Sale of public lands
Wisconsin
Contributors to this thread:
Naz 's Link
I'm all for the DNR selling landlocked parcels and other properties that are poor quality fish/wildlife habitat.
That said, some interesting information about efforts to sell some federal lands — and how that would affect Wisconsin — here (adding link in case it's too long to work with Bowsite's system):
http://www.apg-wi.com/ashland_daily_press/news/meyer-warns-against- sales-of-public-lands/article_2e9db688-0da5-11e6-9ad1- 03f3ab73f954.html
May want to post this on the Puerto Rico forum, so the guys in the PRBH-Puerto Rico Bowhunters Association can mobilize.
Actually, has a lot of importance to many WI bowhunter's that chase animals in the west. Thanks for sharing NAZ
Thanks for posting. The author indicates that Duffy and Johnson have voted for selling federal land in the past. I wish he would have provided information on the specific federal lands that they supposedly supported the sale of. I don't know Johnson but I do personally know Duffy and I cannot believe he would consider selling any of the national forest, especially not any in Wisconsin. There is a lot of national forest in his district and that land is essential to the area's economy. Now if there were opportunities to swap isolated low wildlife value parcels for more desirable parcels of similar dollar value that could be a good thing.
Puerto Rico is wanting to file some sort of super bankruptcy. Horrible idea and our reps in Washington had better not allow that to happen because next will be California and other liberal spending states. Not saying they should be bailed out by the rest of us in any other way either. PR needs to work it out on their own, not by selling the federal land there. Selling that old navy base in PR so the profits can help bail out PR of some of their financial problems is also a bad idea.
Sell Puerto Rico instead !!!
When Yellowstone goes up for sale, I'm bidding on it! I always wanted to be a wolf farmer.
Neither link worked for me so I cannot completely understand what was there.
If it is regarding landlocked parcels then I may support it. I have been on fires out west working on landlocked parcels of National Forest lands. The rancher had a gold mine with elk hunting there. It was outstanding walk habitat but you had to pay the ranchers for access. Maybe a better law would make so access to these lands but doubt that would happen.
If I recall this issue of federal land in NV was a big issue back in Jan -Feb during the presidential primary, thus the Ted Cruz angle. At the time the Feds were a in a battle with a group of Ranchers over grazing rights (The Bundy's). Maybe some more familiar with NV can attest is that over 80% of NV is federally owned and most managed by the BLM. The call to sell the land was to put the land back into the hands of the state of NV and or the residents. Not really blocking access. The issue is mainly (local & state) control and use of the land rather than the heavy handed federal government.
The article is nothing more than political season rhetoric from a seasoned political lobbyist. The article provides no facts, however it is having the desired effects on some Bowsiters no doubt as intended.
The recent talk about the sale of a part of Puerto Rican Island of Vieques is in regards to the 60 billion dollar debt of the Puerto Rican government. Some politicians have suggested that rather than the US taxpayers foot the entire bill for the mismanagement of the Puerto Rican territory, the government should look to sell it as an asset, to fund some of its massive debt.
The Vieques Island which was owned by the US government as a military training ground, since pre World War II. Ships and planes used to use the island as a bombing target, and much of the island was given back to Puerto Rican government I believe back in the late 1990's for two reasons. One was the draw down of the US military and number two were a group of radical Puerto Rican's who demanded the land be returned their control. I would note this radical group also champions Puerto Rican independence from the US. The Puerto Rican government than sold off parts of it for their own benefit to which they profited handsomely. The public including developers can currently buy property on Vieques Island and having visited there it is a beautiful spot only accessible by ferry or tender.
Again the story tries to direct the hunting public into some kind of rich republican sell off public lands for their own gain.
Good points HNF but if it were to go from Fed to State that would not mean access would open up. But that is a separate issue and only relates to the landlocked lands not the rest of the public owned land which is some of issues the groups have.
Selling or "transferring" federal lands to state lands is a horrible idea.
Republicans need to get their heads out of their ass on this issue.
George Meyer is such a liberal fool that anything he attaches his support to is automatically suspect to me. After all, he heads the largest sportsmens group that has no members.
"Republicans need to get their heads out of their ass on this issue."
Pretty tough when they spend 3/4 of their terms trying to seek re-election..
In all fairness, so do the Dems.
Dems want to take our guns.
Repubs want to sell off all of the public land.
They all have their sucky sides.
Most of the time I hope for more gridlock in Washington where nothing gets done. So they can't fudge anything else up.
Don't know if I will vote this year. Not one I like or trust in either party.
Letting others choose your president is not a good option either. One has to be better than the other in your opinion. If nothing else do a write in vote. I voted for Pat Paulsen on a write in once just as a sort of protest. Mickey mouse would also be a good choice.
Also, a lot can change between now and November.
Last time around Mitt Romney was mocked and lost for being too goody-goody and too rich. He seemed to be the ultimate family man. Today we have a brash egomaniac, a man who has bragged about his countless infidelities and multiple divorces. He is quoted as saying that if his daughter weren't his daughter he'd be dating her. He made crass, sexualized statements about his infant daughter's body. His "faith" has never included asking God for forgiveness. He may be the least knowledgable on foreign policy and national security. His companies have filed bankruptcy several times. He's a shameless self-promoter.
I said a year or two ago, this man has no chance of winning, yet here we are. Yet IMO, if he's the candidate, maybe even Hilary could win. Our country has a lot going for it, but its future, mired in the ugliness of politics, doesn't seem real bright right now.
The media has been saying, and I think some of the republican candidates have said if Trump is the candidate then Hillary wins. So, to me right now it looks like a non vote is almost the same as a vote for Hillary.
Naz, I am in complete agreement with you. If our country continues on this path, it will have less and less going for it.
While trying to find any bright spots in having Trump as president, the only one I can come up with is that our 2nd Amendment rights will be more protected by him as compared to Hillary.
With a hillary win there are at least three supreme court nominations that will be chosen by her.
The leftist she chooses will shape America for generations.
Say good bye to your guns and America as you know it.
Liberals don't change America by sweeping legislation. It is adjudicated out of sight in the courts. Never resting. One little increment at a time.
Kevin makes a good point, it isn't just the liberal president and all the crap she will bring to the office. The supreme court choices could be a bigger deal than having a lying, incompetent, law breaking liberal in office.
Kevin makes a very good point. My guess is many who claim they will never support Trump will have a change of heart by the time November and the reality of a Hillary presidency roll around.
somewhere the primaries failed us. I'm glad Ted "the Mole" is out, between the topic of this thread and his lead on the gov. shutdowns hes' a mess too.
Yup, when Trump starts throwing all his spears at Democrats instead of Republicans he will bring votes to his ticket.
A lot of people, myself included, are shocked that he made it this fast and this easy. We just need time to settle into the choice.
Besides it making for dramatic news does anyone else wonder why the networks gave him so much coverage? Could it be they wanted Trump to be the candidate because they thought Hillary could beat him? Networks don't give away that much air time without motivation.
You guys are missing the big picture here. A vote for any republican means that all federal lands are now up for sale. Well at least according to the lobbyist from the WWF.
WausauDoug +1. I voted Kasich. I will never vote Trump. I am going to start doing my home work and see how some are voting on selling our lands.
Buckmaster-
I don't know how internet savy you are but a quick search for Randy newberg and his hunt talk podcast he goes in depth on the attempted sale of our public lands.
While there are troops all over the world stopping evil and trying to spread democracy. So many here willing to throw it all away shocks me.
This country fundamentally changed on a November day in 1963 and has been in a tail spin ever since. I have yet to see anyone elected to a seat in Washington DC come out poorer than when they went in. Most come out millionaires. The establishment works but only for the chosen few.
No one man can know everything and that's why you surround yourself with advisors that are experts in their chosen fields and seek advise. It's time to end the establishment and take our Country back and put it first and foremost in every thought going forward.
Term limits. No more career politicians would be a huge start. End lifetime benefits for all after their out of office. The thought of Clinton in office scares the living hell out of me.
http://hunttalk.libsyn.com/ep-010-randy-newberg-answers-public-land-questions-with-podcast-producer-dan-doty
Episode #10 is the one with the good info
Kevin..... listened to 50 minutes this morning very interesting. Will finish later.
You guys are a hoot! I travel in pretty liberal/progressive circles and they're have the opposite fear. That Hillary cannot beat Trump. Its entertaining to come here and see conservatives think that Hillary can beat Trump. Progressives hate Hillary more than many of them hate Trump...all for the same reason you guys don't like her. Had an interesting conversation last night about what a Trump/Sanders ticket would bring. I would assume most here wouldn't like Sanders but he is pro-gun and pro conservation, topics that all hunters, despite political leanings, would support.
Progressives may hate Hillary, but they will line up likes pigs at the trough. For the first time republicans have a nominee that is not really a republican, conservative and not even considered a moderate. Will they still vote for trump, that will remain to be seen. The real issue is the true independent 10-15% of the voters. They will ultimately decide this election, and that has both sides very concerned.