Trump on Public Lands-Maybe Not the Ally You Thought Edition

[glassy]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts, opinions and perspectives.

I don't believe I answered my own question, @MTgomer. I don't really see what hunting and militia maintenance have to do with each other (other than the sole fact that they both use guns as tools to accomplish an objective). It seems like a priority issue, then. Hunters would rather forfeit lands to hunt on in order to maintain the potential for a strong militia.

I'm going to have to go ahead and agree with Gr8Bwana on this one. I don't really get it. I'd rather have animals to hunt and public lands to do it on even if it meant doing it with a bow, or even a spear. I'm a hunter, and I care about issues pertaining to hunting. Unfortunately, it seems that folks tend to muddy the waters when it comes to this particular issue.

 

[MTGomer]

Maybe I misunderstood.
That was my point was that they are separate issues. Gun rights/the 2nd amendment and public lands have nothing to do with each other. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. At all.
You don't have to be content with the erosion of your constitutional rights as some sort of trade off to keep public lands. We should have both. We don't have to choose.
Besides, like Fin says on public lands it's a cold dead hands issue, in a literal sense to me. And if it comes to that we'll need guns and it will be the ones on the other side of the cabinet from the ole bolt action elk killer. Ironic that the people that want to sell the land are the same ones that are cool with us having bump stock AR-10s with 100 round drums.

 

[glassy]

Thanks for the clarification, Gomer.

Theoretically we should not have to choose. Problem is, we DO have to choose, at least currently. See this recent Field & Stream article It touches on many of the things I talked about in my original post a few days ago among other issues: http://www.fieldandstream.com/election-results-present-conservationists-with-challenges

I'm not saying the current status of conservation in politics is good or bad or whatever; in the words of BigFin, "It's just the way it is." Now we as hunters have to recognize that and do something about it. With the way things are now; you either have to vote conservation/public lands or vote 2nd amendment. I don't like the choice, but it exists.

And, so, getting back to my original question. Why do hunters choose 2nd amendment over issues of public lands and conservation?

 

[Hunting Wife]

And, so, getting back to my original question. Why do hunters choose 2nd amendment over issues of public lands and conservation?

I think because traditionally sportsmen came from rural, conservative areas so it's how they were raised. They were raised Republican, the 2nd amendment has been a traditional issue for Republicans, it's been drilled into their heads for decades, so it's the easy one to latch into.

When it comes to public lands and conservation, those issues have been traditional issues for Democrats, and I think that's the problem for many sportsmen. They are reluctant to support what many if them view as a Democrat position. When faced with the choice we have now where two very important issues for sportsmen are being challenged from different sides, they will always fall back on tradition because it's easy.

 

[kansasdad]

+1

Guilty as charged, Hunting Wife.

 

[Straight Arrow]

They were raised Republican, the 2nd amendment has been a traditional issue for Republicans, it's been drilled into their heads for decades, so it's the easy one to latch into.

Good point. 'Hadn't looked at it with that perspective. Unfortunately it also results in many readily buying into the assertions of Montana legislative senator Jennifer Fielder and representative Kerry White, who keep getting elected and continue to blame public land management problems on a distant DC decision making process ... when managers, supervisors, and public land personnel are right in the public lands home states and are the local volunteer coaches, PTA members, and active community members. The very process initiated in DC requires local participation in major public land decisions. It is a lack of Congressional fiscal and oversight support which really is the source of problems. In my opinion, pushing that support to the state level to various distinctly different localities with respect to fiscal ability and attitudes will only result in larger and more problems.

Educating the ultra conservative sportsmen and women is the key to resolving this scary issue.

 

[Big Fin]

And for those wondering how long it would take the fringe elements of the Republican Party to start their push to transfer Federal lands, here you go. The House Natural Resource Committee is holding a hearing today on a bill for Nevada, the state with the worst track record of selling their lands.

https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr1484/BILLS-114hr1484ih.xml

This bill has been sitting in Committee for over a year, but now, feeling emboldened, it is the first artillery volley in what will be a long battle to protect our hunting access to these public lands. Stand and fight or be prepared to get kicked off the public landscape.



Here is a link to the House Natural Resource Committee. If you want to be a public land advocate, here is your chance to be one.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=401321

 

[Nameless Range]

And for those wondering how long it would take the fringe elements of the Republican Party to start their push to transfer Federal lands, here you go. The House Natural Resource Committee is holding a hearing today on a bill for Nevada, the state with the worst track record of selling their lands.

Not good. Thanks for the link. From talking to Republicans I know and reading the positions of many Federal Government Republicans, I don't think it is the fringe elements of the GOP anymore. It is the norm within the party. The outliers are those who oppose transfer.

 

[Big Fin]

Not good. Thanks for the link. From talking to Republicans I know and reading the positions of many Federal Government Republicans, I don't think it is the fringe elements of the GOP anymore. It is the norm within the party. The outliers are those who oppose transfer.

I agree. Thanks for that correction. Over the years I was trained to focus on the fringe, but you are correct; this mindset is no longer the fringe among elected Republicans.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Send a message opposing HR 1484.

Unfortunately, the people in the relatively sparsely populated state of Nevada are likely unaware of the potential change in funding for those public lands if the taxpayer in heavily populated neighbor California no longer pays federal taxes to support the land now belonging to Nevada ... land no longer belonging to all citizens of all states.

 

[Hunting Wife]

See anything missing?

(c) Management Of Lands Conveyed In Subsequent Conveyance Phases.—The State shall manage identified Federal lands conveyed under this section for ongoing net-revenue generation and environmental health, function, productivity, and sustainability.

 

[RobG]

My younger years were spent in rural Montana. These folks depend on using the land first (logging, mining, ranching, etc) and hunting is more of a recreational thing. That's the primary divide between Rs and Ds then and today.

30 years ago if you told my friends they needed some of the "assault style" weapons floating around today they would have figured you were some black 'copter fearing militia nut. Remember, even Bush quit the NRA since Wayne was so over the top. Wayne is back, and has successfully made this an issue thanks to the talk radio crowd who saw the issue as a money maker. If you speak out against gun control you'll be boycotted. But back in the day today's gun nuts would mostly be a subject of ridicule. Generally those folks weren't salt of the earth people, but rather people who moved here for the relative freedom of rural life.

 

[HSi-ESi]

7.2 million acres in the first conveyance period (10 years).

I've heard many arguments that the Feds won't transfer public lands because it's a wacky idea (and said person will then go vote Republican).

I'll be trotting this out to those folks now - we need all to strike this down.

 

[Gr8bawana]

7.2 million acres in the first conveyance period (10 years).

I've heard many arguments that the Feds won't transfer public lands because it's a wacky idea (and said person will then go vote Republican).

I'll be trotting this out to those folks now - we need all to strike this down.

I don't get it. The majority of people here voted republican and now you're worried about the future of our public lands? Keep on voting that way and soon the entire country will have as much public land as Rhode Island which is only 1.5% of the state.

 

[noharleyyet]

Bwana, serious question..why don't you just come out and invite the "majority of people here" to leave because that's what your broken record is playing.

 

[jryoung]

Legal text can be tricky to read, I don't think that is the case here.

(b) Condition Of Conveyance.—All conveyances under this Act shall be subject to the condition that the State hold the identified Federal lands in trust for the select beneficiaries, except the State may sell, lease, or securitize lands acquired under this Act to cover the cost of management of the newly acquired lands.

 

[HSi-ESi]

I don't get it. The majority of people here voted republican and now you're worried about the future of our public lands? Keep on voting that way and soon the entire country will have as much public land as Rhode Island which is only 1.5% of the state.

Gr8bawana - that was actually my point. I've heard from many people that the idea of Federal Land Transfer is a crack-pot idea, and that I'm simply being paranoid. After reading HR 1484, I don't think there is much room for further debate.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Bwana, serious question..why don't you just come out and invite the "majority of people here" to leave because that's what your broken record is playing.

Speaking for myself, I would hope all who voted for Trump or voted third party or write-in stick around and help fight against these attempts to eliminate public lands, clean air and clean water. If we truly want unity, here's a great way to put aside partisan bickering and come together against an overwhelming force that seeks to undermine not only our public lands & access, but our bedrock environmental laws.

It will take an army of Americans to beat back what is sure to be one of the largest assaults on lands & wildlife since before TR's time

 

[Irrelevant]

Quote from the 1864 Nevada Enabling Act (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/Library/Documents/HistDocs/1864Act.pdf)

Sec. 4. Authorization to form constitution and state government; limitations... Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right
and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain
at the sole and entire disposition of the United States

 

[noharleyyet]

..well said Ben.