GOP platform endorses disposal of public lands

[SD Mike]

Some food for thought. The RNC's platform panel just publicly endorsed an amendment promoting the transfer of public lands to states. Anyone following this issue closely is sure to know that the majority of states cannot afford to manage this land and historically has opted to sell public land to public interests, barring our access. Thousands upon thousands of men, women, and their children rely on public land access to enjoy hunting, fishing, and other recreational activities.

Here is the article

http://www.eenews.net/eedaily/2016/07/12/stories/1060040109

And here is the Backcountry Hunters and Angler's response:

http://huntinglife.com/bha-statement-gop-platform-public-lands-vote/

I am interested to hear how you all feel about this. For me personally, this solidifies the fact that the GOP doesn't give a damn about the general populace-sportsman.

 

[ilovesprig]

Mike,

I can only respond with this.......The GOP does not try to take my guns or my hunting & fishing rights from me.......IMO, we must take the some bad with the good at times......The GOP is not perfect, but leaps & bounds better than the alternative party.

 

[SD Mike]

I agree that the GOP is not perfect. Neither party is. If I have nowhere to hunt, there goes one of the most valuable things in my life.

I just hope that whatever arises from the ashes of the Republican party is far more patriotic, and far less devoted to greed and avarice, than today's GOP.

 

[MJB]

Remember the "platform" is hundreds of pages of feel good let me kiss your arse wish list......

A good move would be too write Trump & his boys about our views on this.......the little man needs to be heard

 

[Kellendv]

There is nothing I hold dearer than the ability to park my truck, put on my pack, and walk out into this country's public lands. This topic irks me like no other. To me, having these lands at my disposal is true freedom. I would feel so trapped without them. Furthermore, I think the forest service does a pretty damn good job at managing our forest land. BLM occasionally gets trashed but overall it's in good, usable shape too. The vastness of the west is a big part of what makes it so special, I just can't imagine it with a bunch of no trespassing signs all over it. I do virtually all of my hunting on public lands, and I relish the challenge. Can't imagine having to pull out my checkbook to put my dogs on some birds or hunt deer.

 

[Bonejour]

Let me ask a different question: is there anyone on this forum who believes transfer of land from federal to state ownership will enhance public access for hunting or any other purpose? And if so, why?

 

[ilovesprig]

Let me ask a different question: is there anyone on this forum who believes transfer of land from federal to state ownership will enhance public access for hunting or any other purpose? And if so, why?

Don,

This is actually a tough question.....Hunting lands (NF's, preserves, & wildlife areas) have expanded in my lifetime.....We've also lost access (drivable) to many lands including BLM lands (Mojave Preserve to name one).....BLM has pretty much just been there, no improvements, and very little notice of their locations.....Worst case scenario would be they become state parks (Borrego State Park, for example).....Time will tell what happens.

 

[SD Mike]

Very good (civil) discussion guys. I put a lot of stock in what you all feel about this issue.

 

[msteiger]

Let me ask a different question: is there anyone on this forum who believes transfer of land from federal to state ownership will enhance public access for hunting or any other purpose? And if so, why?

Don,

This is actually a tough question.....Hunting lands (NF's, preserves, & wildlife areas) have expanded in my lifetime.....We've also lost access (drivable) to many lands including BLM lands (Mojave Preserve to name one).....BLM has pretty much just been there, no improvements, and very little notice of their locations.....Worst case scenario would be they become state parks (Borrego State Park, for example).....Time will tell what happens.

I believe there are worse outcomes than even that. The states would most likely sell the lands to the highest bidders - developers or ranchers. I feel like ranchers have already carved up much of our NF, introducing non-native grasses and cows. And I have seen many cases where they land-lock, or otherwise block access to, public land. So even if they don't buy it all, they can cause a huge headache. (Not trying to get controversial about ranchers here, but I don't think they love hunters.)

Developers...well that would be a catastrophe worse than state park. At least with a state park (say Cuyamaca) you can camp, hike, sometimes fish. Developers would destroy those wild lands all together.

To me, this whole issue seems like a dupe - ranchers and developers have convinced people we would be free-er if the states owned the land - that then somehow "we" would own the land. But in reality we already own it. It's ours and this deal is a give-away. This is another case of rich people convincing poor people to give up their rights. I haven't seen a single prominent hunter, fisherman, or outdoors group that favors it.

 

[SASS]

Let me ask a different question: is there anyone on this forum who believes transfer of land from federal to state ownership will enhance public access for hunting or any other purpose? And if so, why?

In this state NO! I would not trust CA with anything.

 

[SD Mike]

Regulations can change, depending on who is in office and public opinion considered. However, if we lose access to the land we own, it is gone. Forever. There is no going back. That, to me, is a much bigger issue than folks "trying to take our guns away".

 

[SASS]

I agree with the concern over public lands but I feel the same but the opposite about my gun rights. Meaning once they take them it will be near impossible to get back. And 2A rights are a major platform issue where public lands is not.

So what I mean by this is, it would be much easier to get whatever regime is in power to change their views on public land than it would to get them to change their views on guns. With the current GOP candidate being very pro hunting as you have seen the pic's of his son, I think he would at least listen to our side. Where as the democratic nominee made it very clear about her views (on 2A) and that she will not waiver. This is just my opinion and outlook on this subject.

 

[SD Mike]

He says he is pro-hunting, but I don't think he fully understands what that means. Or, more likely, he's pandering to the ill-informed for votes. In no way can you be pro-hunting and anti-public lands. That's like being pro-car and anti-public roads.

 

[Bonejour]

Hard as it is for me to defend either candidate, I don't believe this plank was Trump's idea. I believe it was several hard-liners from western states who support the Bundy clan. I don't think The Donald knows much about the ramifications of public land management. I don't expect that to stop him tweeting about it, but I doubt he will go to bat either way because he's not big on policy from what I've seen and heard. On the other hand it's real estate.... Hey Waitaminit! You think he'll buy the land and let us use it for free?

 

[ilovesprig]

He says he is pro-hunting, but I don't think he fully understands what that means. Or, more likely, he's pandering to the ill-informed for votes. In no way can you be pro-hunting and anti-public lands. That's like being pro-car and anti-public roads.

Mike,

I would hardly say I'm ill informed......Where did you see that Trump is anti-public lands that you're implying?

I can tell you every person who's anti hunting, anti gun, and anti public land use has a "D" next to their names......I'll take my chances with a guy that has a "R" next to his.

 

[SD Mike]

He says he is pro-hunting, but I don't think he fully understands what that means. Or, more likely, he's pandering to the ill-informed for votes. In no way can you be pro-hunting and anti-public lands. That's like being pro-car and anti-public roads.

Mike,

I would hardly say I'm ill informed......Where did you see that Trump is anti-public lands that you're implying?

I can tell you every person who's anti hunting, anti gun, and anti public land use has a "D" next to their names......I'll take my chances with a guy that has a "R" next to his.

The vast majority of people listening to him speak have no idea about public land, or its value to Americans. Those are the ill-informed I speak of. When you use buzz words and incredulous talk instead of explaining policy clearly and specifically, you are absolutely pandering to those less knowledgeable of the issue. And that is very dangerous.
The committee who wrote the GOP platform, many of those who directly represent the Trump camp, publicly endorsed the return of our lands into state hands as part of their campaign. So Trump will essentially be blustering about gun control and hunting rights when in fact he will be running on a platform to rid us of, in my opinion, the most sacred thing we as Americans collectively own and care for.
Outdoor life, esquire, high Country news, and a bunch of other sources have info on this position. If you'd like me to post links. I apologize if it came across that I was calling you ill informed meaning stupid as an insult. We all know you're neither stupid nor ill I formed on any 2a or wildlife issues.

 

[ilovesprig]

I would say, if any party is ill informed it would be the Kool-Aid drinking, Obummer electing, dems......I can work with the GOP & Republicans. I can NOT work with the closed minded libs.....In fact, in my Fish & Wildlife Commissioners meeting last night I had to deal with one......Just couldn't grasp the thought of managing coyotes.......rolleyes.gif

And again, you're talking in hypotheticals (we've gained lands to hunt, not lost them).....Where as the dems are dealing in real time in trying to take our hunting, fishing, & gun rights away with every bill they pass.

I do agree that we have to watch this issue closely.....Any loss of public lands is a loss for all of us.


ps.....Public agencies like water districts have to give or have public access (there are some exceptions).....For example, when IID (Imperial Irrigation Dist.) lined (cemented & fenced) the Coachella Canal, they were required by law to give equal access to new fishing waters......Hence, the new ponds near Niland & the lake on Wister.

 

[Macsteve]

Care to elaborate on the coyote issue? is the suggestion up for having tag/bag limits on yotes?

 

[ilovesprig]

Care to elaborate on the coyote issue? is the suggestion up for having tag/bag limits on yotes?

Steve,

Project Coyote is actually trying to outlaw coyote hunting......They've already accomplished their 1st goal in getting predators contests outlawed.

The person I was dealing with is a local commissioner.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjP7Lrf3fXNAhXFwj4KHZLpDnUQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.projectcoyote.org%2F&usg=AFQjCNFHVj8Qu6Bfbg2W_MZ1IhR53DInvw&sig2=c8acXZn_UNcO-qDegEh_-g
.

 

[SD Mike]

"Sniper shooting". Give me a breeeeeak.