Musket Man
New member
It was specifically stated in that article that the states did not want to takeover national parks like Yellowstone.
This land is your land... for now
- Thread starter Ben Long
- Start date
At this time? is there a difference between 1 governing body representing our national parks vs our National Forest?
Our national forests and our wilderness are our lands. here today, gone tomorrow. managed by one governmentor managed by 50 different governing bodies...
this is the last of our land. "Our" being the key word.
sbhooper
Well-known member
Elect better politicians?? I don't think that is possible. I have yet to see politicians that are not corrupted by power and money. Nothing else means anything to them. State politicians may have a little more citizen control over them than the clowns that go to Washington, but they still are not really better.
Anybody that thinks one state's crooks are better than another state's crooks, had better wake up and see what happens at all levels controlled by politicians.
Federal land turned to state ownership or control would not last long. In Nevada, Dirty Harry and his local henchmen would miraculously end up with all of it and all other states are the same.
Anybody that thinks one state's crooks are better than another state's crooks, had better wake up and see what happens at all levels controlled by politicians.
Federal land turned to state ownership or control would not last long. In Nevada, Dirty Harry and his local henchmen would miraculously end up with all of it and all other states are the same.
Nemont
Well-known member
So the argument goes that the Constitution doesn't allow for Federal ownership of land but the National Parks are okay? Where does the authority for ownership of the national parks come from? If the Feds can own the national parks and these guys are fine with that then the Feds would have the exact same authority to hold other lands.
It completely baffles me how the same people who brought a no net gain in state ownership of land bill before the legislature can now advocate for state ownership of millions of acres of federal lands. That is hypocrisy at it's very finest.
I am wondering if any of you wanting state ownership have ever spent 5 minutes reading the Constitution.
Nemont
Last edited:
JoseCuervo
New member
I don't need to read no stinkin' comstushon........ Everything I need to know I can learn at the diner while having pie and coffee....
Transfer of Fed land to states would be a financial disaster. Most states have balance budget amendments. Management of Fed lands is a net looser each year. No one has told me how the states are going to be able to manage the lands better than the Feds. There may be a some able to gain some efficiencies in management but it won't cover all of the expenses. With a budget shortfall, land will have be sold to cover the gap. Furthermore, Fed jobs will be eliminated.
Idaho spends $6.5B each year while collecting $2.8B in taxes. The rest is Fed money. Think about it.
Idaho spends $6.5B each year while collecting $2.8B in taxes. The rest is Fed money. Think about it.
RobG
Well-known member
This is exactly why the decisions should be delegated to a more unbiased entity! Our locals would manage it for maximum local profit without regard for the other users of the property. You may call that best management, but it is only best for a few locals, not the general public who aren't profiting financially from the land.
And if you think they will manage with considerations for hunting and fishing. Dream. F'n. On.
As I said earlier, federal employee can expect to be intimidated by the local powerhouses (Bundy's mob being an example, and I have more...) and it takes a lawsuit for them to act. In SE Idaho it was infuriating to talk with the irrigators as they dewatered the rivers or the grazers stomping stream habits and have some asshat respond "If you don't like what we are doing, vote for someone else."
Completely taking away the less biased federal involvement would give the abusers complete FU power and they would only serve their own selfish interests. There needs to be some balance in the management.
JoseCuervo
New member
And look at the sole purpose of the IDaho State Land Board. Maximizing revenue to the schools. Nowhere in the State Constitution is the State Land Board directed to manage for wildlife, access, or other non-consumptive uses.
And, what did the State Land Board do last week up in Valley County? Sell off land to the highest bidder.....
Ben Long
Well-known member
The "states rights" mantra is smokescreen. The fire fighting costs alone would crush state budgets. Then add in road and trail maintenance. It just doesn't pencil out. I'm sure some of the folks behind this have the best of intentions, but I'm also sure some have the greedy gimees.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
The Endangered Species Act doesn't apply to only Federal Lands. Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all have small amounts of Federal lands compared to us Western states, but way more wolves.
Change the State Constitution.
Quite a few towns were flooded a few years ago because of the Federal Government.
Their management skills are not the best.
JoseCuervo
New member
For what purpose?
shoots-straight
Well-known member
It had nothing to do with an 100 year all time snowfall, spring melt either now did it?
What do you suppose the outcome would have been with each indivdual state ownership of their lands?
Do you think Montana would give a rats arse about NoDak? That's a funny analogy and doesn't support your position.
BTW, your reply to me said exactly what I claimed you said.
Yes you do.Quote:
Originally Posted by shoots-straight
This is from your post last year:
Correct. And then I went and read the posts Big Fin linked for me and changed my mind.
I do want State Management.
Last edited:
MTbowhunter84
Member
I'm glad to see that it can be changed so quickly as well as electing better politicians. I believe it needs to be left to the Feds as I'm sure their budget is much more substantial and able to provide the necessary needs over a state budget which are usually suffering in the first place.
There is a lawsuit now.
http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_043609ec-ae35-513b-8fb6-73ea6f078c27.html
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/05/4867748/lawsuit-renews-vigorous-debate.html
I'm not saying the States should manage the Missouri River. I am saying that Fed Management is not the holy grail some of you make it out to be.
Last edited:
BBwheelgunner
Member
One that uses common sense and actually represents its real constituents and not the almighty dollar funding their campaigns?
get politicians out of big business' front pockets, and WE will see more results.
sorry, I really shouldn't be on here after a couple of cold ones in the sun
Mule Deer
New member
As a federal lands employee I can tell you that fire season is nothing but a gigantic money grab. It's as simple as that, I don't even feel the need to explain myself. It's sickening to see, and maybe a little bitterness that I can't get in on it.
sagebrush
Active member
The only people to oppose state control of public land are those that are afraid the federal tit they suck on would dry up and the ones that think the federal government doesn't do a good job because it isn't big enough.
