Gov't Shutdown Closes National Wildlife Refuges

[BigRack]

How do you propose that the states pay for the land? How to you propose that they pay to manage the land?

1. They can do an installment sale with the Federal Government.

2. They can manage the new land the same way they manage the land they own now.

 

[Nameless Range]

BigRack, is your position that Jason Chaffetz doesn't represent the majority of those who would consider themselves Tea Party members?

You can do mental gymnastics and pussy foot around the issue of views on public lands within the Tea Party all you want. But for anyone who pays attention it's clear - When people talk about selling off public lands, they are almost always Republicans or Teatards. Background evidence matters.

Oh. And I'd rather Federal land remain as such. The Federal Government purchased the vast majority of it for All Americans long before the states those lands are now contained in even existed. You can be damn sure hunting and recreation opportunities across the west would suffer if Federal Lands were quit-claimed to the States, especially in those states with higher proportions of moronic political leaders than is usual in the west. (Texas and Utah anyone?)

 

[Big Fin]

2. They can manage the new land the same way they manage the land they own now.

Which in Colorado would mean 23 million acres of Federal lands currently open to hunting would be closed to hunting. FACT!

In Colorado, State-owned lands are not open to hunting unless the cash-strapped CPW agency purchases a hunting access easement from the State Land Board, something they cannot afford to do on the amount of land currently owned by the state, let alone on another 23 million acres.

 

[BigRack]

BigRack, is your position that Jason Chaffetz doesn't represent the majority of those who would consider themselves Tea Party members?

You can do mental gymnastics and pussy foot around the issue of views on public lands within the Tea Party all you want. But for anyone who pays attention it's clear - When people talk about selling off public lands, they are almost always Republicans or Teatards. Background evidence matters.

Oh. And I'd rather Federal land remain as such. The Federal Government purchased the vast majority of it for All Americans long before the states those lands are now contained in even existed. You can be damn sure hunting and recreation opportunities across the west would suffer if Federal Lands were quit-claimed to the States, especially in those states with higher proportions of moronic political leaders than is usual in the west. (Texas and Utah anyone?)

You must be one of those "informed" liberals....

How would hunting and recreation opportunities suffer if Montana bought some Federal land?

Apparently, you can build a house on a Federal road and nothing happens.

 

[BigRack]

Which in Colorado would mean 23 million acres of Federal lands currently open to hunting would be closed to hunting. FACT!

In Colorado, State-owned lands are not open to hunting unless the cash-strapped CPW agency purchases a hunting access easement from the State Land Board, something they cannot afford to do on the amount of land currently owned by the state, let alone on another 23 million acres.

I am only referring to agriculture and/ or grazing land. I don't think the States would buy land they couldn't make money off of.

 

[RobG]

You do realize the Tea Party doesn't have an official stance on selling public lands right?

Would you rather have the Fed or the States own the land?

If the Feds own the land there is a lot more oversight/inertia and less of a chance that it be "managed" in a way that isn't good for fish/wildlife.

But my original point was that the Rs and TPs are trying to pass this stuff off as budget savings when it is just a small budget program they don't like. You need to attack the defense and entitlements or increase income if you want to solve the budget problem. I don't see any meaningful cuts in their demands...

 

[spook12]

I am only referring to agriculture and/ or grazing land.

You mean the ''Good Wildlife habitat''.
No thanks. I think we'll pass this time.

 

[ismith]

If the Feds own the land there is a lot more oversight/inertia and less of a chance that it be "managed" in a way that isn't good for fish/wildlife.

But my original point was that the Rs and TPs are trying to pass this stuff off as budget savings when it is just a small budget program they don't like. You need to attack the defense and entitlements or increase income if you want to solve the budget problem. I don't see any meaningful cuts in their demands...

Not really a matter of Repubs this, or Tea Bagers that, anymore. The budget problem is unsolvable, a mathematical impossibility. Once they can't increase their credit card limit anymore they will have to either get a new credit card with 0% into for 12 months or file for bankruptcy. I have a feeling that there's a pretty good chance this will end in divorce, and then a fight over the kids and family dog.

 

[RobG]

You must be one of those "informed" liberals....

How would hunting and recreation opportunities suffer if Montana bought some Federal land?

Apparently, you can build a house on a Federal road and nothing happens.

RE the house built on the road by Big Sky... the Gallatin National Forest (i.e. the feds) decided a couple of weeks ago that he needed to build the road around his place at his own expense. The offender agrees and is planning to do that, although the details are unsettled.

 

[Nemont]

Not really a matter of Repubs this, or Tea Bagers that, anymore. The budget problem is unsolvable, a mathematical impossibility. Once they can't increase their credit card limit anymore they will have to either get a new credit card with 0% into for 12 months or file for bankruptcy. I have a feeling that there's a pretty good chance this will end in divorce, and the a fight over the kids and family dog.

That isn't accurate, they can finance anything until the U.S. Dollar is not longer the world's reserve currency. Right now the government is able to create credit out of thin air using the dollars reserve currency status. Look no further than the FED's bond buying scheme and the expansion of the it's balance sheet to do QE.

We can, theory, inflate our way out of the mess but that would mean laying waste to the bottom 99% as their wages and savings shrunk to nothing.

Nemont

 

[wyoming556]

How do you propose that the states pay for the land? How to you propose that they pay to manage the land?

Could they pay for it the same way that other landowners, ranchers, and farmers pay for land they buy by utilizing the grazing/farming/mineral leasing rights as well as things like timber resources?

I'm not sure exactly how all the USFS land works but in my area there are 30+ employees including several engineers who manage a few hundred thousand acres. Between the vehicles, buildings, and employees they must spend Millions keeping up with what is a small amount of land. Not exactly what they really do other than mange the grazing leases. They have a couple of small campgrounds and an archaeological site. Other than that that they typically subcontract out road maintenance work. I was out the other day checking cameras and ran across a USFS employee, I spent 15 minutes taking a recreational survey. Complete waste of my time and his just making worthless paperwork for government employees to pass between each other acting busy. The best part is they mismanage the timber resource they are in charge of and managed to turn something that has value into worthless burning trees which costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars to fight fires, burned peoples homes, and in some cases actually cost lives not to mention stopped grazing income for a year on the property.

On the flip side I have worked on a 140k acre cattle ranch that had 4 employees and they kept up with 2500+ cattle, 400+ miles of fence, 50+ water tanks/windmills, and all the roads on the property. If 4 employees can keep up a nearly 150k cattle ranch there is no reason we need 30+ higher paid employees to manage grazing rights to 300k acres.

 

[ismith]

That isn't accurate, they can finance anything until the U.S. Dollar is not longer the world's reserve currency. Right now the government is able to create credit out of thin air using the dollars reserve currency status. Look no further than the FED's bond buying scheme and the expansion of the it's balance sheet to do QE.

We can, theory, inflate our way out of the mess but that would mean laying waste to the bottom 99% as their wages and savings shrunk to nothing.

Nemont

Isn't that sorta like killing the patient to cure the disease? How much longer is the dollar going to be the global currency do you suppose?

 

[Nemont]

Isn't that sorta like killing the patient to cure the disease? How much longer is the dollar going to be the global currency do you suppose?

That is the $10,000 question.

I didn't say creating hyper inflation was a great strategy, it is horrible economics and probably worse morality but I am not sure either of those things matter in DC.

Nemont

 

[RobG]

That is the $10,000 question.

I didn't say creating hyper inflation was a great strategy

Thank you for not saying that

 

[BigRack]

RE the house built on the road by Big Sky... the Gallatin National Forest (i.e. the feds) decided a couple of weeks ago that he needed to build the road around his place at his own expense. The offender agrees and is planning to do that, although the details are unsettled.

Great news. Thanks for the info because I didn't see that update.

 

[BigRack]

Why do States get to choose how much to charge for a hunting license on Federal lands?

 

[Big Fin]

Why do States get to choose how much to charge for a hunting license on Federal lands?

Because the 10th Amendment gives states the right to do that.

The 10th Amendment gives states the right to do a lot of things with a lot of assets that they never granted to the Feds. It is the basis of our argument when we assert the claim of "states' rights."

BTW, the states don't charge a license for "Federal Lands." They charge you for a license to hunt, whether you choose to hunt Federal, State, or private lands. Tons of threads on this site discussing in great detail, the basis an origin of how this evolved in the country.

 

[BigRack]

Because the 10th Amendment gives states the right to do that.

The 10th Amendment gives states the right to do a lot of things with a lot of assets that they never granted to the Feds. It is the basis of our argument when we assert the claim of "states' rights."

BTW, the states don't charge a license for "Federal Lands." They charge you for a license to hunt, whether you choose to hunt Federal, State, or private lands. Tons of threads on this site discussing in great detail, the basis an origin of how this evolved in the country.

Thanks Randy. My bad for not using the search function.

 

[BigRack]

If the Feds own the land there is a lot more oversight/inertia and less of a chance that it be "managed" in a way that isn't good for fish/wildlife.

How do you feel they have managed the wolves?

 

[ismith]

That is the $10,000 question.

I didn't say creating hyper inflation was a great strategy, it is horrible economics and probably worse morality but I am not sure either of those things matter in DC.

Nemont

I agree. It seems to me that would be akin to a financial counselor suggesting suicide as a way to get out of debt.