az prop 120

[JLW]

THE ALREADY SELL LAND AND BUILDINGS THAT THEY DEEM A WASTE OR HAVE NO USE FOR OR NEED $.

http://www.governmentauction.com/?gclid=CMr22t-uuLMCFe57QgodQB0A6g

 

James

[audsley]

I wish people would quit worrying about whether Prop 120 is constitutional and just vote NO on it. We don't want to see this kind of thing again, and I want to fail so miserably that it will be another 30 years before they try it again. (They tried it 30 years ago. Remember James Watt?).

 

The GOP needs an education on public lands and wildlife. If we don't tell 'em, it's our fault. If we tell 'em and they go ahead with their schemes to privatize land and wildlife so only the wealthy can afford to hunt, then we'll know what to do next. I actually plan to vote for a couple of the people who are advocating this on the premise that they can be re-educated. If not, then I'll actively work against them next time.

 

Hunters in other states like Texas and New Mexico would kill for what we have in Arizona. We need to protect our resources from people who want to grab what's ours and from politicians who are all too eager to give it away.

[Simple Hunter]

From what I see, the most abused government land in Arizona has been the state trust land. Plus access is an issue unless you actively hunting.

 

Also, I know most of you on this forum are for Romney, and that is fine, but you better be vocal when he tries to go thru with his plan to sell off public land to reduce the deficit.

 

State Trust Land was established acknowleding that "Land" should not be in the public domain forever. It is the State's mechanism to auction land for the highest possible price to fund education. "The Common Schools (K-12) are the largest beneficiary owning approximately 87% of the land and receiving close to 90% of the revenue," State Land Department website.

 

This is the highest and best use of our State Land. Some of you may forget that without a strong economy - there is little opportunity to hunt. In fact if we are beholden to China because they own 68% of our debt, and we can't repay them - do you think they are going to respect our natural resources?? The issue here is that we are not in short supply of public land - that is a fact. The federal government owns 65% of the land west of Denver Colorado - that is way too much. If we don't start harvesting our natural resources - then China will gladly come in and mine/harvest them for us.

 

There won't be much opportunity to hunt legally if our economy collapses...and if it does everyone will be hunting just to survive. So vote for Prop 120 and we can reap the rewards of our god given resources and turn the world's largest economy around.

[Simple Hunter]

I am not so sure I am for Prop 120 anymore.? After reading about the money it would take Arizona to manage these lands, in a cash strapped state, it seems it could be a pitfall. It's hard enough to keep various department funds from being swept into the general budget, without adding greater expenses?

 

Between a rock and a hard place

With all due respect, I think this conversation is missing the point. These lands are not currently being managed by the Feds, they are absentee on the management aspect: The Forest Service was created for the farming of trees that is why it is organized in the Department of Agriculture. They do not farm trees anymore, they are in the business of preservation which is why 26.5 Million Board feet of timber went up in smoke with the Wallow Fire. They drag their feet on mining proposals and waste our tax dollars. ABC news reports "

Congressional investigators have discovered almost $3 million in "improper, wasteful, and questionable purchases" by U.S. Forest Service employees. More than $1.5 million of those purchases — made with government "purchase cards" — were in violation of laws or federal policy, investigators say."

 

The State doesn't need 34,500 beuracrats at the US Forest Service to help manage its lands. Existing state agencies can gladly pick up the slack and more efficiently manage the land. It goes that the private sector needs 3 people to manage 1000 acres while the federal government needs 20 for that same area. If we are managing our resources just like the G&F manages our game "resources" then everything will be in balance.

 

Vote yes on 120

[azgutpile]

From what I see, the most abused government land in Arizona has been the state trust land. Plus access is an issue unless you actively hunting.

 

Also, I know most of you on this forum are for Romney, and that is fine, but you better be vocal when he tries to go thru with his plan to sell off public land to reduce the deficit.

 

State Trust Land was established acknowleding that "Land" should not be in the public domain forever. It is the State's mechanism to auction land for the highest possible price to fund education. "The Common Schools (K-12) are the largest beneficiary owning approximately 87% of the land and receiving close to 90% of the revenue," State Land Department website.

 

This is the highest and best use of our State Land. Some of you may forget that without a strong economy - there is little opportunity to hunt. In fact if we are beholden to China because they own 68% of our debt, and we can't repay them - do you think they are going to respect our natural resources?? The issue here is that we are not in short supply of public land - that is a fact. The federal government owns 65% of the land west of Denver Colorado - that is way too much. If we don't start harvesting our natural resources - then China will gladly come in and mine/harvest them for us.

 

There won't be much opportunity to hunt legally if our economy collapses...and if it does everyone will be hunting just to survive. So vote for Prop 120 and we can reap the rewards of our god given resources and turn the world's largest economy around.

 

I think what you are missing is that Arizona is one of the best states to hunt tin because we have so much public land. If it were, or if it went all private, hunting would be a who you know or rich mans sport for sure.

[AverageJoe]

Each state should be able to do what they want with the land within their borders. It would be nice to have the choice of 50 different states to live in rather than one giant state that we have now called the u.s. i vote yes for anything that helps give the states power over their own land. The state is run by our neighbors and people that will listen to us more than the feds ever will. Why let the power of deciding our lands future be held in the hands of those that are in washington dc and pushing a liberal agenda????

[audsley]

Bad as the federal govt can be, state government is even more inept and susceptible to manipulation by special interests.

 

Simple Hunter, I disagree with the premise that state lands are not to be held in the public domain forever. If these lands are generating revenue for the trust, they are serving their intended purpose. It is believed that some state trust lands in remote locations will never be developed. These lands will likely continue to earn revenue through grazing fees and other uses specified in the state's constitution. Nothing wrong with that.

 

As for national forest lands, the forest service was created to manage the lands that no one wanted to purchase. Remember that the federal government (which I tend to think of as the American people rather than some bureaucrat) acquired all Western lands in the first place (Gadsen Purchase, Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, Oregon Treaty and Louisiana Purchase) and then offered these lands for sale to private entities. Land along watercourses was quickly bought up, but most Western lands, including forested areas and mountain tops, remained unsold. Unregulated, uncontrolled use of the unsold lands posed a lot of problems such as overgrazing in places (which led to conflicts between ranchers) and the threat of floods due to unregulated timber cutting. Farmers and residents along the watercourses wanted to ensure that the forests would continue to moderate runoff.

 

Management purposes of national forest and BLM lands have been refined over the years through the Multiple Use, Sustained Yield Act of 1960 and the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976, and other legislation. The federally legislated purposes of these lands are watershed protection, grazing, timber harvest and recreation. Mining is allowed under a separate 1872 law.

 

All of these lands are managed under a "public trust" doctrine - the land belongs to the public and is managed by federal agencies appointed to be the trustees. It belongs to all of us. We, the people, are the property owners. And as all property owners should know, one must be constantly on the lookout for thieves and pickpockets who would chisel off a piece for themselves. Their agents (lobbyists) are paid to prowl the halls of state legislatures and Congress looking for new ways to make a buck. Politicians are happy to please them in exchange for financial and political support.

 

I will agree that federal management of public lands is exasperating. But like Democracy, it's the best system we could have if we want to maintain the West's wide-open spaces where alternative uses of rural land would not generate a significant economic return. This isn't Ohio or Missouri where agricultural income per-acre is much higher, and hunters need to know someone with private land or pay to belong to a hunting club. Rather than doing away with our current approach, we should be striving to improve it. Of course, that would require that some of us make more of an effort to understand the current system.

 

State trust lands were allocated to states as a gift from the federal govt at the time of statehood. (Remember, the feds, AKA the people of the U.S., owned all the land that hadn't been purchased.) The primary purpose of this gift was to raise revenue for schools in the absence of an adequate tax base. The state land dept. has historically tried to maximize this revenue by leasing it until it has significant real estate value. This is preferable to squandering it by selling it off where its taxable value would be very low and future leasing revenues would be forever terminated.

 

Someone said something about wishing there were 50 different states instead of just one. Well, wish no more - just head for Texas if you want what Prop 120 would bring. I'm sure there are some who would prefer the Texas style of land and wildlife policy.

[Snapshot]

So far Prop 120 is losing with majority of no votes