shrapnel
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2015
- Messages
- 3,123
I went to Costco today and couldn’t get any tinfoil. I think I know why now.
Please explain what is going on with public land.
- Thread starter Archery1995
- Start date
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Interior Transfers 1.4 Million Acres in Dalton Utility Corridor to State of Alaska | U.S. Department of the Interior
Alaska – Today, the Department of the Interior announced a major Alaska statehood land transfer to convey approximately 1.4 million acres of land along the Dalton Utility Corridor to the State of Alaska. With conveyance of these lands north of the Yukon River, the Bureau of Land Management has...
Bill Would Transfer 140,000 Acres of National Forest Land in Louisiana
One-third of Louisiana's only National Forest could be transfered from state to local control for "economic development."
fieldandstream.com
Public land transfer bill
H.R. 2405/ S.1088 Currently, there is approximately 37,000 acres of surface Trust lands within reservations. Most of which are in the standing rock reservation. If this bill passes those acres would then belong to the tribe. The state would then get to pick from another approx 180,000 acres...
nodakangler.com
Wyoming public land housing project spurs debate over land use - WyoFile
As Jackson annexes a small parcel of national forest, the novel public-private partnership raises questions about building employee housing on public lands.
wyofile.com
There are more in the works (see Utah, for example), but you get the gist. It ceases to be hyperbolic when it’s actually happening
It ceases to be hyperbolic when it’s actually happening
By definition of the word, that is not necessarily true.
Where do you feel this current term will end up in terms of percentage lost? I would guess (and hope) low single-digits.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
If you’re in Louisiana, 45%. If you’re in North Dakota, 30-some %?
Death by a thousand cuts.
Could be, agree. Like I said earlier- there are headwinds to be sure, but I do feel at times that the threat is magnified to whip people up.
Paradoxically, the DT-selected Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the Wyoming Corner Crossing case could be credited for opening up access to a few million acres of BLM
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Respectfully, the court decision doesn’t mean shit when they give it away.Could be, agree. Like I said earlier- there are headwinds to be sure, but I do feel at times that the threat is magnified to whip people up.
Paradoxically, the DT-selected Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the Wyoming Corner Crossing case could be credited for opening up access to a few million acres of BLM
Forgive me, but I don’t understand your point. Why not?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
Remember, rule #1 is, if it's your team that's perceived to be at fault, it's just hyperbole.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
It's a bit yin and yang, it is incredibly hard to make large monumental changes to almost anything at a federal level. However, we're seeing considerable effort on this front. One has to speculate, at least, that much of the reason why people can't, let's say, sell all the federal land tomorrow, is that there are a shit ton of intelligent, effective people defending against that.
So is it hyperbole, or is it that because you're not doing anything to stop it, that it's really not happening?
So is it hyperbole, or is it that because you're not doing anything to stop it, that it's really not happening?
BuzzH
Well-known member
How in the actual f$%# are you spinning that to make it sound like the Supreme court gets credit for corner crossing?Could be, agree. Like I said earlier- there are headwinds to be sure, but I do feel at times that the threat is magnified to whip people up.
Paradoxically, the DT-selected Supreme Court’s refusal to take up the Wyoming Corner Crossing case could be credited for opening up access to a few million acres of BLM
I can tell you that people on this board made significantly more impact getting that TO the Supreme court....either through time, money, or both.
Lets be serious.
Look, we can argue until the cows come home about who did what- it doesn’t really matter. The SC declining to hear that case was one of the biggest wins for public land hunters of DT’s entire second term. Net acres of public land open to hunting have likely increased quite a bit in the past few years, which was unexpected.
And stop swearing. It’s uncouth.
And stop swearing. It’s uncouth.
338win
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2015
- Messages
- 533
Public land is valuable. Rich assholes and dipshit politicians will try to get it because that’s what they do. Greedy individuals are going to be greedy.
Bigjay73
Well-known member
Hunters are the greediest group I know.
I did some quick math: if you add up every acre of the four articles you posted, the total would be about half of the federal Wilderness land that has been off-limits to DIY hunters from 49 states (since 1957).
I wonder sometimes if we are clutching our pearls over the wrong issues.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Look, the work done by the judges in the 10th deserve an asspile more credit for hearing the case and writing a 3-0 opinion than the USSC. For that matter, the federal judge in Casper deserves more credit.
You're out of your depth...fact.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I smell rags burning, its your pants on fire. There isn’t a single NR that is excluded from hunting designated wilderness as a DIY hunter...not one.
Just a fact.
Speaking of clutching pearls, how you doing with that?
Maybe you can get trumps supreme court to help with your woes. Good luck with that.
Quite the red herring as well.
Similar threads
