GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day

[B Littleton]

Just because I'm a "smaller govt type" doesn't mean I want EVERYTHING to have less gov't. There are many smaller gov't types who want a bigger military. A bigger military has more bureaucracy than a smaller one.

And I'm not saying those land needed the protection of National Monument status. I'm just saying the land wasn't seized.

bingo.

[Txcatsailor01]

the argument isn't to protect big government bureaucracy, the argument is to protect lands that are held in the public trust. period.

The longer this thread goes on, the less I think you are paying attention , or fully understand the issue. Here is the issue we are upset about...

The GOP platform calls for...

"Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing for a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to states"

If conveyed to the states, these lands will no longer be "public" in the sense that they are now. State trust lands must be managed for the highest profitability to the state, or sold off. Access will disappear, as will the resources available on these lands once sold off to the highest bidder.

This is not an effort to reduce bloated federal bureaucracy, it is an effort for private landowners to gain access to more land to buy, and for natural resource interests to have more unfettered access to those resources.

Look, you can argue all day long that somehow there is a greedy corporate raider waiting in the wings for the Feds to release some land just so that they can come in and steal the land for pennies on the dollar and ruin a great natural resource so someone can be able to buy a happy meal or chinese made underwear. But, I just don't buy that Big Government argument!

I live in Texas. And you know what, I can look around and see all sorts of public hunting options. AND if I don't like public land I can pay for a private lease! AND, if I don't want to pay to lease I can BUY land and erect a high fence and breed the biggest game I can manage.

As a matter of fact, I can't figure out why you would want to live in Texas,when the Federal Government doesn't control a massive swath of the state in a big trust, just so you can believe that it is being saved for you to hunt.

[B Littleton]

Look, you can argue all day long that somehow there is a greedy corporate raider waiting in the wings for the Feds to release some land just so that they can come in and steal the land for pennies on the dollar and ruin a great natural resource so someone can be able to buy a happy meal or chinese made underwear. But, I just don't buy that Big Government argument!

I live in Texas. And you know what, I can look around and see all sorts of public hunting options. AND if I don't like public land I can pay for a private lease! AND, if I don't want to pay to lease I can BUY land and erect a high fence and breed the biggest game I can manage.

As a matter of fact, I can't figure out why you would want to live in Texas,when the Federal Government doesn't control a massive swath of the state in a big trust, just so you can believe that it is being saved for you to hunt.

Wow. First of all, I have stated several times that this isn't just about hunting access, but protecting a huge part of the American identity. Public lands don't exist in other places, not the way that we have them here, and as a result we have done a significantly better job than other developed nations at protecting our natural resources. Lands held in the public trust managed at the federal level, and wildlife held in the public trust and managed at the state level. It works, better than anything else in the world has worked, Period.

As far as the corporate interest being the driver behind this, It's obvious.

The American Lands Council (ALC), an NGO funded by the Koch family with an advisory board consisting of Exxon Mobil and Altria, is the primary lobbying agent for the land transfer agenda. They know that the states would have to sell for budgetary reasons (for example, if the transfer proposed in Utah went through, they would have a budget deficit of $432 million only a portion of which could be recouped by mineral leases, in other words they would be forced to sell to private interests).

Further supporting this idea are statements from Utah Rep. Ken Ivory about the minerals locked up in western states due to federal control. In other words, we need to get the feds out of here so we can exploit these resources.

Now, I am not anti-mining/ anti petroleum, but being a consultant in that industry, I can say that a higher level of oversight is probably a good thing. That level of oversight and regulation exists on federal land, it is significantly less on private/ state owned land.

[Txcatsailor01]

Wow. First of all, I have stated several times that this isn't just about hunting access, but protecting a huge part of the American identity. Public lands don't exist in other places, not the way that we have them here, and as a result we have done a significantly better job than other developed nations at protecting our natural resources. Lands held in the public trust managed at the federal level, and wildlife held in the public trust and managed at the state level. It works, better than anything else in the world has worked, Period.

As far as the corporate interest being the driver behind this, It's obvious.

The American Lands Council (ALC), an NGO funded by the Koch family with an advisory board consisting of Exxon Mobil and Altria, is the primary lobbying agent for the land transfer agenda. They know that the states would have to sell for budgetary reasons (for example, if the transfer proposed in Utah went through, they would have a budget deficit of $432 million only a portion of which could be recouped by mineral leases, in other words they would be forced to sell to private interests).

Further supporting this idea are statements from Utah Rep. Ken Ivory about the minerals locked up in western states due to federal control. In other words, we need to get the feds out of here so we can exploit these resources.

Now, I am not anti-mining/ anti petroleum, but being a consultant in that industry, I can say that a higher level of oversight is probably a good thing. That level of oversight and regulation exists on federal land, it is significantly less on private/ state owned land.

You know Brandyn, If we were enjoying a beer over this, I would be sloppy ***** drunk by now. And, you still would not have convinced me with the big government argument.
You can talk identity and natural resources all you want. At the end of the day the Fed's control over 27% of all the land in the US. Our identity HAS BEEN preserved. I am no longer interested in expanding that.

Furthermore, I have plainly stated I am conservative. I don't believe I have deviated once from my conservative principals. So to take the time, continuously, to try and convince me that somehow the Big Government method is best here is quiet telling. Especially since you tried to defend yourself as a "libertarian" while never once espousing a libertarian view.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I AM NOT a Big Government guy! I am not afraid of losing our National Identity! I am not afraid of my hunting lands disappearing after they are taken back from the Feds! I am COMPLETELY comfortable with the movement to shed Federal Land from their grip!

Let's call it a day......

[B Littleton]

You know Brandyn, If we were enjoying a beer over this, I would be sloppy ***** drunk by now. And, you still would not have convinced me with the big government argument.

You can talk identity and natural resources all you want. At the end of the day the Fed's control over 27% of all the land in the US. Our identity HAS BEEN preserved. I am no longer interested in expanding that.



Furthermore, I have plainly stated I am conservative. I don't believe I have deviated once from my conservative principals. So to take the time, continuously, to try and convince me that somehow the Big Government method is best here is quiet telling. Especially since you tried to defend yourself as a "libertarian" while never once espousing a libertarian view.



We'll have to agree to disagree. I AM NOT a Big Government guy! I am not afraid of losing our National Identity! I am not afraid of my hunting lands disappearing after they are taken back from the Feds! I am COMPLETELY comfortable with the movement to shed Federal Land from their grip!



Let's call it a day......

And I have not once said anything about expanding federal land, only protecting what we now have. And I stated at the beginning that I was libertarian in many ways with this being an exception. You keep talking about expansion of federal lands, You keep mentioning seizure of private lands by the federal government, that isn't what we're discussing. We are discussing a movement by the GOP to transfer public lands from federal management to state trust land.your comments have once again shown that you don't understand the issue at hand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Txcatsailor01]

And I have not once said anything about expanding federal land, only protecting what we now have. And I stated at the beginning that I was libertarian in many ways with this being an exception. You keep talking about expansion of federal lands, You keep mentioning seizure of private lands by the federal government, that isn't what we're discussing. We are discussing a movement by the GOP to transfer public lands from federal management to state trust land.your comments have once again shown that you don't understand the issue at hand.

Sure, brother! Liberals are always the smartest people in the room, just ask them....

[B Littleton]

Sure, brother! Liberals are always the smartest people in the room, just ask them....

What the hell kind of argument is that? I said you don't understand because your argument doesn't address the issue of federal to state land transfer. Not because I think I'm smarter than you, or anybody else for that matter, I'm just paying attention to the facts.

You keep referring to the bloated but federal bureaucracy, and seizure of private lands by the federal government, but that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing an effort by the current federal government to divest public lands to the states. Give me one actual reason, aside from it benefiting individual landowner or corporate interests, for doing this. I've given several reasons why it is a negative thing for individuals and our common natural resources.

You want to repeal Obamacare, I'm right there with you.

You want to remove bloated government subsidy programs in the agricultural, energy, and pharmaceutical industries. Me too.

You want term limits, an end to corporate welfare, a move towards an actual free market system instead of one where the government picks the winners? Right on.

But to tell me the you're on board with legislation that would tear apart the fabric of the sportsmen conservationist legacy in this country, leaving our most treasured natural places to be exploited, or enjoyed only by the privileged few, then I'll tell you to pound sand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TexasHunter83]

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/randy-newberg-discusses-federal-land-transfers/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_561446075&feature=iv&src_vid=-h1zYR02-AY&v=3TJCpuj8TjM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0XKOTE4e4w

Here are some videos from Randy Newberg, explaining the entire issue.

[NF HUNTER]

Social security is basically unfunded, medicare is unfunded, student loans are the next bubble to burst, our military has been decimated the past 8 years, the VA leaves a lot to be desired, I can go on and on. But this one issue is where you draw the line???

You darn right I draw the line here myself!!! I hunt the NF's and I would like to continue to do so! If you let the state have it they could and might sell it off to he highest bidder!

[garby]

The world is not black and white. You do not have to agree with every single view point of your political party.

As hunters, and generally people who love the outdoors, you would think that we'd all be on board with whatever preserves the most access. It doesn't take much research to figure out that the land (and access) is much safer in the hands of the fed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[NF HUNTER]

The world is not black and white. You do not have to agree with every single view point of your political party.

As hunters, and generally people who love the outdoors, you would think that we'd all be on board with whatever preserves the most access. It doesn't take much research to figure out that the land (and access) is much safer in the hands of the fed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I know that's right!

[Txcatsailor01]

The world is not black and white. You do not have to agree with every single view point of your political party.

As hunters, and generally people who love the outdoors, you would think that we'd all be on board with whatever preserves the most access. It doesn't take much research to figure out that the land (and access) is much safer in the hands of the fed.

The argument that gets a lot of "replay" is that if you are for the GOP push, somehow you don't have a grasp of the issue and need to refrain from commenting(a common liberal strategy).

What surprises me is that people from Texas that have enjoyed the exact antithesis of public access hunting as that of Western states and are so adamantly opposed to something that will probably never affect them and has worked fairly well here. No, we don't have huge swaths of National Forest, but THEY don't have the state parks, WMA's, USACE, private leases, & private land ownership like we do as well.

The left in very consistent fashion sells "The Sky is Falling" fear mongering as they have done on every topic that they have ever pursued. What I mean is: can some lands be sold or leased out once they are transferred? Sure, I can see it happening. HOWEVER, are all our greatest natural icons going to be sold off and disappear? HIGHLY UNLIKELY! That would not make any sense and yes would lead to a national uproar.

This FEAR of developing natural resources is a fairly new phenomenon. Has anyone ever stopped to ponder where the US would be, RIGHT NOW, if we hadn't developed petroleum, coal, or hydraulic fracking in this country? I can assure you our world standing would NOT be what it is today. And before the same people take this and run to the other extreme, I am not opposed to Federal regulations, protections, and taxes as I have said 3-4 times(some people are not paying attention). My point is, there is balance and the Feds controlling everything is NOT balanced.

I'm hear to say, my belief system sets a higher priority on economic and personal freedoms as well as the free market system over whether I can hunt for free 700 miles away.
And, I'll repeat this(because some folks will ignore it), I DO NOT fear the government(State or Federal) disposing of ALL of our natural wonders. That would not make sense, even for the Evil Capitalists!

Furthermore, if you are even the least bit satisfied with what we have in TX, I would encourage you to google the TX GLO history. It explains why our lands are NOT federal. I can point to all sorts of Texas state wonders that haven't been destroyed because the federal government isn't here "protecting" them.

[garby]

As you might have guessed, I think the leasing situation here in Texas leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, that is probably a big factor as to why I believe so strongly in preserving access to public lands. Not everyone has thousands of dollars to spend on hunting each year and it's barriers like this that prevents more people from getting into hunting and pushes existing hunters away when they lose their lease and can't find another.

Also, you seem to have missed the point of my post by assuming I'm automatically a liberal because of a single ideal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Txcatsailor01]

As you might have guessed, I think the leasing situation here in Texas leaves a lot to be desired. In fact, that is probably a big factor as to why I believe so strongly in preserving access to public lands. Not everyone has thousands of dollars to spend on hunting each year and it's barriers like this that prevents more people from getting into hunting and pushes existing hunters away when they lose their lease and can't find another.

Also, you seem to have missed the point of my post by assuming I'm automatically a liberal because of a single ideal.

Actually, I was not referring to you at all. I probably should not have quoted your post....sorry

But, on that note. I don't pay for a lease either because I don't think the cost/value is there for ME. But, I am not going to put that as a priority over what I think is healthier for our country only so I can get it free.

[JustinJ]

The argument that gets a lot of "replay" is that if you are for the GOP push, somehow you don't have a grasp of the issue and need to refrain from commenting(a common liberal strategy).



What surprises me is that people from Texas that have enjoyed the exact antithesis of public access hunting as that of Western states and are so adamantly opposed to something that will probably never affect them and has worked fairly well here. No, we don't have huge swaths of National Forest, but THEY don't have the state parks, WMA's, USACE, private leases, & private land ownership like we do as well.



The left in very consistent fashion sells "The Sky is Falling" fear mongering as they have done on every topic that they have ever pursued. What I mean is: can some lands be sold or leased out once they are transferred? Sure, I can see it happening. HOWEVER, are all our greatest natural icons going to be sold off and disappear? HIGHLY UNLIKELY! That would not make any sense and yes would lead to a national uproar.



This FEAR of developing natural resources is a fairly new phenomenon. Has anyone ever stopped to ponder where the US would be, RIGHT NOW, if we hadn't developed petroleum, coal, or hydraulic fracking in this country? I can assure you our world standing would NOT be what it is today. And before the same people take this and run to the other extreme, I am not opposed to Federal regulations, protections, and taxes as I have said 3-4 times(some people are not paying attention). My point is, there is balance and the Feds controlling everything is NOT balanced.



I'm hear to say, my belief system sets a higher priority on economic and personal freedoms as well as the free market system over whether I can hunt for free 700 miles away.

And, I'll repeat this(because some folks will ignore it), I DO NOT fear the government(State or Federal) disposing of ALL of our natural wonders. That would not make sense, even for the Evil Capitalists!



Furthermore, if you are even the least bit satisfied with what we have in TX, I would encourage you to google the TX GLO history. It explains why our lands are NOT federal. I can point to all sorts of Texas state wonders that haven't been destroyed because the federal government isn't here "protecting" them.

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.