Protecting Public Land

[jwilkstn]

It's kind of hard to take politics out of a political issue.

True. It makes me sick to see this politicized.

But our candidates and elected officials need to know that our interests lie with protecting the public lands we hold dear to our way of life. I am all for sensible resource extraction, but they need major reality checked if they think selling off public land to do so qualifies as sensible.

Precisely. Unfortunately, when I have engaged my elected officials on this, they say that I'm about the only person they've heard from regarding such issues. We desperately need more of us in the east willing to share this viewpoint with our congressmen and senators

Say what you will about BHA. At least they are voice standing up for what is right. I don’t do the craft beer nights or any of those gathering/banquet circle jerks, so I really can’t comment there. But the whole “Green Decoy” deal is pure, unadulterated garbage propaganda put out by the big-energy interests. It’s kind of shocking that sportsmen would even fall for that crap.

I agree. My issues have been that they stray from the key issues and are blatantly biased in distributing propaganda. For instance, just a few weeks ago the BHA facebook account shared a NYT opinion editorial hit piece that was so far off to the looney left that no one could imagine them promoting a piece that was remotely that far to the right. CEO Land Tawney was quoted in the op-ed, and I have no issue with his quote or willingness to provide one to any media outlet that asks, but the article (titled something along the lines of 'A Green Wave is Coming') was to rally environmentalists to vote in the upcoming elections. The author and his ilk are the same ones suing to stop grizzly/wolf hunts, prevent active fire prevention, etc. While I see the need to find common allies in certain fights, these weirdos are not on our side on anything relating to hunting or fishing. Thus, to push the article as a whole was just foolish on BHA's part if they wish to continue to grow and represent the interests of hunters.

[mipubbucks24]

I am all for keeping public land public, but my question is if states do not have the money to maintain the properties what are they supposed to do?

This is an issue that I really struggle with because I want as much public land as possible, I love using it. I also want as small and as least intrusive federal government as possible, and the 2 don’t really mesh. I feel like I don’t get to pick which big government program that I like and throw the rest out. Small federal governments don’t control large swaths a land as ours does. The federal government owns upwards of 1/3rd of all land in the United States. Most of it is west of the Mississippi River.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... l_Land.jpg


East of the Mississippi only around 4% of the lands are public and those are the lands that truly need to be kept public as there are so little of them. A lot of the info I have see from many groups makes it sound like we are losing tons of land and there won’t be any left in 15-20 years. They never mention how much land is actually owned by the federal government. I want to keep the land public but I also know in 50, 100, 200 years the population growth is probably going to require more public lands be sold off into private hands.

[tbunao]

Honestly I’m extremely surprised this site has just now begun to take notice. I’m glad it’s finally happened

Something I saw pop up earlier

https://www.fieldandstream.com/public-l ... first-lite

[jwilkstn]

Honestly I’m extremely surprised this site has just now begun to take notice. I’m glad it’s finally happened

Something I saw pop up earlier

https://www.fieldandstream.com/public-l ... first-lite

I read that earlier. Excellent article, and an example of the positive work that BHA members do.

There will come a day when hunters and the Patagonia crowd will square off over hunting activities that we take for granted today, but for that day to be a concern we first have to keep it public for the average hunter to be able to access it and be in that fight.

[jwilkstn]

I am all for keeping public land public, but my question is if states do not have the money to maintain the properties what are they supposed to do?

Are you referring to state owned land, or federal land?

Assuming you mean state owned land, I can't imagine a scenario in which the expenses of maintaining a property are greater than the income that can be generated from the property. What maintenance costs are there for state owned wildlife management areas? If the land is timber, a smart active forest management plan should generate more than enough revenue to maintain access roads while also improving habitat diversity. In farm country, leasing some fields to a local farmer brings in enough to do the same. I guess this could be an issue in tracts of nothing but cattail swamps, but what would require maintenance? I doubt there are many roads through public marshes?

This is an issue that I really struggle with because I want as much public land as possible, I love using it. I also want as small and as least intrusive federal government as possible, and the 2 don’t really mesh. I feel like I don’t get to pick which big government program that I like and throw the rest out. Small federal governments don’t control large swaths a land as ours does. The federal government owns upwards of 1/3rd of all land in the United States. Most of it is west of the Mississippi River.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... l_Land.jpg


East of the Mississippi only around 4% of the lands are public and those are the lands that truly need to be kept public as there are so little of them. A lot of the info I have see from many groups makes it sound like we are losing tons of land and there won’t be any left in 15-20 years. They never mention how much land is actually owned by the federal government. I want to keep the land public but I also know in 50, 100, 200 years the population growth is probably going to require more public lands be sold off into private hands.

I agree with you completely on big vs small govt. What many are unaware of is that, at the time of statehood, most all the land in the West was owned by the federal government. Bought and paid for through the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American War, the Alaska Purchase ("Seward's Folly"), and of course numerous treaties with native Americans. The newly formed states agreed in their ratification to various amounts of land to be given to them by the federal government, and they happily obliged. Some states received vast acreage that eastern citizens' tax dollars paid for, while others like Nevada remained very much in federal ownership. In the Nevada example, there was no way at the time (and still true today) that the small amount of "productive" land could support roads, schools, and all the other requirements of the state to be provided for the "unproductive" desert land. While it's true today that billionaires would certainly buy up such land, the economic benefits would be short term (and the politicians would just spend the money on other ridiculous programs ) and our future generations would be forever stripped of one of the true luxuries of being American. Furthermore, I think we should remember that these federal lands are OUR LANDS. They aren't just for the govt. to use and lock us out of. As long as we hold our elected officials accountable, this should never change.

Each state is different in regards to how state land is controlled/ managed, and as a rule the eastern states are very different than the western states that were settled very differently and with much different conditions for statehood. Most western states have mandates that the state land they received upon statehood should be managed for income, often to fund public education. As a result of these laws and (mostly) poor management, many western states have sold off millions of acres of formerly state-owned land to make a quick buck. A few have almost none left. This is where the push to transfer federal land to the states is coming from... but I won't go down that rabbit hole any further tonight.

[mipubbucks24]

I am all for keeping public land public, but my question is if states do not have the money to maintain the properties what are they supposed to do?

Are you referring to state owned land, or federal land?

Assuming you mean state owned land, I can't imagine a scenario in which the expenses of maintaining a property are greater than the income that can be generated from the property. What maintenance costs are there for state owned wildlife management areas? If the land is timber, a smart active forest management plan should generate more than enough revenue to maintain access roads while also improving habitat diversity. In farm country, leasing some fields to a local farmer brings in enough to do the same. I guess this could be an issue in tracts of nothing but cattail swamps, but what would require maintenance? I doubt there are many roads through public marshes?

This is an issue that I really struggle with because I want as much public land as possible, I love using it. I also want as small and as least intrusive federal government as possible, and the 2 don’t really mesh. I feel like I don’t get to pick which big government program that I like and throw the rest out. Small federal governments don’t control large swaths a land as ours does. The federal government owns upwards of 1/3rd of all land in the United States. Most of it is west of the Mississippi River.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... l_Land.jpg


East of the Mississippi only around 4% of the lands are public and those are the lands that truly need to be kept public as there are so little of them. A lot of the info I have see from many groups makes it sound like we are losing tons of land and there won’t be any left in 15-20 years. They never mention how much land is actually owned by the federal government. I want to keep the land public but I also know in 50, 100, 200 years the population growth is probably going to require more public lands be sold off into private hands.

I agree with you completely on big vs small govt. What many are unaware of is that, at the time of statehood, most all the land in the West was owned by the federal government. Bought and paid for through the Louisiana Purchase, the Mexican-American War, the Alaska Purchase ("Seward's Folly"), and of course numerous treaties with native Americans. The newly formed states agreed in their ratification to various amounts of land to be given to them by the federal government, and they happily obliged. Some states received vast acreage that eastern citizens' tax dollars paid for, while others like Nevada remained very much in federal ownership. In the Nevada example, there was no way at the time (and still true today) that the small amount of "productive" land could support roads, schools, and all the other requirements of the state to be provided for the "unproductive" desert land. While it's true today that billionaires would certainly buy up such land, the economic benefits would be short term (and the politicians would just spend the money on other ridiculous programs ) and our future generations would be forever stripped of one of the true luxuries of being American. Furthermore, I think we should remember that these federal lands are OUR LANDS. They aren't just for the govt. to use and lock us out of. As long as we hold our elected officials accountable, this should never change.

Each state is different in regards to how state land is controlled/ managed, and as a rule the eastern states are very different than the western states that were settled very differently and with much different conditions for statehood. Most western states have mandates that the state land they received upon statehood should be managed for income, often to fund public education. As a result of these laws and (mostly) poor management, many western states have sold off millions of acres of formerly state-owned land to make a quick buck. A few have almost none left. This is where the push to transfer federal land to the states is coming from... but I won't go down that rabbit hole any further tonight.

What I am referring to is the federal government hands over the land to the states. The states then say we can’t afford to maintain this land we need to sell it. This is how much of this land is being sold, is it not?

To which I say is a load of bull because they don’t need to do anything on it except make sure it stays open to public use. But my questions is if states are strapped for cash and truly can’t afford the land then what are they supposed to do? I would like to see other things cut first but I don’t usually get what I want.

My bigger point was that a lot of the info is one sided, I had no clue how much land the federal government owned until I looked into it. I would have thought there was not very much land left based off the way these organizations present their info.

[sureshotscott]

But the whole “Green Decoy” deal is pure, unadulterated garbage propaganda put out by the big-energy interests. It’s kind of shocking that sportsmen would even fall for that crap.

Hate to break it to you, but I'm not big-energy. I'm just a full-time computer guy part-time gun rights advocate who's seen enough baloney pumped out by "non-profit" organizations with sympathetic-sounding names to smell the BS behind BHA.

"American Coalition for Responsible Gun Ownership"
"American Hunters and Shooters Association"
"Everytown for Gun Safety"

All fake organizations stood up to peddle bullcrap and make undecided folks take a position against the individual RKBA.

"Backcountry Hunters and Anglers"

Same story, different package. If you believe all the flowery carefully-crafted language on their high-dollar website, I've got a bridge to sell you. You have to look past all that and take a look under the covers to see what's really going on. Who's getting paid? By whom?

Take a look at these guys: https://hewlett.org/

The Hewlett Foundation is a GIANT liberal money-laundering operation from San Francisco. Look at the grants page to see how they shell out loads of cash for lefty causes. https://hewlett.org/grants/?sort=date

And guess who's getting boatloads of cash from Hewlett? BHA!

Yes it's nice Hewlett puts this data on their website for us. Hewlett is a "non-profit" so their tax documents are public. See here for actual form 990 tax documents containing gifts to BHA: http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990pf_ ... _990PF.pdf

And yet, if we attempt to search for the word Hewlett on BHA's website, there's nothing to be found.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=hewlett+site%3Abackcountryhunters.org&t=h_&ia=web

BHA doesn't want you to know about their association with Hewlett Foundation. Isn't that interesting?

I'm all for keeping public lands open to hunting, but I'm not crawling into bed with the phony BHA to do it.

[elk yinzer]

Yep, all the corporate benefactors of the right have our Nation's best interests in mind! Haha there's a laughable concept. God forbid we play connect the monetary dots with some of the NRA demigods. Politics is downright filthy and all the money is dirty.

BHA is not in the game of identity politics. They are mission oriented, as their 501c3 status requires them to be. Are you suggesting they turn aside contributions?

You can play the boogieman game all night. It's straight out of the regressive liberal playbook. It just shows fear and paranoia.

[Swedishbowhunter]

I think I need to look into BHA before I give them money again. They made it sound like the were politically unbiased when I joined a few months ago, but I may need to check them out a bit closer.

[jwilkstn]

I think I need to look into BHA before I give them money again. They made it sound like the were politically unbiased when I joined a few months ago, but I may need to check them out a bit closer.

I suggest following all their social media platforms and deciding for yourself. I often think I'm too harsh on them, but in the end I feel the way I feel. They are doing some good work for sure. Personally, I have chosen to contribute what I can to some other groups instead.