Page 26 of 26 FirstFirst ... 16242526
Results 251 to 259 of 259
  1. #251
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Reno Nv
    Posts
    4,435
    Thanks
    1,068
    Thanked 625 Times in 453 Posts
    Congratulations
    184
    Congratulated 79 Times in 9 Posts
    I've removed some posts that are getting off topic and that are getting personal. Keep this debate going but no personal attacks or belittling. If there any more personal attacks then you will be banned. Please keep on topic
    I don't Break the rules, I Modify them.

  2. #252
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    107
    Thanks
    23
    Thanked 13 Times in 13 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    Hunters are but a very small minority.
    Where this will be decided is by the non hunting voters. I'm in hopes that the overall population can be made to see the inherent evil and unconstitutionality of the federal government we now have.

  3. #253
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,249
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 336 Times in 254 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 47 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post
    Amazing how scared people are of trying to be more efficient than the federal government. I'd guess that states could easily operate with 25% less $ and do a better job. Obviously some federal money would be needed to manage the land, I dont think anybody is suggesting the land be transferred and states would be 100% responsible for the cost of managing.

    I can't think of one thing that I believe the federal government is really good at except wasting $. But any alternatives we have discussed all get shot down because "the land will be sold and hunting public land will be lost forever". Except there are not examples of this ever happening and plenty of examples of land purchased by conservation organizations or donations where the state is managing the land and even examples of federal land being transferred to the state while keeping public access. I was at one of these pieces of property yesterday looking at a job we are bidding. Attachment 10530

    The state operates the land as a WMA but it is owned by conservation groups and funded by these groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and even the state lottery. Yes it can work and this is yet another example that proves this.
    Attachment 10531

    So would you be opposed if the states managed the land but still retained federal ownership? Seems like that would prevent the sale of the land like you seem to think will happen. Give the states a % of the current budget used to manage those lands and it would seem like everyone wins except the lazy government employees that the state wont' hire because they don't really want to work. Sounds like a good deal to me. Save taxpayers money, better management for the land, and get rid of the dead weight. All while not risking the scenario you have described where all public land will be sold to private interests and end public land hunting forever.
    First off, we are all "guessing" at what may or may not happen if the states gained control and it would definitely take a lot of Federal money because the states don't have it. With that being the case, I'd again like to know why you think the Feds would give up control if they had to keep funneling a ton of money to the states. This really can't be a guessing game like the statement you just made about saving 25% and doing it better. In case you haven't noticed, the local and state governments aren't much better at cost saving and management in their jurisdictions than the Feds. IMHO the main reason everyone is on the Feds like you are is because it covers the entire country and, therefore, the budget is huge and easier to look at that state or local jurisdictions. You keep bringing up all these properties that are being purchased with private monies and are being run by the states and I believe that's a contradiction if you think that is benefitting your argument. If the state had the money available, why wouldn't they have purchased these lands instead of doing what they are? It's pretty easy to work with other's money. The simple answer again is because they're broke and made agreements they had to meet before the properties were even turned over to their control. The same thing would have to be done in the case of the Federal lands and it's doubtful that would be hashed out if the feds had to continue to bankroll a big part of the money involved. To answer you last question, I wouldn't have a problem with the states running/controlling the Federal lands if they stayed as Federal land as long as certain parameters were met. However, I think you're fooling yourself if you think they'll do such a great job with a lot less manpower, but I guess the only way you would be convinced of that would be if it happens and then it passes or fails the litmus test. Then one of us could sit back after a while and say "I told you so!".

  4. #254
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    TG. I work with the federal government all the time. I know exactly how inefficiently they operate. I've been doing contracts with the feds for over 15 years. I could manage the federal land in this area with half the staff they currently have and do a better job. Most of those people do little to nothing all day every day.

    We are not guessing how the state would manage land as we already know how they mange land. They have been doing it for a long time. I've given many examples including private organizations buying land for the state to manage, the state buying land for the state to manage, private individuals donating land to the state for them to manage, and even the federal government transferring ownership of land to the states to manage. All of which resulted in a nice opportunity for hunters. Even you already said that most of the animals you and your party kills in Wyoming is on State land that has better game than the federal or private in the area. I have had similar experiences on state land in Wyoming.

    You keep saying that I am wrong but you have not provided any examples of why. All of my examples prove otherwise. You just say it won't work.

    Fooling myself that someone else could do the same thing the federal government can but with less manpower? That is funny. You have waaay to much faith in the federal government my friend. The federal government is terrible and inefficient at just about everything they do.

    Do you think the USFS does a good job of managing the land they are in charge of? Do you have any ideas of what could be improved? What would you change if you had the power?

  5. #255
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,249
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 336 Times in 254 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 47 Times in 8 Posts
    You're twisting again when you start saying what I said and then tacking on statements to make it into your line of thinking. I said I kill more game on the state land, but that doesn't mean it's managed any better than the BLM. It just happens that it's an out of the way piece of state land that most don't know about and animals go there because of hunting pressure on the BLM properties that are easy for everyone to access. It could just as easily be the other way around if it was BLM and has nothing to do with how either is managed. As more people get these GPS chips it will probably go down the tubes just like other places, although most probably won't want to go that far from their vehicles even if they do find it on their maps!

    There are many inefficiencies at all levels of the various government agencies right down to the local levels, as well as many private businesses, and I have never said there wasn't. Hells bells, I worked for the State of Michigan for over 30 years before I retired in 2002 and I saw plenty of money wasted in the various departments just like the Feds do, so please don't tell me how great any state would be over the Feds! If the money is to be had, it will be spent one way or the other regardless of which level we're talking about! I can't say turning it over won't work, but instead keep stating it is conjecture on both sides as to whether it would or wouldn't. Please try to understand that neither side of this debate knows what would happen if the exchange took place and that is the scary part when we know how it is now and are relatively safe the way it is at the present time. Just because there are instances of things that are working that you mention doesn't mean that it could be extended out across the board like you seem to feel without possibly some huge negative ramifications.

    You are asking questions now in your last paragraph that neither of us can give definite answers to when neither of us work for the USFS or BLM to know what is going on in any kind of detail. That is also why I can't go along with your 25% cut statement you made unless you're on the inside and know what all is involved in the every day activites of an organization and you're not. You are guessing and said so! This involves way too much at stake to be a guessing game on our part. It's very easy to sit back and be an armchair quarterback without knowing all the intricacies of what is involved. I'm sure some fat can be cut in any organization, but 25% or more like you mentioned would seem to be a stretch, but maybe you're right since I have no idea what is going on where you're talking about. You did say that was a guess on your part and that's really all it is without an in depth analysis. How much and where is the question. IMHO that should be what is studied thoroughly before we go rushing over a cliff to do things on a wholesale basis when just possibly things could be tweaked here and there to correct the problems we're discussing without doing a fire sale of the Federal lands throughout the entire country. I think we have discussed about everything that can be discussed and I prefer to pretty much bow out now and move on because it's very obvious that neither side is going to budge on this topic. Have a good one!!!

  6. #256
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Fair enough TG but I would like to hear what you would propose as you have told everyone else that their ideas wont work (even though the examples provided obviously prove otherwise) but have not provided any alternatives. It's easy to tell people their ideas won't work and then walk away.

    To be clear nobody is proposing a fire sale of all federal lands. That is yet another exaggeration meant to scare people into thinking there is no alternative to letting the federal government run things like they currently do.

  7. #257
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gillette, WY
    Posts
    516
    Thanks
    425
    Thanked 147 Times in 125 Posts
    Congratulations
    144
    Congratulated 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Well, a Wyoming update on this issue: Taylor Haynes didn't make it through the primary, but there was enough talk about it that there is going to be a govt. study on the state taking on some of the federal lands.

  8. #258
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    N.E. LA
    Posts
    134
    Thanks
    14
    Thanked 18 Times in 17 Posts
    Congratulations
    2
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    There is a very good article on this topic in the latest edition of Western Hunter Magazine. The article is written by Ben Lamb from Montana. It's only a 1 page article, but he brings up some very good points.

  9. #259
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,249
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 336 Times in 254 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 47 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by LaHunter View Post
    There is a very good article on this topic in the latest edition of Western Hunter Magazine. The article is written by Ben Lamb from Montana. It's only a 1 page article, but he brings up some very good points.
    Ben is always up on everything involving conservation and is quite actively involved with DIY hunting on public lands.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •