Within moments of taking office, Trump pledges to undo measures of paramount importance to anglers

[bikerfish]

franklin wrote:
Out west there are vast tracks of low value scrub land that costs us taxpayers more to upkeep than it's worth. Much of it has not had a citizen recreating on it in 50 years. The BLM land should be re-assessed and much of it sold. I don't have a problem keeping land that has valuable assets, either mineral or natural, but much of it is simply owned to allow some cattle ranchers low rent range.

problem being, who decides what is kept and what is sold? I'll tell you, it's the extraction industries, they know where they can profit and where they can't, so it's not just going to be the lowland deserts sold off, it's going to be wherever they can make a profit, and that includes millions of acres that we all use.

 

[franklin]

bikerfish wrote:

franklin wrote:
Out west there are vast tracks of low value scrub land that costs us taxpayers more to upkeep than it's worth. Much of it has not had a citizen recreating on it in 50 years. The BLM land should be re-assessed and much of it sold. I don't have a problem keeping land that has valuable assets, either mineral or natural, but much of it is simply owned to allow some cattle ranchers low rent range.

problem being, who decides what is kept and what is sold? I'll tell you, it's the extraction industries, they know where they can profit and where they can't, so it's not just going to be the lowland deserts sold off, it's going to be wherever they can make a profit, and that includes millions of acres that we all use.

If the land has value for extraction assets I still don't have a problem selling as long as the price is honest.

That's a problem either way. If you keep it guys like Harry Reid cut deals to lease government land for paybacks.

In Utah the Federal Government owns almost half the state. Way too much. And they don't pay a fair tax to Utah. A lot of it should simply be given back to the people of Utah.

 

[bikerfish]

The people of Utah never owned it to begin with, most federal land has always been federal land since the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession.

also, a little google research can show the economic value of recreation on that land, that is so called "useless". Literally hundreds of billions of dollars. Sure, it doesn't affect the investments that people have in an oil company, but it sure does help millions of people that live and work in those areas, not to mention all the outdoor clothing and equipment companies, etc.
I guess it all depends on where your priorities are, or where your money is invested.

 

[FarmerDave]

bikerfish wrote:
The people of Utah never owned it to begin with, most federal land has always been federal land since the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican Cession.

That isn't 100% true depending on how you look at it.

For the Western states at least, land was opened to settlement to anyone with the desire to try to make a go of it and at that point the land was part of the territory, under territorial government control. As part of statehood, all land was turned back over to the federal government. New deeds were issued to property that had been deeded and the Federal Government kept the rest.

At least that is the way I understand it, and I don't feel like looking it up again. It certainly explains why about 50% of the western states is Federal land, and nearly 85% of Nevada is Federal land. That's a higher percentage than even Alaska (61.2%). Overall public land in Alaska is higher, but apparently Feds turned a ton of land back over to the state.

Nevada was actually made a state before they actually qualified. It didn't have nearly enough population to qualify. But that was overlooked because Lincoln wanted the extra electoral votes to insure his re-election.

I'm not anti-Lincoln, just a history buff.
Franklin said Feds own almost 50% of Utah, It's actually 64.6% federal land.

A few states have actually seen increases in Federal land. In some cases, people were forced to sell.

Feds own 46.9% of the 11 western states, 61.2% of Alaska, 20% of Hawaii, and 4% of the rest.

I kind of agree with Franklin that some of this land should be turned over to the states, but some stated don't want or can't afford it.

 

[franklin]

If you look into federal land holdings they continued to increase right up into the 1990s. There has been a small drop as some military bases and urban land has been disposed of.

Exclude the National Parks and National Forests and the recreational value of the rest is relatively small. Much of that has no recreational value that can be monetized.

 

[ryansheehan]

Does anyone out there not want to see lands that cannot be used for public recreation sold? If so, what would be the reasoning? If it's you don't trust the federal government to make good decisions I might tend to agree with you, just wondering about the perceived down sides.

 

[bikerfish]

you can't exclude them, they are lumped in with all the other federal land. This regime doesn't care what label the property has, they want it in private hands for plunder, simple as that. I don't trust any of them further than I could throw them. These are not the conservatives I used to know.
to put it into perspective, let's take Penns creek, a stream we all love and fish, and enjoy public land and access along a lot of it's length. Now consider if Harrisburg decided to dump it, saying it had no right to the ownership of that land, and it was sold off to private holdings for what ever those buyers wanted to do, which at the very least, would include posting it I'm sure, and who knows what all else would happen with it. Real estate development? timbering operations, etc??
So, you would be alright with that?
I know better. Hell, we've had entire threads about the crazy guy that put a posted sign on the other side of the damn trestle bridge.

The federal government COULD make more money on that land, leasing at market values instead of pennies on the dollar. There are strong partnerships out west between ranches and the government, we only hear about the wackos because that's what makes the news. could the states manage this land better? perhaps, but I doubt they have the money to do that. Maybe the better answer would be for fed and state to work together to better manage?
people need to be reminded though, most of that land belongs to all of us, it belongs to no political party, and no one individual.

Teddy is rolling over in his grave.

 

[franklin]

ryansheehan wrote:
Does anyone out there not want to see lands that cannot be used for public recreation sold? If so, what would be the reasoning? If it's you don't trust the federal government to make good decisions I might tend to agree with you, just wondering about the perceived down sides.

It's not healthy in a democracy for the government to own a significant portion of the land. If it's not specially valued for natural or strategic minerals it should be put back into the market place for use by the citizens.

Owning such a large percentage of western states leads to too much influence by the shadow government at best, loss of tax revenue to states, restrictions on local expansion, and at worst graft by bureaucrats and politicians.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

you can't exclude them, they are lumped in with all the other federal land. This regime doesn't care what label the property has, they want it in private hands for plunder, simple as that. I don't trust any of them further than I could throw them. These are not the conservatives I used to know. to put it into perspective, let's take Penns creek, a stream we all love and fish, and enjoy public land and access along a lot of it's length. Now consider if Harrisburg decided to dump it, saying it had no right to the ownership of that land, and it was sold off to private holdings for what ever those buyers wanted to do, which at the very least, would include posting it I'm sure, and who knows what all else would happen with it. Real estate development? timbering operations, etc?? So, you would be alright with that? I know better. Hell, we've had entire threads about the crazy guy that put a posted sign on the other side of the damn trestle bridge. The federal government COULD make more money on that land, leasing at market values instead of pennies on the dollar. There are strong partnerships out west between ranches and the government, we only hear about the wackos because that's what makes the news. could the states manage this land better? perhaps, but I doubt they have the money to do that. Maybe the better answer would be for fed and state to work together to better manage? people need to be reminded though, most of that land belongs to all of us, it belongs to no political party, and no one individual. Teddy is rolling over in his grave.

Spot on

 

[FarmerDave]

bikerfish wrote:


The federal government COULD make more money on that land, leasing at market values instead of pennies on the dollar...

Yea they could, and I wish they would, but unfortunately bureaucracy, mismanagement, and frivolous lawsuits often get in the way.

Take the National forests for example.

Try to sell off some timber as part of maintaining a healthy forest (the reason for creating the NFs in the first place) and pennies on the dollar compared to similar from private land IS the market value because inevitably there will be lawsuits trying to block it.

 

[Chaz]

ryansheehan wrote:
Does anyone out there not want to see lands that cannot be used for public recreation sold? If so, what would be the reasoning? If it's you don't trust the federal government to make good decisions I might tend to agree with you, just wondering about the perceived down sides.

I think that there are those that will make a huge profit from the sale of the land if the Feds. turn it over to the States, most of it was never their land anyway. If it's not used for recreation then fine sell it off but auction it. But not NP, NF, or NM's.
If the states get the land it will just become a political football that will make money for someone, but the Fed won't get the profit.

 

[troutbert]

ryansheehan wrote:
Does anyone out there not want to see lands that cannot be used for public recreation sold? If so, what would be the reasoning? If it's you don't trust the federal government to make good decisions I might tend to agree with you, just wondering about the perceived down sides.

What type of lands are you referring to?

What public lands could not be used for public recreation?

 

[ryansheehan]

troutbert wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:
Does anyone out there not want to see lands that cannot be used for public recreation sold? If so, what would be the reasoning? If it's you don't trust the federal government to make good decisions I might tend to agree with you, just wondering about the perceived down sides.

What type of lands are you referring to?

What public lands could not be used for public recreation?

Trust lands

 

[franklin]

troutbert wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:
Does anyone out there not want to see lands that cannot be used for public recreation sold? If so, what would be the reasoning? If it's you don't trust the federal government to make good decisions I might tend to agree with you, just wondering about the perceived down sides.

What type of lands are you referring to?

What public lands could not be used for public recreation?

It's not a question of could, it's would.

 

[mcneishm]

bikerfish wrote:
you can't exclude them, they are lumped in with all the other federal land. This regime doesn't care what label the property has, they want it in private hands for plunder, simple as that. I don't trust any of them further than I could throw them. These are not the conservatives I used to know.
to put it into perspective, let's take Penns creek, a stream we all love and fish, and enjoy public land and access along a lot of it's length. Now consider if Harrisburg decided to dump it, saying it had no right to the ownership of that land, and it was sold off to private holdings for what ever those buyers wanted to do, which at the very least, would include posting it I'm sure, and who knows what all else would happen with it. Real estate development? timbering operations, etc??
So, you would be alright with that?
I know better. Hell, we've had entire threads about the crazy guy that put a posted sign on the other side of the damn trestle bridge.

The federal government COULD make more money on that land, leasing at market values instead of pennies on the dollar. There are strong partnerships out west between ranches and the government, we only hear about the wackos because that's what makes the news. could the states manage this land better? perhaps, but I doubt they have the money to do that. Maybe the better answer would be for fed and state to work together to better manage?
people need to be reminded though, most of that land belongs to all of us, it belongs to no political party, and no one individual.

Teddy is rolling over in his grave.

Spot on Bikerfish.

 

[mcneishm]

bikerfish wrote:
I guess this is more fake news. Still scares the hell out of me, I love our public lands, and can't imagine enjoying this country without them.
All of my passions, skiing, fishing, motorcycling, bicycling, they all benefit from public lands. every year, every trip I take, I make some use of public lands. I simply can't imagine living the same life without them.

http://www.orvis.com/news/fly-fishing/fight-keep-public-lands-public-5-questions-randy-newberg/

You are correct to be fearful of this. While HR 621 (the actual house resolution to sell off public lands) is not going anywhere, HR 622 is still very much alive. HR622, "Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act" would strip the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service of law-enforcement authority, giving that power to “local law enforcement." This effectively removes any enforcement of regulations from Federal control, likely a disaster in the making.