Interesting......

Dmanmastertracker · Jan 18, 2007

The current admin. had no problem rolling back funding for National Forest's and Park's by million's over the last several years and closing many parks that were "not profitable". They also raised fees on all Western park sites by over 30% in many western States. Now they piss and moan when non-producing leases are taxed in an effort to create a fund for alternative energy development in a bipartisan effort....

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-17-dems-energy_x.htm

202typical · Jan 18, 2007

Piss on a National Forest. The only property the Government should own is that with which they use to protect our country with our military. The rest should be private property. This is not the Scocialist States of America...........well it should'nt be any way.

hunterofelk · Jan 18, 2007

As a hunter, I like the idea of public property.

Dmanmastertracker · Jan 18, 2007

Teddy would roll in his grave. The only private lands I've ever had an opportunity to hunt were overcrowded timberlands. Without public lands I would have never started hunting and this web site surely wouldn't exist. That point was actually secondary, but still a good topic. public lands = public management = public opportunity.

ismith · Jan 18, 2007

Great Idea 202! Lets just speed it along a bit though and adopt the full european system right from the get go. This years hunting season is canceled while the new corportate landowners are high fencing them off. Everyone turn in your firearms right now unless you own a "hunting perserve" or belong to a shooting club. Oh and if you qualify to own a firearm, you need to get it registered right away. Yeah thats an awesome idea 202!
ismith

Roy · Jan 18, 2007

Come on SOTX! You need to get out of Texas where all the land is private. There is nothing like being able to roam free on public land.

UTROY
Proverbs 21:19 (why I hunt!)

Cornhusker · Jan 18, 2007

I would guess 202 just wants all of your wild reactions he seems to like to stir the pot a little. No hunter can be that stupid its got to be just to get a reaction.

huntindude · Jan 18, 2007

We've been through this before, he's that stupid.

202typical · Jan 19, 2007

public lands = public management = public opportunity not hardly.
Public land = mis use of land = more government control over your life.

arrowone4me · Jan 19, 2007

So.........Private lands have no control over your life?

Dmanmastertracker · Jan 19, 2007

I don't know where you live 202, but in Wa. and many other western States, the fish and game dept. manages the public lands purchases, season's and almost all opportunity based on public input, with additional input by area biologists. Give one good arguement why having all private lands would give more control to sportsmen? I can list a ton of negatives; most hunting would be "by permission only", species would not be managed appropriately without biologist input, landowners could sell for development tomorrow or bar entry, where would management and license fees go? To the landowner? What would he do with the license money since he doesn't have the resources State wildlife does? Simply put, private lands offer the average hunter no voice whatsoever in the product they are paying for AND the hunter pays a lot more money to hunt private lands, more than some of us can afford....

JimNv · Jan 19, 2007

I used to be a states rights kind of guy, but then gave a thought to the political hacks that run my state and figured that maybe the bureaucratic miasma that is the public lands isn't such a bad idea. Las Vegas owns this state. LV would be calling the shots on the management for the most part, and that scares the hell out of me. They have no problem using their power in trying to control the water rights here. They will, too. Money talks, the proletariat walks. I think that large northern landowners (eastern Utah as well) will start seeing some greenbacks coming their way. Vegas will buy them out of their water rights at the very least.

Rackster · Jan 19, 2007

Huntindue,

Did you say Bipartisan? What you really mean is, "Republicans let the Liberals run over you, cause if you don't, then you are Partisan". If you disagree with Palosi, then you are Partisan. If you don't cowtail to the liberal agenda then you are Partisan. Did it ever occur to you that the liberal agenda is Partisan? Show me any Bipartisanship in the liberal agenda. you won't find it!

JimNV,

Harry Reid owns your state. He can also make any illegal land deals he wants and can get away with it. He can also be bought off by Jack Abernoff...however you say his last name......and be called a hero for doing so, while Republicans are indicted for doing the same. Now thats waht I call "Interseting"