Transferring ownership of federal lands is a bad idea. Period. I don't care what your politics are. The states simply can't afford to manage it. Amazing how folks will get behind anything in the name of politics.

Trump says he knows it's a bad idea too. And it won't happen on his watch. So we'll see what transpires.

I agree we should wait and see what the new administration proposes.

But as far as affordable, the US government has a much bigger deficit than most states do. Why do you think the government has a better footing to manage the cost NP?

If you just want the cold hard realties of it, the Feds can run a deficit budget. The states can't. So transfer to states would mean the eventual disappearance of our federal lands for hunting, fishing, recreation, and conservation because they can't afford to maintain their own lands. I hate deficits as much as anybody, but there are about 1 million and one things I would cut before I would sell and/or transfer our federal lands.

Maybe tackle entitlements or SS or welfare - which are by far the largest fiscal issues????

I am flabbergasted any hunter or outdoor enthusiast or conservation minded person would even consider getting rid of our federal lands.

To put it in household budget terms, it would be like running up $100,000 in credit card debt and giving away grandma's jewelry or grandpa's guns to save the costs of jewelry cleaner or Rem oil to maintain them. All the while continuing to add more credit card debt for fancy clothes and cars. It's stupid.

The cold hard reality actually is it can for a while, but not forever. At some point, the amount of debt becomes too great to maintain. That point is fast approaching with debt service now close to $500B a year, and that's with interest rates at historic lows and also adding $1-2T each and every year of new debt based on current spending and revenue.

As in any bankruptcy situation, there comes a time when assets need to be liquidated. Now is that what I want to see? Nope. However, if there is not a serious reverse in overall US fiscal policy, it is inevitable and is just a matter of who ends up with it. I say better the states than foreign governments or debt holders.

All true as a general proposition.

But ignoring the real problems and giving away the Crown Jewels ain't going to do anything to help that situation. Knee-jerk action based on emotion and rhetoric is just what those who will benefit from the transfer want. And you are playing right into their hands.

Playing right into whose hands? What are you talking about? Did you even read my post? Some things never change.

I stated facts that are undisputed that have been brought about by our wonderful leaders. I also stated that I didn't want it to happen. However, the facts are it more than likely will out of necessity, not politics or greed, should we stay on our current fiscal course for much longer. So ironically, ultra conservative fiscal policy is what's desperately needed to avoid liquidation of national assets. Unless some would prefer confiscation of personal assets first.

We are a spendthrift nation. Right now, we are a spendthrift nation with assets. Selling our assets while not changing our spendthrift ways just means we will not just be broke, but broke without assets. Like the crackhead who sells Mama's jewelry to buy crack.

Heaven help us, let's at least leave our kids Mama's jewelry.

NP

I and several others have asked this question many times; Where do you or anyone else see where anyone has indicated that they would sell the lands if transferred to the states



So far as managing their lands, it appears states do a much better job! Another excerpt from Forbes;

(Obama should make land management agencies turn a profit. States do this with their school trust lands, earning $5.62 for every dollar spent compared to an average of $0.76 for every dollar spent on national forests.

I like the tone of the new administration and our President elect. But if for bureaucratic reasons they cannot turn it around, why not let the states handle it with a simple restriction that they cannot sell the land (which again no one has said they would) unless it is under used by the public and is unprofitable

Also it seems like at least here in Texas, we acquire more public land (state parks) than what is sold

You need to study up more. There are many reasons the lands are federal, not state. All relating to the states' inability to manage/hold onto them.

TX can't even fund upkeep for its own parks. Keeps transferring the earmarked money to do so to the general fund. And we are an economically healthy state.

Our acquisitions have been thanks to very generous benefactors. Plus some forward thinking by the some in legislature. God bless 'em!

Funny....that's exactly what I said when you accused me of playing right into someone's hand. Still wondering what the hell or who you are talking about.

Selling our assets does not address changing our spendthrift ways. At least it seems you would agree not to sell until other plans are in place so it is part of an overall solution to our problems, rather than just throwing our assets down a rathole.

NP all your doing is giving lip service, no evidence or facts to back up your assertions.

And the reason those lands are federal and not state is Not because the Federal Government took those lands away from the states because of mismanagement, its because the the Government purchased them. Ever hear of a guy named Teddy Roosevelt?

I am sure there are a lot of conservation groups that donate or assist in the purchase of some of the State Parks. Even though Texas has less public land than most states, it is doing a better job managing them than the Government is on their controlled lands

Why don't you enlighten us with some of your research!

Here are some of Texas land/park purchases. Santa Claus did not give this to Texas for Christmas.

The Powderhorn Ranch is a 17,000 acre piece of land off Matagorda Bay. Most of the $ came from the BP settlement but Texas used it to purchase the land, Money was Not Put In The General Fund!

TPW magazine
From 1963 to 1988, these elements were aligned through the efforts of dedicated individuals. As a result, the number of state parks in Texas more than doubled in 25 years, with an almost tenfold increase in acreage. That perfect storm of enthusiastic players and available money could one day be looked back on as a golden age of park acquisition.

TSHA on the purchase of Big Bend State Park.

The property changed hands several more times before Robert O. Anderson, chairman of Atlantic Richfield Corporation, offered it to the state for $8 million, or about $36 an acre. The price was well under market value, but land commissioner Robert Armstrong could not persuade the legislature to approve the sale at that time. A few years later Governor William Clements attempted to arrange a land-swap deal whereby Anderson would receive state lands elsewhere in exchange for the ranch, but the plan was defeated amid charges of cronyism. In 1986 Anderson announced that he would sell oil leases on eighty-six acres of Big Bend Ranch, but on July 21, 1988, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission formally approved the purchase of the ranch by the state for $8.8 million. The title to the ranch was at that time held by the Hondo Oil and Gas Company, owned by Anderson and Walter Mischer of Houston.

That's exactly what I said. But I also said that unless our spending gets under control and quick and we can balance our budget and reduce our debt, it WILL happen and unfortunately probably won't be to the states. It's not partisan, just a reality.

The elephant in the room that nobody wants to address is the $20T in debt and growing. That's why the mention of some states being fiscally irresponsible earlier in the thread is so ironic.

The Federal Deficit? About $10 trillion of that is from the Iraq and Afghan wars. Now where has that gotten us, so what if Saddam was a POS killing his own people, at the same time he kept the Clowns of ISIS under control. Those people don't care, after we finally leave, that is if we ever leave, they will resort back to their camel loving ways.

You want to see how a state runs their fiscal policy, look at their state maintained roads. Not the US highways, the state roads. The Texas Farm to Market roads are better than New Mexico's state and federal highways.

The point is not or ever was about how we got there or why. There are many reasons including the one you mention. The point is that we are there and getting worse every day. So bagging on states for fiscal irresponsibility (and there are some states that are nearly as bad) while ignoring the feds is not intellectually honest.

And I'll say again that I'm not advocating selling any federal land ATM. However I will again reiterate that day is coming without some serious changes in federal fiscal policy.

Its fairly obvious that many did not read the article in its entirety, or realize that states have already started selling off their lands. I fear this will become a reality. Funny, I guess I am a social liberal\fiscal conservative, with Libertarian points of view. If Trump had run as a Democrat, which he has been the majority of his life, you would be lambasting him over his escapades.. I have a pragmatic point of view....Stub, its, "your'e" backing up, not your...You're welcome

Maybe off topic, but, I read on this forum, numerous times a day, about how millenials, liberals, the bogeyman, etc, etc, ad nauseum, have no respect, are greedy, all about themselves, pay no taxes, general misfits with no direction. But when talking about a P****grabbing, draft dodging, no tax paying, racist, mysoginist, pathological liar, you have no problem with that. SMMFH

Russia's economy is in the toilet, the only thing they export is oil and gas and so-so vodka. Trump owes Russian oligarchs\mafia, millions of $. Look up "Bayrock". American banks will not loan him money because of multiple bankruptcies. Tillerson and Exxon have a $500 BILLION deal in the works. With sanctions removed, Putin, a Communist dictator who kills people, including journalists, invades sovereign nations, shot down a Malaysian airliner and guilty of multiple war crimes, will then have $ to rebuild his military and take over the rest of the democratic Baltic states. What could possibly go wrong? All while Trumps debts are removed. Like I said, Trumputin, #makeRussiagreatagain

you should be careful what you type on the internet......you might end up missing never to be heard from again....don't want to mess with Trump and Putin....be careful my friend.....

I voted for him and would do it again in a heartbeat, no regrets here whatsoever. And I still feel the same way about the group you mention, especially the bogeyman.

Hahaha. Nothing wrong with having strong conviction. I'm not worried about Vlad's boys coming after me. Erath CTY is a long way from the Kremlin. Its the communist sympathizers that worry me.

Spuh'l chex tain't wut it uz ta bee. And when did you become the George Carlin of the English Language

Fixed my signature line

Sorry, but i've seen enough of the left wing hate America and hate guns crowd and what they do when they have power. I'm glad to support President-elect Trump's pick for the Interior Department.

Over in the " public hunting" section, there is a thread titled, "GOP house moves AGAINST public lands on its opening day"....Watch the videos by Randy Newburg, a fellow hunter. They explain it all. Very informative and go into detail dispelling the myths that are rampant on this issue.