Will Coogin's back...

[Straight Arrow]

And do you really think the states with densely populated taxpaying areas who send the welfare checks to western states for those federal lands that now belong to them also, will continue to be willing to send the fiscal support for lands they no longer can call "America's public lands"?

 

[jryoung]

I guess it really boils down to who you think will do the best job of managing the land. Some people like big government and think the feds are doing great and nobody else could do any better. Others believe that like most federal agencies there is a tremendous amount of waste and inefficiencies and that the state might be able to do a better job.

spin meet kettle.

No one is saying that, what people are saying is whether Fed, State, County whatever you have bureaucracy. Everyone is saying there is waste and inefficiencies.

But, there's no need to rip and replace. Let's be efficient, and less wasteful by fixing what is there.

 

[BuzzH]

Quite frankly I don't see why simply transferring management and keeping the land in federal hands isn't the best solution for the concerns that sportsmen have voiced. The state already manages the wildlife, sets season dates, quotas, etc.. on federal land anyway.

Really?

That's a real sweet deal for the owners of the Federal land...the American Public.

So, the American Public retains ownership of their Federal Lands, but then has no control over how their property is managed in a State they aren't a resident of?

Laffin'!!!

Somehow I just think the American Public is too keen on giving management control of their public lands solely to the whims of the States their lands are found in.

That's the beauty of the public trust, ALL U.S. Citizens have a place to recreate and the ability to influence management and policy, no matter what State they reside in.

 

[James Riley]

I can hunt at some state parks but not at national parks. So does that mean the feds are anti hunting?

See how easy it is to be unreasonable and spin the truth.

BTW plenty of animals are harvested on state owned land in this country. State owned lands offer some great recreational opportunities IMO. In fact I bet many members of this site have hunted state land and state walk in land.

As stated above, I think reason would dictate an apples to apples comparison. Thus, take all "open and unclaimed" federal land (i.e. BLM, USFS, not reserved land) and establish the ratio to reserved federal land (parks, etc. where you can't hunt or freely camp). Then do the same with states. Let's say for the sake of argument it was, for feds, 75/25 and, for states, it was 25/75. My suspicion is that state control of federal land would result in ratio changes for federal land more in line with ratios for state land, hence my argument about looking at what states have done, and looking east.

I really don't think the states have the best interests of the American public at heart when it comes to land. Just think of the Pace Picante commercial: "NEEYW YORRK CITEEE!". I damn sure don't want my federal civil war battlefields back east subject to state control. Do you really think WY State legislators give a rat's patoot about some granola from MA who wants to come west and have a breather? Hell no.

 

[smarandr]

Quite frankly I don't see why simply transferring management and keeping the land in federal hands isn't the best solution for the concerns that sportsmen have voiced.

Because that ain't what gonna happen. "Management" is code for transfer.

 

[roadhunter]

LOL. Some of these responses are just downright hilarious.

I give up. You guys are right. The feds are the only agency capable of managing land in the USA and if it is transferred the states will stop all camping and sell the land off to developers and we will have nowhere to hunt. Does that about cover it?

Just listen to Buzz. Ha has this all figured out from his years of experience working for the government. They just need us to give them more money if we want them to do a better job managing the land. All we need is a bigger federal government, that will solve our problems.

Thanks for the entertainment.

 

[jryoung]

All we need is a bigger federal government, that will solve our problems.

Again, context matters.

If we increased the Interior and Agriculture budgets in total by 10% how much would government grow? Conversely, how much would state government grow if land/management was handed over?

What if we increased the Military budget by 10%?

I posed the question to someone else when it came to the budgets, hyperbole is great, but put some numbers out there. Show me the line items in the budgets where the fat is. Lay some programs out there and let's pick them apart. I deal with budgets and forecasting for a living...it's impossible to make budgeting decisions without facts and details.

Let's get more constructive here and identify where the problems are.

 

[smarandr]

I give up. You guys are right.

If only defeating the rest of the crowd trying to get it's hands on Jose's public lands was that easy. . .

 

[BuzzH]

Again, context matters.

If we increased the Interior and Agriculture budgets in total by 10% how much would government grow? Conversely, how much would state government grow if land/management was handed over?

What if we increased the Military budget by 10%?

I posed the question to someone else when it came to the budgets, hyperbole is great, but put some numbers out there. Show me the line items in the budgets where the fat is. Lay some programs out there and let's pick them apart. I deal with budgets and forecasting for a living...it's impossible to make budgeting decisions without facts and details.

Let's get more constructive here and identify where the problems are.

Don't hold your breath waiting for roadhunter to bring some facts to the table...

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's another excellent example of state management: http://mtcowgirl.com/2015/03/17/gue...ticipating-in-political-pay-back-shenanigans/

 

[roadhunter]

Now you might like the lack of regulation being the anti fed and tea party dude you are.

You and others like you that support this transfer, don't know, what you don't know.

So thinking the the federal government is not particularly efficient or good at land management makes me a "tea party dude". LOL. I love it. I think it is easy to see how our government is not particularly good at doing anything at this point in history. If you feel differently you are entitled to your opinion.

I have been doing work related to government contracts for half my life and have witnessed the waste first hand. You don't need to look hard to find inefficiencies and waste in federal government operations.

I just need more government employees to tell me how great they are doing at managing the land. Maybe that would change my mind, LOL. Do you really trust a USFS employee to give you an unbiased view of how good they are at managing land. I personally don't.

I do not support the transfer of the land. I support the transfer of management of the land to the state that maintains its' current recreational use. Obviously this will require some federal funds to accomplish but I think it could be done with less cost to taxpayers and not be the end of the world like some make it out to be.

To me that is a reasonable compromise that keeps the land available for public use (including camping) and prevents the selling of the land which seems to be a major concern for some folks. The states already manage the wildlife by setting unit boundaries, seasons, quotas, etc so this is just an extension of the management they are already doing on federal lands. It also gives states the opportunity to do a better job at managing the land which I think is a huge fear of people currently involved with land management IMO. Can the state do a better job of managing the timber resource? Can they get a fair rate for grazing rights? I believe they could likely do better and be more efficient. If you feel differently that is OK and please understand I see your side and I see the other side who wants it sold off. I am just somewhere in the middle.

 

[Nameless Range]

Roadhunter,

Your plan, which lacks any specifics, is for the states to manage land they do not hold the deed to, under a set of rules that they have to follow (like allowing certain recreational activities) , that will be predetermined and given to them by the deed holders - an organization of which the states are not a part of, and by the organization that has managed those lands for 120 years. Brilliant.

Sounds like my taxes will go up.

All you do is attack straw men.

Whether it is the ridiculous statement that saying public land agencies are underfunded is synonymous with wanting a larger government, or the line that Government employees can't hack it in the private sector, or the assertion that saying the Feds should maintain ownership and control is the same as saying they do a great job and nothing should change. All of them you keep parroting. All of them straw men.

How about the fallacy that Public employees can't have insight on public land management? It would make just as much sense for someone to say that someone in the private sector can't have a valid opinion on public sector matters because they stand to benefit from a reduced government presence. Most people though, aren't solely bringing's opinions to this conversation. Facts are also presented.

You just haven't provided any meaningful ones.

You've had negative experiences with public employees. I've worked in both sectors and can attest to laziness and inefficiencies in both. To say otherwise is to toe someone else's line. The last private business I worked for, there was nepotism, company trips to the bar, and seasonal bonuses.

As Roadhunter would say, " Those guys couldn't make it in the public sector."

The transfer, of deed or management, is nothing but a rouse.

 

[tjones]

LOL. Some of these responses are just downright hilarious.

I give up. You guys are right.

Thanks for the entertainment.

Thought you tapped?

 

[Straight Arrow]

The "Bundy" debacle seems to epitomize the rationale of the govmunt-hating ideology wanting to transfer public lands to state and private hands in that the feds are viewed as incompetent if they allow every possible avenue for lawbreakers like Bundy to step up and be accountable. Yet if they take harsh actions to hold lawbreakers accountable, then they are viewed as "jack-booted thugs". 'Nothing in between.

That illustrates kind of an understanding of what otherwise seems to be an irrational ideology which consistently skews the facts to support either the "incompetent" view or the "jack-booted thug" view, but will likely never see the reality of our governmental systems and how they work, how they err, and how they can get back on the right track if erring.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Roadhunter,

Your plan, which lacks any specifics, is for the states to manage land they do not hold the deed to, under a set of rules that they have to follow (like allowing certain recreational activities) , that will be predetermined and given to them by the deed holders - an organization of which the states are not a part of, and by the organization that has managed those lands for 120 years. Brilliant.

Sounds like my taxes will go up.

All you do is attack straw men.

Whether it is the ridiculous statement that saying public land agencies are underfunded is synonymous with wanting a larger government, or the line that Government employees can't hack it in the private sector, or the assertion that saying the Feds should maintain ownership and control is the same as saying they do a great job and nothing should change. All of them you keep parroting. All of them straw men.

How about the fallacy that Public employees can't have insight on public land management? It would make just as much sense for someone to say that someone in the private sector can't have a valid opinion on public sector matters because they stand to benefit from a reduced government presence. Most people though, aren't solely bringing's opinions to this conversation. Facts are also presented.

You just haven't provided any meaningful ones.

You've had negative experiences with public employees. I've worked in both sectors and can attest to laziness and inefficiencies in both. To say otherwise is to toe someone else's line. The last private business I worked for, there was nepotism, company trips to the bar, and seasonal bonuses.

As Roadhunter would say, " Those guys couldn't make it in the public sector."

The transfer, of deed or management, is nothing but a rouse.

This is the biggest problem with proponents of the boondoggle. They have no plan, the economic reports show it will create less hunting and fishing opportunities and it will increase state government while increasing taxes. But we're just supposed to trust them.

Will Coggins is a paid hack for Richard Berman, a D.C. based lobbyist who attacksgroups Mothers Against Drunk Driving. These guys exist to spread discontent and hate in to otherwise reasonable people. They are undertaking this project as a part of a contract with the American Petroleum Institute.

 

[James Riley]

The "Bundy" debacle seems to epitomize the rationale of the govmunt-hating ideology wanting to transfer public lands to state and private hands in that the feds are viewed as incompetent if they allow every possible avenue for lawbreakers like Bundy to step up and be accountable. Yet if they take harsh actions to hold lawbreakers accountable, then they are viewed as "jack-booted thugs". 'Nothing in between.

Can't win for losing.

I would have supported cow-x's with areal shooting of all the cows. But I can just hear the hew and cry about Waco and Weaver and whatnot. So, we stand down and let the little bigot get away with it and we are limp-wristed liberals. Sounds like typical chickenhawk logic.

The wheels of justice grind exceedingly slow (forgot who said that) and I think Bundy or his heirs will end up paying the price in the end. Maybe we'll have a new public lands headquarters for the BLM out there. Then we'll really hear the whining.

 

[Big Fin]

Good to see the issue getting some traction in the big national media sources. This is in today's NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/o...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=0

Will Rogers is President of the Trust for Public Land. TPL has a huge footprint in the west that benefits hunters, anglers, and campers in a big way. They have been a great partner on many of the most critical land acquisition in the Rockies.

 

[shoots-straight]

JKile

White Haven, PA 1 hour ago Why do we think Republican legislators would care about public lands? They don't want to hang out in national parks and forests with the common people. They want to go to the plush, private, five star resorts and be wined and dined by millionaires and billionaires who keep giving them money and want to "develop" the land. That's their real agenda. How else could they all end up millionaires?

While I am certainly against the idea, it would be funny to see the consternation on all those who support them when their hunting and outdoor lands are gone. When their favorite hunting/camping/fishing spot has private property posters, or better yet is turned into a hunting/camping/fishing spa for the uber wealthy.

I am almost to the point of letting the Republicans have their way on everything so the fools who vote for them can see what they really stand for. The only problem is the damage would never be able to be corrected.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I remember a conversation with Nemont, wondering (to myself) if the direction of votes cast might change with these new revelations? Probably not!

 

[James Riley]

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I've often said, if you want to make a conservative into a liberal, just give him exactly what he thinks he wants.

Unfortunately, as noted elsewhere, this public lands thing is a one way street: once it's gone, it's gone. Lessons learned are too late and they don't stay learned very long.

 

[MinnesotaHunter]

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I remember a conversation with Nemont, wondering (to myself) if the direction of votes cast might change with these new revelations? Probably not!

Shoots, while I don't disaree, you aren't going to see politicians of either form in the national forests sharing the lifestyle we enjoy. It is not what they value, they are just voting based off of the desires of those lining their pockets. There are certainly virtuous politicians out there, but they are mostly at the state level and the few at the national level are marginalized by the special interests from both sides. I am certain that 95% of democrat and replublican politicians could not care less about our ability to hunt on public ground.