Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="NPO_Aaron" data-source="post: 86939" data-attributes="member: 214">I recently heard an analogy that did a great job of explaining why the transfer of federal land to the states is a bad thing for sportsmen.&nbsp; All of our federal lands require funding.&nbsp; It doesn't matter which state, or which tract of land, money is what keeps things the way we like them. For the most part, the federal government can generate the resources necessary to care for the lands much better than the individual states can.&nbsp; When the lands are transferred to the states, they are responsible for footing that bill.&nbsp; The analogy was that your neighbor owns a 3 million dollar house on 1000 acres.&nbsp; It is a beautiful house that you would love to have.&nbsp; So, being the nice neighbor he is, he gives it to you.&nbsp; Along with the mortgage payment, the land taxes and the cost of maintaining the house and property. Most people couldn't afford that and the payments would cause serious financial hardship. So, what would most people do?&nbsp; They would sell the house so dang fast it isn't even be funny.&nbsp; This kind of thing is happening all over the western states to state owned lands, and I fear the same would happen here if the lands were transferred.&nbsp; Not to mention, federal lands (for the most part) means public lands.&nbsp; They belong to all of us.&nbsp; That is why we can go to Montana or Colorado and have a place to hunt, or how out of staters can come here and hunt pheasants.&nbsp; Personally, if for example, Montana transferred their federal lands to the state I would be pretty pissed.&nbsp; It would in effect take away my portion of ownership to those public lands and potentially forfeit my right to use it.Just my .02</blockquote>

[QUOTE="NPO_Aaron, post: 86939, member: 214"] I recently heard an analogy that did a great job of explaining why the transfer of federal land to the states is a bad thing for sportsmen. All of our federal lands require funding. It doesn't matter which state, or which tract of land, money is what keeps things the way we like them. For the most part, the federal government can generate the resources necessary to care for the lands much better than the individual states can. When the lands are transferred to the states, they are responsible for footing that bill. The analogy was that your neighbor owns a 3 million dollar house on 1000 acres. It is a beautiful house that you would love to have. So, being the nice neighbor he is, he gives it to you. Along with the mortgage payment, the land taxes and the cost of maintaining the house and property. Most people couldn't afford that and the payments would cause serious financial hardship. So, what would most people do? They would sell the house so dang fast it isn't even be funny. This kind of thing is happening all over the western states to state owned lands, and I fear the same would happen here if the lands were transferred. Not to mention, federal lands (for the most part) means public lands. They belong to all of us. That is why we can go to Montana or Colorado and have a place to hunt, or how out of staters can come here and hunt pheasants. Personally, if for example, Montana transferred their federal lands to the state I would be pretty pissed. It would in effect take away my portion of ownership to those public lands and potentially forfeit my right to use it. Just my .02 [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA