This surprise anyone?

[BuzzH]

Shouldn't be any surprise that SFW wants to privatize public lands, 100% in line with their agenda to privatize wildlife.

This is great, further marginalizing themselves and pushing them further to the lunatic fringe.

I wouldn't want to be aligned with the likes of Fielder and the transfer of public lands if I were a sportsmen's organization.

They will lose significant membership over this one.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The American Constitution Society just posted this to their blog:


https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/publ...ot-constitutional-then-not-constitutional-now

This spring, western state legislatures will consider a series of laws demanding the end of public land management by the federal government. The bills, which evoke the “Sagebrush Rebellion” anti-conservation movement of the 1970s, issue a state-law “demand” that the United States relinquish its title to American public lands and transfer ownership to states.

Nearly two years after Utah passed its “Transfer of Public Lands Act” (TPLA), similar laws are under consideration in a majority of western states. At stake is the core of American conservation policy. Under state ownership, state governments could restrict public access, authorize commercial development or even divide lands for private sale. Current federal environmental law effectively forecloses these possibilities, limiting privatization and preventing environmental degradation.

Other outlets have addressed the policy wisdom of transfer demand laws, but very little work has been devoted to understanding their constitutional validity. This post will address the legal arguments behind transfer demands with an eye toward understanding both the Constitution’s text and a newer, nontextual argument advanced by supporters.

A legal analysis of transfer demands begins with the Constitution itself, and the plain text of the Constitution speaks directly to transfer demand laws. The Property Clause, Article IV, § 3, cl. 2, states, “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.” The text leaves little room for ambiguity over who may make decisions affecting United States land: Only Congress may initiate the sale or transfer of federal public lands.

 

[Mark Richards]

Doesn't surprise me SFW supports this

There is also a bill in the AK legislature sponsored by our House Speaker, (HB 115). What's so crazy about this and other bills, if you look in the docs package there is a letter from legislative Legal Services, the bottom line of the letter being this quote:
"The bill is unconstitutional."

So why waste time on it? The answer to that is the major problem we as a nation and we as sportsmen face. It isn't a waste of time for western legislatures, and it isn't a waste of time for SFW either. It's red meat to a certain subset of our population who choose to follow without thinking.

Overall, we should all be saddened that any hunting organization would support this kind of idea. Saddened that Don Peay has said on the record that the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation is akin to "socialism," yet SFW is still out there sucking up tags and money from sportsmen.

Polarization is so strong right now in our country, it has led to a whole lot of people siding with agendas and groups and pols who really do not have our best interests as hunters and conservationists at heart. We did our job in Alaska with these guys ... I hope you all run them out of your states as well.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Congress is the eventual target of these public land swindle groups. The state initiatives seek to build a false consensus, choice, and narrative. Any money spent now is small change compared to the big payday, the sell-off and development of our public lands.

 

[Corax]

Hey - it worked in Russia for Putin and his cronies - why not give it a try here? Divert public assets to your buddies, then they kick in to your re-election campaign. Its a win-win situation. Variants of this are popular on both sides of the aisle - look at Silver in NY with the asbestos doctors and lawyers.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.