Scotch WMA in S. AL is gone

[buzzardroost]

Yep it's true, Scotch WMA will cease to exist in about 85 days. Freaking sucks!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[oleman59]

 WHATS UP WITH THAT SELLING THE PROPERTY OR STATE LOSING THE LEASE???

[trkehunr93]

If you watch public land around the US right now you will see a big push to put all federal land under state control.  One of the easiest things for a state to do is sell public land off when times are hard.  A lot of our republican buddies are behind this at the federal level because they know once it's under state control whatever company or interested party can then   more easily gain control of it.  Not sure if this is the case in your state but out west it's a common fight.  I hate to see something like this happen in the Eastern part of the US.  We're fortunate in VA that our state keeps adding public land.  I would be curious to know Alabamas reason for this closure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spurs]

I don't hunt Alabama, but this is what I found about it.

Simply amazing what this Obama administration has done to continue the restrictions on hunters.

http://scotchwma.com/news/why-we-reached-this-decision/#more-6


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trkehunr93]

Interesting.  I can see their reasoning for getting out of the WMA, hunting has nothing to do with their decision.  If they are still connected to the state then their timber business would suffer, by how much who knows but if cutting trees pays the bills then the options seem limited.  From what I've read this snake needs this protection but it still stinks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Meadow Valley Man]

Very sorry to hear that.  I knew an old gentleman who hunted Scotch back in the 70's.  He loved it. As one who is fortunate to have hundreds of square miles of public land to hunt within 30 miles of my doorstep, I feel for your loss.

[eddie234]

If you watch public land around the US right now you will see a big push to put all federal land under state control.  One of the easiest things for a state to do is sell public land off when times are hard.  A lot of our republican buddies are behind this at the federal level because they know once it's under state control whatever company or interested party can then   more easily gain control of it.  Not sure if this is the case in your state but out west it's a common fight.  I hate to see something like this happen in the Eastern part of the US.  We're fortunate in VA that our state keeps adding public land.  I would be curious to know Alabamas reason for this closure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? Your gonna make this a republican vs. democrat issue?

[spaightlabs]

If you watch public land around the US right now you will see a big push to put all federal land under state control.  One of the easiest things for a state to do is sell public land off when times are hard.  A lot of our republican buddies are behind this at the federal level because they know once it's under state control whatever company or interested party can then   more easily gain control of it.  Not sure if this is the case in your state but out west it's a common fight.  I hate to see something like this happen in the Eastern part of the US.  We're fortunate in VA that our state keeps adding public land.  I would be curious to know Alabamas reason for this closure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? Your gonna make this a republican vs. democrat issue?

What - no similar reply to Spurs post?

[wvmntnhick]

Interesting.  I can see their reasoning for getting out of the WMA, hunting has nothing to do with their decision.  If they are still connected to the state then their timber business would suffer, by how much who knows but if cutting trees pays the bills then the options seem limited.  From what I've read this snake needs this protection but it still stinks. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with you on this one. Based on their side of the story, this could have a very large impact on the families ability to put food on the table down the road. Gotta take care of the family first.

[Spurs]

If you watch public land around the US right now you will see a big push to put all federal land under state control.  One of the easiest things for a state to do is sell public land off when times are hard.  A lot of our republican buddies are behind this at the federal level because they know once it's under state control whatever company or interested party can then   more easily gain control of it.  Not sure if this is the case in your state but out west it's a common fight.  I hate to see something like this happen in the Eastern part of the US.  We're fortunate in VA that our state keeps adding public land.  I would be curious to know Alabamas reason for this closure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? Your gonna make this a republican vs. democrat issue?

What - no similar reply to Spurs post?

It is pretty simple.  Republicans are typically for state control, whereas, democrats are typically for federal control.  This is an issue of the federal govt attempting to control a private companies abilities to manage their property....kinda sounds like something out of a current candidates soap box ads.  (Hint: Bernie Sanders)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trkehunr93]

If you watch public land around the US right now you will see a big push to put all federal land under state control.  One of the easiest things for a state to do is sell public land off when times are hard.  A lot of our republican buddies are behind this at the federal level because they know once it's under state control whatever company or interested party can then   more easily gain control of it.  Not sure if this is the case in your state but out west it's a common fight.  I hate to see something like this happen in the Eastern part of the US.  We're fortunate in VA that our state keeps adding public land.  I would be curious to know Alabamas reason for this closure. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? Your gonna make this a republican vs. democrat issue?

If you hunt you gotta care about what could impact our public land, simple as that.  We take it for granted in the east because what we have are small tracts compared to out west.  Lots of companies, ranchers, etc that would much rather have access to that land than the federal govt.  I'm as conservative as they come, notice I said conservative, not republican or democrat.  Ted Cruz was a prominent republican that felt states could manage federal land better.  I think the Feds could manage it more efficiently but if you give it to the states it's the first thing that goes when budgets are tight.  Don't believe me do a little research.  As a hunter it's my duty to make sure my kids and their kids have as much access as possible.  In this case it's a shame but they had no choice but to lose their livelihood if they didn't pull out of the state umbrella.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GobbleNut]

It is pretty simple.  Republicans are typically for state control, whereas, democrats are typically for federal control.

This is true,...but unfortunately, most folks that are not informed look at it strictly from that R vs D perspective rather than from the perspective of how the change in land ownership will ultimately affect them as public land recreational users (turkeys hunters and everybody else).  The impact will ultimately be almost entirely negative by all reasonable assessments,...and it is the R's that are pushing for it in this case. 

This (Scotch WMA) is an issue of the federal govt attempting to control a private companies abilities to manage their property. 

Again, this is true.  But, the real question here is, since this is private land, what does it's status as a state WMA have to do with how that private land has to be managed in terms of the black snake and endangered species act?  I don't understand the connection there.  There may be one, but my first thought is that this landowner has decided that he wants out of the WMA agreement (for whatever reason) and in order to make a political statement (and probably to save face in the public eye) has decided to use the ESA/snake issue as the crutch.
The point being that, if the feds have the legal authority to make him comply, as the private property owner, to the ESA/snake issue while the property is under a WMA agreement with the state, I'm not sure why they would not have the same authority when it is not a WMA.  I will be the first to admit that, on this particular issue, I am not well informed,...but IMO something smells fishy in Denmark here.

[tha bugman]

How do you cook a frog in a frying pan?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk