Big Beautiful Bill

[BSO Dave]

Read it. 2nd Amendment is about 1780 shortsighted concept of national defense using state ad hoc militias in lieu of a standing army. That idea went out the window by the end of War of 1812. Hard to supply an army if everyone is using a different gun. Ever since then the 2nd Amendment has been misapplied ... mostly for the benefit of gun manufacturers.

The 2nd Amendment is very simply nothing more than the affirmation to the people that the right to self-defense and gun ownership is a God-given right that already exists which no government can infringe upon...

Obviously, there is a huge difference in reading something and comprehending something... That inability to comprehend might explain why you are apparently okay with your own government denying your God-given freedoms...

 

[HankBuck]

Texas, unlike most western states, is 98% private and there are infinitely more hunting opportunities than there are in California, for example. Public lands are usually poorly managed and hunting fees, using California as an example again, may be diverted into the general fund rather than to support wildlife and habitat. The issue isn’t remotely black and white.

@analog_peninsula - you LOST ME (and many others) when you wrote “using California as an example” ——WHY would anyone use California as an example for ANYTHING?

 

[HankBuck]

For the most part hunting has very little to do with the 2nd amendment. It’s about personal freedom and protection. I only have a few hunting weapons but lets just say “plenty” of personal protection weapons.

@Hunt anything - Agree, the 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with Hunting.

 

[HankBuck]

Read it. 2nd Amendment is about 1780 shortsighted concept of national defense using state ad hoc militias in lieu of a standing army. That idea went out the window by the end of War of 1812. Hard to supply an army if everyone is using a different gun. Ever since then the 2nd Amendment has been misapplied ... mostly for the benefit of gun manufacturers.

@Ontario Hunter you can now add “Constitutional Scholar” to the Long list of What-You-are-Not.

 

[analog_peninsula]

@analog_peninsula - you LOST ME (and many others) when you wrote “using California as an example” ——WHY would anyone use California as an example for ANYTHING?

The example was used to show that frequently public management is disastrously poor, and that private management can make things better. Chicago public schools are another excellent example of this. Again, the intent here isn’t to assert all public lands should immediately be put up for auction, but rather to point out that reducing the land holdings of the federal government might work out for the better in the long run. Nothing more.

 

[Hunt anything]

The example was used to show that frequently public management is disastrously poor, and that private management can make things better. Chicago public schools are another excellent example of this. Again, the intent here isn’t to assert all public lands should immediately be put up for auction, but rather to point out that reducing the land holdings of the federal government might work out for the better in the long run. Nothing more.

No doubt in my mind that private management is better, but that would come to a substantial reduction in public access. If the tree huggers would allow prescribed burns and clearing of fuel for wildfires would be a step in the right direction. States would maintain management of wildlife through limits and seasons as they have always done.
If I ever retire and can still walk I would love to load up the truck head west with some topo maps and my 20gauge and make a sweep through BLM and Forest service land and hunt all of the upland birds available. I just hope those lands will still be available and protected from development so it can happen.

 

[3chunter]

No doubt in my mind that private management is better, but that would come to a substantial reduction in public access. If the tree huggers would allow prescribed burns and clearing of fuel for wildfires would be a step in the right direction. States would maintain management of wildlife through limits and seasons as they have always done.
If I ever retire and can still walk I would love to load up the truck head west with some topo maps and my 20gauge and make a sweep through BLM and Forest service land and hunt all of the upland birds available. I just hope those lands will still be available and protected from development so it can happen.

When you retiring, I will go with you. Lol

Problem is I got about 20 more years to retirement.

When I do retire I am packing up and heading west for at least deer and duck seasons.

 

[Hunt anything]

When you retiring, I will go with you. Lol

Problem is I got about 20 more years to retirement.

When I do retire I am packing up and heading west for at least deer and duck seasons.

3 maybe 4 years, always up for some company for a week or two.

 

[Russ16]

No doubt in my mind that private management is better, but that would come to a substantial reduction in public access. If the tree huggers would allow prescribed burns and clearing of fuel for wildfires would be a step in the right direction. States would maintain management of wildlife through limits and seasons as they have always done.
If I ever retire and can still walk I would love to load up the truck head west with some topo maps and my 20gauge and make a sweep through BLM and Forest service land and hunt all of the upland birds available. I just hope those lands will still be available and protected from development so it can happen.

I did something like this during Covid. Bought an off road camper and worked remote for 8 weeks. Killed turkeys in 4 states. Saw all the prairie grouse on their leks in the spring of 2021. It was glorious.

 

[Elmbow]

Lee specifically mentions Blackstone as a buyer.

Can you show us that quote in the proposed legislation?

 

[JimP]

Just read that the land sales in the bill has been squashed

 

[Jeff505]

Obviously this can be a touchy subject, I think the federal government owns far too much land in the US. I would prefer it stayed public and was state or locally controlled. As administrations change so does what is allowable on these federal lands. Local control more closely reflects the will of the people in that area.

 

[JimP]

If it was transferred to the states, they would likely sell it off faster than the feds. The states need money and with money from the feds being cut they would see the land as a cash cow.

 

[LivingTheDream]

I would love to load up the truck head west with some topo maps and my 20gauge and make a sweep through BLM and Forest service land and hunt all of the upland birds available.

I have done this, not super long trip, but just running and gunning, it was an amazing experience.

 

[Sabre]

Just read that the land sales in the bill has been squashed

I just came here to say the same thing. I saw tonight they said that part of the bill was struck down. I am glad they are not selling off the land. I do hope that the possibility of it happening makes residents reconsider their stance on NR hunters. We all pay for it, we should all be able to use it equally, and then we will all want to fight for it equally as well.

 

[Mountaineer]

We all need to remember we are Americans first and state residents second. This whole idea of non residents paying for state residents hobbies on land we all own needs corrected.

 

[Altitude sickness]

From what I’ve read. only undesirable BLM land “landlocked” etc. is being sold. Is this not true?

 

[M70375!]

Lee specifically mentions Blackstone as a buyer.

Buyers like that are the last thing we want.

 

[Russ16]

From what I’ve read. only undesirable BLM land “landlocked” etc. is being sold. Is this not true?

No. In fact it specifically exempts any land that has an active grazing contract which much of the land locked land does.

 

[LivingTheDream]

From what I’ve read. only undesirable BLM land “landlocked” etc. is being sold. Is this not true?

I heard that it is being reworked, saying they will target land that is within 5 miles of a population center and a few other stipulations.

I think the bigger risk is the precedent it sets, 5 miles today, 5 miles from a state maintained road tomorrow. Much easier to tweak a law, than to get one passed or removed.