Trial153

Black ones

Around here the closest you see to yards is groups of this years fawns together.

From Randy Newburg The State Land Boards will explicitly claim, "STATE TRUST LANDS ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS." Go to the Colorado State Land Board website and that is the first sentence of the second paragraph. And, they are correct. Those lands are held by the state for a select group of beneficiaries (school systems) and a very specific purpose - funding the schools. As the 10th Amendment dictates, the Feds cannot force the states to manage those lands in any way other than the state, via the State Land Board, sees fit. Immediately, the logical theories like you stated, start falling by the wayside. And here is how it plays out in a manner that causes concern and why these states will not agree to the "theory" you logically proposed. I'll use the easiest examples, to illustrate the points; Colorado and Oregon. Colorado does not allow hunting, camping, or other recreation on State Trust Lands, unless those rights are leased by the state wildlife agency. Due to budget limitations, CPW only leases a small fraction of the State Trust Lands for public recreation access; a very small portion. Given CO has 23 million acres of BLM and USFS lands, transferring those lands to the CO State Land Board means hunters lose 23 million acres of access. As a hunter, I ask the politicians promoting the idea, "HOW DO WE REPLACE 23 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC HUNTING ACCESS, JUST IN COLORADO?" The politicians don't have an answer when asked the question. They change the subject. Some would say, force the states to allow access if those lands were transferred. I doubt Congress is inclined to reverse 240 years of the 10th Amendment by telling the states what to do in order that we would have hunting access. I wish it was different in these western states, but that is how the State Land Boards operate. In NM and WY you cannot camp on these State lands. In MT, we had to fight the legislature for to change the law from the Colorado model to a new law where we can now pay a fee to hunt these lands. Imagine transferring millions of acres in NM and WY where you could no longer have your elk camp in the Gila and you were expected to drive from Datil or Magdalena every day. Or you finally drew the Region G deer tag, but you had to hike in ever morning (about 8 hours) and hike out every night (about 5 hours) because these are now State lands and you cannot camp on them. Imagine if you hired an outfitter to take you into the Thoroughfare Country in NW WY and you had to ride horses in 20+ miles each morning and back out each evening, because these lands are now state lands and WY state lands are off limits to camping. Hopefully that illustrates how much hunting access would be lost under a state transfer scenario. Then, we have to look at the state Constitutional mandates these land boards have to maximize profits from state lands for funding schools. Profit maximization is the requirement of these state agencies. I have no problem with lands being managed for profits. But, given the legal environment of the west, a lot of places you cannot manage lands profitably due to litigation under the ESA or other obscure laws. These laws such as the ESA apply to all landowners, BLM, USFS, private, or States, so it is a reality of the landscape. The best example is Elliot State Forest in Oregon, comprised of 90,000 acres of productive timber land owned by the state land agency and formerly managed for a profit while allowing public recreation. Or maybe I should restate as; managed profitably until the litigation started. Now, due to litigation, the State Forest has lost a ton of money and this very popular Forest is being sold. The state land board has no recourse, as they are mandated by state law/constitution to either manage for a profit or dispose of the land. In the scenario you suggested, the states would not accept ownership of the lands without the right to dispose of them. That would burden them with the costs and obligations of litigation currently paid by the Feds, road maintenance, wild fire suppression, invasive weed control, property taxes to the counties, with no assurance they could make a profit on lands, especially in locations under ESA or other litigious issues. A few examples of how litigation would sink the states if they took the lands. All of Western MT is covered by ESA issues. All of Western WY is covered by ESA issues. Most of Eastern and Northern ID are covered by ESA issues. Most of SW NM and SE AZ are covered by ESA issues. If the wingnuts win their appeal of the USFWS decision to not list sage grouse and sage grouse end up on the ESA, the entire inter-mountain west will be subject to ESA regulations. Those ESA areas have pretty much no land management occurring, due to litigation. None of the transfer advocates have been able to explain how the states could take on all of these land ownership costs and hold these lands in places where Federal-level litigation would prevent any income generating management strategies, plus incur the costs to litigate the issues. As a result, the states would have no choice but to sell the lands, which is the end goal of the promoters of the schemes. They have no interest in better land management. The promoters use state transfer as a rallying point to hide their motives, which prior to fifteen years ago was openly advertised as an effort to sell the public lands. Then, getting their teeth kicked in, they came back with a new mantra of "transfer the public lands," seemingly less offensive to the American public. Same people, same funders, same motive, just wrapped in a different package. I understand how on the surface this sounds good to those of us who believe in smaller government and would like to see the Federal agencies freed of all the litigation that prevents them from managing lands. But, when inspected with more detail, changing ownership of the lands is not the answer, rather changing Congress and removing the Congressional obstructionists who handcuff Federal land management is a better path. Just one guy's opinion from 20+ years of having been in the political battles of it.

I have to agree. The first step we must all take is one of realization of the above stated fact. Except for rhetoric there is very little difference between both sides of the establishment.

I got the new FN compact, it's really sweet . The trigger on it is as nice aa a ppq. It is slightly larger then my 43 however it conceals nicely and makes a great fall winter carry.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article56933223.html

Speak for yourself. I ran a lot of +P critic duty in both 124 and 135 through my newest FN and the 43 this year without a hitch. Getting back on target or the recoil has been a non issue.

I carry single stack 9mm all year long, no issue at all concealing them in the summer. If I am wearing a sweater or sweat shirt in a causal setting I often carry my .40 In deciding a .380 vs a 9mm ect ask yourself what you'd rather get shot with. I always would opt for having a little more gun. Single stack 9's like the G43, Shield and XDS supper easy to conceal with an inside the waist band holster. They also have enough size and weight to to them to accurately and comfortable shoot +P loads and heavier premium defense loads.

How exactly does one safely secure a loaded long gun while operating a vehicle? I am failing to see how this can even be contemplated? I hate over regulation and unnecessary laws however this isn't one of them .

I am loving the fact that I have a grand total of zero inches of snow. Enjoy the shoveling boys and girls.

I might stop in tomorrow just for shits and giggles. I really should clean out the safes and bit and sell a few, alas living in NY I think buying is a better idea then selling.

You don't get much that is very apparent with your over simplifications. You maybe a single issue person, either by choice or necessity however some of us chose to have a little broader scope on things. The safe act is very palatable to a large percentage of the population of this shit hole we call a state. And that simp,e fact was used successfully by politicians to pass it. You can rant all you want about the safe act being a moronic, illegal,unnecessary and persecutory. And it is all those and more. However fact remains that it passed by a large margin ( 43-18) and (17-6). And since that passing politically NY is the same or worse. We even reelected the governor despite him screwing us with one of the most hated laws in NY history. So your answer to all this is what? Keep banging your head against a wall and ranting to the politicians and people that already agree with you. You changed no minds, or votes for that matter. The only success against the act so far have come from the courts. And yet your answer is to bring it up for another vote that you will again loss. But keep ranting if that floats your boat.

Look the guy that the establishment most marginalizes and demonizes is right on yet another issue. There are only two candidates even worth considering. Trump or Sanders. All the rest are establishment hacks bought and paid for by the oligarchy. http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/01/qa-donald-trump-on-guns-hunting-and-conservation?dom=fas&loc=contentwell&lnk=qa-donald-trump-on-guns-hunting-and-conservation

Proof reading isn't your strong suit is it?

Sign the petition and let your congressman know where you stand. This is one of the biggest issues of our time. Do we protect and preserve the North American model of conservation though hunting or do we turn over our land to the oligarchs? Sign below to contact your Congressman and let him know your against the transfer/ sale of your public lands. Sportsmen's Access - STOP THE SEIZURE OF YOUR PUBLIC LANDS!

When you look at the build up of quasi police, bureaucratic security forces you have to wonder if the government isn't worried about military neutrality in a situation like this.

I buy points across the board in Utah

Arguing with liberals makes us all dumber. Maybe that's in their playbook.

The neuroticism shown on single issues is just laughable. Does the Safe Act suck? Absolutely. Does it suck more then my 5k in school taxes? What about the other 4K in county taxes? Or how about my state income tax bill? If we woke up tomorrow and found it abolished does that erase all the other issues that is making NY unlivable and the least free state in the country? But wait I don't have to worry about registering my M4 !! Now everything is just great and we can forgive the politicians that screwed us over and ruined our states government and economy.

The false bravado is nauseating. The signs, protests, and bull shit lip service you got from the politicians on " your side " got you what? Nothing you were sold out, lock stock and barrel. So whats your answer? Go crawling back to same people that been selling you out all this time and hope for a more favorable result? Isn't doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result the definition of insanity? Or is it stupidly?

Short term statewide the only viable option is prosecution or force. Banging my head against the wall that is our corrupted state government is an excise in stupidly. Mid term on a more personal level I have already started my exit strategy from this shit hole state. My wife and myself will be more then happy to take our incomes, our business and our taxes to a free state. The later strategy is all to common right now and when you analyze the incomes, education and demographics of people leaving NY verse those gaining new residence here it is easy to see why NY is circling the drain.

Putting our faith in New York politicians is to repeal this is pointless. They failed us previously the will continue to fail us. The safe act is nothing but one small piece of the dysfunctional NY state government.

We always plan a couple ADK camping trips each year with the kids, my son who turns five this year looks forward to it and talks about it all year long. Camping is a great addition to put regular vacations, breaks things up.

Harrisburg is great show it's worth the trip if you have time.

Inspect them, change out any pins or bolts that need it. Then get life line for each stand and install it. Attach and use it every time you access the stand.