Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters Sale of public lands and drilling everywhere

To that last part, I'd agree but only with qualifications. Many in the Legislative branch are those trying to undo a very unique and valuable legacy.

The fly in this ointment, IMO, is how one defines access. Many consider it inaccessible if they can't drive to it.

I don't have any faith that wholesale drilling and mining would be done without big problems on our public lands. In this era of deregulate just about everything, I especially don't trust the part about setting and enforcing standards; there is too much likelihood of fraud and corruption, or just plain error. And with the return of the idea that it's okay for coal mines to dump their mine waste and fill streams, why should we expect better on our public lands? Consider all the miles of streams polluted by existing mines.

If you want to see a mess, take a look on Wikimapia at the Bakken oil area on the MT/ND border. Looks like a bad case of acne. Lotsa money being made I assume, but Which of the public lands you hunt or fish do you want covereed with a rash of oil wells or coal mines?

I call it inaccessible if all the land around it is PRIVATE and they only way on is to get permission to cross said private land.

This was posted by Rock Chuck, kinda telling ain't it?


[quote=Rock Chuck]Before you scream too loudly, take a look at this map. I pulled a screen shot of a map in SE Idaho where there a quite a few small parcels listed in the bill.
white is private
yellow is BLM
pink is state
green is Nat Forest

Note that there are quite a few small BLM plots completely surrounded by private land. There are no roads to them so there is no access to them if the landowners post their land. We can't use the land, the feds can't use it. The only way to gain access is to buy the land for roads and that would cost a lot more than it's worth.
I'm sure this isn't the case with all of the affected parcels, but it does apply to a bunch of them in Idaho. Since they're landlocked, the only potential buyers are the owners of the adjacent lands.

So the above is my definition of inaccessible ain't I don't see many flies in that ointment.

What about flying in?

What part of surrounded by private land is tough to grasp?

The BLM actually trades non accessible land for accessible.It usually is not acre for acre but works out good for both parties.

Yeah, it happens just about every year in Montana.

Nothing. Flying in would not require permission of crossing private land to enter, which was a qualifier in your first response. It's being done yearly in some spots with the Durfee Hills of Montana being nearly infamous for it.

True, but flying in is not generally affordable which means, practically speaking, the land isn't accessible to the public.

Hence my problem with all manner of folks having to define "accessible". Means are not a good litmus test IMO. Lots of things I cannot or choose not to afford at this time. Like a pack trip into the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Or a float plane into interior Alaska.

These sales or trades are legitimate. But the land locked or isolated parcels frequently turn into sanctuaries and honey holes due to lack of hunting. When I have tags I look for these and where Elk and deer may come and go to access them as a good places to hunt.

The drone being tested in Norway will carry 600lbs

Nytimes has an article regarding drones today-
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2017/02/13/world/middleeast/ap-ml-dubai-passenger-drone.html?_r=0

Don't sell our children out because we can't imagine the future.

I'm a proponent of public lands, but that argument is weak and ridiculous.

I don't care about your children.

You shouldn't be quoting the New York Slimes. It undermines your credibility.

Geeze,won't anyone on here consider that much federal land is badly managed? Huge wildfires, which destroy habitat or at least the desirable attributes of an area?
And why is there bad management? Because of bad federal law that paralyzes the agencies. By the time the anti-capitalist greens get done attacking a grazing right or a timber sale, the proposal is too small or costs too much, much less making a return for the taxpayers.
It is a simple fact that you can get more good work done, if the work somehow pays for itself. This is possible. It happens ALL the time on state-run lands, usually by a constitutional mandate. Indian tribes accomplish the same, in a balanced manner of benefit and consequence.
More important, for tribes and states, the policies are mainly controlled and influenced by those most affected by the benefits and consequences of these policies. That is at the root of self-government.
On federal lands, the policies are set thousands of miles away by those with the best lobbyists.
I live in Montana, and I can show anyone here physical proof that state lands are better managed and more productive overall than the federal estate. In fact, in comparison, the condition of federal lands to state parcels is criminal. Just terrible, across vast reaches of ground.
I know it's nice to pretend we're in a pristine environment, but the historic reality, from even before the white eyes showed up, is that the American landscape evolved and appears as it does today because of human management aimed at increasing game productivity through the timed use of set fires. That's management.
Deliberately managed vegetation on both open and forested habitat almost always provides more forage and cover for game. America's environment actually EVOLVED that way, for Gosh sake, and federal management by neglect doesn't cut the mustard. States can, and often, do a better job of doing the things we want to see happen.

It's not just the bad federal law and lawsuits by greenies that hamstring the federal agencies tasked with managing the lands. Those federal agencies have been infiltrated and staffed by greenies who can't/won't properly manage the lands.