GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day

[Txcatsailor01]

I said I was going to let it go, but easier said than done

There are obviously folks looking at this issue from several differing perspectives. The different views seemed to be based on either:
A) Smaller Federal Government (ME!)
B) Solely on someone's ability/access to hunt for big game through a public process
C) Naturalists who don't think humans should have access (not sure any of these folks are here)

As a conservative male who has served his country and had the opportunity to visit numerous third world countries, both while in the military AND while contracting to a US government agency, this has cemented my belief system. While i LOVE to hunt, camp, fish, backpack, mountain bike, sail, & kayak; a greater priority for me is a smaller federal government than what we have. Let me reiterate, I understand the need for federal regulation, protections, & taxes. I just think at its current trajectory, we are all at risk of losing these "freebies" anyway.

My point is: don't lose sight of the forest because of the trees!

[B Littleton]

I said I was going to let it go, but easier said than done

There are obviously folks looking at this issue from several differing perspectives. The different views seemed to be based on either:
A) Smaller Federal Government (ME!)
B) Solely on someone's ability/access to hunt for big game through a public process
C) Naturalists who don't think humans should have access (not sure any of these folks are here)

As a conservative male who has served his country and had the opportunity to visit numerous third world countries, both while in the military AND while contracting to a US government agency, this has cemented my belief system. While i LOVE to hunt, camp, fish, backpack, mountain bike, sail, & kayak; a greater priority for me is a smaller federal government than what we have. Let me reiterate, I understand the need for federal regulation, protections, & taxes. I just think at its current trajectory, we are all at risk of losing these "freebies" anyway.

My point is: don't lose sight of the forest because of the trees!

I think that is exactly what you are doing. I generally lean towards the libertarian side of things, with one exception, common resources that supersede arbitrary political subdivision boundaries, i.e. natural resources such as wildlife, air, water, etc.

These public lands aren't being horded a possessive federal government, They were set aside by our forefathers (namely Theodore Roosevelt and a suite of other sportsmen/conservationists) to be held in public trust for the benefit and enjoyment of the American public.

This isn't just about hunting access, this is about losing something that is a unique part of our national identity to corporate interests. The "states right's/ small government" argument is a red herring. This is obviously motivated by the potential for significant monetary benefit for a relatively small number of corporations and individuals, at the expense of the American public. We have access to these lands, they are our lands. There are some restrictions (many of which are placed by state wildlife agencies), but the access is there, and the benefit (clean air, water, wildlife, aesthetics, etc) is there.

Furthermore, the amount of the federal budget that goes to managing public lands is very small when compared to other programs.

[More Liberty]

I think that is exactly what you are doing. I generally lean towards the libertarian side of things, with one exception, common resources that supersede arbitrary political subdivision boundaries, i.e. natural resources such as wildlife, air, water, etc.

These public lands aren't being horded a possessive federal government, They were set aside by our forefathers (namely Theodore Roosevelt and a suite of other sportsmen/conservationists) to be held in public trust for the benefit and enjoyment of the American public.

This isn't just about hunting access, this is about losing something that is a unique part of our national identity to corporate interests. The "states right's/ small government" argument is a red herring. This is obviously motivated by the potential for significant monetary benefit for a relatively small number of corporations and individuals, at the expense of the American public. We have access to these lands, they are our lands. There are some restrictions (many of which are placed by state wildlife agencies), but the access is there, and the benefit (clean air, water, wildlife, aesthetics, etc) is there.

Furthermore, the amount of the federal budget that goes to managing public lands is very small when compared to other programs.

So the federal government should annex all state owned property and land? I mean, where does it stop, seriously. This is just another power grab by the federal government. Like it or not, the federal government was created by the states and states, like it or not, have rights. The citizens of those states, have rights.

[B Littleton]

So the federal government should annex all state owned property and land? I mean, where does it stop, seriously. This is just another power grab by the federal government. Like it or not, the federal government was created by the states and states, like it or not, have rights. The citizens of those states, have rights.

I didn't write that, at all. This is not a power grab. This is a move by the republican controlled federal government to transfer land that is held in public trust for the American people to the States. The States have a history of selling off land to the highest bidder, or at very least, have significantly less regulations for the exploitation of natural resources. Either way, the american public loses if these lands are transferred.

[staplehawk]

Feds have been in a buying mode the last few years around where I live, extending the Bahia Grande area and creating corridors. They are currently working on obtaining another 400 acres surrounding the community where I live. We do not have access to it.

The feds (Obama) are definitely purchasing land, at record rates.

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Obama-Land.../05/id/766990/

[Txcatsailor01]

This isn't just about hunting access, this is about losing something that is a unique part of our national identity to corporate interests. The "states right's/ small government" argument is a red herring. This is obviously motivated by the potential for significant monetary benefit for a relatively small number of corporations and individuals, at the expense of the American public. We have access to these lands, they are our lands. There are some restrictions (many of which are placed by state wildlife agencies), but the access is there, and the benefit (clean air, water, wildlife, aesthetics, etc) is there.

There it is! The big bad corporations coming to poison your water, starve grandma, and steal your kids lunch money. It's funny how the big government types take such offense to common folks wanting to limit big government. Anyone against big government must be a Greedy Corporate plant just trying poison our natural resources. Where does it end? When the government has seized 100% of all privately held land?

A Red Herring, huh? Tell that to the Texas land owners along the Red River that are fighting off the BLM land grab. What I am hearing, unfortunately, is that there can never be a balance between the government and the private sector.

On the contrary, Why isn't Texas a good model for this topic? We don't have 75% owned by the federal system, But there are lots of hunting opportunities; National Forest, WMA's, State Park lotteries, USACE, Type II leases, Private leases, Private land ownership.

I'm always fascinated by the people willing to sell their freedoms away for some immediate pleasures/satisfactions.

[JustinJ]

There it is! The big bad corporations coming to poison your water, starve grandma, and steal your kids lunch money. It's funny how the big government types take such offense to common folks wanting to limit big government. Anyone against big government must be a Greedy Corporate plant just trying poison our natural resources. Where does it end? When the government has seized 100% of all privately held land?

A Red Herring, huh? Tell that to the Texas land owners along the Red River that are fighting off the BLM land grab. What I am hearing, unfortunately, is that there can never be a balance between the government and the private sector.

On the contrary, Why isn't Texas a good model for this topic? We don't have 75% owned by the federal system, But there are lots of hunting opportunities; National Forest, WMA's, State Park lotteries, USACE, Type II leases, Private leases, Private land ownership.

I'm always fascinated by the people willing to sell their freedoms away for some immediate pleasures/satisfactions.

huhhhh?



We aren't arguing for the govt to sieze land. We are arguing against the govt giving away land that we currently own. They are distinct and aren't mutually exclusive.

Nobody is saying all corporations are bad and that big govt is good. We are saying that in some cases govt is needed in order to have things like public land which is a unique and wonderful thing.

Again we aren't talking about Texas.

And lastly your quote was "I'm always fascinated by the people willing to sell their freedoms away for some immediate pleasures/satisfactions." What freedoms are we selling away? What immediate pleasures are we getting for giving up those freedoms? What we are arguing against is GIVING AWAY LAND so that we DONT LOOSE THE FREEDOM TO USE THAT LAND. Exactly the opposite of what you're claiming. It's not an immediate pleasure. It's the though my many generations from now my family will have the ability to take a kid camping on an expanse of land that I helped save. There's nothing immediate or short sighted about that.

[raiderelkhunter]

It will be just one small reduction in federal government spending. Many similar cuts in federal spending are needed, obviously. But every little bit helps. My main thinking on it is that if the states are going to severely limit non-resident hunting opportunities on all that land so their residents can have most of the benefit from it, then let them pay for it themselves.

If you are so butt hurt about being excluded due to being a non resident of certain states, move out of Texas to a state out west to afford the ability to draw those illustrious tags you feel like only residents draw. (I promise you, we get turned down just as much even in a state with only a million people in it).

[Txcatsailor01]

huhhhh?



We aren't arguing for the govt to sieze land. We are arguing against the govt giving away land that we currently own. They are distinct and aren't mutually exclusive.

Nobody is saying all corporations are bad and that big govt is good. We are saying that in some cases govt is needed in order to have things like public land which is a unique and wonderful thing.

Again we aren't talking about Texas.

Really, confused?? Obama just nationalized 560 MILLION acres of land and the BLM land grab IS in Texas.

The simple reality is: you are either a smaller government guy (like me), or you believe the government is the best fiduciary of your interest, NO MATTER THE SIZE.
I can tell you till I'm blue in the face, that I understand the need for federal regulations, protections, & taxes; BUT I never hear a big government type say there is ENOUGH government!

[B Littleton]

Really, confused?? Obama just nationalized 560 MILLION acres of land and the BLM land grab IS in Texas.

The simple reality is: you are either a smaller government guy (like me), or you believe the government is the best fiduciary of your interest, NO MATTER THE SIZE.
I can tell you till I'm blue in the face, that I understand the need for federal regulations, protections, & taxes; BUT I never hear a big government type say there is ENOUGH government!

There is too much government, no doubt, and I would argue to reduce the size of it in many instances. This just happens to be an example, to me, where the majority of these lands are better left the way they have been for the last century, mostly undeveloped and accessible to the public.

[Etxnoodler]

If you are so butt hurt about being excluded due to being a non resident of certain states, move out of Texas to a state out west to afford the ability to draw those illustrious tags you feel like only residents draw. (I promise you, we get turned down just as much even in a state with only a million people in it).

For those that the tag situation is the issue. Some states it's actually harder to draw trophy species tags as a resident😮. *******!

[Txcatsailor01]

This will be my 2nd attempt to retire myself from this thread....

[JustinJ]

Really, confused?? Obama just nationalized 560 MILLION acres of land and the BLM land grab IS in Texas.

The simple reality is: you are either a smaller government guy (like me), or you believe the government is the best fiduciary of your interest, NO MATTER THE SIZE.
I can tell you till I'm blue in the face, that I understand the need for federal regulations, protections, & taxes; BUT I never hear a big government type say there is ENOUGH government!

It's not so black and white. I am overwhelmingly in support of smaller govt. I am in no way a big govt type. I think the govt should be removed from countless things. Public lands just isn't one of those things.

I'm not arguing FOR the gov't taking land. I'm arguing against gov't giving away our land. Why can't I be both?

And Obama didn't seize or nationalize or whatever word you'd like to use 560 million acres. Most of that land was already public land that changed classifications

[treestand]

If all the hunting opportunities on federal land in western states weren't already under the control of the states who are working to further limit non-resident hunters' access to hunting on those federal lands more and more every year, I might be more concerned about all of this. But the fact is that if you don't live in one of those states, you've already lost a LOT of opportunity to hunt there. Trying to play the permit draw game nowadays takes years and years to draw a quality tag, and it costs about as much or more as buying a hunt on private land too.

I don't like having my federal tax dollars spent to support free hunting for people who live in the states that have all the public land while their state governments are fixing it so I have little to no chance of ever hunting there for free myself. If the states are going to make all the rules, then let their residents pay for it all and leave me out. If they end up selling some of the land, then maybe there will be more opportunities for me to buy a landowner tag and go hunt there without waiting 20-30 years to draw one.

My feelings exactly!

[Txcatsailor01]

And Obama didn't seize or nationalize or whatever word you'd like to use 560 million acres. Most of that land was already public land that changed classifications

Uggghhhhh.......

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/29/obamas-historic-land-grab-553-million-acres-conservation/