Public Lands - The Congressional Football

Straight from the Republican Party Platform, page 21 (2016 of course because it leaves open the ability to say "we changed on that a little" when they do something crazier that what was written). No one should be surprised. You have to like how they frame the current economic burden as being on local communities.

View attachment 260251View attachment 260252
When the RNC calls me for a generous donation, I tell them plainly that I won't give them a red cent as long as this is in the platform.
 
Lots of stuff in a Party Platform that just aint going to happen and they know it when they write it. From the 2020 Democratic Party Platform page 47-48,

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal 47 background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes

Much of what is in the PP is used by the other party to scare their members into voting for them.
Agree. Just don't be shocked when either party does what it says it will do. People need to start sending emails.
 
From the original post, look at what was said:

Well, once again we have a changing of the guard in the US House of Representatives and once again we have the same old BS about transferring public lands to the states; the back door way to dispose of public lands.

This isn't going away and it will only get worse.

On this forum if we did a poll that said "Do you support legislation that would transfer Federal ownership of BLM and NF lands to State ownership?" the results will be 99% no and 1% yes. Someone will probably miss click "yes" at 3am while they are hammered or something.

This issue isn't something that even needs to be discussed really amongst this set of peers. We are fighting the same fight. The discussion needs to be how do we convince and show the other 97% (only 3.something% of Americans now hunt) of American's that this is bad legislation? As popular as @Big Fin is in our community, having him put up a Youtube video about this topic probably doesn't even reach another .1% of those Americans. The sad reality and trend of our nation right now is from rural living to urban living and with that comes less importance on reactional activities.

So I ask again,

How do we connect with the young lady who lives in a downtown 10 story apartment and view recreation as walking her dog in the city park?
How do we connect with the suburban family of 4 and the recreating they do is the annual family camping trip to the state park on the lake?
How do we connect with the Midwest deer camp crowd who for the last 40 years spends every fall for one week on their private land hunting camp but never ventures elsewhere?
How do we connect with.....
 
From the original post, look at what was said:



This isn't going away and it will only get worse.

On this forum if we did a poll that said "Do you support legislation that would transfer Federal ownership of BLM and NF lands to State ownership?" the results will be 99% no and 1% yes. Someone will probably miss click "yes" at 3am while they are hammered or something.

This issue isn't something that even needs to be discussed really amongst this set of peers. We are fighting the same fight. The discussion needs to be how do we convince and show the other 97% (only 3.something% of Americans now hunt) of American's that this is bad legislation? As popular as @Big Fin is in our community, having him put up a Youtube video about this topic probably doesn't even reach another .1% of those Americans. The sad reality and trend of our nation right now is from rural living to urban living and with that comes less importance on reactional activities.

So I ask again,

How do we connect with the young lady who lives in a downtown 10 story apartment and view recreation as walking her dog in the city park?
How do we connect with the suburban family of 4 and the recreating they do is the annual family camping trip to the state park on the lake?
How do we connect with the Midwest deer camp crowd who for the last 40 years spends every fall for one week on their private land hunting camp but never ventures elsewhere?
How do we connect with.....

There are something like 300 million visits to national parks each year and that doesn't include federal camp grounds, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges. Outdoor recreation is quite popular.

I think the argument is more how do we inform the masses of Americans that value public lands that there are nefarious forces that would divest them from these places.
 
There are something like 300 million visits to national parks each year and that doesn't include federal camp grounds, recreation areas, or wildlife refuges. Outdoor recreation is quite popular.
I could be wrong about the assumption I have but I remember reading an article awhile back that the land transfer concept would not apply to federal designated nation parks, monuments and refuges as they were set up via executive order and approved by congress. I don't think in a million years you will ever see Yellowstone National park transferred to the three states where it lies, and then all three states sell it a private landowner. That move would literally be political suicide with riots in the streets type stuff.

The concept is more about BLM lands and even national forest lands.
 
From the original post, look at what was said:



This isn't going away and it will only get worse.

On this forum if we did a poll that said "Do you support legislation that would transfer Federal ownership of BLM and NF lands to State ownership?" the results will be 99% no and 1% yes. Someone will probably miss click "yes" at 3am while they are hammered or something.

This issue isn't something that even needs to be discussed really amongst this set of peers. We are fighting the same fight. The discussion needs to be how do we convince and show the other 97% (only 3.something% of Americans now hunt) of American's that this is bad legislation? As popular as @Big Fin is in our community, having him put up a Youtube video about this topic probably doesn't even reach another .1% of those Americans. The sad reality and trend of our nation right now is from rural living to urban living and with that comes less importance on reactional activities.

So I ask again,

How do we connect with the young lady who lives in a downtown 10 story apartment and view recreation as walking her dog in the city park?
How do we connect with the suburban family of 4 and the recreating they do is the annual family camping trip to the state park on the lake?
How do we connect with the Midwest deer camp crowd who for the last 40 years spends every fall for one week on their private land hunting camp but never ventures elsewhere?
How do we connect with.....
Well said.

I was pretty glum about this until I went to BHA Rendezvous last year.

BHA has being doing a lot to make hunting less, "Old White Guy". Randy has as well. I seem to remember that MeatEater have as well.

At first glance, these seem like small things. I think they have a bigger positive impact on our shared issues than most of us think. Bozeman and Missoula are leading the way here. There are no doubt still too many bubbas out there, but I think 2022 saw the beginnings of progress here.

Is a white guy like me going to have an impact in urban zones? No. But groups like HOC (Hunters of Color) can. This is a big tent, nuance thing. Do I agree with everything they support? NO - the cancelling of Shane Mahoney really galls me. But if we focus on what we hold in common, we can accomplish some things. We have culture differences, but our culture is handicapped reaching a lot of the urban world. We need to partner to advance the goals we have in common.

This thread is about public land more than hunting. Google "Save our Public Land" and you will see there other groups out there with whom we have little in common. The Center for Biological Diversity and Earth Justice pop on this list. They know how important federal land is to species advocacy. Let them run on that. We can fight about predator hunting across the hall in another room.

Hell, I'd much rather they blow their war chest on the Public Lands fight than the grizzlies and wolves.
 
I could be wrong about the assumption I have but I remember reading an article awhile back that the land transfer concept would not apply to federal designated nation parks, monuments and refuges as they were set up via executive order and approved by congress. I don't think in a million years you will ever see Yellowstone National park transferred to the three states where it lies, and then all three states sell it a private landowner. That move would literally be political suicide with riots in the streets type stuff.

The concept is more about BLM lands and even national forest lands.
You asked how we inform the public about federal public lands. It could start with informing yourself...and brushing up on the policies and acts that created them. I've never read a bigger steaming pile as what you posted...

Broad arrow, organic, forest reserve acts for starters...
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong about the assumption I have but I remember reading an article awhile back that the land transfer concept would not apply to federal designated nation parks, monuments and refuges as they were set up via executive order and approved by congress. I don't think in a million years you will ever see Yellowstone National park transferred to the three states where it lies, and then all three states sell it a private landowner. That move would literally be political suicide with riots in the streets type stuff.

The concept is more about BLM lands and even national forest lands.

Sure, but the USFS also estimates about 150 million visitors for national forests and grasslands each year as well, and BLM estimates about 16 million. Have we not all spent the last 3-4 years lamenting the increases of non-consumptive use of public lands?
 
It means any legislation has to be revenue neutral. Since "figures lie and liars figure" (old CPA motto), they will find a way to meet that threshold if they really want to get something passed.

I read it slightly differently, not that it "has to be", but that it magically is!

"for all purposes in the House, [selling off public land] shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays."

Legislative language is not my forte. Does anyone else read it that way?

And since this rule is being seen as making as easier to pass a bill that sells these lands, I am left wondering in what way?

I read "easier" as a smoother path from committee to a vote. Would these bill/provisions bypass CBO, or GAO review? Would they have a more streamlined committee process, or bypass certain committees?
 
Would you support the idea if the land transfer occurred with "in perpetuity" and therefore Representative Westerman's claim would indeed be true and make sense?
Nope. Because states could do what Colorado does and what Montana previously did before the law got changed - Prohibit recreation use (including hunting) on state lands.

And, it is a cop out by the Congress to provide funding and oversight to better manage our Federal public lands. Congress has been too chickenshit to properly manage those lands and properly fund the agencies to do good management. Much of that is by intention with the goal to get people so frustrated that they want to dispose of those lands.
Agree with Randy. The states put much greater restrictions on land use. For instance, the state of Wyoming allows some landowners to cultivate state lands and then deny public hunting access.
 
You asked how we inform the public about federal public lands. It could start with informing yourself...and brushing up on the policies and acts that created them. I've never read a bigger steaming pile as what you posted...

Broad arrow, organic, forest reserve acts for starters...
Maybe I need to brush up on my history a little bit and review exactly how they became such as what Teddy did but as far as the transfer issue goes, I did find where I was that it doesn't include designated federal areas.

1673458797169.png

From here: https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110088/documents/HHRG-116-II13-20191017-SD041.pdf

So if I'm so uninformed about this, why aren't you putting effort to inform me? I'm an advocate for this. Yet I resemble more closely with those against this than I do for. So educate the hell out of me so I can preach to my friends and family rather than just call me an idiot like you always $*)Q!#@$ do @BuzzH
 
I think the problem here is that folks that want transfer have done their hardest to paint public lands as this giant liability. Given the Mineral value, timber value, agg value, realestate value, and last but not least recreational value, ie hunting it's pretty clear that these lands are a huge national asset.

There's more to it than this, but every American should read this 6 or 7 times and think about it until it sinks in.

 
I've been educating myself PILT.

Startling fact - The least populous counties get the least PILT money. It's no wonder that PILT is a four letter word in some rural counties in Idaho.
Counties with the most Federal acreage have the lowest population. Double impact to their coffers.

 
Maybe I need to brush up on my history a little bit and review exactly how they became such as what Teddy did but as far as the transfer issue goes, I did find where I was that it doesn't include designated federal areas.

View attachment 260272

From here: https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110088/documents/HHRG-116-II13-20191017-SD041.pdf

So if I'm so uninformed about this, why aren't you putting effort to inform me? I'm an advocate for this. Yet I resemble more closely with those against this than I do for. So educate the hell out of me so I can preach to my friends and family rather than just call me an idiot like you always $*)Q!#@$ do @BuzzH
Because you already know it all...your posts are statements of imaginary "facts" that you pull out of thin air.

You never post in a way seeking advice or factual history...or even ask questions.

Plus you have a perpensity to like arguing with locals that have attempted to inform you about the history of public lands, their value, etc.

Many of whom have spent years as professionals, received degrees, and dedicated their careers and lives to public lands and policy.

It's not worth their time...more effective to reach people willing to listen.
 
Because you already know it all...your posts are statements of imaginary "facts" that you pull out of thin air.
Go ahead and pull a fact from this thread that I used that is indeed "imaginary" and prove it wrong by citing a source with the correct fact. I know, I know, its not worth your time but its worth your time to shame me.

Plus you have a perpensity to like arguing with locals that have attempted to inform you about the history of public lands, their value, etc.
You are absolutely right about this. How I view the public lands in the west (and other topics really regarding wildlife policy in the west) is absolutely totally different than those that are locals to the western states. Why? Well because I was born and raised in the Midwest with completely different hunting experiences with very different cultural influences. I would be the absolute last guy you want to move to Wyoming and then get elected or appointed to any sort of policy decision making process regarding wildlife and public lands. When it comes to something at the national level however, regarding a policy or legislation that impacts every state, my viewpoint and opinions do not deserve the disrespect you are giving them as the policy/legislation impacts us both and we both have a seat at this discussion.

It's not worth their time...more effective to reach people willing to listen.
So yes, it is worth your time.
 
Go ahead and pull a fact from this thread that I used that is indeed "imaginary" and prove it wrong by citing a source with the correct fact. I know, I know, its not worth your time but its worth your time to shame me.


You are absolutely right about this. How I view the public lands in the west (and other topics really regarding wildlife policy in the west) is absolutely totally different than those that are locals to the western states. Why? Well because I was born and raised in the Midwest with completely different hunting experiences with very different cultural influences. I would be the absolute last guy you want to move to Wyoming and then get elected or appointed to any sort of policy decision making process regarding wildlife and public lands. When it comes to something at the national level however, regarding a policy or legislation that impacts every state, my viewpoint and opinions do not deserve the disrespect you are giving them as the policy/legislation impacts us both and we both have a seat at this discussion.


So yes, it is worth your time.
National parks created by executive order? You sounded pretty confident stating that "fact".
 
I'm sorry for what I have done to this thread. I've tried to point out a couple good talking points I thought about how its important to think about this from the "eastern" side of things and it has now just turned into a spitting match between @BuzzH and I. We shall take this into PM if need be and its best we return to either the talking point I was bringing up or anything else/new.

So you offseason popcorn eaters will have to put that popcorn down for now!
 
When a President does something, isn't that called "executive"?

View attachment 260275
Aside from your "facts" about policy all I can say is that I find it rather puzzling how someone that's recreated on federal public land finds it difficult to convey the importance of same to others.

Unlike you I'm not willing to toss our public lands to states that have a history of liquidating those lands and over exploiting them.

In particular over something as petty as not getting a higher allocation of another states wildlife resources.

I don't threaten to support plt because Arizona or Montana won't give me more tags. I also care about every last one of the 640 million acres of public land. I don't want one acre transferred to any state.

Unlike you I don't need to personally utilize every last acre or extract something from it to realize the value of federal public lands. The value we must leave to future generations instead of threatening to toss it all away for selfish and short sighted reasons.

I'm not selective in my support of federal lands, nor is my support of same, conditional on silly shit like license allocations.

Our values and level of support are vastly different in that regard. Federal public lands are part of the fiber of who I am with intrinsic values that will be even more important to future generations.

I won't piss the legacy of future generations away for selfish reasons.

Your mileage, for whatever reasons, obviously varies.
 
Leupold Banner

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
110,381
Messages
1,917,879
Members
34,726
Latest member
greenhorn
Back
Top