). I think our elk tags are over $500.00 (??) for them. I think management for quantity over quality, distance from Texas, unbroken tracts of fed land and fewer Reservations have something to do with it. I, for one, am glad to have them and other non-residents. I just hope they enjoy themselves legally and become advocates for their public land when they get home. Maybe some won't but there are always a few folks in a crowd who don't get it.

 

[shoots-straight]

I suspect states like Montana, which charges nonresidents 27X more, and New Mexico, which only allocates 6% of tags to DIY nonresidents, keeps them from caring. Greed can have unintended consequences.

Do you think that hunting of federal lands is high priority for Non residents? Far more Americans come to use the public lands for other reasons. Camping, Backpacking,sightseeing, bird watching. etc.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I suspect states like Montana, which charges nonresidents 27X more, and New Mexico, which only allocates 6% of tags to DIY nonresidents, keeps them from caring. Greed can have unintended consequences.

Montana has 6 million visitors and a $6 billion public land economy.

NM's DIY NR tag allocation is a state issue, not a federal one.

 

[Southwind]

It's always the republicans pushing this. From a lot of posts on this forum you would think the republicans are the chosen ones who can do no wrong.

Watergate
Iran-Contra scandal
No new taxes
Jack booted thugs of the NRA
Hurricane Katrina
Mission accomplished

The list goes on and on

I believe party support is more like supporting your favorite sports team rather than ideas. As someone who comes from a state that has only 1.2% federally owned I am fully against the sale or transfer of our public lands. I have written letters and made phone calls against these measures as well as donations to organizations that are fighting for this cause.

Having said that I believe if you turn this fight into party bashing then you have lost your focus and will lose a lot of support and possibly the fight. If you can stay focused on the cause and leave the party bashing at home you will win more allies.

 

[James Riley]

I have to admit that tag prices and numbers and how they are arrived at are over my head. However, whatever the numbers and the prices, losing public land will add several thousand dollars on top of a hunt when we have to beg for permission to enter what used to be our land.

When the only hunters who come are those that are paying private land owners, then what incentive does the State have to continue managing the resource? Might as well let the land owners do that. Then the fences go up, and etc.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe party support is more like supporting your favorite sports team rather than ideas. As someone who comes from a state that has only 1.2% federally owned I am fully against the sale or transfer of our public lands. I have written letters and made phone calls against these measures as well as donations to organizations that are fighting for this cause.

Having said that I believe if you turn this fight into party bashing then you have lost your focus and will lose a lot of support and possibly the fight. If you can stay focused on the cause and leave the party bashing at home you will win more allies.

I agree. It's about the idea. Any politician who supports transferring or selling public land should be disavowed and unelected. It's not about party, it's about policy.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I agree. It's about the idea. Any politician who supports transferring or selling public land should be disavowed and unelected. It's not about party, it's about policy.

I agree but which party is it that keeps pushing for this? The republicans!

 

[Ben Lamb]

I agree but which party is it that keeps pushing for this? The republicans!

No disagreement, but I would add that there are R's who are speaking out against the transfer of public lands and good management of public lands.

MT just had a bunch of guys in the republican party stand up and deliver on this issue.

 

[Nemont]

MT just had a bunch of guys in the republican party stand up and deliver on this issue.

And the thanks they get for standing up is almost always to be bashed by the low hanging fruit on the other side. Or get painted with the same brush regardless of where they stand on issues and policy.

Just look at the posts here. What reason would a Republican have to work with the guys on this site giving their open hatred of Republican? Good thing the guys in the Legislature didn't tune into the this board too often or it could have all went off the rails.

Politicians should be given an attaboy for supporting good policy regardless of party. That would require some thinking and it is way easier for people to just be poop flinging monkeys rather than thoughtful participants in our political process.


Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Politicians should be given an attaboy for supporting good policy regardless of party. That would require some thinking and it is way easier for people to just be poop flinging monkeys rather than thoughtful participants in our political process.


Nemont

Montana Bowhunters Association, Montana Wild Sheep Foundation, RMEF, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers and Montana Wildlife Federation teamed up and did just that:

http://helenair.com/news/politics/l...cle_5ab99665-f807-5496-9d37-c4b255062e2c.html

 

[RobG]

ru being a wee bit dramatic between your own poo flinging there Nemont. The board was just gushing over Zinke the other day on this board. The Republicans aren't all bad, it is just that 90% of them give the rest a bad name. Are there any particular ones you want to highlight along with their accomplishments?

 

[Big Fin]

Zinke voted last week to oppose the Joint Budget Resolution and he should be praised for doing so. To write it off as some sort of political posturing on his part does nothing for the long-term discussion. If we are going to have any influence on the discussion over the long haul, we better be equal opportunity supporters as we are equal opportunity critics.

Lumping people into groups or parties is counter productive. The leader in the Senate to reauthorize and fully fund the Land and Water Conservation Fund is Senator Burr, a Republican from North Carolina. If anyone needs our support and appreciation, it is those who are standing strong against the current of ideology. If we leave them standing there without our support, the odds of them continuing to vote for our cause diminishes quickly.

My respect for some Republicans in the Montana Legislature hit high levels this session, based on what they did for public lands and wildlife. The easy route would have been to follow the fringe of their party and be good soldiers in the war of ideologies. A good number of them rejected that notion and voted to our benefit. That is where we have to focus. I have written or personally thanked them for doing so, knowing what they did was not easy. I would advocate that more hunters do the same if we want to give politicians reason to support out causes., both locally and nationally.

Both sides have their fringes, just their fringes preach different ideologies. The fringe on the left is just as harmful to our cause as the fringe on the right. It is the middle where we have to keep our support. Labels and grouping only serves to push moderates on any issue further toward the protection the fringe operators can provide them.

Carry on .....