GOP House Moves Against Public Lands on Its Opening Day

[diplomat019]

http://www.fieldandstream.com/gop-house-moves-against-public-lands-on-its-first-day

 

It didn’t take long for the GOP Congress to tell sportsmen how serious it is about giving away our national public lands.

[philoshop]

They returned control to the States. What's wrong with that? I'm missing your point on this.

[ATbuckhunter]

8 minutes ago, philoshop said:

They returned control to the States. What's wrong with that? I'm missing your point on this.

Where the states then say they cant afford to keep the lands and they sell them. 

 

[diplomat019]

2 hours ago, philoshop said:

They returned control to the States. What's wrong with that? I'm missing your point on this.

The states would assume the cost of managing the land which they wouldnt be able to do unless they raised taxes on their citizens.   We know nobody will go for that.   Once the state can no longer afford to maintain the land you can kiss them goodbye.

Edited January 28, 2017 by diplomat019

[Uptown Redneck]

This is irony at its finest! 

All you blowhard conservative republicans who voted these fools into office now have nobody to blame for the screwing over you will receive from your elected officials. Let me know all about the great job the republican's did for you and your beloved sport of hunting when you find yourselves with no more public land to hunt.   

[52 farmer]

23 minutes ago, Uptown Redneck said:

This is irony at its finest! 

All you blowhard conservative republicans who voted these fools into office now have nobody to blame for the screwing over you will receive from your elected officials. Let me know all about the great job the republican's did for you and your beloved sport of hunting when you find yourselves with no more public land to hunt.   

Pretty nasty comment especially coming from the biggest progressive blowhard on this sight.

[d-bone20917]

This is no joke and the biggest threat to hunting in this country.  Everyone should be contacting their Republican representatives and letting them know what they think of their anti-hunting stance... before it's to late.

[greg54]

1 hour ago, 52 farmer said:

Pretty nasty comment especially coming from the biggest progressive blowhard on this sight.

And the troll doesn't even hunt

[EspressoBuzz]

I've been saying this is bad for hunters ever since the refuge incident a year ago.

[philoshop]

On 1/27/2017 at 6:09 PM, diplomat019 said:

The states would assume the cost of managing the land which they wouldnt be able to do unless they raised taxes on their citizens.   We know nobody will go for that.   Once the state can no longer afford to maintain the land you can kiss them goodbye.

What are the actual "costs of managing the land" that would become the responsibility of the individual States? What's the cost of vacant land when taxes are taken out of the equation? The individual State isn't typically going to tax itself for that land, although California might. They think on a whole different level.

You're arguing that only the Federal Government is capable of keeping these lands exactly as you want them: free of Capitalists, and yet covered with roads so that you don't have to work too hard to hunt, and all paid for by the American taxpayer.

[diplomat019]

Joshua Tree National Park is so expensive to maintain that for years, the park's management has had to put off big projects because it hasn't had the money to take them on.

"Here at Joshua Tree, we have about $60 million in backlog maintenance," says David Smith, the park's superintendent. "And to put that in perspective, our annual operating budget at this park is a little over $6 million."

 

 

17 minutes ago, philoshop said:

What are the actual "costs of managing the land" that would become the responsibility of the individual States?

 

 

[philoshop]

I'm not saying that a few sites shouldn't be preserved as 'monuments'. I'd like to see Mt. Rushmore more fully protected. I'm saying that the Federal Government owning half of the western U.S. is unnecessary.