Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Backpack Hunting Backpack hunters and anglers organization

Yep.

Nope, Lee is right. National Forests are run like a fiefdom by the environmental groups who oppose anything that might make fiscal sense. Look at the constant litigation by any and all Green groups, see what that does not just to hunting, but everything else.

Right Dave, public land is bad for hunting. Makes sense to me.

You say such funny schit! Meanwhile, game abundances are maintained at some of the greatest densities ever. On a next to nothing budget, they maintain thousands of miles of roads so Dave don't have to walk (if he ever went hunting, which is pretty unlikely), and millions of people will use those national forests and have a grand time doing it while Dave sits in his mother's basement pecking out angry messages on his keyboard.

Lots of assuming going in that article. Can't speak for the other states, but here in Montana, if fed lands were transferred to the state, those lands would remain public land as part of the public land trust, as required by the state constitution.

It appears many think that if a transfer to states occurred, the lands would be sold off to the highest bidder per the article claiming many states aren't financially able to manage an increase in acreage if a transfer happened and would sell to cover expenses, yet our fed guv is running a $21 trillion+ red gash through the books. What would prevent the feds from doing the same thing, ie. selling off land to cover the debt?

The Fed's are allowed to run in a deficit, most all Western State's Constitutions do not allow it. Land held by most State trust boards are required to make a profit, if they don't they often get sold. In Colorado and New Mexico, if state trust land is not leased by the Department of Parks and Wildlife, you aren't hunting on it. In NM, CO and WY, you can't camp on State trust Land. In addition, most of our state land is leased for cattle or mining and is then treated as private property which we don't have access to it. I'll be looking for something else to do instead of Hunt if Mike Lee gets his way.

I'll go out on a limb and say, the same thing that's prevented it from inception. You can't say the same about states.

Wrong, Montana has sold off some of its State Lands. It wasn't that long ago that you couldn't hunt State Land in Montana without permission of the leasee, and it was a hell of a fight from the hook and bullet crowd that changed the law.

As to what would stop the "feds" from selling public land to cover the debt?...How about 320 million pissed off public land owners, for a start.

As I've said before, let the Feds have the parks and wildernesses, those feds who want to manage multiple use can transfer to state agencies and have a life long relationship with their district or region (not you, Buzz, you can stay a Federal parkie) rather than transferring out every time they learn something.

This thread is great. Dave Skinner is the Jeff O of the conservative side. So [bleep]!ng stupid you almost feel bad for him. Then you realize he must have gotten ptsd after his dad took him on to long of a hike in the wilderness. Poor Dave.


Jackson Handy is almost assuredly JWP58's sockpuppet. He's got a hard on for Buzz and Randy after Randy booted him from Hunttalk. Guy has an impeccable morale compass.

The Kinda Guy You Want on Your Team

The feds aren't "allowed" to run a deficit, they just do. Ever heard Of Graham Ruddman? With regard to the other states, citizens at the state level are responsible for the gov. they put in power. If you don't like the way your state runs your trust lands, then make the change, just like we do at the national level. Fed lands are leased for cattle, mining etc as well, and the FS, BLM et al can and do put controls and closures on fed land just like states do on "their" land.

Wrong? Tell us what public land trust land was sold off? Are you referring to land swaps where the state gets equal or larger acreage/value land in return for trading state land to the private party? Are you aware of Montana code where it states trust lands must be kept "In perpetuity"?

Who were the "leasee" 's requiring permission from the potential hook and bullet crowd? Do you mean leasee's like our local gun clubs here in the Flathead who lease trust land from the state? The feds put restrictions on leased fed lands as well and can close off whole swaths of public land for "study purposes", mining claims, logging operations etc. etc.

The "pissed off public land owners" scenario works the same way at the state level too, Buzz. Governors and state legislators are no more immune from the wrath of angry citizens than the fed counter parts and in many ways are more sensitive to the state issues because of proximity to state capitals compared to our fed capital in DC.

When Montana became a state they were granted 5.9 million acres. They now have 5.1 million acres.

Montana State Land holdings have declined by 800,000 acres since statehood.

As to the State land issue regarding hunting/fishing/camping/recreational access...Jack Atcheson Sr. and the Skyline Sportsmen began a campaign to keep the lease holders from denying hunting, fishing, and other recreation from State lands.

https://plwa.org/montana-state-public-trust-lands-history/

It was the first time I became actively engaged in fighting for public access to public lands...do it all the time now, as recently as a couple weeks ago when myself and a handful of dedicated sportsmen testified in front of the Laramie County Commission to keep 2 county roads open that were petitioned by a landowner to be abandoned. If there was no opposition, recreationists would have lost access to a bunch of BLM lands.

Story here:

https://www.wyomingnews.com/news/lo...dfda8a2-744c-11e8-a09e-a7764ffad983.html

Any more questions?

Thanks for posting the articles. They help validate my point.

Montana citizens stepped up to the plate and forced the state to come to real terms with the state constitution, not their interpretation of it. And they did it without help from the feds or out of state entities.
The same thing happens at the fed. level' albeit at a much slower pace and exponential increase in costs.

From my post above:

"..citizens at the state level are responsible for the gov. they put in power. If you don't like the way your state runs your trust lands, then make the change, just like we do at the national level. Fed lands are leased for cattle, mining etc as well, and the FS, BLM et al can and do put controls and closures on fed land just like states do on "their" land."

State citizens are responsible for determining what form of "concent" they choose to give to those who govern them. They/we can be taken advantage of at all levels of government.

If fed public lands were transferred to the states, the people of those states have the power to make sure those lands are kept in the hands of the public. They don't need fed oversight to make it work, they just need to be good citizens, whether BHA is involved or not.

The people also have the power to make sure the land stays public without transfer, and with much less risk. By telling Mike Lee to take a flying leap, which is what will happen. Here, any amendment to the state constitution has to be by ballot initiative, which is how we lost our spring bear season even though the majority of Coloradans were not against bear hunting. Anything can happen with a ballot initiative.