GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day

[Txcatsailor01]

So what's the benefit of giving the land away? What we will as a country get by giving away the land? Who is being hurt by the lands being held in a public trust for all to use? In concrete terms.

You mean besides reducing federal government bureaucracy, federal government waste, the need for more federal government employees, assets for the state to use for THEIR best benefit, (if sold) revenues, potential state parks or public acess, potential development THAT THE STATE WANTS, OR ANY of a few thousand local uses THAT THE STATE DEEMS APPROPRIATE(not bureaucrats that have never even visited the land). Most importantly, less power over the state's in federal hands!

For the last question, I'm not interested in trading a nanny state to potentially hunt for free!

[garby]

So we've been living in a nanny state since the days of Teddy Roosevelt (the last 100 years)?

The states agreed to the Feds owning that land when they decided to join the union. Why are they suddenly owed that land? Is it normal for you to sign an agreement and then throw a tantrum for more once enough time has passed?

If the land isn't being managed properly by the Feds then maybe congress should do its job and sort that out. Instead they try to "transfer" away OUR land, which lets face it, will probably be sold off some day to the highest bidder. There's a pretty darn good chance that most of us won't ever see the benefit of that move.

The country has been through a lot since Roosevelt, including a depression and two world wars. Somehow we've still managed to prosper as a country. Most of us enjoy a better quality of life than a large portion of the world, even in this so-called nanny state. Losing a big part of what makes this country unique is not the answer. Instead, maybe we should hold our politicians accountable for what they do or do not accomplish while in office.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[JustinJ]

You mean besides reducing federal government bureaucracy, federal government waste, the need for more federal government employees, assets for the state to use for THEIR best benefit, (if sold) revenues, potential state parks or public acess, potential development THAT THE STATE WANTS, OR ANY of a few thousand local uses THAT THE STATE DEEMS APPROPRIATE(not bureaucrats that have never even visited the land). Most importantly, less power over the state's in federal hands!



For the last question, I'm not interested in trading a nanny state to potentially hunt for free!

Those aren't concrete reasons. Ambiguous answers at best. I mean like real actual concrete benefits. Not reducing waste, bureaucracy and other ambiguous terms.

It's not like the lands are sitting there unused. They are being used for recreation, mineral extraction, livestock production, timber production, etc. right now. They already have public access. What difference will making it a state park accomplish?

Give me an actual real world definable benefit.

[Kirby86]

So we've been living in a nanny state since the days of Teddy Roosevelt (the last 100 years)?

The states agreed to the Feds owning that land when they decided to join the union. Why are they suddenly owed that land? Is it normal for you to sign an agreement and then throw a tantrum for more once enough time has passed?

If the land isn't being managed properly by the Feds then maybe congress should do its job and sort that out. Instead they try to "transfer" away OUR land, which lets face it, will probably be sold off some day to the highest bidder. There's a pretty darn good chance that most of us won't ever see the benefit of that move.

The country has been through a lot since Roosevelt, including a depression and two world wars. Somehow we've still managed to prosper as a country. Most of us enjoy a better quality of life than a large portion of the world, even in this so-called nanny state. Losing a big part of what makes this country unique is not the answer. Instead, maybe we should hold our politicians accountable for what they do or do not accomplish while in office.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WItoTX]

Lol, I am glad to see this topic made it through the Great Shutdown of 2017...

[Palehorse]

http://sportsmensaccess.org/

If you would like to oppose this transfer, please take a moment to sign the petition the site linked above. It reads this:

"Sportsman opposing the sale or transfer of public lands

Dear State and National Decision Makers:

As an American sportsman who values public lands for hunting and fishing, I request that you actively pledge your support for America's public lands legacy and oppose efforts to transfer federal public lands to individual states.

America's public lands managed by agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management provide important fish and wildlife habitat and public access for hunting and fishing. Millions of Americans use these lands to spend time with their families, put food on their tables and enjoy the great outdoors.

States are simply not equipped to support the enormous costs associated with managing public lands. State ownership would result in the fire sale of public lands to billionaires and foreign companies, where millions of acres would be closed to public access and an American birthright would be lost. "