Republicans want to sell your land...

Where are the political sportsmen's groups speaking out on this issue? Their silence defines where they stand. They stand with the sale of public lands to private interests.
 
2_point,

There are many sportsmen's groups who are speaking out on this issue. The GOP placing this in their platform is only the latest step. I ask you, are YOU speaking out on this? Are YOU supporting the right sportsmen's groups who are fighting it every day? Are your friends, family, community? We as hunters tend to not want to get involved in this political stuff and just go hunting. Those days are over, and they need to be. We have a very powerful voice. We just have to use it in unison.

For a start, check this link.
www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
Agree with what you are saying. How about political groups with political connections? Groups like SFW, the NRA, CSF, Sportsmens Allicance, etc.
 
>Agree with what you are saying.
> How about political groups
>with political connections? Groups
>like SFW, the NRA, CSF,
>Sportsmens Allicance, etc.

SFW - this is a great place to ask what their position is on the public lands transfer/sale movement

NRA - I don't know if they have taken a position

CSF - I must not be thinking clear today. Who is CSF?

Sportsmen's Alliance - not sure what their position is


TRCP is working hard on a state and national level on this issue. Look at their partners page to see the type of orgs that they partner with on many issues.
http://www.trcp.org/about/partners

Also scroll through the "Coalition" banner at sportsmensaccess.org to see the partners there.



www.sportsmensaccess.org
 
Some of the biggest opponents of the land transfer have been RMEF, TRCP, and BHA.

I have recently joined/contributed to all three and hope all hunters will do the same.

Grizzly
 
$FW is too chickenshit to take a stand. That's because Utahs legislators want to sell public lands, and the Utah legislators are $FWs cash cow.
 
I agree with Grizz. These are the 3 most vocal gtoups.Others seem to be waiting and watching. The time is past to just watch things go by. It will be a very interesting political season both nationally and statewide!
 
Not Sure You Guys got an A in History?

CSA = Catastrophic System Failure









[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...cle_8109f084-d199-50dd-b223-9fd3557a738d.html

Here's another article on what the Republican Party has decided on public land:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/loc...cle_8109f084-d199-50dd-b223-9fd3557a738d.html


The GOP draft platform reads: "Congress shall immediately pass universal legislation providing a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal government to convey certain federally controlled public lands to the states. We call upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power of influence to urge the transfer of those lands identified."
 
>You must not have gotten an
>A in spelling, Bess. :)
>
>
>www.sportsmensaccess.org

Not in Spelling NVB!

I Don't know how to use Spell-Check!

I Do Tweak the English a bit!

And You did Convert me from Enhale to Inhale!:D

My English/Spelling Ain't Never been Perfect but you Guys Usually get My Idea!












[font color="blue"]HUNTIN,FISHIN,AND LOVIN EVERY DAY,I WANNA SEE
THEM TALL PINES SWAY!
[/font]
 
>I would worry more about the
>socialists taking ours guns and
>private property.

Kind of like that so called Stream Access stuff.
 
Democrats will end your hunting before Republicans. CA is a perfect example.
Meanwhile, politicians need to be fought every step for sale of public lands. Republican and Democrat.

You really have to look at the candidate to see who will support hunting and gun ownership.
 
The 2nd Amendment is there for guns. There's nothing to save the public lands. You had better wake up.



I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-17-16 AT 10:38AM (MST)[p]>The 2nd Amendment is there for
>guns. There's nothing to save
>the public lands. You had
>better wake up.


+1. Even with Newtown, Obama couldn't get gun control passed and we have the Supreme Court precedent as well as the 2nd Amendment to protect guns plus hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation.

The land grab would be a done deal if a Republican were in the White House right now, test votes in both houses of Congress already passed to prove it and now its officially going to be part of the GOP platform.


Grizzly
 
Here's my question. If hillary gets in the white house and names 2, 1 for sure, to the Supreme Court, then the Supreme Court can rule a new meaning on the second amendment, The Republicans can not stop that. To me that's what is scary. Having Hillary appoint judges. And as for the land transfer, what about what could happen on the bears ears. Some article's say it will stop hunting as written.
 
If you want to see what liberals will do to hunting all you have to do is look at CA. They have gotten a blank check to do whatever they want, and hunting in CA is just about a memory.

In states that have some sense still, you have to look at candidates.

CA is a huge state, larger than just about all the western "hunting" states combined. If you think it is just a fluke and cant happen in your state, you are very very wrong. CA is just 10-20 years ahead of what will happen to the rest of us.
 
Any gun control legislation can be changed by a future Congress (see Clinton's assault weapons ban).

Once public land is sold, there's no way to ever get it back. It's gone forever. There's no room for error on that one.

Grizzly
 
Wanna see what so called "CONServatives" will do to hunting, come to Utah.




"If the DWR was just doing its job, and
wildlife and hunting were the actual focus,
none of this process would even matter.
But that is not the focus or the goal in any
of this. The current DWR regime, and
SFW were born out of wildlife declines,
and are currently operated and funded
under that paradigm. Those 200 Expo
tags would not even be worth anything if
the focus was where it was supposed to
be, and wildlife and tags were plentiful.
But under the current business model,
that is how the money and power is
generated. It is generated through the
rising "value"(monitization) of a declining
resource. A resource that is supposed to
be being beneficially managed for the
masses that own that resource, ie. US.
The problem is obvious, hedging is not a
long term sustainable strategy, and
others have to lose, for some to win. In
this case it is us, the many, and our
resources, that are being forced to lose,
because there is a minority who's power
and money is derived from our loses."

LONETREE 3/15/16
 
First off Bird, the Senate has to confirm any appointment to the supreme court. Secondly at most their view of background checks, or assault weapons would be a stretch but one that possible I suppose.There could be limitations of where we carry etc. BUT, By the stroke of a pen we are done on public lands. We are that close right now. Trump picking who he did for VP is not reassuring.


I wanted to take a scalp,but the kill was not mine.
 
I just go by the NRA and how they are worried about Hillary. I know that Congress must confirm the judges that are picked by the president, but it is looking like 2 will be picked by the next President. I would rather having a Republican pick than Hillary. Hillary will pick judges that will change the 2nd ammendment and can Congress hold off appointing or approving judges for 4 more years?. They are saying the regs if bears ears is made a monument no hunting will be allowed. Looks like the boundary takes in most of San Juan.
 
Nvbighorn. Though I know quite a bit what is happening in SFW, every time I have mentioned something I have been told to prove it or I am up in the night. Thus I will not comment on SFW'S opinion from now on.
 
Birdman, I let it go the first time but the second, I'll have to comment.

There is absolutely no "they" with any knowledge of a monument proposal saying hunting will be banned in a new monument. Its allowed in Grand Staircase and there's no reason, or written proposal, that says it would be allowed in a new Bears Ears.

The only "they" you're referring to are the fear-mongers trying to find ways to mine/drill/log/graze/sell more public land than they can right now and wanting to scare us into supporting them.

Grizzly
 
The problem I see is that Hillary has promised if elected she will destroy the second amendment. If she does, and I don't want to take that chance, your guns are gone. Hunting as we know it will be destroyed, and self defense against radicals, defending your family will be gone. That scares the he'll out of me.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-16 AT 12:16PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-16 AT 12:15?PM (MST)

Although I highly value public lands in the west, I don't think transferring all or some of it to the States will be the end of hunting. Keep in mind that in 2015 Pennsylvania, which is mostly private land, has more hunters (970,000) than the states of WA, MT, ID, NV, and UT combined (942,000)! The hunting model might change, and we might have to start paying for access rather than having subsidized hunting, but it won't be the end of hunting. Furthermore, IMO, a simple Constitutional amendment at the State level that will guarantee sportsman access to the transferred lands would solve most of the concerns.
 
>Birdman,
>
>Can you tell us what the
>official position on the land
>transfer movement of SFW is?
>
>
>www.sportsmensaccess.org


Refer to post 6. This has already been discussed, either Lumpy or his boy posted a link to $FWs website where they said they are not taking a stand one way or the other on this issue. It's pretty clear why they are not taking a stand. They took a stand (they sided with shutting the public out of coarse) with the stream access issue and it blew up in their face.

Birdman, way to take the chickenshit route when asked a question, but what else is new.
 
>IMO, a simple
>Constitutional amendment at the State
>level that will guarantee sportsman
>access to the transferred lands
>would solve most of the
>concerns.

Easier said than done. I personally requested that from Mike Noel, the sponsor of the 2016 land grab legislation, and he would not do it. Their own study says they'll have to sell the land... they know darn well they can't promise public access in perpetuity and have never implied it would exist.

If Obama couldn't get gun control with Pelosi/Reid running the show and all these lunatic mass murderers to drum up public support, then I'm not too worried about gun control in the near future. The land grab however is imminent if Republicans take over and they already have the votes. The just need the White House to get it done.

Grizzly
 
Obama couldn't get it done with Reid and Pelosi because the Supreme Court would have shot it down. The next sitting president has the possibility of seating 2-3 justices. If you think Hillary won't use that against us, you are delusional.
 
the problem with paying for hunting/access in Utah is that the cost would be more than most guys could afford.

Pennsylvania has an estimated 1.5 million deer?about 30 deer per square mile. With a total of 46,058 square miles of which 6908 are public land. That makes 207,257 available to public hunters

Utah as an estimated 332,900 deer with about 3.9 deer per square mile. With a total of 84,899 square miles of which roughly 50939 are public. that makes 203,756 deer available to public hunters.

The population (deer) density difference makes the case. Utah WOULD sale PUBLIC ground to PRIVATE landowners.

it is called supply and demand....Utah has a limited supply of deer and most of those deer are on ground that the state would sale.

Pennsylvania has deer coming out of there ears, smaller pieces of ground with ALOT higher deer densities. Also a guy can knock on a door to get access....UTAH??? good luck with all the CWMU's you had better have your wallet full. so lets give the state more grounfd to sell and further restrict where the common guy can hunt.

SELL public ground = PAY TO ACCESS
keep public ground = we all can access it.



How to start an argument online:
1. Express an opinion
2. Wait
 
At times like these I find myself wondering what would Texas do?

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"
 
Supreme Courts do not change previous rulings if they could abortions would be illegal,the second amendment is pretty clear due to recent actions. Handguns in your home is ok. The court recently refused to hear two cases on assault weapons in California and Connecticut refusing to overturn those states ban on them.
 
A house bill that was passed would sell off 48% of BLM and Forest Service land in 6 years. A republican president and your public land is gone. Thank God Cruz is gone
 

Similar threads

F
Change UNIT-WIDE elk designation in New Mexico to RANCH ONLY!
Replies
54
Views
2k
MrRogers
MrRogers
gr8fuldoug
For Sale Time To Save Big - Check It Out
Replies
0
Views
158
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug
For Sale This Week at Camera Land
Replies
0
Views
245
gr8fuldoug
gr8fuldoug

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

Member Gallery Photos and Videos!

42BDCBFB-8DB5-4449-B306-4F4491E91D73.png
IMG_3147.jpeg
F845AA9A-5366-40F9-BE52-BCDB305BFF3D.jpeg
Screenshot_20220812-034358_Gallery.jpg
E55E590A-0EFB-41DB-A0BF-D09931C0E91D.jpeg
IMG_1379 (2).jpg
20951234-5D13-4DB7-954E-3E8FF3F3E204.jpeg
93328D50-43BF-47F0-AE59-9AF52C92C8AB.jpeg
84947349-8425-46AA-8E16-10752B24A409.jpeg
6469.jpeg
Big Bull Down
43EA1E33-D539-4584-A18C-66668184AC3C.jpeg
Back
Top Bottom