The push to transfer public lands to state controlled

First off rant alert.

I am beyond agitated with the whole situation. Sen. Mike Lee, Sen John Barasso, congressman Liz Cheney and let list goes on. Are pushing for the exchange of federally controlled lands to be transferred to state control. As most of us Westerners know, on most state lands you are not allowed to camp, have fires, or use the land. The states dont have the funding to control or maintain the lands. So the first thing is going to be the sale of lands to the highest bidder. In turn that is going to push prime elk, deer, antelope and bird habitat into privately controlled hands. "Reduced access" "Pay to play" "Texas". I have lived in states that have had reduced public access to state lands, you must pay for a hunting lease, you have to pay for this and for that. We as a working group already pay for 90% of everything and now our Representatives are trying to do this. Call your elected representatives in voice your opinion.

Randy has a lot of better choice words than I do for this, most of mine are the four letter type and not the best said in a public forum.

Cheers,

Shawn

Great reasons to be active in fighting these efforts. One voice will most likely make only a small difference but if we join to fight we can have success. Agree, contact your reps and let them know your feelings. But also support groups such as BHA (Backcountry Hunters & Anglers) to keep the pressure on.

Senator info can be found here .. https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Representatives here … https://www.house.gov/representatives

With the election coming up next week it's a great time to have your voice heard. Strangely the thread about the WY governors race indicates some support for candidates who are for the transfer. I thought it would be a good topic to discuss but it really didn't seem to generate much interest.

https://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?283965-Wyoming-Governors-race

Simply put... Look at the wildfires.

Think state budgets would fiscally cover the cost?

California? Meh, 1.4 trillion in debt. Best sell Yosemite to China...

Prariehunter, unfortunately, there is more at stake than public land. In MT for instance the threat of Criminal Sanctuary Cities...

What a shock 3 republican politicians pushing for PLT.
What I can't understand is why so many here who are public land hunters and claim to be against PLT keep voting for GOP politicians when they are the one who keep pushing that agenda.
Seems they don't really care what happens to our country and our public lands as long as they can keep being anti-liberal.

Gr8bawana said:

What a shock 3 republican politicians pushing for PLT.
What I can't understand is why so many here who are public land hunters and claim to be against PLT keep voting for GOP politicians when they are the one who keep pushing that agenda.
Seems they don't really care what happens to our country and our public lands as long as they can keep being anti-liberal.

Click to expand...

I felt the same way when someone here showed support for Hageman for governor. Its hard to understand.

Gr8bawana said:

What a shock 3 republican politicians pushing for PLT.
What I can't understand is why so many here who are public land hunters and claim to be against PLT keep voting for GOP politicians when they are the one who keep pushing that agenda.
Seems they don't really care what happens to our country and our public lands as long as they can keep being anti-liberal.

Click to expand...

CAUSE HILLARYS EMAILS THATS WHY! MUELLER IS A SHILL, don’t even get me started on GEORGE SOROOOOOOOOOOOOS

I'm not crazy about this either but the Feds are $21B in debt they can't afford the upkeep anymore than the states can

Gr8bawana said:

What I can't understand is . . .

Click to expand...

That's weird, because I can understand why you take your position, and while I may disagree with some of it and may agree with some of it I can certainly understand most of it. So I will add one more time to the 500+ explanations many of your HTer colleagues offer every time some on goes down this unhelpful path.

Because we want to keep our guns so we can hunt, so we can legally shoot bambi and not be viewed as a war criminal, so we have $ in our pockets to be able to hunt, so we have educational freedom, so we have a supreme court that bothers to read the constitution, so we can continue to have religion in the public square, so we have a 1st amendment that isn't just for leftist artists, academics and eco-warriors, so we can have a respect for our republic form of government, so we can have orderly immigration policies (actually both parties suck at this), for some there are right to life issues, etc. etc.

PLT opposition is not the only thing that is important to many PL hunters. Many of us refuse to be one issue voters. I am not saying you have to agree, but the constant, "I don't understand" or "you can't possibly see this any other way" approach proffered by a few of you on HT is quite simply adolescent and embarrassing at this point.

[For the record, I am pro-Public Lands. I am a little less convinced than some here that over the next 40 year the federal government is the best owner of that land if the goal is hunting on that land, but I am fine with the status quo. And in either event, it is not my only concern with our governance and will not be my only consideration when voting.]

brushcreek said:

I'm not crazy about this either but the Feds are $21B in debt they can't afford the upkeep anymore than the states can

Click to expand...

$21T not B

Gr8...

Many Montana citizens (legal Americans) hold great value for our public lands. It's a scale that must be weighed based on the threat the Democrats pose on other key issues vs the threat Republicans pose on public land issues...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mollie...-multiple-sharp-force-injuries-autopsy-finds/

I want my daughter to live in a state that values law abiding citizens over criminal aliens.

Sytes said:

Gr8...

Many Montana citizens (legal Americans) hold great value for our public lands. It's a scale that must be weighed based on the threat the Democrats pose on other key issues vs the threat Republicans pose on public land issues...

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mollie...-multiple-sharp-force-injuries-autopsy-finds/

I want my daughter to live in a state that values law abiding citizens over criminal aliens.

Click to expand...

Well said Sytes. It’s definitely something each person has to weigh individually. Living in the southeast I get crucified for ever daring to speak out against Republican policies as a giant portion of the population here thinks of nothing more than their party line as a whole and not individual issues. Gun rights, public lands, and healthcare are my main 3 issues I tend to personally take into account the most when evaluating who I prefer as a candidate. While I’m not particularly a fan of many things the current administration is doing/has done, I feel pretty comfortable that since DJT has two SCOTUS justices so far and a good shot at a third, that my gun rights will be pretty well covered for the foreseeable future. This may end up leading me to favor a candidate in 2020 who may not be as solid on gun rights but is much more solid on public lands since I believe SCOTUS will be strong on the 2nd Amendment for quite awhile. But as I said, it’s definitely something each individual has to weigh for themselves and their families. Just my $.02 on the whole thing.

neffa3 said:

$21T not B

Click to expand...

yes thanks for catching that

Very good post VikingsGuy, pretty much sums up how I feel