Public land debate!

[Paulmyr]

Conundrum wrapped in an enigma. What is the purpose of having public land if the political party who supposedly supports federal land also supports taking away your rights and not letting you do anything on them.

[idgobble]

Conundrum wrapped in an enigma. What is the purpose of having public land if the political party who supposedly supports federal land also supports taking away your rights and not letting you do anything on them.

Please clarify what rights you're talking about and what you mean by "not letting you do anything on them". Links to articles verifying that would be helpful.

[Mossberg90MN]

Because they don't really support public lands. They just try to cover as much of there bases as they can.

They say what they want to appease who they need to at the moment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paulmyr]

Conundrum wrapped in an enigma. What is the purpose of having public land if the political party who supposedly supports federal land also supports taking away your rights and not letting you do anything on them.

Please clarify what rights you're talking about and what you mean by "not letting you do anything on them". Links to articles verifying that would be helpful.

How about we start with gun rights. Pretty sure there is one party that advocates taking away gun rights. Hunting rights the same. The organization
Peta comes to mind. The humane society and the animal rescue organization, I forget thier name, that always advertises on TV late at night are trying to take your hunting and fishing rights away from you under the guise of saving the neglected puppies and kitties they show on TV.
Metal detecting on state in federal land has been basicaly reduced to searching for minerals in the name of archeolgy and acedemia. I'm not going to look up the article but the one I read stated that over 90 percent of college proffessors identify as liberals. As it stands right now if I am metal detecting on federal or state land and dig up a lead bullet over 50 yrs old I am breaking federal law. The law ,arpa I think are it's abbreviation, states that you cannot dig up anything over 50 years. Old. How is something that is 50 to 150 years old considered an archeologic artifact. Are archeologist telling us they don't know how people lived 200 years ago. I cannot metal detect or dig up anything near an old mining site because it's considered to be a historical site. So an old mine shaft going into the side of a hill or mountain is considered historical.
How about mineral resources. Here in MN we have one of the largest precious metal reserve in north america. Copper nickel. The state has been trying to let companies recovery these reserves but has been tied up in court by liberal special interest groups for the last 15 years. The mining of these reserves would be an economic game changer for the state.
In a different thread you stated your support for certain political party because they are the ones that support federal lands and all the other party wanted to do was sell or give the federal land back to the state. Maybe you can enlighten me on why you think so. I  have stated only a few of the reason I think my rights are better served by one party over the other.

[idgobble]

Paul, You said, "Maybe you can enlighten me on why you think so."  It's not just what I think, it's a fact and it's very easy to verify with research. Google anything like "GOP platform public lands sale".  Here's  one of many articles you'll find and can decide which to believe:  https://www.outsideonline.com/2100586/fact-checking-gops-plan-steal-your-public-land

To address some of your questions and concerns: In spite of the NRA scare tactics some people believe, gun ownership rights have consistently been upheld by Supreme Court decisions.  Radical far left groups are no more misleading than the radical far right groups. Archaeology and mining laws and regulations came about because of abuses that had to be addressed. Clean Air and Clean Water Acts resulted. Special interest groups are constantly trying to weaken them. You seem upset because you can't dig up something at a designated historical site. Tough! Without restrictions like that people would be digging everywhere and destroying or stealing things that might be valuable. Think your "rights" are being restricted? Your "rights" are defined by laws and the US Constitution. Not by what you think they are.

[Paulmyr]

 

Paul, You said, "Maybe you can enlighten me on why you think so."  It's not just what I think, it's a fact and it's very easy to verify with research. Google anything like "GOP platform public lands sale".  Here's  one of many articles you'll find and can decide which to believe:  https://www.outsideonline.com/2100586/fact-checking-gops-plan-steal-your-public-land

To address some of your questions and concerns: In spite of the NRA scare tactics some people believe, gun ownership rights have consistently been upheld by Supreme Court decisions.  Radical far left groups are no more misleading than the radical far right groups. Archaeology and mining laws and regulations came about because of abuses that had to be addressed. Clean Air and Clean Water Acts resulted. Special interest groups are constantly trying to weaken them. You seem upset because you can't dig up something at a designated historical site. Tough! Without restrictions like that people would be digging everywhere and destroying or stealing things that might be valuable. Think your "rights" are being restricted? Your "rights" are defined by laws and the US Constitution. Not by what you think they are.

Spare me the political rederic. Everybody wants clean air and water and no I don't want to push Gramma over the cliff.

The propesed Copper nickel mine here in MN has passed all it's environmental studies. Had the go to start up this year but was blocked and sent back to court because of a supposed document fileing discrepancy. Tied up in court again by left wing special interest.
How about we go this route. I drive a suburban. I chose to drive a suburban because it can pull my boat to the lake. I can sleep in it. Pack all my gear in it etc. Cafe standards are making it near impossible for car companies to build a suitable vehicle for my outdoor activities. In the name of global warming I am told I need to drive an electric vehicle with the false premise that they don't emmit carbon gases. Wonder where all that electricity is coming from.  Must be from those  them special batteries that recharge themselves.  Or from the wind mills that kill thousands upon thousands of birds and make the people sick that are forced to live by them because nobody wants to buy their property.

Radical left on gun rights you must be referring to the fact that the current democratic nomination for president stated he supports "Bedo" O'Rourke's stance and I quote "I'm going to take your ar15". So the current democratic nominee is far left?

I'm not upset because I can't dig in designated historical site. I'm upset that  the thousands upon thousands of holes in the ground, dug by somebody 150 yrs ago is considered a historical site. They are rat infested, disease ridden and are being sealed off because they are consider a menace to society. I have a right to prospect, dig up, and remove minerals on federal land with minimal disturbance to the environment with out having to file for a permit according to mining laws. How is digging a hole about the size I would if I were to defocate in and remove a small gold nuggets or a 1905 silver dime somebody dropped 80 years ago and then filling it in after I'm done creating this mass devastation and stealing.

Save me the speech about where my rights come from. Luckily the supreme court has had a republican majority since the 70's.

[Paulmyr]

Let's try this one. How about the fact that I have been working for the last 30+years and with my job I receive a good health care plan. Recently under democratic control the federal govt mandates a reduction in my benefits and considerable cost to me in order for people with out health care receive benefits that most qualified for under state programs anyways just chose not to do so. The claim is they have a right to health care. Since when is it not possible for someone to access to health care in the US. What they don't have is the right to have me pay for. I had a discussion with a guy I went to school with. He claimed he couldnt afford health insurance. A week earlier he was bragging about how he just received his season tickets to the MN Twins baseball team. He could afford health care he just chose not to. It's called "spreading the wealth" which is liberal slang for socialism.

How about we discuss the border between the US and Mexico. If the current covid crisis doesn't have you thinking about it maybe this will. It's liberal policy to push for open borders. What do you think is going happen when ( being political correct so as not to upset you) undocumented immigrants start rushing the border bringing more covid with them because Mexico's health care system has collapsed and Joe Biden has promised them free health care.
Liberals say we need them because they do jobs that Americans won't do. Have you been to a new housing development lately? The workers aren't speaking English. Try telling it to my brothers who used to own their own residential siding company and were forced out of business by companies using " undocumented labor". I could go on and on about how on party serves my interest more than the other.
As I stated earlier what good is public land if the political part that supposedly supports it takes away your rights and won't let you use it. Your response was a little underwhelming and basically political talking points.

[GobbleNut]

Just a friendly suggestion,...perhaps we should just stick to talking about turkey hunting. 

[Gooserbat]

Just a friendly suggestion,...perhaps we should just stick to talking about turkey hunting. 

Yeah what Jim said. 

[Paulmyr]

Let's try this route. You say that politians from far of lands want to sell the federal property with in your states borders or give them back to states. I is would think it would be in your best interest to have local control over that land where you have more influence on the outcomes pertaining to that land. In MN the state leases the rights to the resources but keeps ownership of the land. I think we are adding land to the state as well. Hunting and fishing rights are not affected be these leases. I would think your state could do the same. Just a thought.

[NCL]

Let's try this route. You say that politians from far of lands want to sell the federal property with in your states borders or give them back to states. I is would think it would be in your best interest to have local control over that land where you have more influence on the outcomes pertaining to that land. In MN the state leases the rights to the resources but keeps ownership of the land. I think we are adding land to the state as well. Hunting and fishing rights are not affected be these leases. I would think your state could do the same. Just a thought.

Paul.

Here is the problem with that thought, it has been demonstrated on several occasions that the state land during economic crisis's are sold off to private interests. Additionally the states often do not have the budgets to support the land. During the 2008 recession the state lands here were closed due to lack of funds. Last year there was a huge amount of  tract of land in Oregon, seem to remember 65000 acres of public, that was sold to a timber company and it was immediately closed to the public. There have been a number of articles in hunting publications about the problems associated with the Federal lands being given to the states. 

[Paulmyr]

Let's try this route. You say that politians from far of lands want to sell the federal property with in your states borders or give them back to states. I is would think it would be in your best interest to have local control over that land where you have
more influence on the outcomes pertaining to that land. In MN the state leases the rights to the resources but keeps ownership of the land. I think we are adding land to the state as well. Hunting and fishing rights are not affected be these leases. I would think your state could do the same. Just a thought.

Paul.

Here is the problem with that thought, it has been demonstrated on several occasions that the state land during economic crisis's are sold off to private interests. Additionally the states often do not have the budgets to support the land. During the 2008 recession the state lands here were closed due to lack of funds. Last year there was a huge amount of  tract of land in Oregon, seem to remember 65000 acres of public, that was sold to a timber company and it was immediately closed to the public. There have been a number of articles in hunting publications about the problems associated with the Federal lands being given to the states.

There are many different factors regarding the sale of state land in the western US. What you did not mention about the sales of state land in Oregon is the land is supposed to be managed for a profit and the beneficiary being public schools. Actually the state constitution mandates it. Economic down turns and environmental special interest  among other things keeps these forest from maintaining a profit. As a result the state forest have been sold to acheive this profit mandate. The article I read in the High Country News talked about a proposed land sale that started back in 2015. The govenor, the secretary of the state, and the secretary of the treasury are the members of the land board and are in charge of managing state forest to see that the profit mandate is met. 2 of the 3 positions were held by Democrats the vote was 2 against 1 in favor of the sale. According to Idgobble Democrats are supposed to be the keepers of public land.
Not sure why state lands are being sold in the state where Idgobble lives but I'm pretty sure it has something to with the funding of some public entity. But I digress....
I could go on and on about how my right are being trampled and how resources are not be developed because of one political party which brings us back to the original question. A conundrum wrapped in an enigma. What is the purpose of having public land if the political party who supposedly supports federal land also supports taking away your rights and not letting you do anything on them? If losing public land is the the cost of keeping an overreaching federal gov't from trampling my rights than that will be a tough pill to swallow but swallow it I will. My freedom is much more valuable to me than the loss of some public land.
Pretty sure I'm done with this topic. Sorry for the ranting guys. Must be the extended cabin fever.

[Kylongspur88]

Just a friendly suggestion,...perhaps we should just stick to talking about turkey hunting. 

This!

[greencop01]

There does seem to be people that think they know whats good for others in spite of themselves. They also seem to be of the liberal bent. Take the Second Amendment for example. It is a simple sentence with the words the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Now we have people that add to the second amendment and by doing so they wish to erode and or take away our rights. Same with people that say you can only do certain things on public lands. I say this is taking away our liberties. If Liberty is not revered and guarded and cherished we will lose it. If you wish to be protected by the government it ALWAYS entails erosion of our liberty and rights. I'll get off my soapbox and finish with saying my turkey hunting is my RIGHT to pursue.