New Jersey Hunters banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
F&S article stated that federal land may be transferred to the states. They claim that states don't have the funds to properly maintain all the public federal land. Does anyone know any more about this? Please share thoughts. It seems like Federal land is better off staying with the federal government.

"Simply put, state treasuries cannot afford to manage these lands. In 2012 alone, the feds spent $700 million just fighting forest fires. We can get a hint of the likely solution by looking at the places under consideration for transfer: only lands with high-dollar view*scapes or some extractive value like minerals, crops, or timber. These game-rich areas that currently belong to all of us will be developed or sold to large corporations, degrading critical habitat and locking out millions of sportsmen."


This is Our Land | Field & Stream
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
bumping because it seems like it could be important. There is also a link for a petition within the article.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
that would truly be a crime if that ever happened.i don't even want to think what could happen if states took over federal lands.[wallmad]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
So why wouldn't you want the states to manage their own land?

States could handle game and wild life, forestation, etc..

Feds over step all the time.

If the states need money it has to come from somewhere.

If the feds need money it has to come from somewhere.

The people of each state need to watch what is being done with the land anyway.

Maybe expand state Forrest, game lands etc.

Fire money can still come from feds.

There are ways states could handle this without destruction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,089 Posts
Just my humble view on this subject. I would prefer Fed. lands stay with the Feds.. The federales have the resources most States don't have to maintain these lands. Fed. lands belong to all Americans not just does that live in one particular State. A lot of the public land out West is Fed. controlled and pretty much open to all sportsmen and recreationalists. Nothing wrong with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,886 Posts
The Water Gap land was seized by the Feds. Returning it to the states could open it up to new development. Toll Brothers and K Hovnanian are probably chomping at the bit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Just my humble view on this subject. I would prefer Fed. lands stay with the Feds.. The federales have the resources most States don't have to maintain these lands. Fed. lands belong to all Americans not just does that live in one particular State. A lot of the public land out West is Fed. controlled and pretty much open to all sportsmen and recreationalists. Nothing wrong with that.
Well put CatskillHntr.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
So why wouldn't you want the states to manage their own land?
I'll admit I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other (based simply on a lack of involvement in the issue), but my first thought is that someone wanting to use/enjoy land in a certain way and knows the rules for all Federal land across the country would now have to wade through 50 different sets of regulations depending on what state they happen to visit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
The states will screw things over. Water Gap will have condos, mcmansions, and strip malls
Don't believe that.

I do think the states will charge for access.

I do think they will develops a forestation program or cattle use program things along those lines.

I would rather have the states have a state Forrest with state laws than the feds and their bs.

I am by no means suggesting anyone turn a blind eye. Hold the state accountable. It is far easier than dealing with the feds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
The Water Gap land was seized by the Feds. Returning it to the states could open it up to new development. Toll Brothers and K Hovnanian are probably chomping at the bit.
that's exactly why i said earlier it would be a crime.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,862 Posts
I'll admit I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other (based simply on a lack of involvement in the issue), but my first thought is that someone wanting to use/enjoy land in a certain way and knows the rules for all Federal land across the country would now have to wade through 50 different sets of regulations depending on what state they happen to visit.
exactly! you know each state will just have make up their own rules.if it's not broken,don't fix it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,556 Posts
Nj has several federal properties. A draw back to have the federal properties becoming state properties would be that our state in particular has a habit of selling off public land. A positive thing about transition to state land would be that state game lands allow archery hunting on sundays. Federal lands do not. I can not think of one other positive thing associated with federal lands becoming state land
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top