Home › Forums › Campfire Forum › Fight the fat-cat land grabbers
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
Without America’s public lands in American hands, hunting in America is dead. For them what’s interested … http://sportsmensaccess.org/
-
David,
I do so admire your energy and concern to keep things wild and to lobby for things that are worthwhile…
Seems I spent most of my life battling things like that to see them wiped out with a voting process that isn’t in America’s best interest.
I feel tired and abused…and you keep on keeping on!
Kudos to you, David… Carry the fight! Thumbs up!
-
David Petersen wrote: Without America’s public lands in American hands, hunting in America is dead. For them what’s interested … http://sportsmensaccess.org/
Thanks D! This site, and in particular you, have opened my eyes to this stuff. Since I’m way over here in Michigan, it would’ve likely never been on my radar.
-
To anyone who merely thinks that this is about the states “taking control” of lands within their boundary, and that these states will manage these lands better than the Fed has been doing, I point to but one example in my home state of Idaho –
Just a few years ago, the State of Idaho tried to sell off it’s very first state park – Harriman State Park. The reason they gave for wanting to sell it off? They said it was “too expensive to continue to manage.” Luckily, the old contractual agreement with the Harriman family blocked that from happening at the time. But it’s worth noting that this is an 11,000 acre park – tiny by Idaho standards. The proponents of land transfer within the state of Idaho now want to see 34 million acres of federal land transferred to the state. If Idaho couldn’t afford a tiny park just a few years ago, how is it going to effectively incorporate, and continue to properly manage, an additional 34 milllion acres into the state system today?
There are so many gaping holes in these ‘land transfer’ schemes, but one of the biggest ones is highlighted in the example above – Idaho has no economic plan whatsoever for managing such a massive amount of land, and it would be impossible to formulate one, as the state could never afford it. Anytime this topic comes up, and the question is asked – “what is the state’s budgetary plan for management?” – the conversation seems to end. So, as others have pointed out, this is really a thinly-veiled recipe for selling off public land in short order, no matter what ‘spin’ its proponents try to put on it.
No one is saying that the feds do a perfect job of managing federal public lands, by any means. But turning it over to the states represents a far worse solution, and a catastrophe for those of us who wouldn’t be able to hunt, fish and recreate without such lands. Why anyone other than large resource companies and land speculators would endorse such an idea is beyond me.
-
As with most posts here, that is a very astute reality you share, Bruce.
What strikes me is that if we do manage to FORCE by petition the Feds to maintain ownership, there is NOTHING that will keep the lands accessible…
I know I and my memory are old, but do we NOT remember just a few short year (or 2) ago where Uncle Obie closed all federal lands for funding reasons? Right before fall hunting seasons???
What’s to stop the Fed from just closing lands like they did then? Budget is budget and while we’re spending Trillions on ephemeral things that aren’t constitutionally provided, (sorry Webmom, I’m about done) it’s simple for another “Executive order” to be issued and if ownership is maintained, just “close the lands due to lack of funding”.
I see it as a double bind…State or Fed doesn’t guarantee access—not anymore… this is NOT my father’s USA!
Now, help an old fool off his soap box afore I fall and break something…😯
-
Two other points worth considering:
1) Seldom in these largely emotionally-driven arguments for federal land transfer are the economic benefits of large tracts of federal land within the state given attention – it’s all about the supposed ‘negatives.’ Yet the truth is that from tourism to resource extraction – federal lands generate significant amounts of primary and secondary revenue for the states that are lucky enough to have them within their borders, and with the federal government largely footing the bill for management of those lands. In other words – the states currently benefit at very little cost.
2) It’s also worth noting that one of the few western states that may actually have the financial resources to manage their existing federal lands (though it would still be a stretch) is Wyoming. The governor of Wyoming has publicly stated that he has no interest in pursuing such an idea, despite the popularity of the notion in Wyoming’s neighboring states. Now why do you suppose that might be? Hint – see #1. 😉
-
A similar thing is happening in Ontario. Most of our public lands are presently provincially owned (similar to state owned). Our provincial Ministry of Natural Resources claims to be cash strapped so they are blocking access to crown land by bulldozing access roads and pulling up bridges. This might be great for the backpackers but the ATV’s seem to find a way around. With the roads blocked, there is no need for enforcement. Our Ministry has reduced the number of conservation officers in the bush because they “can’t afford to put gas in their vehicles”. This whole thing has gone down the tubes here. I hope it’s not too late for you guys in the west. Keep up the fight.
By the way, our tax dollars go into a single melting pot and are doled out by politicians that have never left pavement. My tax dollars regularly pay for new subdivision irrigation projects in the south while our conservation officers sit behind their desks in northern Ontario.
-
Dave, Appreciate your vigilance on this issue. I too have been bringing it up on another hunting blog and taking alot of criticism by the “corporate conservationists” that more and more “sportsmen” are aligning themselves with.
It is wearing me down having to continuously justify the need for the conservation of our public lands to fellow hunters, even though they claim to be their rallying cry when convenient. Yet when it comes to practicing it, they fall short.
Keep up the good fight.
-
We have a story here in NC similar to Bruce’s story. It involves a 150,000 acre forest that was granted to the state university. Now after nearly 100 years of good stewardship they want to sell it to a pig farmer and a corn farmer. Doesn’t take a lot to see what will happen next. By “farmer” I mean industrial conglomerate.
I was a bit disappointed in the video (and the comments so far in this thread) in that the only issues addressed are our hunting and fishing privileges. To me, the greatest concern is the loss of even more of the remaining wild lands that support our biosphere by their very existence and biotic processes.
We are cutting our own throats for a dollar.
-
It’s no mystery that it’s all about money. Here’s a link to a story in the NY Times. This is the stuff that makes it hard to remain optimistic. I so appreciate the fighters in this fight.
January 21, 2010 WASHINGTON — Overruling two important precedents about the First Amendment rights of corporations, a bitterly divided Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/politics/22scotus.html
dwc
-
Being new to TN, good thing was when I signed, I got two notices from my representatives that the petition went to… so now I have their names and emails, which I did not!
Hope it helps! Hope by pushing to keep it Federally controlled, we find they fund operations thereof and it stays open!
-
Signed. Dc
-
Signed. For sure.
I’ve been keeping an eye on this stuff most of my adult life, and like the famous quote says, the victories are temporary and the defeats permanent, but up until recently the discussion has been framed around how public lands should be used, not whether they should be public at all.
About 5 years ago I was at a Sierra Club event and remember saying “If they really want to ‘f’ with us, they’ll just sell all the public land to Weyerhauser and Northern Pacific.”
I thought I was joking, at the time….
-
This may be the most important topic any of us discuss for a long time. There will be a TBM editorial coming out shortly. Neither I nor anyone else should have to remind people here what is at stake. Paradoxically, one of the biggest loser groups should this insane idea somehow fly is one of the stakeholders that is pushing for it most vigorously: western ranchers! The 1934 Taylor Grazing Act now allows ranchers with BLM leases to run their livestock on public ground for about 10% of the cost of a private pasture lease. Does anyone really think that the new owners of this land are going to do the same? If you have friends in the ranching community, please point this out to them. Don
-
Signed, here
-
I signed and received an email from one of TN’s state legislators trying to defend ‘state’s rights’. I sent him back one pleading the importance of public wild lands and informing him of the sustainable money generated through its user groups.
Haven’t heard back 😕
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.