Us h.r. 621

[Bob G]

I'm not in favor of selling...
I will work to persuade my 2 friends to vote "NO" as well...

tending the fire,
Bob G.

[ladrones]

3.3 million US just a very small percentage of the overall holdings. It needs to be thinned down as the bureaucracies have proven unable to properly manage the land anyway.

My only problem is that most of the lands will probably go to Clintnon cronies.

[backwoods]

the bureaucracies have proven unable to properly manage the land anyway.

How has the fed improperly managed the land?
You think private, for profit, developers would manage the land and resources better?

[ladrones]

How has the fed improperly managed the land?
You think private, for profit, developers would manage the land and resources better?

The land has been identified as disposable by the fed.

[justhrowit]

The land has been identified as disposable by the fed.

ALL federal lands have now been identied as disposable, or is half way there. They've passed that through the house already making land values zero. Once it passes the senate this will allow the disposal of the lands without a vote.

Prepare to have all your public lands in this country turned into private lands, developments, oil fields, etc. One step closer to eradicating hunting to the masses in this country. Welcome to Europe.

[150class]

ALL federal lands have now been identied as disposable, or is half way there. They've passed that through the house already making land values zero. Once it passes the senate this will allow the disposal of the lands without a vote.

Prepare to have all your public lands in this country turned into private lands, developments, oil fields, etc. One step closer to eradicating hunting to the masses in this country. Welcome to Europe.

All the billionaires and millionaires will be jumping for joy.

And the other 95% of Americans screwed

[backwoods]

The Clinton administration labeled them as disposable. No one has evaluated the land in a long time
The money from the sale is targeted to pay down national debt.
Ive read the cost to sell the land (legal, survey, legislative, etc) is greater than the market value of the land.
So instead of cutting wasteful spending from things like welfare and other entitlements, we are selling the people's land (which is becoming more and more scarce) so that developers and land speculators can have a field day with it

[justhrowit]

All the billionaires and millionaires will be jumping for joy.

And the other 95% of Americans screwed

How any hunter or fisherman is goodnwith the sales of these lands is beyond me. We're always talking about our rights, but some are just ready to give these away no questions asked.
I'm all about smaller gov't, but this is one area where I'm supportive of the Feds.

[ladrones]

I love HR 622. I have not been able to read 621 yet. If anyone has a link to the actual bill I will read it.

[Rebel15]

Everyone should be contacting their representatives and asking them to oppose HR 621.


here is a link to do so:

http://www.themeateater.com/2017/calling-all-meateaters-we-need-you-now/

a majority of outdoorsmen do not have the opportunity to hunt/fish or utilize private land. regardless of if you do or not, take a moment and support those who dont. Or we should at least educate ourselves enough to make a decision.

and for all you know, it could be the land your great grandchildren one day hunt.

[Jspradley]

Im truly baffled at how many people are willing to give up their land to others.

This land really is YOURS

If it gets sold off, it is no longer yours to use....and you will never get it back.

States have an incredible record of selling off land to pay down debt.

States want to get land out of their possession and into to private hands so that they can tax it.

The fed has held this land for hundreds of years and its ability to own the land has been defended in court case after court case. Its not a constitutional question in my mind.

I know it is cool to hate on the American goverment, but the fed does a pretty good job with America's land.

Yep, public lands are one of then few things the Feds do pretty well. Still lots of problems but they can be resolved

When they are sold you WILL lose access to them, it has happened in every case so far and it will happen again.

The better solution is to force the Feds to manage them better and do away with the lawsuits from PETA and the HSUS that prevent active land management


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Stoof]

The bill has been withdrawn.

[Stoof]

622 is still on the table.

[popup_menace]

It's a tough call as a constitutional conservative. I am happy it has been withdrawn because this means the hunters in the west won't lose their hunting spots. It sucks that our govt is in so much debt that it is in liquidation mode to begin with. However, there are a lot of hunting opportunities on privately owned land in Tx, and a lot of hunters. Public land can have all the right ingredients for hunters and yield zero results because of sheer hunter numbers. On the other hand, public land means that future generations of hunters will be able to get out and hunt for a very low cost. It's a catch 22... but I will side with the hunters using public lands. The overall income generated from hunting and it's offshoot businesses generates a LOT of taxable sales. I'd rather the government keep the land public and the programs that do not benefit tax payers get the chop.

[popup_menace]

622 is still on the table.

All 622 will do is get officers to change uniforms and decrease Fed presence. I'm alright with that.