rossislider Report post Posted January 5, 2017 I hope everyone is taking the time to follow this and is getting involved where you can. This is scary times for our community with the direction things are going. Sadly, it is the "conservative" party that is leading much of the charge to transfer our federal lands to the state, which will soon lead to them being sold off to special interests and the highest bidder. If you love and appreciate hunting in the west, I don't understand how this can't scare you. http://www.backcountryhunters.org/contact_congress_stand_up_for_public_lands 5 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AverageJoe Report post Posted January 5, 2017 I always look at it from the standpoint of; what keeps the BLM from one day not allowing hunting on BLM land? Same with Forest service? Say the Libs control the whole house and senate next time around and decide to ban hunting on federal land? Wouldnt land in the hands of an individual state be easier to protect than one agency owning "all" the land in the US? One sign of the pen and we lose all hunting land in every state. At the state level, liberal groups from other states (California etc) would have zero effect on how our hunting land in Az is managed i.e...wolves. Same as all the other Conservative states. Its a tough one for sure...stay involved! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rossislider Report post Posted January 5, 2017 I always look at it from the standpoint of; what keeps the BLM from one day not allowing hunting on BLM land? Same with Forest service? Say the Libs control the whole house and senate next time around and decide to ban hunting on federal land? Wouldnt land in the hands of an individual state be easier to protect than one agency owning "all" the land in the US? One sign of the pen and we lose all hunting land in every state. At the state level, liberal groups from other states (California etc) would have zero effect on how our hunting land in Az is managed i.e...wolves. Same as all the other Conservative states. Its a tough one for sure...stay involved! I was once of the same frame of mind before I really started looking into the issue. There are many problems with this. One problem with state ownership is that the states DO NOT have the funds to manage and maintain the lands, nor the fiscal responsibility to control their spending. It is too easy to sell off a chunk of lands to raise some money. In no time the lands would be sold off to private parties and individuals. It is not a matter of if they would be sold, but when. Your honey holes would no longer be yours and all hunting would rely on land leases. Texas is a great example of this. I don't think that it is any surprise that one of the leaders in this push to pass these lands down to the states is Senator Ted Cruz from Texas. Ever look into public land hunting in Texas? It doesn't exist. You might also take note that pretty much every conservation group, big name hunter, etc. is strongly opposed to this as well. Please do some research into the the. The BHA's website has a wealth of information: http://www.backcountryhunters.org/issues 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Str8Shot Report post Posted January 5, 2017 Well if you want to go by the Constitution .. The Federal Government can not own any lands except for what was given for D.C. and Lands permitted by the states for Forts and Ports .... BLM , National Forest Service etc. actually are unconstitutional and another way States Rights have been taken away by the Fed. Look at the sale history of state trust land in Arizona and you will see very little has actually been sold... my only issue has been how many gates have been locked up by companies leasing easements for utility lines and other uses. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted January 5, 2017 The incoming secretary of the interior and the incoming POTUS have publicly expressed they have no intentions of selling or transferring public lands.For what it is worth Turning our public lands into national monuments is what turns local residence of these areas into siding with state run forest, BLM, etc. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PackerMenges Report post Posted January 5, 2017 Obama locking up over 500 million acres of public land is what bothers me. A state deciding to sell a little piece here and there pales in comparison to the damage done by this President and his pen. There is a huge difference between fear of something happening vs what is actually happening. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertBull Report post Posted January 5, 2017 Don't be surprised if Obama signs the Kaibab Plateau into a National Monument in the next two weeks. And since a large portion of that area butts up against the Grand Canyon National Park, it could be easily be added to the park at a later date. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbo Report post Posted January 22, 2017 The GOP only scraped by this election regarding several states. They need every vote. I think Trump is smart enough not to alienate any of his base.I am not in Arizona for the high wages in my career field. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
azgutpile Report post Posted January 23, 2017 Well if you want to go by the Constitution .. The Federal Government can not own any lands except for what was given for D.C. and Lands permitted by the states for Forts and Ports .... BLM , National Forest Service etc. actually are unconstitutional and another way States Rights have been taken away by the Fed. Look at the sale history of state trust land in Arizona and you will see very little has actually been sold... my only issue has been how many gates have been locked up by companies leasing easements for utility lines and other uses. That's your interpretation of the constitution, but it's not the view of the Supreme Court. With regards to Arizona state trust lands, which are not public lands, we have done an alright job in the past, but expect that to change after last years vote to raid the state lands to payoff debts to public schools (Whole other issue). If you look at Nevada and you will see that it is very feasible that a state can and will sell off all of their public lands. And like said above, if the federal lands are turned over to the states, none of the states are capable of managing them and I guarantee we would see a fire sale. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Siwash Report post Posted January 31, 2017 Over the weekend RMEF sent out an email urging its members to contact Congressional leaders to oppose the transfer of Federal lands to states. The email referenced this link: http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFonPublicLandsTransfer.aspx Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sneaker Report post Posted January 31, 2017 Federal ownership has always been upheld in the supreme court, which is our designated constitution interpreter, whether you like it or not. Administering federal lands is one of the better things the federal government does. They aren't perfect at it(insert Burros issue on BLM in western Arizona...) but overall historically they have done very well for us sportsmen with that important stewardship. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AmericanThunder Report post Posted January 31, 2017 The incoming secretary of the interior and the incoming POTUS have publicly expressed they have no intentions of selling or transferring public lands. For what it is worth Turning our public lands into national monuments is what turns local residence of these areas into siding with state run forest, BLM, etc. Not worth much when almost the entire rest of the party is actively trying to sell it anyway. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Allforelk Report post Posted February 2, 2017 Chaffetz withdrew his bill citing negative responses from constituents. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
