Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Trump Reduces Natl. Monuments

There are sections of state land checkerboarded into most BLM areas. Obama and Clinton took that along with the rest as they locked away millions of acres in National Monument without due process.

If it returns to the prior status, then the states gain the land originally held by them.

I agree with that.

OTOH what could you do in a NM other than look at it and only the parts that they allow access.

Yeah right!!!

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

Okay,....but what's your point?

3.2million acres the size of Connecticut could be closed to all types of recreation. like Hunting
Fishing. Congress is trying to say this is worthless land. States are just stealing it. If
If you hunt you just lost 3.2 million acres to hunt on. States do all kind of weird things when
get control of the land. Colorado only has 20% of state land open to public. Wyoming says
if you are hunting on Wilderness land you must hire a guide to hunt. Fishing on same land
does,nt need a guide, go figure. New Mexico will gain 800,000 acres from feds. Idaho a
100,000 acres. Utah wants to sell the land to the oil companies and put up no trespassing
signs, for hunters.

If all of that land was sold to private owners, any contracts related to hunting on the land would be between the owner and the hunter.

The government would have no say in it.

Gran Escalante was just a payoff to the Lippo Group, who pumped tons of money into the Klintoon campaign. This is one of the largest coal deposits on earth .

Trump is here !

The land will still be protected by the BLM..........

All of the BLM/US Forest property I know is open to public use with off road travel regs...off course......

The people of Utah respect all of of our public property......like 76%.......

https://www.ksl.com/?sid=46210587&a...-utah-but-protesters-are-waiting-as-well

US Forest...........E N J O Y !

The states aren't stealing anything, in fact it is the other way around, feds stealing from states. Colorado state trust lands were set up long ago to provide revenue for the public school system (we have a similar situation here on MT). They didn't steal anything. As to WYO. requiring guides for hunting in designated wilderness? Yes, for out of state hunters, not the residents. Its called making money from tourism.

And please show where Utah is planning on "selling" the land to oil companies? Are you talking leases or actual deeded sales?

In spades.

And there is plenty of room to have both coal operations and still protect the recreation and environment for the canyon country and water sheds leading onto the Colorado river.

I,m an out of state hunter I call it stealing on public land.
Only Alaska does that besides Wyoming. That's what happens when you give federal
land to a state. All kinds of weird things start happening mostly to keep the public off
the land or someone else to make money.

Ever notice how the closer you or your social circle is to a national monument, and the more you actually know about the history and politics and real impacts of these designations, the less you like them? The more you feel the Antiquities Act has been abused beyond belief? Yep.
Trump is doing a good thing here. Out of at least a million Salt Lakers, only 4500 bothered to show up and whine? What does that tell you? That Utah Greens and their billionaire secret backers are upset -- and few and far between.

State wildlife is managed by the state, not the feds, unless federally protected.
Would you rather the feds manage all wildlife across the board? Have people like chuck schumer and dianne feinstein tell you what you can or can't hunt, or whether you can hunt at all?

If you don't like what WY. or AK do then take your money somewhere else. I'm sure other western states will take it.

Most people assume that the land in the hands of the US government got there because the land was unsettled, and unused. This is often not the case.

My wife's family owned large tracts of mountain land that they used for summer pasture.

I've held in my hands the letter from the government thanking them for selling it for a token amount, and promising that they would always have low cost grazing permits.

That land is now part of the Manti-LaSalle National Forest.

The locals here are generally very unhappy with the way the government has managed the land. They restricted access, closing off roads people used for 150 years. And when the beetle infestation hit the pine trees and killed most of them, they would not allow the dead wood to be harvested. In some areas, it still would not take much to start a raging fire in the dead wood.

Also, the federal government may have ownership of large parcels of land, but the states retained sovereignty. The federal government is just like any other landowner in many respects.

There is a pretty good case for having the monuments, to preserve ancient Native American history and such. But the Presidents pretty well ignored the part about making the monuments as small as they could be and still accomplish their intended purpose. Breaking the monuments up and reducing their size gives the government more flexibility in how they manage the freed land, and is probably much better for us.

The point guntruck50 is making is about moving Federal land to state ownership and then the states selling off to the highest bidder, then subsequently close it to public access. A similar case happened last year in Idaho, when the Potlatch corporation ( a private company which let the public access their lands to recreate) sold the land to two brothers from Texas. All public access was subsequently shut down.

The concern I have is that I have no trust in state legislators to not sell out to campaign donors. I am sure they aren't all bad but most appear to be. Sportsmen in the west don't want to end up paying for leases to hunt on private land, similar to what happens back east and in the south.

Rockinbar: I am growing to like President Donald J. Trump more and more every week it seems.
GO TRUMP!
MAGA!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy

You do not need a guide to hunt any state land in Wyoming if you are a resident. If you are not a resident of Wyoming, you still do not need a guide to hunt the vast majority of state lands only some of the largest wilderness areas in the lower 48. If you're not from around here, but think you'll be fine whatever you do, you may be right or maybe just 'special', if you're not it's gonna take one hell of a search and rescue to try to find you. It happens often, several times a year, at the expense of a population for our whole state that is probably less than many towns where you're from. There is so much forest and BLM here you can hunt without a guide, and even get closer to with a road, we locals prefer you go there -- or hire one of us to help you in the way back country. There may be some exceptions to the 'usual' out-of-state hunters, especially here at the Fire, but truth be told, most of them are a bunch of numb nuts.

So let me get this straight. A private corp. that owned a large tract of private land, and exercising their private property rights, allowed the public to recreate on their private land. Later, said private corp. sold the private land to other private citizens who, exercising their private property rights, decided to close off the private property to public access previously allowed by the first owner, a private corp.
So where was the state of Idaho involved?

And where have other states sold off public lands to private parties without swapping for equal/greater value land?

You can't even pay a fiction writer enough to make this crap up.

Geez.