|
|
|
Upland Idaho Forum - Don't let it happen here...hunters lose!!
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Karl and Zealot
Administrator
USA
4452 Posts |
 Posted - 04/23/2012 : 21:06:13
|
Arizona House votes to demand return of federally owned lands
Idaho's greatest resource for hunters is our vast Federal public lands...these idiots want to take that away and sell it off to private land owners...this is 100% scary scary stuff for any hunter or outdoors person!! I'm already composing a letter for my legislators. Please do the same. Idaho is listed as one of the state's with idiots in the State house talking about taking OUR land away from us. And don't get fooled if the State takes over WE LOSE.
By David Schwartz | Reuters – 2 hrs 48 mins ago
Email
Print
PHOENIX (Reuters) - Arizona lawmakers on Monday passed legislation demanding the U.S. government relinquish to the state millions of acres of federal territory, in the latest rekindling of a "sagebrush rebellion" over control of public lands in the West.
Without debate, the Republican-dominated Arizona House of Representatives easily passed a measure seeking the return of roughly 48,000 square miles of government-owned acreage in the Grand Canyon state by 2015.
The bill, approved on a 35-15 vote, now goes to the state Senate for final passage. Republican Governor Jan Brewer would then have five days once the bill reaches her desk to sign or veto it. Otherwise, the measure becomes law automatically.
Arizona would be the second state in the nation to enact such legislation. Last month, Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill seeking to reclaim some 30 million acres of federally owned land in his state, shrugging off warnings from state attorneys that the measure was likely unconstitutional and would lead to a protracted yet futile legal battle.
Other Western legislatures are said to be weighing similar measures in what is shaping up as a new front in the decades-old conflict between the federal government and big public-land states over control of their resources.
The moves cap years of rising indignation among political conservatives in big Western states over that fact that vast tracts of their land mass are owned by various federal agencies, much of it by the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management. In Arizona, the U.S. government controls 42 percent of the land mass, compared with some 60 percent in Utah.
Proponents of the Arizona bill have complained that federal control puts too much land off-limits to commercial development such as mining, logging and livestock raising -- limiting the state's potential tax base for schools and other public services.
They see the government as too closely aligned with environmental groups, which largely oppose efforts by the so-called sagebrush rebels to loosen federal controls. Conservationists say less federal management would lead to degradation of the land and its wildlife while allowing a virtual giveaway of publicly owned natural resources.
"All of these federal agencies have been infiltrated by extreme environmentalists and have almost killed off what Arizona was built on - lumber, mining and ranching," said Republican state Senator Al Melvin, the bill's chief sponsor. "It's wrong and it's happening all over the West. We are bound and determined to put it to an end to this."
Under the bill, the state would seek title to most of the state's federal acreage, including national monuments, national forests and national wildlife refuges. Military bases and national parks would be exempt, as would Indian reservations.
The bill also would allow Arizona to sell off the land it receives, retaining 5 percent of the net proceeds, with the rest going to the federal government.
Critics blasted the measure, saying that its sponsors are out of touch with most of Arizona's voters.
"These lands belong to all of us, as Americans, and to future generations of Americans," said Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter. "Senator Melvin's bill is a short-sighted selfish bill that would promote selling off our national heritage."
Bahr said the state already has done a "deplorable job" in managing its state parks and expects that it will do no better with federal public lands.
Melvin said at least four other states are reviewing similar efforts, including Colorado, Idaho, New Mexico and Wyoming.
(Editing by Tim Gaynor and Eric Walsh) |
Karl
If your dog isn't skinny, you don't hunt enough...kmd
|
|
|
swingandamiss
Quail>10 posts
21 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2012 : 08:52:05
|
| Our state manage lands are trashed good thing we have the largest roadless and wilderness land base in the lower 48. |
 |
|
|
situk
Supporting Member
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2012 : 09:11:32
|
| This is making me think we need to re-think who we vote for. The federal government seems to be saving us from ourselves. Utah certainly would sale the whole bloody state if given the chance. I think sportsmen have more of a voice than they think if they can unite. I spoke with a retired Forest Service guy yesterday, and he is very concerned this may go through—here in the land of the good ole boy state, Utah. |
Todd Petersen
Supporting Member |
Edited by - situk on 04/26/2012 07:19:54 |
|
|
|
Ithaca 37
Supporting Member
375 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2012 : 10:00:03
|
"Romney, Santorum play the "sagebrush rebellion" card"
http://www.oregonlive.com/mapes/index.ssf/2012/03/romney_santorum_play_the_sageb.html
This is all related to the old "Sagebrush Rebellion" days. Our Gov. Otter is a big sagebrush rebellion supporter. If you do some research you'll see that Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul all made comments in favor of selling or developing federal lands.
The majority of the ID legislature would be in favor of selling federal lands, or at least turning them over to the states they are in, which could then sell them.
Think it through: The FS budget is about $5 billion a year, not counting forest fire fighting, which can be hundreds of millions a year. The FS has about 35,000 employees. Having many of those employees in ID brings fed paychecks into ID. How would the states absorb and pay for all the things the FS does? It would cost the state of ID at least $150 million a year, without any fires.
Most hunters have no idea who they are voting for on the state level and no idea how their state reps vote on issues that affect F&G or federal and state lands.
I'm busy turkey hunting and won't have time to get into any debate about this. I suggest all hunters start taking more interest in how politics affects their sport. |
|
|
|
JPC
Hungarian Partridge>300 Posts
USA
433 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2012 : 20:02:52
|
| I don't usually post on topics like this, but this is the type of stuff that scares me about how party line voting has become. Make me really feel that much more strongly about being an issue voter and not a party voter. I will definitely be writing a letter to my legislature on this subject. |
The real one hun is back. |
|
|
|
Shrthrcrzy
Supporting Member
USA
612 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 12:41:38
|
| Me too. I hate all politicians equally. Im a fiscal conservative and a constitutionalist, I say we the people need to fire all the scum bags, set term limits,and make sure the people's will is being done. Stinking politicians have given themselves to much power for too too long. |
" Never kick a fresh Turd on a hot day"
-Harry Truman |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| Upland Idaho Forum |
© 2010 Upland Idaho LLC |
|
|
|
|
Topic Locked
