National parks for sale?

[BTGuard]

http://www.outsideonline.com/2100586/fact-checking-gops-official-plan-steal-your-public-land?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=facebookpost

What do you folks think?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Texans42]

Been a big deal since Cruz ran his mouth about giving fed land back to the states

[rladner]

not buying it. This whole article is based on the fear that States will sell the land. Not drinking that cool-aid. I'm a fan of states having more control and federal government less control. While some states may outsource management of lands, I doubt any will actually sell the land. That's not why they are fighting for control of it. That's just silly.

[AntlerCollector]

I agree with rladner

[Hydestik]

The article says the state governments don't have the funds to manage these lands but it did mention how much revenue these parks generate from outdoor activities as a whole . If the revenue goes back to the state, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful. The federal government is terrible at managing the taxpayers resources but there are some states that are equally as bad . In either situation , the lands should be accessible by all that pay the fee to hunt, fish, or play on them .

[GarGuy]

All I can say is... If Ratcliff Lake National Park comes up for sale...IM BUYING IT! That would be the best deer lease in East Tx.

[BTGuard]

The article says the state governments don't have the funds to manage these lands but it did mention how much revenue these parks generate from outdoor activities as a whole . If the revenue goes back to the state, I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be successful. The federal government is terrible at managing the taxpayers resources but there are some states that are equally as bad . In either situation , the lands should be accessible by all that pay the fee to hunt, fish, or play on them .

This is exactly what I said. I know many states seem to be way better at managing money. The reason the feds can afford seems to be they have no issue going into debt.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Texans42]

not buying it. This whole article is based on the fear that States will sell the land. Not drinking that cool-aid. I'm a fan of states having more control and federal government less control. While some states may outsource management of lands, I doubt any will actually sell the land. That's not why they are fighting for control of it. That's just silly.

History says other wise.

[Texans42]

This is exactly what I said. I know many states seem to be way better at managing money. The reason the feds can afford seems to be they have no issue going into debt.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

States like Texas that only have to manage <600k of state land? What about Neveda how much state land do they have left? What about CO how much state land can you actually hunt on?

[BTGuard]

States like Texas that only have to manage <600k of state land? What about Neveda how much state land do they have left? What about CO how much state land can you actually hunt on?

So I gather you don't like this idea either? For the record, I'm not necessarily for it. If it were to happen I think it would need some pretty serious structure. Not just a free for all, here's your land type of thing

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[CEO]

I've heard quite a bit of debate on this issue lately. There seems to be a serious concern of states not being able to afford management and in turn selling off land.

[WItoTX]

This is exactly what I said. I know many states seem to be way better at managing money. The reason the feds can afford seems to be they have no issue going into debt.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Exactly. Not to mention, I don't see what the issue is with individuals owning land instead of some omnipresent creation which has no business, nor right, to own property.

[Texans42]

I'm not a fan. We are sheltered here in Texas, not to mention the state was deeded out well before we entered statehood. For the most part we have excellent elected legislation that is very pro-hunting... With that said a perfect example in Texas is we have a history of robbing TPWD budget(hunting lic revenue and Pittman tax revenue) to balance state budgets, thus robbing GW budgets and park budgets. Who wants to see first responders capped by gas budgets...(wait our GW's are)

Federal system isn't perfect but as it is right now it's public use for ALL and can't be sold

Randy Newberg has some great podcasts and YouTube video out on the subject. He has done his research and it shows with his factual examples

[BTGuard]

Exactly. Not to mention, I don't see what the issue is with individuals owning land instead of some omnipresent creation which has no business, nor right, to own property.

I think in this instance the "omnipresent" being is somewhat necessary. Public land is a huge point of pride for us in America. If that's all privatized there is no way we would have access to this huge resource of the outdoors. Now whether the state or federal government owns it makes less difference I think.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[rladner]

still not buying it. I mean, sure, it could happen, if you let it and you really don't make an effort to be successful. But there are lots of ways you could successfully transfer and maintain these lands at the State level. Its not that complicated and also doesn't have to be so simple.