Republican platform transfer of federal lands/ Trump???

azbullhunter

azbullhunter

Active Member
Messages
386
I am sure you are all aware of the republican platform which calls for the transfer of federal lands to the states. That did not bother me too much since Trump said he opposed that. Now I hear he is considering that. anyone able to update this?
 
Well!

It Ain't 'just' a Republican Type a Deal!

But Yes!

We Have a PLICK Republican in this State pushing it more than anybody!











[font color="blue"]dude has his Resume turned in to be Hillary's
Intern[/font]
 
It's not a one party issue for selling public lands. Those Democrats also have deep pockets for special interest money.

RELH
___________________________________________________________





About


Montana Blog


Writing Blog


Services



Why Are Montana Democrats Selling Off Public Lands?

6/16/2016






PictureBullock saying one thing, doing another
Oops.

Usually when you're trying to plaster your political opponents with labels you don't want those same labels to apply to you.

?They?ll sell off public lands!? the Democrats cry to the heavens for all to hear, telling us what Republicans will do should they get hold of the state.

Alas, Montana Democrats are already selling off our public lands?have been for months.

I noticed a report today, one that gives us the minutes of the regular meeting of the Board of Land Commissioners in Helena on February 16, 2016 (PDF).

The report lists numerous land sales that the four Democrats and one Republican on our Land Board signed off on.

Those Democrats would be Steve Bullock, Monica Lindeen, Linda McCulloch, and Denise Juneau.

Yeah, Democrats selling off public lands?who?d a thought?

I mean, currently we see Montana Democrats endlessly chastising Republicans for selling off public lands, as you can see numerous times on their website:
? Daine, Zinke support sell-off of Montana Public Lands
? ?Shutdown? Steve Voted to Sell Public Land, Shutting Out Montanans
? Daines to Vote on Ryan Budget that Could Sell Montana Public Lands

Notice that last one??could sell Montana public lands.?

Gosh, Democrats spend so much time making us think we need to worry about the other guy when it's actually they we should be concerned about.

Yeah, Montana Democrats are major hypocrites, saying we shouldn't be selling off public lands but then they turn around and do just that.
 
>Which "one" are you talking about
>Bess? Bishop? Herbert? Ivory? Lee?
>You have way more than
>one.
>
>www.sportsmensaccess.org

Well NVB!

I HATE to admit it!

But You are Right!

Getting to where you can't even Find a decent Republican anymore!

GREEDY Bunch of Bastards!












[font color="blue"]dude has his Resume turned in to be Hillary's
Intern[/font]
 
Here's a tip for you. Whoever donates to the Clinton Foundation, foreign or domestic, will have priority access to the best land.
 
As long as the Democratic influenced Federal government keeps over regulating and taking away the multiple uses or severely limiting them, you will see the states trying to bring back some way to keep their rural federal land dependent citizens with some way to make a living.

There is so much Federal and Radical environmentalist pressure on all consumptive uses of the federal managed or mismanaged lands that many rural communities are drying up.

Don't forget that the big movement against consumptive uses on the Federal land includes hunting.
 
A good example of this is the Mexican Gray wolf expansion program in the southwest. Hunting is in the cross hairs of this onerous federal backed extreme environmentalist program.

Now even the NM Wildlife Federation is promoting these wolves, saying they won't make any difference in our elk herds. What a sad day for hunters when you have this extremist group pushing for more wolves.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-16 AT 09:40AM (MST)[p]Stoney,

Do you have any credible sources saying that Hunting on federal lands as we know is about to end? Transfer to state control, will end public lands ranching and public lands hunting forever, that part is known, just look at what states do with their own land now.


Also can you explain how transfer to state control would exempt these lands from any federal laws? The same environmental laws apply regardless of who holds title to these lands. You have to work to change the laws, not the title holder.

Unfortunately rural communities have been drying up for 50 years. Go look at the long term demographics of rural counties across the Western U.S.

The rural counties are getting older in average age and the population is decreasing.

rural%20pop_zpshrqmxmwp.gif




It is not just federal policy that makes the youth move out of the rural areas. Now with the crash of commodity prices there is even less incentive to stay.

Also those consider living in rural counties make up a grand total of 15% of the population. Not much political clout in that number.

rural%20pop2_zpsbwxzkw3i.gif


Nemont
 
Transfer
>to state control, will end
>public lands ranching and public
>lands hunting forever, that part
>is known
>Nemont


Do you have any credible sources to back this up?
 
One only has to look back at the extremists and Feds repression of grazing the public land, the Spotted Owl fiasco for the timber industry, the wolf programs that have and will continue to affect hunting and you can see why the rural communities are drying up. Of course the young people leave as they have no future or jobs. You can cite all the statistics in the world but there is and has been a big transition to a more aesthetic role for the public lands management. This has in turn put many rural communities in poor economic health.

Hunting is under fire and it doesn't take anyone with a lick of sense to not see that.

Trump is an unknown and Hillary will always side with the liberal leftists trying to change the way the public lands are managed.
Nemo I think you drink too much koolaide from the liberal trough. The majority of the rural people I know sure have a different view on what is going on on the public land.

I don't necessarily support state control of the federal lands as I make my living from them. I am just pointing out why the sagebrush rebellion continues to manifest itself in the states' movements.
 
> Transfer
>>to state control, will end
>>public lands ranching and public
>>lands hunting forever, that part
>>is known
>>Nemont
>
>
>Do you have any credible sources
>to back this up?


Yes, a bunch in fact. Do you have an credible sources that say state ownership increase access? In every western state, the state owned property is either sold, encumbered with rules that reduces access and there are more strict rules of use than any federal lands currently open to public access.

Nemont
 
>One only has to look back
>at the extremists and Feds
>repression of grazing the public
>land, the Spotted Owl fiasco
>for the timber industry, the
>wolf programs that have and
>will continue to affect hunting
>and you can see why
>the rural communities are drying
>up. Of course the young
>people leave as they have
>no future or jobs. You
>can cite all the statistics
>in the world but there
>is and has been a
>big transition to a more
>aesthetic role for the public
>lands management. This has in
>turn put many rural communities
>in poor economic health.

Please be specific on which federal laws the States would be exempt from if the States owned these lands? If that is true then the Taylor grazing act would no longer apply either if those lands were transferred.


>Hunting is under fire and it
>doesn't take anyone with a
>lick of sense to not
>see that.

No source that says such a thing I take it.

>Trump is an unknown and Hillary
>will always side with the
>liberal leftists trying to change
>the way the public lands
>are managed.

Trump is probably just like Hillary and never set foot on or recreated on public lands. Neither deserve my vote.

>Nemo I think you drink too
>much koolaide from the liberal
>trough. The majority of the
>rural people I know sure
>have a different view on
>what is going on on
>the public land.

I live in county made up of over 2 million acres of public land. I understand better than most what is happening on public lands. I live right in the central of the American Prairie Reserve who mission is to remove cattle from 3 million acres of public and private lands and bring back the bison herds. Every ranch that comes up for sale in south Valley and Phillips county is either bought by them or the Nature Conservancy. First thing they do is retire any grazing allotments that are on the CMR, then they apply to remove all interior fences and then they put bison out there.

The only one enjoying a lifestyle paid for by the taxpayers would be you. I am not sucking the medicare teat, I don't get social security or below cost grazing. So who is the liberal here? The one enjoying taxpayer paid for health care, retirement and grazing or the one paying the freight and all the taxes? Too bad you don't act like a conservative and want to leave something for your grand children but I get it you are entitled, so you don't care what is left behind.


>I don't necessarily support state control
>of the federal lands as
>I make my living from
>them. I am just pointing
>out why the sagebrush rebellion
>continues to manifest itself in
>the states' movements.

But you support all you neighbors who think it is the government out to oppress them. Give aid and sympathy to those who want to take away the lands you make your living on is kind of a dumb way to go about life but keep on keeping on.

Nemont
 
Show me one source that says federal lands transfered to the states tomorrow will be locked up or sold.
 
Remember past is prologue to the future

Idaho,
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article75569547.html

New Mexico
http://www.nmstatelands.org/

STATE TRUST LANDS ARE OFTEN MISUNDERSTOOD IN TERMS OF BOTH THEIR CHARACTER AND THEIR MANAGEMENT. THEY ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS, BUT ARE INSTEAD THE SUBJECT OF A PUBLIC TRUST CREATED TO SUPPORT THE EDUCATION OF NEW MEXICO'S CHILDREN.


Your home state of Colorado: hunting is allowed on 16.7% of Colorado State lands.http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages/StateTrustLands.aspx

About the State Trust Land Public Access Program
​​State Trust Lands in Colorado currently total nearly 3 million surface acres. The federal government endowed the lands to Colorado in 1876, the year the Centennial State officially joined the union. Public access for wildlife-related recreation on 500,000 acres of State Trust Land.

and you cannot just go camp on them or even recreate on them like you could BLM and FS lands.

When are they open?

Most properties are open for wildlife-related recreation from Sept. 1 through the end of February, unless listed otherwise in this brochure. Enrolled lands are closed to public access all other times of the year.

I could go on and on.


Now show me anything from any source that says transferred federal lands will not be treated just like State owned lands are now and then show me what Federal law will these lands be exempt from if transferred from the states. Those same environmentalist will be suing the states instead of the Feds using the same Federal laws.

The difference is that the states don't have a printing press like Uncle Sugar and the tax base of every states if far smaller.

Nemont
 
So no? OK, got it. These won't be enrolled in the state trust lands program. This will be something entirely different. We must dictate the rules of these new state lands. If we sit on our hands your prediction is certainly a possibility but not a certainty.
 
Show me where it won't be treated the same as state lands. They will be sold once the states figure out that they can't manage that amount of land without Federal money and the money doesn't follow the land. Every state in the West has a budget problem already. How will the generate enough revenue to pay even the fire fighting costs? In order to generate enough revenue to "pay for themselves" they would have to be developed for timber harvest, mining, gas and oil, etc etc. All things that impact hunting adversely. Then what happens when the mines quit again, the timber doesn't grow fast enough compared to the south and the gas and oil go bust? That state will be running to DC asking for a bailout or they will simple walk into the nearest real estate office and have the sale of the century.

Which federal laws will these lands be exempt from with state control?

Why do you trust state legislators, who can be bought off with a good prime rib dinner and some grade a whiskey, to be more responsible than the yahoos in DC?

The intent of the transfer movement is to get these lands into private landowners hands period, end of story.

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-16 AT 07:46PM (MST)[p]So you're OK printing money putting your children and grandchildren further into debt? You fake conservatives kill me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-15-16 AT 09:49PM (MST)[p]Did I say anything about agreeing with it?
The only faker is you all who hate the Constitution.

Colorado already faces a $320 million dollar budget deficit for this fiscal year. How many school teachers and old people in nursing homes are you going to move to the parking lot in orders to show the Feds how fast the Colorado legislature can get rid of public lands to balance it's budget?

Explain why you trust a legislature like Colorado's?

Should I run through the liberal policy stupidity of the Colorado legislature?


Nemont
 
I have to agree with Nemont on this one. As much as I think the feds can not operate their own butts, I would trust most states even less then I do the feds when it comes to public lands.
Colorado, like CA. would sell off public lands to fund their "more important" programs in a heart beat. The majority of voters in the big cities would not even notice or care about it.

Just to be aware, this is not just a GOP thing, there is a lot of liberal Democrats that will sell off public land, they will just not admit it until it is done and gone.

RELH
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-16 AT 05:38AM (MST)[p]
Did I say anything about agreeing
>with it?

Complacency and supporting the status quo is agreeing with it without saying it.


You guys keep implying we should afford them the option of being able to sell it off once it becomes state land again. Rule #1 under the guidelines of the upcoming transfer should be it can NEVER be sold!. Relh hit it on the head when he said it ain't just a gop thing. What does that tell a thinkin man? It's fughkin comin! And we best get our chit in one sock and be at the front of the class writin the laws of the transfer!
Nemont you say you enjoy and utilize all the federal land you're surrounded by. You admit the federal government uses its printing press to support those lands. You cuss stoney and the boomers for putting yer kids in debt and living a "lifestyle" paid for by the taxpayer. And you call others fake conservatives......fughkin classic.
 
Public lands budget: BLM $1.3 Billion and the Forest Service $4.9 Billion. So $6.2 Billion out of a $3.9 Trillion budget. We spend more on duct tape for the Pentagon.

If you think public lands are what is breaking this country you are a moron.

Nemont
 
The $6.2 billion is just part of the equation. Look at what these Federal Regulatory Agencies have and are costing the multiple use resource users on the public lands. Add up all of the lost revenue and the wasteful spending of the Feds and you can see why the State's movement has become so big. Many congressmen and the RNC are in tune with what is actually happening out here while you Nemo play the fiddle.

FYI I don't have any grazing on the public lands but living here in the middle of almost 6 million acres of the Gila, and Apache Sitgreaves National Forest for over 40 years I have seen the ravages of the overreach by the Feds and the support they have given the extremists to basically put the quash on the multiple uses of the National Forest. With the help of fools like you they gain more everyday.

You forgot to add what the USFWS and the EPA, Army Corps of Engineers and all of the rest of the regulatory behemoth we put up with here. The ESA has completely devastated many communities nation wide and not that the law is so flawed but that how it is hi-jacked by the extremists which in turn is costing us here dearly. The Mexican Gray Wolf debacle is racking up a huge expense in not only dollars but lives and livelihoods.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-16 AT 09:00AM (MST)[p]Stoney

What makes you think the states won't spend wastefully on things? Ever look at how bloated the state governments are.

What is the total cost? Also what federal laws would these lands be exempt from if the states take control? The ESA is still in play regardless of who owns the land. So you have to change the law if you want to move forward, not the landowner. So please explain how much red tape will be cut simply by transfer. So please explain how much red tape will be cut simply by transfer.

The federal regulations will still be in place once the states hold title as well because that has nothing to do with who holds title to the land. Multiple use will go out the window when the states own the land because state legislators don't have to worry about dealing with out of state voters.


As taxpayer I say that if the states want this land, they they pay market prices and we start retiring Federal debt. There is no landowner in the world who would just transfer title to these lands without getting a fair price for it.


Nemont
 
The Feds owned the land prior to statehood and the enabling acts of the Western States all specifically grant all unappropriated public lands to the United States.

Go read the Colorado Enabling act.

http://www.netstate.com/states/government/co_statehood.htm

4. Constitutional convention ? requirements of constitution. That the members of the convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of said territory, on a day to be fixed by said governor, chief justice, and United States attorney, not more than sixty days subsequent to the day of election, which time of meeting shall be contained in the aforesaid proclamation mentioned in the third section of this act, and after organization, shall declare, on behalf of the people of said territory, that they adopt the constitution of the United States; whereupon the said convention shall be and is hereby authorized to form a constitution and state government for said territory; provided, that the constitution shall be republican in form, and make no distinction in civil or political rights on account of race or color, except Indians not taxed, and not be repugnant to the constitution of the United States and the principles of the declaration of independence; and, provided further, that said convention shall provide by an ordinance irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of said state; first, that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship; secondly, that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they FOREVER disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; and that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States residing without said state shall never be taxed higher than the lands belonging to residents thereof, and that no taxes shall be imposed by the state on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States.



Are you now claiming that the states should get a do over?

Nemont
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-16 AT 02:32PM (MST)[p]

>The Feds owned the land prior
>to statehood and the enabling
>acts of the Western States
>all specifically grant all unappropriated
>public lands to the United
>States.
>



From post 25:

There is no landowner in the world who would just transfer title to these lands without getting a fair price for it.


Nemont


Now one of these can't be true, right?
 
Okay wordsmith. The enabling acts state that the people of Colorado/Montana/Idaho/Nevada/North and South Dakota etc etc, that the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare that they FOREVER disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory

So specifically you are correct, the states didn't "grant" those lands to the feds, the Feds owned the lands already and the People of Colorado forever disclaim "right and title" to the unappropriated lands. So any federally owned land inside Colorado, which was not claimed, homesteaded, reservation or otherwise appropriated the people said they had not right or title to it.

So were your forefathers simply a bunch of untrustworthy liars or do legal documents mean anything any more?


Nemont
 
So the states gave land to the feds that layed inside their borders without compensation?
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-16-16 AT 03:41PM (MST)[p]No, the states agreed to never seek claim or title to lands within their borders to which the Federal government held title to. The feds owned it prior to statehood, the states didn't exist until the enabling acts were passed.

Every single enabling act states it almost the exact same way- upon creation of the state, the people of that state agree to Forever give up right and title to "public lands" ie those lands owned by the public of the United States, held in trust by the Federal Government. The people of those states, when created, knew that the Federal government owned those public lands and they agree to NEVER seek title to them. Well that is until a bunch of people who want it given to them decided that they can come up with some hocus pocus and lay claim to those lands.

You can pretend that it isn't what was agreed to but every western state agreed to that language. The states have never, ever owned those public lands and they never should unless they purchase them from the Federal government but they won't because the states want to be the ones who cash in.

Ask yourself this obvious question: If the states did in fact own these lands why was it necessary for the Federal Government to grant to the state the land grants for school sections? Wouldn't the owner of that land not ever need to be given the land?


? 7. School lands. The sections numbered sixteen and thirty-six in every township, and where such sections have been sold or otherwise disposed of by any act of congress, other lands equivalent thereto in legal sub-divisions of not more than one quarter-section, and as contiguous as may be, are hereby granted to said state for the support of common schools.

Can you explain why a state, if they held title to any lands, would have to be granted lands from congress for school sections?

Seems obvious when one doesn't want to be willfully ignorant that Congress was granting lands to the states not vice versa and that Congress has the power to sell or dispose of lands or to hold them in trust forever.

Nemont
 
Nemo, I realize the states would have a big road to hoe if they ever got the federal lands back which I have stated time and again I don't think will ever happen anyway.

By what I have been trying to explain to you is why many western congressmen and western resource users as well as the RNC and Trump are piling on to the movement. It is the terrible overreach, regulation and extremist environmentalist movement that is forcing the issue.

There is an interesting article in the newest issue of "Range" magazine entitled "Powerful Forces" by Michael S. Coffman, Ph.D.

It explains how the North and the these powerful progressive industrialists and financiers , known as the northern core, wanted control of the West for its minerals, hydropower and other natural resources. As the abundant wealth in western territories became known and under the northern core's considerable political pressure, the United States suddenly reversed its land-disposal policy by not ceding it's public lands to the states as required by the Equal Footing provision of the Northwest Ordinance and U.S. Constitution, ignoring 100 years of well-established law and constitutional limitation.

He explains how manipulation and control by the North allowed California to become a state in 1850 and bring it under the control of the North to wrest California from increasing control by the Mormons for their newly self-proclaimed State of Deseret in 1849, a portion of which reached all the way to the Pacific Ocean. They did however create the Utah Territory in 1850. They manipulated the Nevada Territory and because of their huge gold and silver lodes made them a state in 1861.

The northern core also manipulated the federal government into weakening the property rights guaranteed by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Preemption Act of 1841.

The attack on the West continues today but the main salvo was in 1891 when the Congress passed the Forest Reserve and General Revision Acts.

In addition to violating very specific limitations of Equal Footing, the Forest Reserve and General Revision Acts also trumped the 10th Amendment to the Constitution that guarantees states' rights. Many constitutional scholars and attorneys believe that to be unconstitutional.

Dr. Coffman goes into great depth in this article on how these blatantly unconstitutional acts were passed and how a clear paper trail in the National Archives leads back to the northern core.
 
And then we fought a war that proved the north was superior.

Was our Republican hero, Abe Lincoln, just wrong to preserve the Union?

Nemont
 
Stoney, a couple of thoughts.

First tho, Nevada didn't become a state until 1864. And yes it was for purely political and monetary reasons.

Second, there's that Mormon connection again that nobody admits exists.

The rest of your story is interesting but here's my take... it was a GOOD thing to not give the states the land! THAT'S WHY WE LIVE HERE DAMMIT!!! Because we still have some semblance of freedom in the west. Imagine what it would be like had the states gotten all the land 150 years ago and sold it off, as they did in the eastern half of the country. By this time how many species of wildlife would have been wiped from the landscape like the buffalo? Mule deer? Elk? Moose? Bighorns? Mountain Goats? Grizzlies? We would have a bunch of coyotes and whitetail deer. This is a new age. One where raping and pillaging the land is not what THE MAJORITY of people want. I know how it is to cling to old ways of life. But they are just that... old ways.

Also, you refer to the "terrible overreach, regulation and extremist environmentalist movement". Enough rhetoric. What exactly have you experienced as terrible overreach? I don't want to hear what you heard at the feed store or read in Range magazine. Tell me what the federal government has done to YOU. I'm not saying nothing happened to you or others. I just want specifics. I hate the way everyone has a story that they heard but not many can give up a real life, first person, example.


www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
>Stoney, a couple of thoughts.
>
>First tho, Nevada didn't become a
>state until 1864. And yes
>it was for purely political
>and monetary reasons.
>
>Second, there's that Mormon connection again
>that nobody admits exists.
>
>The rest of your story is
>interesting but here's my take...
>it was a GOOD thing
>to not give the states
>the land! THAT'S WHY WE
>LIVE HERE DAMMIT!!! Because we
>still have some semblance of
>freedom in the west. Imagine
>what it would be like
>had the states gotten all
>the land 150 years ago
>and sold it off, as
>they did in the eastern
>half of the country. By
>this time how many species
>of wildlife would have been
>wiped from the landscape like
>the buffalo? Mule deer? Elk?
>Moose? Bighorns? Mountain Goats? Grizzlies?
>We would have a bunch
>of coyotes and whitetail deer.
>This is a new age.
>One where raping and pillaging
>the land is not what
>THE MAJORITY of people want.
>I know how it is
>to cling to old ways
>of life. But they are
>just that... old ways.
>
>Also, you refer to the "terrible
>overreach, regulation and extremist environmentalist
>movement". Enough rhetoric. What exactly
>have you experienced as terrible
>overreach? I don't want to
>hear what you heard at
>the feed store or read
>in Range magazine. Tell me
>what the federal government has
>done to YOU. I'm not
>saying nothing happened to you
>or others. I just want
>specifics. I hate the way
>everyone has a story that
>they heard but not many
>can give up a real
>life, first person, example.
>
>
>www.sportsmensaccess.org

Hey NVB!

Over-Reach is REAL!

And it's here!

OK!

OK!

We've already HASHED it out in the LaVoy Threads!

I'll STFU Now!

Just one Example NVB & I'll leave LaVoy out of it!

Remember the Guy in Wyoming that Built the Pond?

Don't know How He Pulled it off But He Handed their Asses to Them!

Not Saying He was 100% Right because I don't know every Detail?

I Do know you can't just Build a Pond because You decided to in today's World!

But back many Years ago the LandOwner could do just about what He wanted to as long as it was His Ground!

Don't Try that in today's World!

OVER-REACH is Real & Getting Worse!

If You can't See that you are very Blind!












[font color="blue"]dude has his Resume turned in to be Hillary's
Intern[/font]
 
Did they in Wyoming win or lose on the pond deal?

Can you find where pond building is a right?

What about the downstream holders of water rights? Do they have any say if a clown with a backhoe and dozer takes their water to build a pond?

Government also protects rights.

Nemont
 
NVB,

#1.The Spotted Owl fiasco put thirty families out of our local economy and left our economy and schools in a shambles.

#2. The Spike Dace/Loach Minnow Critical Habitat designation left all private landowners on the affected river Systems here including my property, not being able to do anything within three hundred feet of the center line of the river on both sides.

#3. The Mexican gray wolf program has been a huge economic drain on many of our ranchers and has and is making big differences in elk numbers and movement in many areas here. It will only get worse as the Feds and the ecos keep moving the goal posts, now from 100 to 325 wolves with the number of wolves we have now already at capacity of what will sustainably maintain a healthy elk herd.

#4.Greatly reduced grazing AUM's and retired grazing allotments in the Gila Region are a big economic drain and by far have been from government over regulation brought on by the green movement.

#5. The supposed endangered Willow Fly Catcher movement has brought senseless and needless fencing off of the SW rivers making it harder for the grazing permittees to manage their livestock. This is by design to do just that.

#6. The designation of critical habitat for the Jaguar has been moved way up into AZ and NM where none of it is their main habitat. Way down in Mexico is where their habitat is. They only stray across the border on rare occasion as the US is on the far north end of their habitat. This puts many restrictions on the use (grazing and etc.) of the lands under this critical habitat designation.

I can go on and on but for anyone to try and deny that there has been government and eco over reach, that has caused huge economic and life changing reality, is ridiculous. Change is good generally but the deck is stacked against the rural residents here. The Center for Biological Diversity and Wild Earth Guardians and their huge, huge sums of money are making sure the future of the public land will only be aesthetic. They are making their dream of changing the way the public land is managed a reality.
 
most frogs here don't know how good they have it hear in America and have their head up their butts so far as to no longer care about facts.

The government has overreached plenty and guess what, just changing the title holder doesn't stop over reach.

No single person has explained what federal laws the lands would no longer be subject to if that land was taken over by the states.

I get hating the federal government, I find it highly hypocritical that everyone who claims to hate government over reach also takes with both hands when that same government is handing out their "entitlements".

The issue become you have to change the law in order to get anything fixed and the fact that only 15% of the U.S. population is considered to live in a rural setting makes it difficult to get political traction. Hard for people living in Chicago to care much about the issues affecting Union County, New Mexico or Phillips County Montana.

What makes you all believe that State governments don't have just as much, if not more overreach than the Federal government?

Nemont
 
At least on the state level we have a better chance of throwing out the crooked politicians whereas at the Federal level a big share of those elected officials are untouchable by the people that are affected. Most of those politicians are out of touch and don't know or care about the 15% of the rural residents. I think that State governments would have far less overreach and could be controlled by that particular states' citizens. Not even close to Federal overreach.

At least Trump seems to understand the establishment politicos and says he wants to try and turnaround the ever increasing Federal control of every aspect of our lives. After all we were founded on the premise of "Government by the people for the people" and not the other way around.

The Feds are hated for good reason and just because you Nemo think everything is hunky dory, that doesn't make it so, or right for that matter.

Just face the facts that big government wants to control our every move from cradle to grave and we are getting closer to that reality everyday.
 
Nemont has brought it up several times and he's correct. ESA and other regulations still apply no matter who the landowner is. It would be much more complicated and costly for environmental groups to file more actions. Much costlier to implement and enforce also, but they would still do it.

I think our best chance is to leave the land under federal ownership and hope people see the light sooner than later, as slim as that is.

The natural resources in America will be used eventually, either by us or China or some other country.

In the mean time go out and enjoy the public land and do pretty much as you please. The federal employees in your area turn a blind eye unless you become too obvious. Always carry binoculars and a bird identification book and you're golden. For the most part they just want to draw a check with as little effort as possible.
 
>
>The Feds are hated for good
>reason and just because you
>Nemo think everything is hunky
>dory, that doesn't make it
>so, or right for that
>matter.
>

Stoned,

Can you show me where I said everything is "hunky dory". I have been railing about out mount debt for years. That was the reason GWB lost my support, he ran up more debt than any president before him, until Obama showed us how to really do it.

The state government is just as easily corrupted as the national government and it can be done on the cheap. State Legislators can be had for a good prime rib dinner and some high grade whiskey. You need real money to bribe a U.S. Senator.

So show me where I said everything is hunky dory. Or admit again you are just another lying sack who thinks the feds owe the all their "entitlements" but don't want any strings attached to your welfare.


Nemont
 
The State of NM and the NM Dept. of Game & Fish recently trumped the USFWS in their wanting to release a bunch more pen raised wolves and when the FWS said they would do what ever they wanted they got slapped down by a Federal Judge ruling for an injunction on further wolf releases here in NM until the ongoing wolf lawsuits are settled. See, State government does work sometimes. We may be ran over in the end but we will keep up the fight.

At least with our Republican Governor Susana Martinez and her conservative appointed Game Commission members and conservative Game Dept. leadership we still have a say in our future here. Just wait until the Dems take our state back over and watch them Federalize everything. Under Gov. Richardson it was a complete mess. Susana has at least slowed down the train wreck.

Local control is always better.

Nemo your posts most always leave the reader to believe you are a big government supporter. That evidently isn't true to some extent but that is the impression you leave with the folks. You opine it seems, mostly that things are great the way the Federal government rules the roost and anybody whom contradicts your beliefs are castigated.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-17-16 AT 11:54AM (MST)[p]

Public land ranchers are their own worst enemy. They whine and complain and ##### and moan about how hard ranching is for them and their neighbors, until it comes time to sell out and cash in, then who do they sell to? Not the young neighbor down the road trying to get started or the next door guy who wants to expand, they sell to an out of state millionaire and take the money are run.

I don't believe in big government. I also don't believe the federal government is evil and full of people just waiting to get me. I have had several run ins with federal overreach and federal laws that make my life harder. I just figure out a way to keep working. I bet I deal with more federal laws daily then you do in a month. You don't hear me whining about how bad my life is.

Get over it and get on with pulling your boots on and enjoying what a great country we have. If you think it is bad here, travel around the world some.

Nemont
 
I and the people I know, think we are blessed and do pull our boots on everyday and take advantage of all of the wonderful opportunities afforded us on the public land and this great nation. We fight to keep it that way but at times we feel overwhelmed with the dumbed down masses who are insuring that the establishment of big government takes us further into the clutches of socialism and the resulting downward spiral from our great republic.

What I have tried to point out why the state's movement has come about. We have seen the Federal Agencies get bigger and bigger and over-regulate and write new regulations which make it tougher and tougher for the folks to make a living. This is also true in the general economy.

I know we have it so much better than most anywhere else on earth and have been in the bowels of poverty in Mexico and been in Canada so know first hand.

By the way I have a neighbor's son and wife, both 25 yrs. old whom just purchased a USFS grazing allotment. Brave young souls.

What reason do you attribute to some public ranchers selling out? I know another young couple that purchased a public lands ranch three years ago and are now actively trying to sell out and buy an all private ranch because the troubles they are having with USFS actions. They got an education in government overreach right away.

The wealthy hobby ranchers you mention can afford to have the numbers reduced which the USFS most always does when the ranches change hands. The USFS love those guys because they run less cattle, make huge range improvements and make the USFS look like good managers with tall grass blowing in the wind.

By the way I am not whining, just pointing out the real world out here. You have very thick skin evidently so for you to see or admit to reality, it must be hard.
 
The reality is that when you build a business on property owned by others you should whine when the property owner decides that there are better uses of that property. Would you build corrals, watering holes and fences on deeded land you don't own?

Nobody is owed a living on public lands. That is a fact that seems to escape most.

Good on the people who want to buy deeded land and run their cattle on. They will soon realize what a sweetheart deal they had from the USFS and the American taxpayers. Around here the ranches with the largest profit margins are the guys who run their cattle on BLM. I don't begrudge them that money but now that the American Prairie Reserve is starting outbid them for the deeded land and getting the attached leases, now they want the county, State and Federal government to step in and stop the new guys from buying up ranches and turning bison out on them.

I live in reality and understand both sides of issue far better than most and I actually support public land grazing. What I don't support is whining about how bad and big the government is while taking with both hands from them. That is what I am pointing out. Public land grazers don't purchase a right, they buy a permit and right in the permit, what does it say?

Straight out of the USFS grazing permit:

-11.1 - Term Grazing Permit as Privilege, Not Right

It is well settled in both statutory and case law that a term grazing permit represents a privilege, not a right, to use National Forest System lands and resources. Accordingly, the Forest Service is not required to pay compensation to the term permit holder if the privilege is discontinued, withdrawn, or reduced except in limited situations involving compensation for permittee?s investment in rangeland improvements. See FSM 2240.

How can anyone be surprised if they FS decides that they want to reduce the number of AUM's? Don't ranchers read the permit prior to signing off on them?

Selling out or not selling out is an individual decision. Here is a bigger question for you: Why has the population of rural areas been declining since 1960? Why do you attribute everything to government over reach and not to many of the other realities of rural living and why people make the decision to move to more urban areas?

Nemont
 
Nemo,

For the big question, since the 60's we have seen a huge decrease in permitted AUM's of grazing, we have seen our once thriving and sustain-ably yielding timber industry almost destroyed, we have seen local mining being brought to a complete stop and mostly because of the Feds getting in bed with the ecos an their own ego driven regulatory burdens they put on consumptive uses. The decline of the western rural areas can definitely be traced to some of these major changes in the way the public land is managed.

What was once a productive and healthy landscape has become an unhealthy landscape and especially with increased fires due to fuel build up, both grass and trees. It is being managed for a feely good aesthetic birdwatcher, tree hugger and bunny hugger society, whom don't want to step into a pile of cow poop out in the woods or see a bambi getting killed.

The only thing left basically is for the people whom want to remain here, is to work for the USFS. They are by far and away our largest employer.

I don't know of any public ranchers in the SW who have a higher profit margin. Ludicrous. The cost of doing business on the public land is much greater than anyone is willing to admit to. It might look good on the surface but that is far as it gets. I know a big majority of the public lands ranchers here in the SW and it is certainly not as pretty of a picture you are trying to paint Nemo. With the higher price of cattle the last couple of years a few of them actually caught up a little bit.

You might try to pull some of wool off your eyes Nemo and face reality.

P.S. Most public lands ranchers have resigned themselves to the reality of grazing the public land as a privilege and not a right. That is not even an argument for the most part anymore. A few die hards still persist but that movement is small.
 
LAST EDITED ON Aug-18-16 AT 11:09AM (MST)[p]They don't have to resign themselves to anything, they never held a grazing right, they have always held a grazing permit.

I didn't paint a "pretty picture" I stated the truth. If you can't deal with the truth then that is your problem. Ask yourself this, if the cost of grazing is so high on public lands, why do ranchers put so much effort to fight not losing their permits? If public land grazing isn't profitable and is so tough why do so many ranchers demand that they be given more?

Explain this: >The wealthy hobby ranchers you mention
>can afford to have the
>numbers reduced which the USFS
>most always does when the
>ranches change hands. The USFS
>love those guys because they
>run less cattle, make huge
>range improvements and make the
>USFS look like good managers
>with tall grass blowing in
>the wind.

Are you saying fewer cattle are good for the land or that wealthy people who decide to invest their own money in improving the land are making ranchers look bad? Or that there are just too many cows out there and when numbers are reduced the condition of land improves? What kind of condition of the land should the owners of public lands, ie the American taxpayer, expect?


You can pretend that the big bad government is the only reason cattlemen are having a tough time but you may want to look at the declining commodity prices as the lead culprit. If ranchers didn't put away some dry powder when they were getting record prices 24 months ago, that isn't anyone's fault but their's.

Nemont
 
It's going to get worse before it gets better. welcome to the free market , the best cure for high prices is high prices.

Stoner I'm selling hay for half what I was 2 years ago. are you going to cry me a river? take up arms against the government to get me what I am entitled to? why not?

The Obama administration was advised to change the grazing program to a highest bidder , this is how we establish fair market value in the real world. Obama refused but he's still the bad guy to Stoner. welfare people always think they're getting screwed and deserve more.



Stay Thirsty My Friends
 
Tog,

Most of the public lands ranchers have their grazing permits tied to their deeded property which is base property required to hold the permits. An auction to the highest bidder won't work on most of these ranches. The anti grazing crowd are always trying this stupid and unworkable trick. Sorry about the hay prices. Too many raising hay and not enough drought. One thing about public lands ranchers with reduced numbers this only helps the price of cattle. I think it was in the mid 70's when almost 20% of the feeder cattle supply spend part of their lives on public land. When the price of cattle is up and good moisture years, public lands ranchers don't have the ability to increase numbers as private lands ranchers. But if they get into a drought situation many times the FS overreacts and forces their numbers down unnecessarily. A big share of the west has public lands ranches as a huge part of the makeup of the settlement of the US and is a vital part of our western economy.


Nemo,

All I am saying is the wealthy hobby ranchers make the Forest Service look like better managers to the common person driving by and seeing brand new fences and tall grass blowing in the wind and no cattle in sight.

I don't hear anyone crying Nemo just your puffed up ego blowing in the wind. Try looking at the whole picture and see the actual reality out here. Big government just keeps on getting bigger and promulgating more regulation. With that said I am happy with my life and opportunity to live and make a living on the public land. Never the less we will keep fighting for what is right.
 
Stoney,

The problem is this, the guys demanding states take over these lands are snake oil salesman who are in bed with the wealthy hobby ranchers and they have convinced cowboys that it is the government who wants to put them out of business. There is not single federal law including the ESA, and all other environmental laws at the federal level, that state would be exempt from. You have to get the law changed not the ownership of the land.

Here is another issue, the current taxpayer support of those lands from people living who never set foot on them, goes away and it costs will be paid by the taxpayers of the Western states. Name a western state that has a huge budget surplus and is capable of taking on hundreds of millions of dollars in new expenses. The timber and gas won't be developed if the the environmental laws aren't changed so who will the states pay for the management of these lands. Changing the name on the deed doesn't do anything to the ability of environmentalist to sue in order to shut down development.

Nemont
 
>Stoney,
>
>The problem is this, the guys
>demanding states take over these
>lands are snake oil salesman
>who are in bed with
>the wealthy hobby ranchers and
>they have convinced cowboys that
>it is the government who
>wants to put them out
>of business. There
>is not single federal law
>including the ESA, and all
>other environmental laws at the
>federal level, that state would
>be exempt from. You
>have to get the law
>changed not the ownership of
>the land.
>
>Here is another issue, the current
>taxpayer support of those lands
>from people living who never
>set foot on them, goes
>away and it costs will
>be paid by the taxpayers
>of the Western states.
>Name a western state that
>has a huge budget surplus
>and is capable of taking
>on hundreds of millions of
>dollars in new expenses.
>The timber and gas won't
>be developed if the the
>environmental laws aren't changed so
>who will the states pay
>for the management of these
>lands. Changing the
>name on the deed doesn't
>do anything to the ability
>of environmentalist to sue in
>order to shut down development.
>
>
>Nemont


+1


www.sportsmensaccess.org
 

Similar threads

WesternSky
Transfer a 5B Late to a Youth Hunter??
Replies
12
Views
908
WesternSky
WesternSky
D
Beware of Guided Mule Deer Hunts in Huntsville UT
Replies
97
Views
5k
wstrntines
wstrntines
J
Mule Deer and CWD
Replies
45
Views
2k
HIcountryman
HIcountryman

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

Unit 9 2005 060.jpg
F3A0C173-DFC7-4A7D-92C5-A04594162AC6.png
26.JPG
IMG_8460.jpeg
AA725B28-3DBB-4AFF-AD42-70433255D669.jpeg
6CA262FF-BEEA-44D9-986D-FEF952A65AC5.jpeg
Home in the truck.jpg
20220801_15534032.jpg
Screenshot_20240305_082807_Photos~2.jpg
20210921_185934.jpg
Henry Mountains Muzzy Buck
IMG_5641c.JPG
Back
Top Bottom