Rep Russ Fulcher Public Land open letter.

[BuzzH]

It this scenario, who would be responsible to fight wildfires?

Let it burn policy, which is always very popular and great for the States resources.

 

[Forkyfinder]

What did you do to that fruit?!

And yes, I was serious. This was one part that stood out:

Members of Congress from states without vast levels of federal land don’t want to subsidize us anymore. It’s important to note that, due in part to the large federal footprint in Idaho, more than a third of our state budget comes through federal sources.

Interesting.

I am sick of subsidizing crp, ag crop insurance, and ethanol.

Where do you suppose a majority of that money goes?

States with more traffic tend to pay a lot more of the balance of federal highways via gas and wheel tax though, right? So it’s basically the opposite scenario to what is being discussed here.

You know what Montana would do here right? Ha - make everything a toll road for out of state license plates. What a ripoff that would be to visit national parks that "you" also pay for. If you think thats illogical, i point you your major complaint - hunting tag prices.

Some things have a place for federalization. Landownership is an example. Infrastructure is another one. Many things do not.

 

[Treeshark]

Your statement does not ring true for Montana.

Yes it does. Montana doesn’t try hard to be self sufficient because they don’t have to.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[Treeshark]

It this scenario, who would be responsible to fight wildfires?

The state.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Yes it does. Montana doesn’t try hard to be self sufficient because they don’t have to.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

I understand your delusion. Let's agree to disagree and leave it at that since we live in two different universes. History, data, legislation, and factual information form my reality.
It's unclear from whence Treeshark reality eminates.

 

[Treeshark]

Let's agree to disagree

Sounds good. I’ll leave the personal digs back to you left unsaid

 

[SAJ-99]

My opinion is formed with the utmost respect that history. Stated are the best and rightful stewards of wildlife- is it unreasonable to think they may also be the best and rightful stewards of the land?

Maybe they could, but that isn't really the discussion right now. The states ceded that last to the Feds when they were granted statehood. Citizens took the best land and the rest was deemed uninhabitable so the state told the Feds they could keep it if they helped pay for the management. Then you have progress - new materials with value are discovered, be it oil and gas, uranium, rare earths, whatever. As the potential value of these lands rise due to potential resource extraction, the states decide they want them back. Every US citizen should be against a transfer. If ID wants to pay fair market value for those lands, then I ask that they throw a bid out there. As a US citizen and supporter of democracy and capitalism, I like the idea of multi-use and might even entertain the idea of a sale at fair market value. Anyone that pushes for a gift gets a big FU.

Recently, the most interesting event was when WY put in a bid to buy some checker board from Occidental. Of course they were out-bid by an investment co, Orion. I thought Orion floated the potential sale of some of that land a couple of years ago, but I didn't hear much after that.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The states ceded that last to the Feds when they were granted statehood.

That's not accurate. Those lands all belonged to the "Feds", so what became state land was given by the "Feds" to the newly formed state. Prior to that, there was NO state to "cede" lands to the "Feds".

 

[Treeshark]

Maybe they could, but that isn't really the discussion right now.

Did you read the letter from the original post? It is the discussion.

 

[SAJ-99]

That's not accurate. Those lands all belonged to the "Feds", so what became state land was given by the "Feds" to the newly formed state. Prior to that, there was NO state to "cede" lands to the "Feds".

You are correct. Cession was probably used incorrectly here. That was more east of Mississippi stuff. Other states claim to any of those lands was ceded to Feds who gave it to states. But not all that important to the point of this discussion.

Did you read the letter from the original post? It is the discussion.

Yes. No it isn't. A Congressman claiming conversations and views of their peers doesn't exactly equal to a viable discussion that could lead anywhere. The point is to keep the narrative going. In some ways I think Mike Lee is a positive. I want to see a vote on this stuff from some people I think are full of $hit.

 

[Treeshark]

A Congressman claiming conversations and views of their peers doesn't exactly equal to a viable discussion that could lead anywhere. The point is to keep the narrative going.

Aka the discussion.

 

[Big Fin]

The idea of state management/ownership is always based on the premise that states will be given the land. American taxpayers would get screwed in "giving" this land to the states. Make the states buy it if they want it. Once the states would be forced to pay FMV, they'd not want anything to do with this idea.

If Fulcher is talking subsidies, is there a bigger subsidy request of the American taxpayers than "giving" these states assets worth hundreds of billions, rather than forcing them to purchase such from the US Treasury?

These mental gymnastics done by Fulcher and others to avoid an honest discussion is a humorous exercise. And to see how many people fall in line with ideas such as his, and in the next sentence claim to be "Free Market" advocates is laughable. Their claims to want a better ROI on public assets is even more of a laugh out loud event.

 

[Blowdowner]

Another pervert twisting the argument for a state's freedom from a giant fed government. Federal has been pimping for megabusiness for over a hundred years now the new trick is "we're Idaho we're not bowing to the Fed" while they're actually bypassing the pimp and going straight to the zipper of big business.

 

[Treeshark]

American taxpayers would get screwed in "giving" this land to the states. Make the states buy it if they want it.

What if we replace the word “land” with “wildlife” in this statement? Sounds kind of odd then.

 

[rogerthat]

What if we replace the word “land” with “wildlife” in this statement? Sounds kind of odd then.

Why would you want less access to these lands as a nr? That’s what you would get with state ownership. Sale or restrictions of some sort or the other. I hate state managed lands in Montana as a sportsman in comparison to federally owned

 

[TheTone]

Sure.

Western states can absolutely afford to manage all of the land within their boundaries.

Again, Idaho is currently broke and facing a big budget deficit. We can’t pay for the things we already have

Also I much prefer fed land management where I at least have the ability to make public comments. I don’t have that option here with state land management. They just kinda do what they want with a closed door

 

[Treeshark]

We can’t pay for the things we already have

Sure you can. Idaho isn’t even close pulling all of the financial levers it could be to be utilizing currently.

 

[rogerthat]

I know of a guy that got a warning for walking from blm to state and shooting a bull elk. The state land was part of a ranch enrolled in block management. It’s nuanced but when I looked into it that was correct per Montana law for that parcel. State lands suck

 

[Big Fin]

What if we replace the word “land” with “wildlife” in this statement? Sounds kind of odd then.

I guess anyone can make that replacement for sake of argument, argument not based on any legal theory or history.

The USSC determined in 1842 who owns/trustees that wildlife since we gained independence from the King - the states.

The courts have ruled numerous times who owns the land Fulcher is grubbing for, the Federal lands in the state of Idaho being owned by the Federal Government for 200+ years, thanks to purchases, wars, treaties, etc.

Replacing those words as you mention is completely incongruent with the facts of this discussion by supposing that the rulings of the USSC are to be ignored when convenient to the desired end result.

 

[Treeshark]

The USSC determined in 1842 who owns/trustees that wildlife since we gained independence from the King - the states.

Yes. Again, I am aware and agree. My point is that it us not a huge logical leap to apply the same principle to the land itself.

And thank God that not every law from 200 years ago is the same now as it was then… things can and do change over time.