Randy Newberg Political activist

Nemont, Forty years of watching wildlife on private land get better while the herds on public land get worse. I base it on that. As far as cost and efficiency you can't name a single thing the government does that a private company doesn't do better if allowed.

As for the price of Zero, Randy didn't put that caveat on his statement. If he would have stated land transfer COULD end FREE access then we wouldn't even have this thread right now. Words are important Nemont. A man like Randy knows that.
 
Excellent point NEmont.

I think the truth is that nothing will make some people happy unless the land is developed for profiteering. They hide behind an endless screen of justifications and crazy rationale that cannot be followed by a logical person. They are simply afraid to state the truth, which is that to them life just about the dollar and they dont value anything in nature.

Public land, Wild places, wildlife, clean cold water, nature......none of it means a damn thing to them because they have nothing good in their soul.

Just admit the truth Tristate.....
 
Im getting the idea Tristate has sniffed a bit too much skull cleaning bleach. He cant even see that he called Randy a liar.

For kicks i skimmed back over this thread and he calls Randy a liar at least 7 times.

Meanwhile Randy attempted to be courteous to the steaming troll pile.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 02:37PM (MST)[p]>Actually nowhere in the first post
>did I call him a
>liar. You can't even
>get that straight. But
>since you want to talk
>about that HIS LIES WILL
>TEAR HIM DOWN. Not
>me calling him names.
>If he doesn't want to
>look like a liar which
>by the way YOU ROBILAND
>brought up, MAYBE HE SHOULDN'T
>BE SPREADING A LIE or
>ideas he can't support with
>anything more than fears and
>feelings.
>
>What I am taking him to
>task on HE HAS NOT
>PROVEN WITH FACT. You
>Robiland are lying about that.
>In fact I showed a
>giant example where millions and have done
>so for over a century
>but you won't admit you
>could have your "facts" wrong.
>


First post from Tristate: "How does he get away with saying untruthful things like this?" If that isn't calling Randy a liar, then you yourself are lying. You ask for proof and when it's given you don't listen or comprehend because you don't want to and just want to be the #1 Troll, which you are with nobody else coming close to taking your top spot! I told you the proof of what we're talking about can be easily obtained just by looking at the stats where all the western states were given millions of acres of Federal lands when each became a state. Look at the stats and you'll see that every single one of them sold off a large percentage of that land to private interests that now either don't allow access or charge a fee. You keep making the stupid statement about Texas where in your words "millions of people still hunt fish and camp on both private and state land". That is so misleading that is is close to, if not, a lie because less than 1% (%1 for you, you dumb Aggie) of Texas is state land. The rest is private land that you either have to lease for big money or know someone that may let you on if you kiss enough ass like it seems you do plenty of! Let's get down to the nitty gritty and just say that what you appear to be saying is that you want all land to be private like 99% (%99 for you again) of Texas and you could give a rip whether people have to pay an arm and leg along with their first born child to have a chance to recreate on any of it because that's about the way all of Texas is now and has been for the last couple decades!
 
Imagine being in camp with this guy? Those Steele boys must have the patients of Job! He MUST tip very well when he comes out west to hunt wild game.
 
Hey Flopgun, if that's how you define me calling him a liar then OK. You think Randy is a liar. I can deal with that.

As for how much it costs in Texas I don't have a problem with it. Neither do the millions of people here that keep paying it. If it wasn't worth it they would stop paying. That's how capitalism works. I know a gubmint employee doesn't understand capitalism but you can try.
 
Rockydog,

The truth is nature has a value and constantly devaluing by keeping access free and tags underpriced has done nothing but hurt it. Here's a tip If you want to beat out oil drillers, coal miners, and loggers YOU BETTER MAKE THE WILDLIFE WORTH MORE MONEY. That's what I want to do. Make wildlife valuable to as many people as possible so more people want to conserve it. It works everywhere else in the world they do it. Give wildlife an actual fiscal value and suddenly conservation and habitat become important.
 
"For kicks i skimmed back over this thread and he calls Randy a liar at least 7 times."

Actually no I didn't. But I'll call you a liar once if it makes you feel better.
 
Good thing we don't need a license to breed or Tri might not have the qualifications. My IQ has tanked in the last twenty minutes trying to wrap my head around his logic. Good God.....
 
>Hey Flopgun, if that's how you
>define me calling him a
>liar then OK. You
>think Randy is a liar.
> I can deal with
>that.
>
>As for how much it costs
>in Texas I don't have
>a problem with it.
>Neither do the millions of
>people here that keep paying
>it. If it wasn't
>worth it they would stop
>paying. That's how capitalism
>works. I know a
>gubmint employee doesn't understand capitalism
>but you can try.


Your first paragraph is one big twist like you're good at and didn't surprise me one bit! The second paragraph is really what you're all about and it's strictly money, money, money! You may be able to play the game in Texas with it's high costs, but it shuts many more out of the game that don't have the financial ability to pay thousands of dollars. My Dad was on a lease years ago back in the 70s that was $650 per gun for a section of ground. There were four other friends on that lease for several years and they even built a nice little cabin on it. Along came a couple of ahole Doctors from Houston that told the ranch owner they'd give him $10K for access and that was the end of Dad's lease and the rancher wouldn't even allow them back on the place to take down their cabin! The last ranch he was on until about 2000 or so was $1500 a gun and each person was relegated to a section of about 100 acres and allowed one deer. Many places in that same area near George West were twice that much and places down in the counties closer to Mexico are going for more than $5K a gun for just deer hunting and no other use of the land. If you call that great for the average guy "by making wildlife worth something" that only the upper class can afford like it is over in Europe, then you're one sick puppy. I think we all came to that conclusion a long time ago though!
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 04:20PM (MST)[p]

>Nemont, Forty years of watching wildlife
>on private land get better
>while the herds on public
>land get worse. I
>base it on that.

You said that selling those lands would provide more freedom, not more game. If freedom is your objective then selling those lands doesn't guarantee any more or less freedom. Freedom isn't really a concern for you, it is purely the game populations. Not access, not hunter recruitment, not outdoor opportunity, purely the game populations?

>As far as cost and
>efficiency you can't name a
>single thing the government does
>that a private company doesn't
>do better if allowed.

Are you sure there isn't a caveat required in the above statement?

The government can do many things better than private industry and cheaper too: Provide water, sewer, interstate highways, Standing Military, Police, Fire Departments, Prisons, medical care for Senior citizens. Ask the military if they would rather have contractors providing their logistics or organic military units. It cost more and was less efficient to bid out those services.

>As for the price of Zero,
>Randy didn't put that caveat
>on his statement. If
>he would have stated land
>transfer COULD end FREE access
>then we wouldn't even have
>this thread right now.
>Words are important Nemont.
>A man like Randy knows
>that.

Words are important but sometimes the message has to include Hyperbole to have impact. Whether Randy used a caveat or not doesn't diminish his message to hunters, campers and fisherman who currently enjoy far more access and freedom to roam public lands now, then they would enjoy if those lands were transferred to the States and sold. The opportunity to recreate the way these people do now would either be reduced or ended. The activities themselves would go on in a different form and under far more restrictive rules or would end all together at the whim of the new landowners. We will see who is willing to fight for their freedom to roam and those who want end the freedom to do that.

I am curious if you hold your side of the issue to the same standards of speaking the absolute truth and not resorting to hyperbole and misstatements and requiring caveats when the state things as fact?

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 04:26PM (MST)[p]Hey Nemont! You better dumb down your posts to the resident Troll a tad since I seriously doubt that he has any idea what you are referring to when you use the words hyperbole and caveats! Hell, he can't even put a percentage point sign where it should be behind a number he refers to and yet he thinks we should accept his BS, LOL!
 
"Freedom isn't really a concern for you, it is purely the game populations. Not access, not hunter recruitment, not outdoor opportunity, purely the game populations?"

Wrong again Nemont. Private ownership provides individuals more freedom. By the way there ain't any more hunter recruitment when the game keeps dwindling away and I have told everyone straight on here time and time again managing for "opportunity" is one of the greatest threats to game management in the USA now. At least I will be straight with you.

"Provide water," Wrong. I have a brother who has a water well at his house. I pay $200 a month. He pays nothing.


"sewer" My mom has ceptic tanks. Her bill every 18 months to empty them is still less than my city sewer bill.

", interstate highways," The feds pay private companies to build those.

" Standing Military," There is no body corporation in the USA that can produce the revenue to match our military so this is an impossible comparison. Plus the Government wouldn't allow a private military get the size of its military.


" Police, Fire Departments," Two things that are pretty much broke in every municipality in America.

" Prisons," Funny how there has been a longstanding push to privatize these. I wonder why????


" medical care for Senior citizens." It's not cheaper or better. THEY TAKE MONEY FROM EVERYONE ELSE TO PAY FOR IT.

Do you even know how your government works?

"Words are important but sometimes the message has to include Hyperbole to have impact."

Is that a long way of saying we have to use melodramatic BS to get what we want?????? Sure what it sounds like to me.


"I am curious if you hold your side of the issue to the same standards of speaking the absolute truth and not resorting to hyperbole and misstatements and requiring caveats when the state things as fact?"

DAMN STRAIGHT! If they came on here posting some spin cartoon I would rip it too. Haven't seen it here yet.
 
I think Tristate is smarter than you all give him credit for. I have gone around a time or two with him and his positions are generally well stated and articulate.

I have learned over the years that I have learned far more from people to challenge my own ideas and preconceived notions then from those who just agree with me. Difficult, smart and determined people can make you sharpen and hone your own game.

I don't have to agree with him or his position in order to try and figure out where he is coming from. I am not out to change his mind about anything or to bring him over from the dark side. I know there are a lot of people who believe as he does and it is important for people who don't want this transfer of lands to understand what is that drives.

Arguing and name calling is easy with the ability to hide behind a screen name, figuring out how to talk to the opposition in a civil manner is far harder but more productive IMO.


Nemont


Caveat: except on the political forum, there are some real morons who frequent that forum. :)
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 05:01PM (MST)[p]>Wrong again Nemont. Private ownership
>provides individuals more freedom.

So wouldn't it stand that public ownership provides the public more freedom? Kind of a circular argument. Define how you use the word freedom. I am free to climb mountains in the Beartooth and rarely encounter another human. I can roam all over the CMR and surrounding BLM lands unfettered. Am I not free?

>By the way there ain't
>any more hunter recruitment when
>the game keeps dwindling away
>and I have told everyone
>straight on here time and
>time again managing for "opportunity"
>is one of the greatest
>threats to game management in
>the USA now. At
>least I will be straight
>with you.

I don't disagree with you on managing for opportunity but how do you recruit more hunters with less access? The NUMBER 1 issue that makes people hang up their guns is lack of access.


>"Provide water," Wrong. I have
>a brother who has a
>water well at his house.
> I pay $200 a
>month. He pays nothing.
One well in the hill country is akin to city water systems piping water to millions of people?

> "sewer" My mom has
>ceptic tanks. Her bill
>every 18 months to empty
>them is still less than
>my city sewer bill.

If everyone in the city had a septic system we would be back to the 1740 and typhoid Mary.

>", interstate highways," The feds pay
>private companies to build those.

Yes they do but it requires government to provide so that you don't have pay a toll every time you jump in the truck and travel down the highway.

>" Standing Military," There is
>no body corporation in the
>USA that can produce the
>revenue to match our military
>so this is an impossible
>comparison. Plus the Government
>wouldn't allow a private military
>get the size of its
>military.

So there is a caveat?

>" Police, Fire Departments," Two
>things that are pretty much
>broke in every municipality in
>America.

are you sure of this?

>" Prisons," Funny how there
>has been a longstanding push
>to privatize these. I
>wonder why????

We have a private prison in Montana and it isn't cheaper or better than the State run facility.

>" medical care for Senior citizens."
> It's not cheaper or
>better. THEY TAKE MONEY
>FROM EVERYONE ELSE TO PAY
>FOR IT.

That is because there is not a market for health insurance for senior citizen. No carrier wants them once they get old and costly.


>Do you even know how your
>government works?

I know how government works. I am not a fan of government either but I understand it is necessary otherwise it would be lord of the flies.

>"Words are important but sometimes the
>message has to include Hyperbole
>to have impact."
>
>Is that a long way of
>saying we have to use
>melodramatic BS to get what
>we want?????? Sure what
>it sounds like to me.

Nope it isn't that at all. It is more splitting hairs over semantics. Fishing, Camping and Hunting will end for many, many people if those lands are transferred and sold.

>
>"I am curious if you hold
>your side of the issue
>to the same standards of
>speaking the absolute truth and
>not resorting to hyperbole and
>misstatements and requiring caveats when
>the state things as fact?"
>
>
>DAMN STRAIGHT! If they came
>on here posting some spin
>cartoon I would rip it
>too. Haven't seen it
>here yet.
>

So as long as it is not posted on MM.com you don't hold any outrage for the way your side frames the issue and they words the use?

Nemont
 
I swear Tristate everything you post is trash. I've yet to see one decent post from you and it amazes me you've been tolerated being the troll you are on MM as long as you have. You're definety a huge detractor for many people who have used these forums in the past and those that may be lingering around reading. Like I said, you're just an agitator. You deny factual information simply because it doesn't fit your self serving ideology. I think people would attack you less and talk about the subject at hand if they hadn't already slammed you with facts, history, and statistics that prove exactly what Randy says. There's no reason to entertain a troll like yourself with useful and factual information when you don't care to listen, learn, and can't or refuse to comprehend the information in front of you. If you want to attack the character of a good man who is an advocate for hunting and public lands expect the exact same thing back. Do you really think someone's going to respect an internet troll like yourself more than someone out there walking the walk? You can't even talk the talk, let alone give the slightest sh*** about wildlife or the future of hunting. You put your ideology in front of all else and that's fine, its you who can't see past your own world, but the rest of us aren't trapped inside it.
 
68858img0836.jpg


tri this picture is fresh from today for you. You know you sound like a paid lobbyist. No matter how hard you are rejected you keep posting crap. You have mentioned that your proof is in the land management texas provides. You must admit texas landscape and terrain is much different than these western states. It will attract different interests than you are used to. I eluded to this in post #67. please read. This is one small example.
 
>I swear Tristate everything you post
>is trash. I've yet to
>see one decent post from
>you and it amazes me
>you've been tolerated being the
>troll you are on MM
>as long as you have.
>You're definety a huge detractor
>for many people who have
>used these forums in the
>past and those that may
>be lingering around reading. Like
>I said, you're just an
>agitator. You deny factual information
>simply because it doesn't fit
>your self serving ideology. I
>think people would attack you
>less and talk about the
>subject at hand if they
>hadn't already slammed you with
>facts, history, and statistics that
>prove exactly what Randy says.
>There's no reason to entertain
>a troll like yourself
>with useful and factual information
>when you don't care to
>listen, learn, and can't or
>refuse to comprehend the information
>in front of you. If
>you want to attack the
>character of a good man
>who is an advocate for
>hunting and public lands expect
>the exact same thing back.
>Do you really think someone's
>going to respect an internet
>troll like yourself more than
>someone out there walking the
>walk? You can't even talk
>the talk, let alone give
>the slightest sh*** about wildlife
>or the future of hunting.
>You put your ideology in
>front of all else and
>that's fine, its you who
>can't see past your own
>world, but the rest of
>us aren't trapped inside it.
>


Perfectly said. +1
 
>It will attract different interests than
>you are used to. I
>eluded to this in post
>#67. please read. This is
>one small example.

I'm not sure those interests described in that post will be much different than what we see.
 
>>It will attract different interests than
>>you are used to. I
>>eluded to this in post
>>#67. please read. This is
>>one small example.
>
>I'm not sure those interests described
>in that post will be
>much different than what we
>see.


Is there something in the Houston water that's screwing the two of you guy's up? Maybe too much lead in the paint when you were a kid and in the water you're drinking now?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jun-30-16 AT 08:08PM (MST)[p]>>>It will attract different interests than
>>>you are used to. I
>>>eluded to this in post
>>>#67. please read. This is
>>>one small example.
>>
>>I'm not sure those interests described
>>in that post will be
>>much different than what we
>>see.
>
>
>Is there something in the Houston
>water that's screwing the two
>of you guy's up?
>Maybe too much lead in
>the paint when you were
>a kid and in the
>water you're drinking now?

If the special interests are timber and investment companies coming in and buying up land that hits the market then no, nothing in the water. That routinely happens here and is a good example of what they're going to be after in the West if it becomes available.


Edit: and tax payers would still be on the hook for forest fires, trying to control invasive vegetation/disease/etc.....and providing timber mgmt and Eco rehab services through USFS. It really makes no sense to transfer that resource.
 
>>It will attract different interests than
>>you are used to. I
>>eluded to this in post
>>#67. please read. This is
>>one small example.
>
>I'm not sure those interests described
>in that post will be
>much different than what we
>see.


I will admit I am ignorant of Texas logging production. But I do know first hand theses companies spray the brush the deer use for browse to eliminate competition for trees. Private ownership doesn't mean best interests for animals. Logging is great! I love it, as long as the deer browse gets to grow for 5 years after a burn or clear cut but their interests are in board feet.
 
If necessary I will prove this with pictures in a couple days. I will show you pics of the rim fire from 2013. The forest ground is now full of vibrant deer browse for the time being. The private timber ground has been deep ripped and sprayed, very little browse, little pine plantations all over. Not even a mix of types of trees all pine. What's best for the market. No oaks no cedars. That's not what all of the forest would come to I realize but if 1 acre gets transferred it will be 2 too many!
 
>>>It will attract different interests than
>>>you are used to. I
>>>eluded to this in post
>>>#67. please read. This is
>>>one small example.
>>
>>I'm not sure those interests described
>>in that post will be
>>much different than what we
>>see.
>
>
>I will admit I am ignorant
>of Texas logging production. But
>I do know first hand
>theses companies spray the brush
>the deer use for browse
>to eliminate competition for trees.
>Private ownership doesn't mean best
>interests for animals. Logging is
>great! I love it, as
>long as the deer browse
>gets to grow for
>5 years after a burn
>or clear cut but their
>interests are in board feet.
>

Yeah, spraying used to not be a big thing here, but when a "western-based" timber investment group moved in on over a million acres them folks liked to spray and keep spraying to speed up that early growth in the plantations. Deer hug the SMZs like their lives depend on it. Now that the company has been here a while it seems they do that initially to get away from the control burns. The forest service still performs the burns regularly on area state & fed lands and it shows. I like logging too, that industry built the town I'm from (was Temple-Inland headquarters).
 
Can't believe You Guys are letting one guy get to You so bad .Commical, not even worth reading. Its summertime, supposed to be outside enjoying the weather. specially u northerners. Even in Phoenix at 110 degrees folks are out most of the day. Don't you guys like sunshine.....LOL....................Bull.
 
>Can't believe You Guys are letting
>one guy get to You
>so bad .Commical, not even
>worth reading. Its summertime, supposed
>to be outside enjoying the
>weather. specially u northerners. Even
>in Phoenix at 110 degrees
>folks are out most of
>the day. Don't you guys
>like sunshine.....LOL....................Bull.


Look at post 118. Guess where I was all day! Love my job.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-01-16 AT 00:02AM (MST)[p]>Rockydog,
>
>The truth is nature has a
>value and constantly devaluing by
>keeping access free and tags
>underpriced has done nothing but
>hurt it. Here's a
>tip If you want to
>beat out oil drillers, coal
>miners, and loggers YOU BETTER
>MAKE THE WILDLIFE WORTH MORE
>MONEY. That's what I
>want to do. Make
>wildlife valuable to as many
>people as possible so more
>people want to conserve it.
> It works everywhere else
>in the world they do
>it. Give wildlife an
>actual fiscal value and suddenly
>conservation and habitat become important.
>


Thanks for verifying that you can only comprehend money. You lack the capacity to understand that putting a value on wild public places is akin to putting a value on our spirituality. It's worth more than money. The American lands Council and most GOP are trying to buy it, and what you're not hearing is it will never be for sale for any amount of money. Your life must be incredibly empty of meaning.

In wild places people succeed by their wit, strength determination. In Texas they succeed by the cash they whore and the assets they kiss. You are the poster boy.
 
A sign saying no camping and a sign saying no fires isn't evidence that land transfer ends hunting, fishing, and camping on all the current public land.

If I show you a sign that shows elk crossing does that mean all public land has elk on it. Nope.

So let's not be silly.



Nemont,

I never said government isn't necessary. There are certain things the government has to do to maintain law and order. But there isn't one thing that the private sector can't whip the government's ass at if it is possible to be done by the private sector. ONE EXAMPLE IS MANAGE LANDS.

Yall can complain about the timber industry. WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM. DO you think the government can start a timber industry and do better? What do you think would happen to the USA if you got rid of the timber industry so you can do a little more deer hunting? What if you over regulated it and suddenly a 2X4 costs $20. Either way your lives would change so bad hunting deer would be the least of your worries.



Nemont, when I said "individuals" they are the public. We can't forget that.


I don't mind telling you if people on this website would have listened to me years ago tell them to increase the value and revenue from these big game species you wouldn't be as worried as you are now. But the simple fact is CAPITALSIM rules this nation. NOT OUR HOBBIES LIKE DEER HUNTING. What do you think would begin to happen when states who always have trouble covering their budgets had to make a choice between maximizing revenue or helping out a bunch of outdoor hobbyist that have been nothing but a fiscal strain for the past 4 decades? That's not a hypothetical question. I want an answer. WHY SHOULD THEY PICK YOUR AGENDA OVER THE OPPOSITION.

People didn't listen then and it gets worse. People won't listen now and for them its going to get worse. I don't know if one day people will quit worrying about whether I tell them what they want to hear and actually start listening.

One last thing Nemont, if you have a political cartoon from the opposition you think needs to get ripped apart post it on these threads. If it stinks I'll let you know.
 
Tri Guess what in utah we do manage our deer herd the way it should be look at the last 10 years the dnr didnt want to subdivide units . They said it didn't work. Well it did and it worked quite well. And we have the quality and numbers to back it. Look on the flip side what has utah done wrong watch the video the facts on public land sold they are real. The fact Snowbird Ski resort is going into american fork canyon is real. So practice what you preach get off your high horse and don't tell me how to manage my land from 1000's of miles away. And do me a favor put some research into some real concrete facts as Newberg has before you speak. You like other texans have #### in your own bed now sleep in it. Believe me a revolution is likely going to happen in our country over the major issues going on in the political agendas. And as hunters we better band together and go into battling these things together. Just remember don't bite the hand that feeds you.
 
Tri the one major fix for habitat on public land is fire. Lots and lots of fire. It's not the only solution but it's the main solution. With air quality, urban sprawl environmental this that and the other, private sector or state managed won't be able to accomplish much more than Feds.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-01-16 AT 09:28AM (MST)[p]

>Nemont,
>
>I never said government isn't necessary.
> There are certain things
>the government has to do
>to maintain law and order.
> But there isn't one
>thing that the private sector
>can't whip the government's ass
>at if it is possible
>to be done by the
>private sector. ONE EXAMPLE
>IS MANAGE LANDS.

Can private business manage land if it was required to abide by the same rules set by law? Multiple Use, below market grazing, etc, etc. It's an apples to Tuesday comparison.

>
>Yall can complain about the timber
>industry. WE HAVE TO
>HAVE THEM. DO you
>think the government can start
>a timber industry and do
>better? What do you
>think would happen to the
>USA if you got rid
>of the timber industry so
>you can do a little
>more deer hunting? What
>if you over regulated it
>and suddenly a 2X4 costs
>$20. Either way your
>lives would change so bad
>hunting deer would be the
>least of your worries.

I never said anything about whether or not we need a timber industry or that Government can start or even should start a timber company. Is there are shortage of 2x4's where you live? Isn't that an example of the private market meeting the demand for 2x4?

>Nemont, when I said "individuals" they
>are the public. We
>can't forget that.

So explain how the public is more free if these lands are in private hands. I can access them now without asking anybody whether or not it is okay. I can pull my camper onto Corps or BLM land and set up shop without being hassled. I like private property, I believe it is what makes our country great however the generations who came before us decided to set aside these lands. Were they wrong to provide Americans with these lands to use?

>I don't mind telling you if
>people on this website would
>have listened to me years
>ago tell them to increase
>the value and revenue from
>these big game species you
>wouldn't be as worried as
>you are now.

I am not worried. What worries me more is that we are going to get another 4 years of democrats in the White House.

>But the simple fact is CAPITALSIM
>rules this nation. NOT
>OUR HOBBIES LIKE DEER HUNTING.
> What do you think
>would begin to happen when
>states who always have trouble
>covering their budgets had to
>make a choice between maximizing
>revenue or helping out a
>bunch of outdoor hobbyist that
>have been nothing but a
>fiscal strain for the past
>4 decades? That's not
>a hypothetical question. I
>want an answer. WHY
>SHOULD THEY PICK YOUR AGENDA
>OVER THE OPPOSITION.

Capitalism is the reason we aren't all starving and have issues like this to argue over, I never said otherwise. Capitalism also has a moral component that says you don't crap in your own nest and leave it to the public to clean up. How much harm has capital intensive businesses like mining and timber cutting done to public and lands, took the money and stuck public with the bill? Go to Butte Montana, the richest hill on earth, when the capitalist got done doing their thing they walked away from it and left the evil government and us taxpayers to clean it up. There are 100's of thousands such things throughout the country where the capitalist made the money and then socialized the costs of the cleaning up their mess. So please take a moment to hold capitalist the to same standards you hold government to.


>People didn't listen then and it
>gets worse. People won't
>listen now and for them
>its going to get worse.
> I don't know if
>one day people will quit
>worrying about whether I tell
>them what they want to
>hear and actually start listening.

What makes you believe you the only answer to the problem? Have you ever been in a situation where there was a single, no questions asked, my way or the highway solution to a broad issue like public lands and hunting? I never have.

>One last thing Nemont, if you
>have a political cartoon from
>the opposition you think needs
>to get ripped apart post
>it on these threads.
>If it stinks I'll let
>you know.


Thanks but I can figure out when things stink just fine. Your side of the argument pretends that the enabling acts of all the western states don't mean what they state and wants a redo. Why should the public, made up of individuals, follow your preferred path of privatization?

The propaganda from your side is that they will put it into the law that there can be "no selling off of theses lands", if transferred. So are they lying about that? You say the ONLY way to maximize the value of these lands is to get them into private individuals hands, the pro transfer movement says there will be no selling of these lands and they will remain open to the public. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.

Why should government pick the sportsman agenda? I don't believe they have picked the sportsman agenda. Why should the hunters, campers and fisherman pick yours?

Nemont
 
"Can private business manage land if it was required to abide by the same rules set by law? Multiple Use, below market grazing, etc, etc. It's an apples to Tuesday comparison."

Don't know but thank God it doesn't have to. That's why they beat public ownership every time.

Sorry the timber analogy I was trying to rope in with someone else's argument here. I probably should have directed the sentence better.

Your argument about the negative abuses of capitalism are irrelevant and not on topic. Not a logical argument.

I don't believe I am the only answer to this problem but I believe this is the most realistic answer at this time. The other answers would reeeeeeally piss people off. I am trying to find a way to keep as many people hunting and the game growing or stable. The other answers cut a lot more people out.

"Why should the public, made up of individuals, follow your preferred path of privatization?"

That is a great straight question that deserves a straight answer. Two reasons. First it is the best chance we have of producing more big game which is the best way to keep hunting alive. Second because my plan is more inclusive than just people who want to have a free outdoor hobby.

I AM NOT TRYING TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. I want the states to retain the right to sell off land. Don't assume I agree with the opposition on everything.

"Why should the hunters, campers and fisherman pick yours?"

Because they are bleeding to death now and won't admit it. If they want hunting and fishing and camping to survive they may not have to pick my plan but they sure as hell better stop fighting to maintain the status quo.
 
51hopefull,

Thankyou. Thankyou so very much for finally bringing this up. I have been hoping for someone to start talking about fire.

Right now Randy says the states will break themselves trying to fight fires on this land. Why should they??? If they don't things get better and maybe Randy is wrong about the deficit number he picked.
 
>51hopefull,
>
>Thankyou. Thankyou so very much
>for finally bringing this up.
> I have been hoping
>for someone to start talking
>about fire.
>
>Right now Randy says the states
>will break themselves trying to
>fight fires on this land.
> Why should they???
>If they don't things get
>better and maybe Randy is
>wrong about the deficit number
>he picked.


Right now if the fires aren't somewhat fought they will devastate the land and communities. Low intensity fires are GREAT but hard to conduct. High intensity fires in the summer which we are all primed for will kill everything. The states can't just let them go as I assume you imply.
 
Some fires they can let go. Some fires they can light. Some they will have to fight. My point is that the blanket number in dollars our good buddy Randy threw out there was another scare tactic on his part.
 
the cost of fighting fires these days is astronomical. At least under the Feds resources from all over the nation come help. States would be left alone to fight there own battles. Fires in the summer cannot be left alone in most cases. If a fire left alone under state control wiped out a community could you imagine the lawsuits? Did you factor that into cost?
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-01-16 AT 11:41AM (MST)[p]Now your crawfishing. I'm sure that's what got Randy to his number was the legal analysis.
Why don't you just chalk it up to we, including Randy, don't know how much the annual deficit for dealing with fires is going to be or if there would be one.

What do you know maybe some communities will actually have to start doing some fire planning instead of waiting for the rest of the American taxpayer to bail them out. Maybe the states could sell surrounding lands to the communities for them to fire manage as they see fit.

Sounds to me like decades of federal fire mismanagement have you backed into a corner to where you don't feel like yall can manage without them. Why would you want to continue living that way?
 
Tristate, I suggest you look at what fire has cost this nation over the last decade and then bring up the argument the states can pay for it. State representatives even from Utah have admitted they would need federal funds to cover wildfires. So you want the land but you still want the feds to pay the costs of it? The land transfer argument is ridiculous in every way. There are ways to fix the current system to work as it is by adjusting policies, trashing ones that don't make sense, and properly allocating funds for wildfire and to agencies to do their jobs. The feds are not always bad and the private sector is not always good, but stick with your ideology of just the opposite thinking and continue being the pea brain you are.
 
You are right the Feds have us backed into a corner. I'll give you that. But every time we have a fire weather it's controlled or otherwise, the next community or even the next state bitches about the smoke. My backyard rim fire had people 2 states away crying. I have no clue as to the amount fires will cost every year because it will always fluctuate. If we started controll burning now and started lighting everything now, it would take years on years to get a little bit done. Then after 10 years when you don't have half of it done you would have to turn around and start from the beginning. We would live in constant smoke filled air. You think the global warming whiners are bad now?
 
51hopeful,

I can handle whiners. I post on MonsterMuleys. LOL


Oneye,

Even 51hopeful agrees the fed's mismanagement have yall painted into a corner. So why keep up the relationship that will do that to you AT THE COST OF YOUR WILDLIFE?
 
"pick my plan"

Oh god, he's got a plan.

I say Tristate for president! I bet he knows how to fix every problem this country is having. Just ask him. He's not just some taxidermist in a shop next to a junkyard. He has a plan!!!


"my plan" LMMFAO!!!! WAFJ


www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
>51hopeful,
>
>I can handle whiners. I
>post on MonsterMuleys. LOL
>
>
>
>Oneye,
>
>Even 51hopeful agrees the fed's mismanagement
>have yall painted into a
>corner. So why keep
>up the relationship that will
>do that to you AT
>THE COST OF YOUR WILDLIFE?
>

Everyone will agree the aggressive fire suppression started decades ago was a mistake in hind site. The states would have done the same thing in the 80s if they had control then. You personally can handle whiners but can our way of life (hunters) sustain another enemy?
 
Tristate,

Your side is either lying about what their goals are or they are just wanting to add a layer of state government rules and regs to the list.

From the leaders of the Transfer movement, the ALC.

Public Policy Statement. Ratified by unanimous consent Oct 9, 2014 at ALC Multi-State Workshop Salt Lake City, UT
and Oct 20, 2014 by American Lands Council Board of Directors.

1. WE URGE THE TIMELY AND ORDERLY TRANSFER OF FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS TO WILLING STATES FOR LOCAL CONTROL THAT WILL PROVIDE BETTER PUBLIC ACCESS, BETTER ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, ANDBETTER ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY;

2. WE SUPPORT EXCLUDING EXISTING NATIONAL PARKS, CONGRESSIONALLY DESIGNATED WILDERNESS AREAS, INDIAN RESERVATIONS, AND MILITARY INSTALLATIONS FROM THE TRANSFER; AND

3. WE SUPPORT EQUIPPING FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES WITH RESOURCES NECESSARY TOPLAN FOR A SUCCESSFUL TRANSITION TO STATE-BASED OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TRANSFERRED PUBLIC LANDS; AND

4. WE URGE MANAGEMENT PRIORITIES FOR THESE LANDS THAT WILL:
i. IMPROVE PUBLIC ACCESS: Protect public access, rights of way, and multiple-uses on public lands for all people including sportsmen, tourists, recreational users, subsistence and sustenance activities, and emergency access; and


ii. IMPROVE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Reduce catastrophic wildfire fuel loads that threaten communities, infrastructure, watersheds, critical wildlife habitat, and our environment. Facilitate restoration of healthy forests, range lands, and waterways; and

iii. IMPROVE ECONOMIC PRODUCTIVITY: Secure jobs and economic growth through responsible natural resource stewardship and use including tourism and recreational opportunities; and

iv. RETAIN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF PUBLIC LANDS: Federal public lands shall become state public lands to be managed in accordance with state and local plans; and

v. IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF WILDFIRE CONTROL: Provide state, local, and tribal government with adequate wildfire prevention and control resources and develop interstate/interagency cooperative agreements necessary to combat wildfires effectively; and

vi. INCREASE LOCAL INVOLVEMENT & ACCOUNTABLITY: Ensure state-based public land management activities are consistent with local government plans, policies, and objectives; and

vii. PROTECT USE RIGHTS: Protect all valid existing rights and multiple uses, and enhance the viability of
compatible, land-based livelihoods; and

viii. PRESERVE CUSTOMS & CULTURE: Preserve and protect important wild, scenic, cultural and economic resources; and

ix. INCORPORATE FEDERAL AGENCY EXPERTISE: Seek to utilize federal expertise and research through employment and/or cooperative agreements; and

x. GENERATE SELF-SUPPORTING FINANCE: Foster compatible economic productivity to support essential government services such as local roads, utilities, emergency services, public health and safety, education, justice, and other civic functions while reducing tax burdens on citizens nationally and offsetting federal Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools funds.
 
When did that become "my side"?

Rip them dudes apart if you want. I'm not going to protect everything they say blindly.

I'm loyal to the game.
 
They are the defacto leaders of the transfer movement. So if you don't support them fine.

I do have a question. Why would our government transfer these valuable lands to the states and not reserve the most valuable part, the mineral rights? Also why wouldn't we cut out the middle man and if they want these lands in private hands just sell them directly and allow the federal treasury to receive all revenues? That would avoid the states and let our broke federal government to receive an infusion of cash.

I don't advocate that because I am for transfer but when you suggest this to the State level politicians they get their Irish up pretty fast. I wonder what the Marlboro man would think if the Federal Government up and sold his grazing allotment to the highest bidder? Wonder what the banker who loaned him the money to operate would do?

Nemont
 
Tri at this point this thread is too long and we are beating a dead horse. I see some points you are making and agree on very little of it. The pros vs. cons I just see way too much con. I am going to respectfully agree to disagree with you and move on. Hopefully we can speak on another thread and have some more common views.

Bob
 
>Nemont and huntthewest, I believe your
>questions are pretty much one
>and the same so I
>will try and answer both
>at once.
>
>I believe state agencies and private
>land owners are much better
>stewards of wildlife than the
>federal government is. Plus
>I believe that the time
>is coming very very quickly
>when all of the non-hunters
>and even anti-hunters realize they
>own that wildlife and land
>too and you will soon
>be dealing with a bunch
>of people from New Jersey
>telling you that you can't
>hunt on their land in
>Utah. I am trying
>to keep power out of
>their hands.


Too late. In case you don't see it, Utah has huge chunks tied up via national monuments. Obama is pushing another. If it is opened up to highest bidder, its gone, the next day, and I know of ZERO opportunities to hunt or fish for "free" as you claim.

Second. In Utah the antis draw tons of crane and swan tags with the sole idea being stopping us from drawing them.

Third. So you own 100 acres, I own 100. Who owns those deer that jump back and forth? High fence? Then who owns the migratory elk? Are all of us now under the 4 month hunting seasons the CWMU's get?

In Utah the RAC is composed of "normal joes". So under you idea, all rcommendations will be from commericial entities. Who will stop that?

Last, Tri, even in Texas, there is public land. Please tell me where your idea of 100% private ownership exists, and where is it successful?

P.S., It was public sportsmen that reintroduced elk into the state of Utah. So who owns them? Is is "possession is the law?" How about water. Do you only own the fish in your river? What happens when they swim away? Are we fencing rivers and lakes now?

Tri, your belief is stupid, but all it does is enrich guys like Hawkeye(I know your not a ambulance chaser) that you so detest. It will lead to hundreds of years of lawsuits, and the biggest transfer of money in this countries history. Unfortunately, the lawyers make it all, that is the only guarantee.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
>GO on those federal lands and
>go actually manage for wildlife.
> Yall all want to
>discuss who gets to decide
>what dies. I am
>talking about managing what lives
>and making it better so
>you can go kill it.
> How well do the
>feds let you go do
>widespread habitat projects for wildlife?
>
>
>The fact is if you manage
>what is close to you
>you get better management.
>If you decide what people
>tell you needs to happen
>from two thousand miles away
>in a government office you
>get declining deer herds.
>What do you know that's
>what we have?

Genius, the state doesn't let you do widespread projects either. And lets be completely honest, neither will private entities. As you fly over the country, notice all the round fields, caused by pivot lines. Who do you think paid for them(grants, etc). So what WILL happen in your utopia is Ted Turner will buy up Montana, grease his senators, and WE ALL CAN PAY for his projects to improve HIS land and HIS wildlife, then he can lock the gate, sell the tags, then petition the state for repairation money to fix his fences and waterlines when the elk(which will be his until they do damage, then they will be migratory) damage them. In your utopia, we all are still going to pay the bill, we just won't get the access. In Utah, when the Mormon church buys the state, do you really believe they will pay taxes on it? At least now we get school trust money.

Again, where is your 100% private located so that we can all see the sterling example of how private control flourishes.


"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
You do realize you attacked with two contradicting scenarios, right. You obviously haven't paid attention to a single thing I have told you.

Cheers
 
In Arizona on state trust lands you cannot trespass unless you are actively hunting.You cannot hike,camp, ride an atv or anything.
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom