Ted Cruz - Selling of Federal Land(s)

[JMG]

Not surprised a guy from Texas wants to sell or transfer Federal Lands.

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/election/cruz-visits-jackson-knocks-fed-land-ownership/article_bf68eb4f-a1be-5e86-abf4-1d130d22011d.html

 

[1_pointer]

Wonder what the stances of his fellow candidates is? I know for me, it's a deal breaker issue.

 

[pabearhunter]

I very much have to agree. If his stance is to sell Federal Lands I CAN CROSS HIM OFF MY LIST !

 

[Schaaf]

I'm still amazed the Republicans view hitching their wagons to the transfer of federal lands as a good policy stance. They'll turn far more people away than they'll gain support from it.

I agree, this issue has become a deal breaker for me. I'm hoping we find out every candidates stance.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Rand Paul has said that transfer and sale are needed.

Rubio has voted to sell public lands in the past.

Jeb has a mixed record on selling state land, but implementing some ok standards on development of state land when he was governor.

Trump hasn't said anything to my knowledge

Walker has a pretty bad track record of public land sales and apparently trying to privatize deer hunting.

The rest of the clown car aren't really viable as candidates. In fact, Paul is about toast.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Most of my adult life I voted Republican ... then the Montana Republican legislators alienated me to more moderate legislators, mostly Democrats. My views remained most closely in line with Republicans at the national level. Now at the national level, I find very few Republicans I can support ... mostly because of their views regarding hunting, public lands, and the ever-growing public "servant" focus on personal greed. Sadly, at the same time there are few Democrats at the national level who I can support.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I don't think any of us regardless of party affiliation agree 100% with our parties. You just have to pick the one that best fits YOUR opinions and concerns.

 

[Odin]

Rand Paul has said that transfer and sale are needed.

Rubio has voted to sell public lands in the past.

Jeb has a mixed record on selling state land, but implementing some ok standards on development of state land when he was governor.

Trump hasn't said anything to my knowledge

Walker has a pretty bad track record of public land sales and apparently trying to privatize deer hunting.

The rest of the clown car aren't really viable as candidates. In fact, Paul is about toast.

The President doesn't have the power to unilaterally sell or transfer land.

 

[BuzzH]

The public land issue is a deal breaker for me as well. I don't care what the rest of their political views are, if they don't support keeping federal lands, they're done.

Without Federal Lands, there is no point in maintaining wildlife as a public trust or for sportsmen to pay to manage it.

No reason to own much camping, fishing, or hunting gear either.

Cruz is an idiot like the rest of the clown car.

 

[Odin]

The public land issue is a deal breaker for me as well. I don't care what the rest of their political views are, if they don't support keeping federal lands, they're done.

Without Federal Lands, there is no point in maintaining wildlife as a public trust or for sportsmen to pay to manage it.

No reason to own much camping, fishing, or hunting gear either.

Cruz is an idiot like the rest of the clown car.

Ben Carson wants to sell land?

 

[BuzzH]

Is Ben Carson the type to have the personal fortitude to defy his own party?

I don't think so...go along to get along.

 

[NKQualtieri]

I watched this and couldn't figure out which one was more ridiculous, the debate or the bad lip reading of the debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufGlBv8Z3NU

Also at this point I think i'd vote for this 15 yr old from Iowa over any of those clowns: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ntial-candidate-deez-nuts-does-not-exist.html

So who is for protecting our public lands? Have any presidential candidates at all come out on this issue?

 

[Ben Lamb]

The President doesn't have the power to unilaterally sell or transfer land.

Through FLPMA and a few other programs, the executive can engage in land swaps, exchanges and sales. However, the scope and scale that the GOP primary folks are talking about would require congressional approval as well.

Given that we've seen more anti-public lands from this current congress than any other since TR's time, I'm not so sure it wouldn't happen if one of these guys get elected.

I'm no fan of Hillary and I doubt Sanders can take the nomination. Webb would have been interesting, but he doesn't have the backing needed to be a contender.

Face it, our choices this cylce are going to come down to Trump, Bush or Hillary. I feel like I should be listening to Nirvana albums and wearing a lot of flannel and combat boots again.

 

[Odin]

Is Ben Carson the type to have the personal fortitude to defy his own party?

I don't think so...go along to get along.

The Republican party doesn't want to sell or transfer land.

 

[smarandr]

Most of my adult life I voted Republican ... then the Montana Republican legislators alienated me to more moderate legislators, mostly Democrats. My views remained most closely in line with Republicans at the national level. Now at the national level, I find very few Republicans I can support ... mostly because of their views regarding hunting, public lands, and the ever-growing public "servant" focus on personal greed. Sadly, at the same time there are few Democrats at the national level who I can support.

Precisely my quandary, but replace Montana with Idaho.

 

[Straight Arrow]

The Republican party doesn't want to sell or transfer land.

Odin, that's the best news heard today. What's your source?

 

[Ben Lamb]

The Republican party doesn't want to sell or transfer land.

Then why do Republicans continue to push legislation that would sell or transfer public land?

 

[jryoung]

The Republican party doesn't want to sell or transfer land.

Then what do they "want" based on this excerpt from their platform that dovetails with Murkowski's budget amendment this past spring? Inquiring minds want to know.

“Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries – those that respect and protect private property rights – also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership. Timber is a renewable natural resource, which provides jobs to thousands of Americans. All efforts should be made to make federal lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service available for harvesting. The enduring truth is that people best protect what they own.”

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the MT GOP Platform on it:

http://northernag.net/AGNews/AgNews...-GOP-Transfer-Federal-Lands-to-the-State.aspx

I'm sure several other state party platforms have similar language.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Idaho GOP Platform supports transfer & sale of public land: http://cdn.instabuildsites.com/uploads/files/f118070d-2b4e-4c61-803d-2f002bda2da1.pdf

Colorado GOP Platform supports transfer & sale of public land: https://cdn.gop.com/docs/RESOLUTION-IN-SUPPORT-OF-WESTERN-STATES-TAKING-BACK-PUBLIC-LANDS.pdf