# Should the gov't sell all its recreational land?



## hayseed_theology (Mar 18, 2010)

Should the government sell all it's land that is designated for recreational use.  I had trouble finding numbers, but the best I can tell, the government(federal and state) owns around 3,000,000 acres of land in Georgia that is designated for recreational use.  What if they sold it all off?  I mean National Forest, WMA, Campgrounds, boat ramps, everything.

The first time I heard it, I didn't like the idea, because I hunt public land.  I can't afford my own property yet.  But I got thinkin', an influx of land like that would drive down the cost of purchasing land for recreation, and then it would drive down the cost of joining a hunting club.  You could work out networks where a hunting club had reciprocity with another club somewhere else in the state.  Or maybe a hunting club could have multiple properties.  My thought was that public recreational land fills a void, but the fact is that a counterpart exists in the private sector for everything - hunting clubs, privately owned boat ramps, privately owned campgrounds, privately owned offroad parks, etc.  We don't need the government to do this for us.  If we are paying for it in the first place, why should they have control of it?

The revenue generated would help get us out of debt, reduce the cost of hunting licenses, and reduce other tax dollars that go to it(which in theory could reduce overall taxes...in theory).  Maybe they sell it all and send every taxpayer in the state a rebate check.  

What do ya'll think?  Pro's and Con's?


----------



## tv_racin_fan (Mar 18, 2010)

What about all the land that would get bought up by developers and others and therefore hunters and fishermen and just people that enjoy walks in the woods would lose access to.


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Mar 18, 2010)

Start with the beach front military bases, miles of pristine beachfront property that is worth a fortune!


----------



## hayseed_theology (Mar 18, 2010)

Yep, some of it would get developed.  But if the market determines that best use of that land is a neighborhood, should the gov't stand in the way of that?  I feel like the majority of publicly held land is not neighborhood or shopping center material.  Either it's too far from a population center or the type of land is not suited for development.  

Some of it definitely would be lost to development.   But more people would have a chance at buying that piece of property that they've always wanted in the mountains, by the ocean, by the lake, by the river, or in the swamp if that's your thing.


----------



## Dead Eye Eddy (Mar 27, 2010)

No, lots of hunters couldn't afford to buy their own land even if it was $100/acre.  At least by being owned by the gov't, it's protected from devolopment.


----------



## Jetjockey (Mar 29, 2010)

No.  I think they need to buy more!  It was a big change for me when I moved from out west to here in GA.  Out west, all we hunt is public land, there is no reason to hunt private land unless you know someone who has a big chunk of great property.  I hate having to spend money to hunt leased land here in GA.  As a matter of fact, I can't afford it this year so I will head back home to hunt white tails or mulies in WA state.  It gives people the ability to hunt wherever they want in the state, which is really nice.


----------



## swamp hunter (Mar 29, 2010)

I,m Thinkin All us Florida Boys Chip in, Heck , We could buy the Top 5/10 counties in the State. Pass our own Laws. Feeders on every Tree. Brown it,s Down
I know Way down South here We got lot,s of Giant Land Owners who tightly control all of it. And You ain,t getting on it with out Big Dollars. 
Of Course like you said , Supply and Demand. The Market Flooded with Woods Land, Leases would sure go down in the short term. 
 Don,t think that worked too well in Texas .You know some body or Pay, Maybe both.
Once that Land is Gone , It,s Gone.


----------



## Throwback (Mar 30, 2010)

This looks like a thread for...............Redlevel!

T


----------



## Throwback (Mar 30, 2010)

Jetjockey said:


> No.  I think they need to buy more!  It was a big change for me when I moved from out west to here in GA.  Out west, all we hunt is public land, there is no reason to hunt private land unless you know someone who has a big chunk of great property.  I hate having to spend money to hunt leased land here in GA.  As a matter of fact, I can't afford it this year so I will head back home to hunt white tails or mulies in WA state.  It gives people the ability to hunt wherever they want in the state, which is really nice.



You fly jets and you're wife is a doctor and you can't afford to join a club?

something smells here....



T


----------



## Nicodemus (Mar 30, 2010)

Jetjockey said:


> No.  I think they need to buy more!  It was a big change for me when I moved from out west to here in GA.  Out west, all we hunt is public land, there is no reason to hunt private land unless you know someone who has a big chunk of great property.  I hate having to spend money to hunt leased land here in GA.  As a matter of fact, I can't afford it this year so I will head back home to hunt white tails or mulies in WA state.  It gives people the ability to hunt wherever they want in the state, which is really nice.



This ain`t "out west". Welcome to Georgia!


----------



## Pat Tria (Mar 30, 2010)

NO!!! Once the government  lets land go..... John Q Public will  will NEVER get any back. Why sell???? Are we trying to shore up the deficit the irresponsible politicians created over the past 30 years?


----------



## redlevel (Mar 30, 2010)

I don't have any problem with the states using Pittman-Robertson funds to purchase and maintain public land.  That land should be leased out to hunters at the prevailing rate.  Show me in the Constitution, US or state,  where the government is supposed to provide free hunting for anyone.  Providing a free place to hunt is probably a worse abuse of taxpayers than the Food Stamp Program.  

No public lands should be purchased or maintained for recreational purposes at taxpayer expense.  (Other than from Pittman-Robertson funds.)

Interesting article from Macon Telegraph last week on this subject.


----------



## yellowhammer (Apr 4, 2010)

*land*

I want to know how developers keep getting more and more national forest land in The Chattahoochee National Forest.When I`ve asked,the subject is changed.I smell a rat.The good ol` boy system prevails.


----------



## Gaswamp (Apr 4, 2010)

redlevel said:


> I don't have any problem with the states using Pittman-Robertson funds to purchase and maintain public land.  That land should be leased out to hunters at the prevailing rate.  Show me in the Constitution, US or state,  where the government is supposed to provide free hunting for anyone.  Providing a free place to hunt is probably a worse abuse of taxpayers than the Food Stamp Program.
> 
> No public lands should be purchased or maintained for recreational purposes at taxpayer expense.  (Other than from Pittman-Robertson funds.)
> 
> Interesting article from Macon Telegraph last week on this subject.



link to the article?


----------



## Coastie (Apr 4, 2010)

redlevel said:


> I don't have any problem with the states using Pittman-Robertson funds to purchase and maintain public land.  That land should be leased out to hunters at the prevailing rate.  Show me in the Constitution, US or state,  where the government is supposed to provide free hunting for anyone.  Providing a free place to hunt is probably a worse abuse of taxpayers than the Food Stamp Program.
> 
> No public lands should be purchased or maintained for recreational purposes at taxpayer expense.  (Other than from Pittman-Robertson funds.)
> 
> Interesting article from Macon Telegraph last week on this subject.



The primary purpose of the national forests is not recreation whether hunting or anything else associated with recreation. The hunting and fishing opportunities provided by those areas is secondary to their original purpose of protecting the forest and providing a continuous supply of lumber to the nation. Just as the original purpose of most federally funded lakes and impoundments in the nation were for flood control, the usage over the past 60 years has become more recreational but the underlying purpose of those areas remains the same. Hunting on national forest land is just another use for the land and since the taxpayers have already funded the purchase, it is unlawful to deny its use for nearly any purpose that does not destroy the resource. You do, in a sense, pay for that usage through license fees, usage fees in certain areas and those Pitman Robertson taxes paid on your sporting goods. Why anybody would want to see additional user fees levied on the use of public lands is beyond me. You can only get one crop of houses on any tract of land over several lifetimes and they really are a lot uglier than the trees they replace. Developers and real estate speculators should be required to redevelop those blighted areas in urban areas before even considering new developments in rural areas.


----------



## Throwback (Apr 4, 2010)

Coastie said:


> . Developers and real estate speculators should be required to redevelop those blighted areas in urban areas before even considering new developments in rural areas.



Sieg Heil!



T


----------



## Throwback (Apr 4, 2010)

If it (gov't land)  is so important for the country to survive, why was it not done by any president on a large scale until the rise or progressivism? 


T


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 5, 2010)

redlevel said:


> Show me in the Constitution, US or state,  where the government is supposed to provide free hunting for anyone.



That's what i've been feeling like.  Now, I know I'm the beneficiary, but should every one else be forced to pay for me to get a free place to hunt?  The whole reason I asked the question is b/c I'm afraid I'm being inconsistent.  I get frustrated and want the government to stay out of my business until it comes time to hunt or fish.  Then I want the gov't to provide me with a place to hunt for free and I want them to stock all the lakes, rivers, and streams with plenty of fish.  Seems like I hate the gov't except when they subsidize my hobbies  So if I want the gov't to do something that benefits me even though it doesn't necessarily fit in their job description, am I all that different from the people I get so angry at?

I don't think the land should be sold to fund more irresponsible spending.  The current financial problems should be addressed on their own.  The gov't should learn to get by on a budget, just like we all do.  But I have to ask, is maintaining land for recreational hunting and fishing irresponsible spending?

Coastie, you make a great point about the original purpose of the land but I will apply the same line of questioning.  Is it the government's job to provide a continuous supply of lumber?  I don't understand why the private sector can't produce a sufficient supply of trees.  I didn't realize that was a problem.  And if that is a problem, it's because the market has determined that the best use of the land is not to grow trees on it.  And conservation efforts can be found in the private sector as well, i.e. Ducks Unlimited.


----------



## saltysurf (Apr 5, 2010)

Wyoming did this in the town I was born in gillette wy. Right before the methane gas boom hit there I used to have tons of places to hunt deer and antelope, but the town grew and grew houses went up land tuned to trash and the deer and antelope now live in town. Wright Wyoming was about 40 miles away when I moved away it was only 12 miles away. No it didnt make things more affordable Prices went up believe it or not. That land that the goverment owns is regulated by our taxes, game tags, fishing license, and pay camp sites and access. Yeah it might help get the state out of dept, but Its going to hurt all the residents in Georgia in the long run. Its already hard to find places to hunt and fish. Trust me it would be close to impossable after with out givin an arm and a leg for a day on the water are an animal on the table.

We did have a access yes program going after the land sale but few land owners caught on, most did not want the goverment on their land. Plus most of the access yes lands did not realy have much to offer as a walk in area only.

The land should stay owned and regulated by the goverment. It provides jobs and places for research. not to mention some great animal reserves.

This is just my opion on it I have seen what can happen. And it wasnt pretty!


----------



## Rich M (Apr 5, 2010)

The gov should keep the land and aquire more.

You can never trust people to manage property for others.  People manage land for themselves.  That's why we have leases and No Trespassing signs.

If that land was to go up for sale, you would never get to use it.  Only the owners or lease holders would get to use it.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 5, 2010)

saltysurf said:


> The land should stay owned and regulated by the goverment. It provides jobs and places for research. not to mention some great animal reserves.


A socialist, right here on Woody's!!



Rich M said:


> The gov should keep the land and aquire more.
> 
> You can never trust people to manage property for others.  People manage land for themselves.  That's why we have leases and No Trespassing signs.
> 
> If that land was to go up for sale, you would never get to use it.  Only the owners or lease holders would get to use it.


Wow!!   Two socialists in a row!!

Rich, the govt. should acquire more land?   Where should they get the money?   Pick my pocket, maybe?  I've got an idea; you buy or lease your own hunting land, and I'll buy or lease mine.  I'm tired of paying for mine and yours.

Why should a landowner manage property "for others?"

"Only the owners or the lease holders would get to use it,"  you say?   What a novel idea!!  Private property ownership, with the owner deciding what happens to/on his/her property.


----------



## Throwback (Apr 5, 2010)

Rich M said:


> The gov should keep the land and aquire more.
> 
> You can never trust people to manage property for others.  People manage land for themselves.  That's why we have leases and No Trespassing signs.
> 
> If that land was to go up for sale, you would never get to use it.  Only the owners or lease holders would get to use it.



I see you learned well in gov't school, slave. 

There are plenty of gov't lands with "no trespassing" signs on them, too. 


T


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 5, 2010)

saltysurf said:


> Wyoming did this in the town I was born in gillette wy. Right before the methane gas boom hit there I used to have tons of places to hunt deer and antelope, but the town grew and grew houses went up land tuned to trash and the deer and antelope now live in town. Wright Wyoming was about 40 miles away when I moved away it was only 12 miles away. No it didnt make things more affordable Prices went up believe it or not.



Well, it sounds like there were other factors that affected the price of land in that case.  All things being equal, a shift in the supply curve results in a decrease in price.



saltysurf said:


> Its going to hurt all the residents in Georgia in the long run.



I actually think most of them couldn't care less.  In 2008 - 2009, 82% of Georgia hunters primarily used private land.  



saltysurf said:


> It provides jobs and places for research.



So does a government take over of healthcare


----------



## Coastie (Apr 6, 2010)

According to some on here, I guess that Thomas Jefferson (Louisiana purchase 1803 828,000 square miles at 5 cents an acre) and Alaska (President Andrew Johnson 1.9 cents an acre) were socialists and the land should be turned back to the original owners, France and Russia.  Most of the remaining purchases of land for national forest and national parks was from private owners that could not afford the property taxes on land that (at the time) was not worth anything. Those property owners whether they were private individuals or companies/banks were more than happy to take the money and run. Now we, the citizens of the U.S. own, albeit indirectly those properties. They were not purchased with recreation in mind but rather as a means of conserving our land and resources that are in no way replaceable. Recreation is a benefit that we reap from those properties that most of us cannot afford in any other way, while it would seem that many can now afford private leases and private ownership of properties suitablr for hunting, I for one cannot and those public lands are a God send.


----------



## Throwback (Apr 6, 2010)

Increasing the size of the country by buying land from another country (as opposed  to killing them and taking it from them) and buying land from private landowners to lock it up from anyone (but the gov't, of course) are two different things. 

the louisiana purchase's land--what did they do with it after they bought it? Did they keep it intact so everyone could sit around and sing Kum-Bah-Yah and hold hands at the campfire? 

T


----------



## Coastie (Apr 6, 2010)

But according to you and some others, nothing done by the government for any reason is right and is therefore suspect and must be put down. Those lands were purchased with public funds and there were many at the time that considered it to be unconstitutional for the government to buy and own property for any reason. Much of the property in federal holdings today, especially in the west, were from that original purchase and has never been in private ownership. Alaska still has land that has never been in private ownership, and those lands here in the east that were added to the national forests was for the most part worn out or considered useless for anything by the original owners that for the most part had stolen it from the Indians.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 6, 2010)

Once again Coastie, I think you are arguing your point  well.  



Coastie said:


> Recreation is a benefit that we reap from those properties that most of us cannot afford in any other way, while it would seem that many can now afford private leases and private ownership of properties suitable for hunting, I for one cannot and those public lands are a God send.



I cannot afford my own land either.  I hunt public land, but just because it helps me out, that doesn't necessarily make it right.  If they sold all the land, I think I would have a better chance of being able to afford a hunting lease.



Coastie said:


> But according to you and some others, nothing done by the government for any reason is right



Not true, cutting taxes is generally right.  



Coastie said:


> considered useless for anything by the original owners



I hear this a lot as a reason why the gov't owns a ton of land out West.  But why should the gov't own useless land?  Should the federal gov't really own 85% of Nevada?


----------



## Throwback (Apr 6, 2010)

Coastie said:


> But according to you and some others, nothing done by the government for any reason is right and is therefore suspect and must be put down. Those lands were purchased with public funds and there were many at the time that considered it to be unconstitutional for the government to buy and own property for any reason. Much of the property in federal holdings today, especially in the west, were from that original purchase and has never been in private ownership. Alaska still has land that has never been in private ownership, and those lands here in the east that were added to the national forests was for the most part worn out or considered useless for anything by the original owners that for the most part had stolen it from the Indians.



Oh Lord here we go...  That pretty much identifies where you are coming from. 
















T


----------



## ArmyTaco (Apr 6, 2010)

Lets take all the hunting land away so those young folks who really cannot afford land cant hunt. If it wasnt for WMA's this would probably one less hunter. Which means the sport would slowly dwindle away.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 6, 2010)

Coastie said:


> while it would seem that many can now afford private leases and private ownership of properties suitablr for hunting, I for one cannot and those public lands are a God send.



I can't afford a new pickup, and I deserve a new one just as much as you deserve a free place to hunt.  Since the Govt. now owns GM, maybe they will give me one, reckon?


----------



## field (Apr 6, 2010)

*Free?*

 Maybe you can cash in on some of the FREE "FED" farm money out there and get you a truck! That's rich...... a farmer/teacher, almost the poster child for subsidy, cutting up on some ole boy proud to have a public place to hunt! 





redlevel said:


> I can't afford a new pickup, and I deserve a new one just as much as you deserve a free place to hunt.  Since the Govt. now owns GM, maybe they will give me one, reckon?


----------



## Throwback (Apr 6, 2010)

And here we go...................



T


----------



## Jeff Phillips (Apr 6, 2010)

redlevel said:


> I can't afford a new pickup, and I deserve a new one just as much as you deserve a free place to hunt.  Since the Govt. now owns GM, maybe they will give me one, reckon?



They are making everyone buy insurance, might as well make us buy a new car every 2 or 3 years to keep their business going.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 6, 2010)

field said:


> Maybe you can cash in on some of the FREE "FED" farm money out there and get you a truck! That's rich...... a farmer/teacher, almost the poster child for subsidy, cutting up on some ole boy proud to have a public place to hunt!



That's a good'un, field. You really got me.   FYI, I get about $1200 per year from the Feds.  That's twelve HUNDRED dollars a year.  I believe it is what they call counter-cyclical payment.   I used to plant peanuts, which were subsidized, but even with the subsidy, about a 5% profit was about all we could muster.  We have grown mostly peaches, plums, and vegetables for the last 75 years.  Ain't no subsidies on collards and turnips.

As far as teaching, it's a day's work for a day's pay, sort of like a career LEO or military.

Far as not being able to afford a place to hunt, I have found that people usually afford what they want most.  I live in a house that cost me $45,000.  I choose not to live in a quarter million dollar McMansion.   I drive my trucks for seven or eight years.   Four years ago, instead of trading trucks, I bought 20 acres of land that adjoined my wife's farm for $2000 per acre.  I guess that was about what a really fancy pickup would have cost, but I would rather have the land.   No big screen TVs, no swimming pool, no expensive cruises, no pleasure boat,  no expensive vacations.  

I do own a little land.  I throw a little money away on a S&W revolver ever now and then.


----------



## elfiii (Apr 6, 2010)

I'm not against WMA's or National Forests. I am against government owning more than it can afford keep up and restricting access to its' citizens. They do too much of both.


----------



## field (Apr 6, 2010)

*Well......*



redlevel said:


> That's a good'un, field. You really got me.   FYI, I get about $1200 per year from the Feds.  That's twelve HUNDRED dollars a year.  I believe it is what they call counter-cyclical payment.   I used to plant peanuts, which were subsidized, but even with the subsidy, about a 5% profit was about all we could muster.  We have grown mostly peaches, plums, and vegetables for the last 75 years.  Ain't no subsidies on collards and turnips.
> 
> As far as teaching, it's a day's work for a day's pay, sort of like a career LEO or military.
> 
> ...



That is still $1200.00 I never see! You are definitley on the losing side of the Fed money I know farmers that get CRP payments that are really nice (payment not to farm, you got to good @ it!)maybe you should try to cash in... seeing the deer have been a problem over the years.

As far as teaching....with your outlook we should close the public schools and make them private....no public land, no public school? Let me keep my money.....I'm gonna send my kid to private school anyway.

And on the $ side of things I will and CAN throw thousands @ it a year, the most fun I ever had was growing up deer dogging public land, Thanks Uncle Sam!


----------



## field (Apr 6, 2010)

*Agree!*



elfiii said:


> I'm not against WMA's or National Forests. I am against government owning more than it can afford keep up and restricting access to its' citizens. They do too much of both.


Agree with you! I think land should be the last resort, most of it has enough timber on it to manage it @ no cost to the taxpayer! ..........Man it sure was fun growing up no access restrictions and lots of land to deer and turkey hunt on!


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 6, 2010)

field said:


> That is still $1200.00 I never see! You are definitley on the losing side of the Fed money I know farmers that get CRP payments that are really nice (payment not to farm, you got to good @ it!)maybe you should try to cash in... seeing the deer have been a problem over the years.



Farming subsidies are kind of unique.  In the sense that its about those consuming the food as much as it is those raising it(evidenced by Red's admission that with subsidies it was barely profitable).  In my understanding, ag subsidies are not primarily about keeping farmers in business, but rather making sure we are able to produce our own food, which is accomplished through making local farming profitable, ie subsidies.  So the question is do we wanna be dependent on foreign countries for our food?  Economically, sure if its cheaper and more efficient.  In terms of national security and health, maybe not.



field said:


> As far as teaching....with your outlook we should close the public schools and make them private....no public land, no public school?



Economically, it would be a great move.  Trying to educate kids who don't want an education is absurdly inefficient.  Also, there's somewhat of a conflict of interest with the gov't running schools.  However, I understand there are many factors that go into the decision to offer free public education.  Either way, it's difficult to argue that free hunting land that is utilized by a very small percentage of the population has as much affect on the overall quality of life in America as a having a literate and educated population.


----------



## ArmyTaco (Apr 7, 2010)

redlevel said:


> I can't afford a new pickup, and I deserve a new one just as much as you deserve a free place to hunt.  Since the Govt. now owns GM, maybe they will give me one, reckon?


----------



## redlevel (Apr 7, 2010)

ArmyTaco said:


> If it wasnt for WMA's this would probably one less hunter.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 7, 2010)

ArmyTaco said:


> Lets take all the hunting land away so those young folks who really cannot afford land cant hunt. If it wasnt for WMA's this would probably one less hunter. Which means the sport would slowly dwindle away.



So, other than Coastie, this seems to be the recurring argument for WMA's.  That if WMA's didn't exist some people couldn't afford to hunt(myself included), and hunting as a sport would suffer(which I concede that it would to a small degree).  So the foundation of this argument is that one of the responsibilities of the government is to ensure that certain hobbies are perpetuated.  What about bowling?  Bowling has been on the decline.  Should the government open up free bowling alleys so that the sport doesn't "slowly dwindle away?"


----------



## saltysurf (Apr 7, 2010)

nicely put!! lol about bowling





hayseed_theology said:


> So, other than Coastie, this seems to be the recurring argument for WMA's.  That if WMA's didn't exist some people couldn't afford to hunt(myself included), and hunting as a sport would suffer(which I concede that it would to a small degree).  So the foundation of this argument is that one of the responsibilities of the government is to ensure that certain hobbies are perpetuated.  What about bowling?  Bowling has been on the decline.  Should the government open up free bowling alleys so that the sport doesn't "slowly dwindle away?"


----------



## tv_racin_fan (Apr 7, 2010)

IF the WMA's were only about hunting I might could agree with you.

A WMA is a WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA not strictly hunting, a bowling alley is strictly a bowling alley that is not a very apt comparison.


----------



## field (Apr 7, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> Farming subsidies are kind of unique.  In the sense that its about those consuming the food as much as it is those raising it(evidenced by Red's admission that with subsidies it was barely profitable).  In my understanding, ag subsidies are not primarily about keeping farmers in business, but rather making sure we are able to produce our own food, which is accomplished through making local farming profitable, ie subsidies.  So the question is do we wanna be dependent on foreign countries for our food?  Economically, sure if its cheaper and more efficient.  In terms of national security and health, maybe not.
> 
> Not buying it.......farming has been subsidized out to the .........Go buy the co-op and count how many $50,000.00 trucks you see. Farmers work hard a third out of the year max, still can't figure what they do with the rest of the time, we are all working? Yeah the government is keeping it going to have it as an option for later, but at what cost......gone to south GA lately the farmers have brought in the migrants by the hundreds, and the burden as well, on you and me "aka" the taxpayer! We can argue it all day, but in the end it's polished welfare!
> 
> ...



Public hunting land kept me from doing wrong! 2 degrees later, and 250 patients a month.....there lives are better from me maybe me having a cheap place to hunt!


----------



## field (Apr 7, 2010)

*Place to hunt!*



ArmyTaco said:


>



Don't feed a troll like Redlevel he is just p'ed he has his little farm and not enough free government money rolling in. I doubt his bite would be as big in person!  

Army Taco let me know if your in Mississippi this hunting season. I moved a little under a year ago from Central GA and always have room for a soilder to hunt with me. My brother is currently serving his second tour in Iraq and lives over here as well (loves to deer hunt). I have access to a couple of small tracks and am always in a couple of hunting clubs.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 7, 2010)

tv_racin_fan said:


> IF the WMA's were only about hunting I might could agree with you.
> 
> A WMA is a WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREA not strictly hunting, a bowling alley is strictly a bowling alley that is not a very apt comparison.



This is true.  I made the bowling comment because the primary argument being used is about the preservation of hunting as a sport.  So I chose a random sport.  Multiple uses and benefits of public land is a different argument(basically the one Coastie is making).

However, after thinking about it, I think the comparison is more fair than I realized at first.  A WMA is not _strictly_ about hunting, but I would argue that it is _primarily_ about hunting.  That's why hunters are charged extra to use it but hikers and bird watchers aren't.  If it was primarily about providing a sanctuary for wildlife, the hunting access would be much more restricted.  I mean, at least 70% of the ppl responding to this poll agree that they are over-hunted.

A bowling alley is not _strictly_ about bowling, although it is _primarily_ about bowling.  Bowling alleys usual have an arcade.  They often times have pool tables and air hockey tables.  They normally have some sort of restaurant/concession stand with tables to eat at.  And let's say the gov't was running a free one.  It provides jobs in a community that is struggling financially.  And, they decided to do a free bowling league to help get underprivileged, inner city kids off the street.  Also, let's say they built it in an old abandoned warehouse that had been described as "worn out" and "useless," and lets just say it was on land that had been stolen from the Indians anyway  Now it's about more than just bowling, does that make it right then?


----------



## field (Apr 7, 2010)

*Uh No!*



hayseed_theology said:


> So, other than Coastie, this seems to be the recurring argument for WMA's.  That if WMA's didn't exist some people couldn't afford to hunt(myself included), and hunting as a sport would suffer(which I concede that it would to a small degree).  So the foundation of this argument is that one of the responsibilities of the government is to ensure that certain hobbies are perpetuated.  What about bowling?  Bowling has been on the decline.  Should the government open up free bowling alleys so that the sport doesn't "slowly dwindle away?"



Wow and you hated my comparison for public land and public school? Both currently government run? Well I will try to make this a hayseed theory????? Public land can and is used for numerous activity hiking, biking, camping, etc. (hope ya get the point) and yes hunting......na I don't think they have bowling? Public land grows trees which they don't cut very often. Maybe besides selling off public land which only successful people like myself and the top 10% can afford if its sold, we should manage the forests for profit? Or we could cut back on other things like owning car companies etc. I mean.... this is a hunting website and we have rocket scientists complaing about public hunting land???? It is one of the last things I could possibly complain about my tax dollars going too? I know lets give the land to China and call it even stevens since it's such a burden, lets see how they manage it!


----------



## field (Apr 7, 2010)

*Uh No!*



hayseed_theology said:


> So, other than Coastie, this seems to be the recurring argument for WMA's.  That if WMA's didn't exist some people couldn't afford to hunt(myself included), and hunting as a sport would suffer(which I concede that it would to a small degree).  So the foundation of this argument is that one of the responsibilities of the government is to ensure that certain hobbies are perpetuated.  What about bowling?  Bowling has been on the decline.  Should the government open up free bowling alleys so that the sport doesn't "slowly dwindle away?"



Wow and you hated my comparison for public land and public school? Both currently government run? Well I will try to make this a hayseed theory????? Public land can and is used for numerous activity hiking, biking, camping, etc. (hope ya get the point) and yes hunting......na I don't think they have bowling? Public land grows trees which they don't cut very often. Maybe besides selling off public land which only successful people like myself and the top 10% can afford if its sold, we should manage the forests for profit? Or we could cut back on other things like owning car companies etc. I mean.... this is a hunting website and we have rocket scientists complaing about public hunting land???? It is one of the last things I could possibly complain about my tax dollars going too? I know lets give the land to China and call it even stevens since it's such a burden, lets see how they manage it!


----------



## Throwback (Apr 7, 2010)

Oh teh noes the government won't run it so it must be bad. 

Ya'll learned good in gov't school I see. 


T


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 7, 2010)

field said:


> Go buy the co-op and count how many $50,000.00 trucks you see. Farmers work hard a third out of the year max, still can't figure what they do with the rest of the time, we are all working? Yeah the government is keeping it going to have it as an option for later, but at what cost......gone to south GA lately the farmers have brought in the migrants by the hundreds, and the burden as well, on you and me "aka" the taxpayer! We can argue it all day, but in the end it's polished welfare!



Yeah, I always wondered about all the $50000 trucks too.  Finally asked a few farmers and a friend who works at a bank in rural South GA.  Turns out, most of them can't afford them.  Most of them are in debt up to their eyeballs.  Most of the ones in the $50000 trucks are living beyond their means, and it will catch up with them.  Illegal aliens working on farms is a problem.  I agree.  I wouldn't call it "polished welfare," but I understand why you do.  Like I said, I think its different than other types of subsidies.  I believe Red thinks that if the gov't left Ag alone in the first place, they wouldn't need to come back and subsidize it.  Anyways, Ag subsidies isn't what we're talking about.




field said:


> 2 degrees later, and 250 patients a month.....there lives are better from me maybe me having a cheap place to hunt!



Those degrees prove that you are a hard-working, disciplined person.  The fact that you actually care about the lives of others says a lot about your character.  You are probably a great guy who makes good decisions, but I'm not sure that public land is responsible for the quality of person you are.  There are plenty of punks that hunt public land.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 7, 2010)

field said:


> Wow and you hated my comparison for public land and public school? Both currently government run? Well I will try to make this a hayseed theory????? Public land can and is used for numerous activity hiking, biking, camping, etc. (hope ya get the point) and yes hunting......na I don't think they have bowling? Public land grows trees which they don't cut very often. Maybe besides selling off public land which only successful people like myself and the top 10% can afford if its sold, we should manage the forests for profit? Or we could cut back on other things like owning car companies etc. I mean.... this is a hunting website and we have rocket scientists complaing about public hunting land???? It is one of the last things I could possibly complain about my tax dollars going too? I know lets give the land to China and call it even stevens since it's such a burden, lets see how they manage it!



I responded as to why I mentioned bowling, but I'm assuming it was posted after you began writing this one so you didn't see it.

I agree the gov't needs to cut back on many things, especially owning car companies.  

Thanks for the hayseed theory  And yes, I got the point, but I don't mind the explanation anyway.  Sorry, if it sounds like I'm complaining.  I'm not.  I'm trying to discuss.  I'm trying to learn.  I'm trying to question my own assumptions.  I've thought for years that the we need more WMA land, but I sat down one day and tried to figure out if that's even constitutional.  What better place to discuss it than a hunting forum?  I already know what the Sierra club thinks about it.  I wanna hear legitimate, well-reasoned arguments from the people affected by it - other hunters like me.  

Field, I apologize if it comes across as me badgering you, but I just want to hear your arguments.  I'm not trying to win an argument or make you look like an idiot, I'm trying to learn from you.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 7, 2010)

field said:


> 2 degrees later, and 250 patients a month.....there lives are better from me maybe me having a cheap place to hunt!



Chiropractor?


----------



## redlevel (Apr 7, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> I'm not trying to . . . . . . . . . make you look like an idiot,



You don't have to do that.  He did it himself with this statement . . . . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by field  
_Go buy the co-op and count how many $50,000.00 trucks you see. Farmers work hard a third out of the year max, still can't figure what they do with the rest of the time, we are all working?_

Have y'all noticed how much old field is impressed with himself?     Have you noticed that for a budding young Chiropractor with two degrees,  he has a lot of trouble with their, they're, and there, and even with buy and by?

Field, I know teachers with $50,000 vehicles, as well as salesmen, plumbers,  assembly line workers,   well drillers,  janitors, and even Chiropractors.  Why not farmers?


----------



## field (Apr 8, 2010)

*We are fine!*



hayseed_theology said:


> I responded as to why I mentioned bowling, but I'm assuming it was posted after you began writing this one so you didn't see it.
> 
> I agree the gov't needs to cut back on many things, especially owning car companies.
> 
> ...



I just think it's a shame we actually would even have a conversation about cutting out public land with all the other things that could be cut out? It's probably not constitutional but little is!


----------



## field (Apr 8, 2010)

*Na....wrong!*



redlevel said:


> Chiropractor?



Nope, got a lot more pride than that!


----------



## field (Apr 8, 2010)

*Okay!*



redlevel said:


> You don't have to do that.  He did it himself with this statement . . . . . .
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by field
> ...


I don't pay taxes to subsidize those professions. Buddy I'm not a Chiropractor.......Cardiology, Secondary as well as Vascular etc.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 8, 2010)

field said:


> I just think it's a shame we actually would even have a conversation about cutting out public land with all the other things that could be cut out?



I agree.  If I was thinking of it like that it would be a shame, but I don't mean it like that.  I'm not presenting this as a solution to current problems.  I guess I'm talking about this more in the abstract - I mean, the whole concept of the government owning and maintaining land.


----------



## field (Apr 8, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> I agree.  If I was thinking of it like that it would be a shame, but I don't mean it like that.  I'm not presenting this as a solution to current problems.  I guess I'm talking about this more in the abstract - I mean, the whole concept of the government owning and maintaining land.


I do believe run right the land can pay for itself. Revenue collected by not just hunters, hikers etc., timber managed it could be maybe profitable? 
Sorry if I offended you in anyway, I got caught up with the negative white noise. Check old posts, Redlevel is known for being a negative keyboard cowboy. I guess he is not shown enough attention @ home, poor career choices, who knows?
Back to public land, I know a lot of young people
who hunt public. If it makes a lasting impression on a young hunter, and I have seen it than
I have also seen a lot of kids score on the youth hunts.


----------



## garnede (Apr 8, 2010)

Throwback said:


> If it (gov't land)  is so important for the country to survive, why was it not done by any president on a large scale until the rise or progressivism?
> 
> T



First there have always been progresives.  Second the reason noone felt the need for parks, reserves, and national forest is because the government, which owned the land, was trying to give it to people to get them to populate the country.  There was always a surplus of large tracts of undeveloped land to hunt.  Now the population has grown to the point that we would turn every reasonably flat piece of land into suburbs and strip malls.



hayseed_theology said:


> This is true.  I made the bowling comment because the primary argument being used is about the preservation of hunting as a sport.  So I chose a random sport.  Multiple uses and benefits of public land is a different argument(basically the one Coastie is making).
> 
> However, after thinking about it, I think the comparison is more fair than I realized at first.  A WMA is not _strictly_ about hunting, but I would argue that it is _primarily_ about hunting.  That's why hunters are charged extra to use it but hikers and bird watchers aren't.  If it was primarily about providing a sanctuary for wildlife, the hunting access would be much more restricted.  I mean, at least 70% of the ppl responding to this poll agree that they are over-hunted.
> 
> A bowling alley is not _strictly_ about bowling, although it is _primarily_ about bowling.  Bowling alleys usual have an arcade.  They often times have pool tables and air hockey tables.  They normally have some sort of restaurant/concession stand with tables to eat at.  And let's say the gov't was running a free one.  It provides jobs in a community that is struggling financially.  And, they decided to do a free bowling league to help get underprivileged, inner city kids off the street.  Also, let's say they built it in an old abandoned warehouse that had been described as "worn out" and "useless," and lets just say it was on land that had been stolen from the Indians anyway  Now it's about more than just bowling, does that make it right then?



They can charge hunters access fees because we are "consumptive users".  We use the land in a way that if it is not properly managed will make it less enjoyable for every user.  Bowling is a private enterprise, we the people own the wild game and the fish.  Would you rather revert to midevil england where the kings and lords owned the land and the animals and no one could hunt them without paying a fee.  That is what texas has become, Pay the land barons a fee to come hunt "their" deer.  Can you explain how a wild animal can be owned by a private person or company?


----------



## Son (Apr 8, 2010)

NO, remember taxpayers paid for all that land. It's not the governments to sell.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 8, 2010)

Son said:


> NO, remember taxpayers paid for all that land. It's not the governments to sell.



Yeah, but you could say that about anything the government owns - like the majority ownership of GM.  We paid for it, so it's not the governments to sell.


----------



## Throwback (Apr 8, 2010)

Son said:


> NO, remember taxpayers paid for all that land. It's not the governments to sell.



Then they can never sell anthing they have ever bought. 


T


----------



## Cottontail (Apr 9, 2010)

The fact is what could we do if they wanted to sell it ? Not one dang thang !! Thats just the hard truth. Its not if they sell it its when they sell it.


----------



## Coastie (Apr 9, 2010)

hayseed_theology said:


> I agree.  If I was thinking of it like that it would be a shame, but I don't mean it like that.  I'm not presenting this as a solution to current problems.  I guess I'm talking about this more in the abstract - I mean, the whole concept of the government owning and maintaining land.



Government, in all of its forms have always owned land. In our case where we are in concept a "Government of the people, for the people and by the people" then it is in fact "We the People" that own the land and those government entities responsible for the land maintain it for us. If we, over the years have abdicated our responsibilty to control the government by allowing them to place into effect restrictive measures regulating our use and access to that land then perhaps it is now time to change some of those regulations not sell off the land to the highest bidder. Land, once developed, is useless for nearly anything other than the use for which it was developed. Perhaps, almost by accident, our public lands are now about the only thing remaining here in the U.S. that provides some type of buffer between the cities and total encroachment of mankind on the landscape. We need those buffers to provide watersheds and raw materials for our collective future. Recreational use of those lands, again, is secondary to the primary importance of them. Just as our second ammendment rights are not about being able to own a weapon in order to go forth and slay bambi, the publicly held land is not primarily for recreation. It is interesting to note that of the respondents to the poll provided at the beginning of this thread, only 7 have expressed some interest in having public lands sold, over 90% have said that they should not be yet two or three folks keep hammering on it to seemingly make the point that government has no business owning property in any form and private ownership of these lands would be in all of our best interest regardless of the fact that private stewardship of wild areas has not been all that successful any place it has been tried. Business interests and public access do not mix.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 9, 2010)

Coastie said:


> Government, in all of its forms have always owned land. In our case where we are in concept a "Government of the people, for the people and by the people" then it is in fact "We the People" that own the land and those government entities responsible for the land maintain it for us. If we, over the years have abdicated our responsibilty to control the government by allowing them to place into effect restrictive measures regulating our use and access to that land then perhaps it is now time to change some of those regulations not sell off the land to the highest bidder. Land, once developed, is useless for nearly anything other than the use for which it was developed. Perhaps, almost by accident, our public lands are now about the only thing remaining here in the U.S. that provides some type of buffer between the cities and total encroachment of mankind on the landscape. We need those buffers to provide watersheds and raw materials for our collective future. Recreational use of those lands, again, is secondary to the primary importance of them. Just as our second ammendment rights are not about being able to own a weapon in order to go forth and slay bambi, the publicly held land is not primarily for recreation. It is interesting to note that of the respondents to the poll provided at the beginning of this thread, only 7 have expressed some interest in having public lands sold, over 90% have said that they should not be yet two or three folks keep hammering on it to seemingly make the point that government has no business owning property in any form and private ownership of these lands would be in all of our best interest regardless of the fact that private stewardship of wild areas has not been all that successful any place it has been tried. Business interests and public access do not mix.



Well, I think is by far the best post of the whole thread.  I'm gonna have to think on it for a while.  I will say a few things now, and write another response tonight.  

I agree that government must own some land to fulfill its purpose.  The question for me is how much and what is a legitimate reason for owning that land.  Yesterday, I skimmed over the constitution and the amendments a couple times trying to help answer this question for me.

I wasn't surprised that less than 10% of the ppl would entertain the thought of selling it.  The American people have become very accustomed to the government doing things for them.  It's not natural to question something that has been around for a while, much less something that benefits me.  Yes, there are only 3 of us that are strongly questioning the government's role in land ownership, but I will also point out that there are only maybe 3 ppl (yourself included) that I think are making good arguments for keeping it.  What I found really surprising about the poll is that basically 25% of ppl think the system is just fine.  I'm debating the idea of selling it, but I readily admit that I think they are over-hunted.  I thought 85-90% would choose option A.


----------



## Son (Apr 9, 2010)

I'm not a tree or bunnie hugger, but I've seen what happens to prestine land that used to be public accessable land when it sells. It turns into subdivisions and polution. I've also spent much of my life defending our right to use public lands.  They can sell Chevy if the want and send me my share. I have one and it stays broken down.
Plastic don't rust, but it doesn't hold up long either.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 9, 2010)

Son said:


> I've also spent much of my life defending our right to use public lands.



I always thought the oath for officers was something like " . . . . . . . support and defend the Constitution of the United States . . . . . . "  and additionally, in the case of enlisted personnel, to  " . . . . . obey lawful orders . . . . ."

I learn something new each day.  When did they add the part about our so-called "right" to use public lands?


----------



## Rich Kaminski (Apr 10, 2010)

*I thought I remembered reaading years ago*

that the taxes that hunters pay on guns, ammo, etc was used to purchase state lands for hunting. If that is true, then we the hunters own that land and placed it into state hands to be manager appropriately to insure the hunting rules are being adhered to. I don't think it gives the government the right to sell any of those lands. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Coastie (Apr 10, 2010)

Rich Kaminski said:


> that the taxes that hunters pay on guns, ammo, etc was used to purchase state lands for hunting. If that is true, then we the hunters own that land and placed it into state hands to be manager appropriately to insure the hunting rules are being adhered to. I don't think it gives the government the right to sell any of those lands. But I could be wrong.



I believe this thread is and has been about federal lands, not state owned lands. As for taxpayer funding, we may never know where the Pitman Robertson fund monies are all spent at the state level after it leaves federal hands since there is no mandate that it be used to purchase land. Salaries, equipment, seed, fertilizer and vehicles may also be purchased with those monies as far as I know. I would imagine that if you are concerned enough to know where they are spent you could ask by using an FOIA request for an accounting.


----------



## Coastie (Apr 10, 2010)

There are, within the federal system, two organizations that control the majority of those lands commonly known as National Forests or Grasslands. They are the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, both fall under the US department of  the interior or the US Department of Agriculture whichever they are known as this week. Both have the ability to purchase or sell lands for public use and both have the ability to set regulations with the force of law over the use of those properties. Here in the east, there has not been a lot of wheeling and dealing done with federal lands when compared to that done in the west. I know that there are those that know of specific practices that they would consider to fall within that category, but I am talking about decisions that affect millions of acres, not a couple of thousand at a time. In the west, millions of acres of grazing lands are leased to private individuals for raising their livestock at very reasonable rates (from my point of view since I don't have to write the annual check to pay for that lease) Here in the east most private usage of national forest properties are either purely recreational or are the result of logging fees paid to the forest service for a particular block of timber. About the only other use of public land would be for mining or oil exploration and we all know how that has turned out over the past several decades. For those that would like to see federal properties sold, how about an alternative? How about long term leases for the purpose of recreational use whether it be hunting, fishing, skiing or something else with strict provision within the lease to guarantee that the land is not abused and that the public have fair access to that land for the life of the lease. The government could realize an income for that property, people could use it and the land would be cared for at the expense of those leasing it yet still be held by "WE the People"
Both organizations over the years have worked out deals on a like for like basis where properties that are not adjacent to or contigious with the main body of the forest have been swapped or sold to private owners in order to make the stewardship of the total property more convenient and cost effective, so there is precedent for selling properties at the convenience of the government and for a change it makes sense. Sometimes, perhaps, you can have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 10, 2010)

Rich Kaminski said:


> that the taxes that hunters pay on guns, ammo, etc was used to purchase state lands for hunting. If that is true, then we the hunters own that land and placed it into state hands to be manager appropriately to insure the hunting rules are being adhered to. I don't think it gives the government the right to sell any of those lands. But I could be wrong.



You are speaking of Pittman-Robertson funds, I believe.  I alluded to this in my first post in this thread, I believe.  I voted in the poll that the government, speaking in this case of the state government, should sell about half of the land it owns because I think land purchased with P-R funds has been purchased legitimately, and that it should be maintained for sportsmen.   I do believe that the land should be maintained completely by fees paid by those who use it and with P-R funds, not by taxpaid funds from the general treasury.   I agree that government has absolutely no right to sell land acquired by use of P-R funds.   The article makes no mention of land purchases using these funds, only management.  I would assume (dangerous, I know) that P-R funds have been used in the past to purchase land.



Coastie said:


> I believe this thread is and has been about federal lands, not state owned lands. As for taxpayer funding, we may never know where the Pitman Robertson fund monies are all spent at the state level after it leaves federal hands since there is no mandate that it be used to purchase land. Salaries, equipment, seed, fertilizer and vehicles may also be purchased with those monies as far as I know. I would imagine that if you are concerned enough to know where they are spent you could ask by using an FOIA request for an accounting.



You could be correct, although I believe the OP referred to both state and federal lands, and specified WMAs.

My main thrust in my posts has been in relation to state maintained WMAs.  As I stated above, I have no objections to the WMAs as long as they are maintained by user fees and P-R funds.   Here is the article I referred to in the Macon Telegraph that has some info about the P-R monies.

http://www.macon.com/2010/03/25/107...&&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
Posted on Thu, Mar. 25, 2010
Fears of gun limits trigger a boon for wildlife
BY S. HEATHER DUNCAN
Gun enthusiasts who still fear new regulations from the administration of President Obama have been stockpiling for more than a year, with an unexpected side benefit: a windfall for wildlife conservation.
That’s because a tax on guns, ammunition and bow-hunting weaponry goes into a fund that is split among the states to be used for conservation.
Rusty Garrison, assistant chief of game management for the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, said Georgia received almost a third more money from these taxes in 2010 than in the previous year. That has helped offset the cuts the department has faced during state budget cuts.
Georgia received $9.8 million in 2009, compared to $6.8 million the year before, Garrison said. The biggest beneficiaries are the state’s 86 wildlife management areas and its hunter training and education programs.
Local firearms sales way up
Although more than a year has passed since Obama’s inauguration without new gun regulations being proposed, local gun shop owners say the spike in sales continues, making the business somewhat recession-proof.
“Stockpiling happens daily,” said Harry Dehart, owner of Firearm Traders Warehouse in Macon. “They’re worried about the confiscation of firearms or that the government is going to stop or tag the sales of ammunition.”
Dehart said law enforcement officials have been stockpiling too.
He advises his friends to just buy what they need. “But people are not convinced it’s not going to happen,” Dehart said.
Hamp Dowling, owner of Eagle Gun Range and Gun Shop in Macon, isn’t convinced either.
He said he’s seen a 35 to 40 percent increase in gun sales during the last year, and sales of ammunition have doubled. He attributes that to a combination of fear of crime and fear of new gun limits.
“Last year was our best year ever,” said Dowling, who has been in business 14 years.
Dowling said he has a waiting list for boxes of premium ammunition, and the manufacturer he works with has expanded production to six days a week.
Wildlife programs benefit
The 10 to 11 percent tax on each of those sales goes into the Pittman-Robertson Fund, which was created by the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937. Each state provides a 25 percent match to receive its portion, which is based on the size of the state and the number of gun licenses sold there.
But even the state match can become difficult with current budget constraints, Garrison said. Georgia mostly provides its match through employee and volunteer time, he said.
Garrison said about $3 million of the federal funds go toward planting food plots, conducting research and otherwise improving the popular wildlife management areas, which in Middle Georgia include Oaky Woods, Ocmulgee, Cedar Creek, Rum Creek, Beaverdam and many more. This foots the bill for two-thirds of the management activities there, which are aimed at game species such as deer and ducks but benefit many others.
For example, thinning pine forests to benefit quail also helps migratory birds, including threatened warblers, he said. And many wildlife management areas are now being converted back to longleaf pine forests, an endangered ecosystem that once dominated south Georgia and supports endangered species such as indigo snakes and red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Garrison said the 1937 law is a major reason that Georgia has so many wildlife management areas, which are especially important in states like Georgia that don’t have much public land.
The gun tax also pays for:
— Hunter surveys used to establish hunting seasons annually;
— Wildlife research on species like waterfowl and turkeys, as well as a current long-term study of coyotes on two Middle Georgia wildlife management areas;
— The state’s hunter education programs, which train about 15,000 hunters a year on safety before they receive gun licenses; and
— Hunter recruitment programs and archery programs at public schools.
“To me, this is one of the better pieces of legislation that ever came out of Washington, because it has paid for the conservation of our natural resources in this country,” Garrison said. “My concern is always that when a federal budget crisis happens, they’ll start looking around at, ‘Where can we get more money?’ ’’
To reach writer S. Heather Duncan, call 744-4225.


----------



## bearhunter39 (Apr 10, 2010)

this is the worst idea i have ever heard of ,and i mean worst ,sounds like somebody has got a screw loose


----------



## redlevel (Apr 10, 2010)

Seriously, bearhunter, tell me why this is such a bad idea?

Almost any other forum you go to, especially the political forum, and very often the hunting forums when the subject is enforcement or new regulations, everyone wants the e-vile gooberment to get out of our lives.  Why, on this issue, do nearly three-fourths of the people who have responded to the poll want the government to get deeper involved in buying up land?

I ask again, besides the P-R funds, where should the money come from to buy more land for the government, and to maintain what the govt has now?


----------



## bearhunter39 (Apr 10, 2010)

if they did sell any of our land,they would just waste the money on something stupid and then we would have no land to hunt,fish or camp on,only the rich would have land,no we need to make all the freeloaders in this country pay their own way,or go back to where they came from.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 10, 2010)

bearhunter39 said:


> no we need to make all the freeloaders in this country pay their own way



What about the freeloaders who think the government should provide them with a free place to hunt, fish, and camp?


----------



## bearhunter39 (Apr 10, 2010)

that's why we have to purchase a hunting license ,also do you honestly think they would use the money  wisely,and this land was set aside years ago for these very reasons,if you think our fine government would do the right thing with this money you have real problems,every time i go hunting,fishing or camping,i have to pay some type of fee,not counting all the tax money the government gets on guns,ammo ,gas ,fishing bait ,so what is your definition of free,


----------



## redlevel (Apr 10, 2010)

bearhunter39 said:


> that's why we have to purchase a hunting license ,also do you honestly think they would use the money  wisely,and this land was set aside years ago for these very reasons,if you think our fine government would do the right thing with this money you have real problems,every time i go hunting,fishing or camping,i have to pay some type of fee,not counting all the tax money the government gets on guns,ammo ,gas ,fishing bait ,so what is your definition of free,



All of us who hunt on property we own or lease have to pay the same fees, licenses,  taxes on gas, guns, ammo, and fish bait, etc that you do, plus we pay thousands per year in property taxes, interest on loans, upkeep, or lease fees.   You pay what, $19 per year for access to WMAs?

That, sir, is my definition of free.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 10, 2010)

bearhunter39 said:


> that's why we have to purchase a hunting license ,also do you honestly think they would use the money  wisely,and this land was set aside years ago for these very reasons,if you think our fine government would do the right thing with this money you have real problems,every time i go hunting,fishing or camping,i have to pay some type of fee,not counting all the tax money the government gets on guns,ammo ,gas ,fishing bait ,so what is your definition of free,



Do I think they would spend the money wisely? Prob not.  But that's not really the discussion we are having.  We are discussing whether or not the government should own and maintain land for the purpose of recreation.

I said free because I mean largely subsidized.  If you believe your small fees at the campsite, your hunting/fishing license, or your tax paid on sporting goods even comes close to paying for the benefits made available to you, I think you are mistaken.  The excise tax on your hunting and fishing gear goes into the Robertson-Pittman fund that has been talked about in this thread.  In the article that Redlevel posted, the DNR mentioned that they had received 10 million dollars from this fund in 2009.  Do you know what the DNR's budget was that year?  Over 300 million dollars!!! And, that doesn't even include the purchase of any land.  That's just the maintenance of it and enforcement of the rules.  In 2006-2007, there were 240,000 deer hunters in GA; if everyone of them bought a Sportsman's license(which they didn't) for $55, that would only be 13 million dollars.  You've still got 277 million to go, and it's not gonna be made up by your camper fee or fishing licenses.  And that's still not even purchasing any land.

So the fact is, other people are paying for your privilege to hunt, fish, and camp on public land.  While you pay some fee, it is negligible.


----------



## tv_racin_fan (Apr 11, 2010)

The govt does not own land for the purpose of recreation. Lake Lanier for instance is owned by the govt for the purpose of flood control not recreation. The WMA's are not owned for recreation, they are owned and maintained for the purpose of wildlife preservation.


----------



## field (Apr 11, 2010)

bearhunter39 said:


> if they did sell any of our land,they would just waste the money on something stupid and then we would have no land to hunt,fish or camp on,only the rich would have land,no we need to make all the freeloaders in this country pay their own way,or go back to where they came from.
> I hope they buy more land! If we could cut out farm subsidy and the illegals.... they have been keeping around, we could afford more land!
> Imagine farmers going to work a whole year without sitting around talking about the weather!
> We get more land to hunt on......illlegals go back to Mexico.....farmers actually make profits or go out of business.
> ...


----------



## redlevel (Apr 11, 2010)

tv_racin_fan said:


> The WMA's are not owned for recreation, they are owned and maintained for the purpose of wildlife preservation.



That isn't what the DNR says.

http://www.georgiawildlife.com/hunting
_GEORGIA'S WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS
Stretching from the mountains to the sea, Georgia has more than 90 Wildlife Management Areas (WMA) throughout the state. In fact, there’s one within an hour’s drive of every Georgian. Through the WMA system, hunters have access to nearly one million acres of hunting land for the price of one WMA license. WMA lands are managed specifically to provide hunting opportunities and additionally for conservation of our valuable natural resources. Check out the current hunting regulations for a list of specialty hunts offered at various WMAs, including ladies-only hunts and adult-child hunts._


You also might want to note that there is a very big difference between "preservation" and "conservation."


----------



## tv_racin_fan (Apr 11, 2010)

"WMA lands are managed specifically to provide hunting opportunities" there is also a difference between manage and own.

But just for the record my local WMA is open for deer hunting one weekend out of the month. Doesn't seem like they are providing that land for the hunters to me or specifically for recreation in fact. Now maybe I am confused and one weekend a month is all any hunter should want or for that matter need but I know that most of the people here don't hunt a couple weekends a year and call it good.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 11, 2010)

tv_racin_fan said:


> "WMA lands are managed specifically to provide hunting opportunities" there is also a difference between manage and own.
> 
> But just for the record my local WMA is open for deer hunting one weekend out of the month. Doesn't seem like they are providing that land for the hunters to me or specifically for recreation in fact. Now maybe I am confused and one weekend a month is all any hunter should want or for that matter need but I know that most of the people here don't hunt a couple weekends a year and call it good.



What is your local WMA?  What is the deer population like?  Is deer hunting the only kind of hunting that goes on there?   Turkey?  Small game?

I think maybe your argument might fit National Forests owned by the Federal Govt.  more than it does the WMAs.  If the major reason for acquisition and maintenance of WMAs has not been for hunting, then there are going to be an awful lot of surprised hunters in Georgia.   Maybe I have been grossly misled, but every time I look at the DNR website or the regulations and seasons book put out by the state each year,  the opportunities for hunters on the WMAs are highly touted.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 11, 2010)

(Note to self:    ignore self-important, narcissistic chancre mechanics or glorified bed-pan toters, whichever the case may be.)


----------



## field (Apr 11, 2010)

*You make me laugh!*



redlevel said:


> All of us who hunt on property we own or lease have to pay the same fees, licenses,  taxes on gas, guns, ammo, and fish bait, etc that you do, plus we pay thousands per year in property taxes, interest on loans, upkeep, or lease fees.   You pay what, $19 per year for access to WMAs?
> 
> That, sir, is my definition of free.



1000.OO IN PROPRTY TAXES? Taylor County? Farm Land?
Only if its a couple hundred acres plus! Yeah I got .25 million plus land in Harris County, couple of thousand a year @ most?...more expensive than Taylor(We got Pine Mountain, Realtree, good schools etc.)

His $19 pays for hunting rights.......State is not in it for a profit, they still regulate it and have timber value going for them.....


----------



## field (Apr 11, 2010)

*I like you!*



redlevel said:


> (Note to self:    ignore self-important, narcissistic chancre mechanics or glorified bed-pan toters, whichever the case may be.)



You're trying so hard to make my career look bad, until I have to save your butt from eating too many fried chicken dinners!


----------



## field (Apr 11, 2010)

Note to self (don't wake up tommorow morning and realize my life is a lie, I take free federal money... I don't deserve, I have a taxpayer funded retirement!) I am a conservative!


----------



## field (Apr 11, 2010)

*Sorry got interupted!*



redlevel said:


> (Note to self:    ignore self-important, narcissistic chancre mechanics or glorified bed-pan toters, whichever the case may be.)



Back @ the task @hand, you got a LITTLE DISEASE problem? Better tell Mrs. Farmer/Teacher about it, blame it on all the free time! It's summer no school to teach.....and well.......peaches kind a grow themselves, and hey your a boomer..... free love man?

Bowel problems? Let me recomend DEPENDS! It's for PEOPLE who can no longer CONTROL themselves.......you can now sit @ the coffee shop, talk about the weather and not even have that pesky interruption of using the restroom.


----------



## Throwback (Apr 11, 2010)

field said:


> 1000.OO IN PROPRTY TAXES? Taylor County? Farm Land?
> Only if its a couple hundred acres plus! Yeah I got .25 million plus land in Harris County, couple of thousand a year @ most?...more expensive than Taylor(We got Pine Mountain, Realtree, good schools etc.)
> 
> His $19 pays for hunting rights.......State is not in it for a profit, they still regulate it and have timber value going for them.....





call them and ask what happens to the timber money. 

Oh, and does the state or feds or local gov't pay taxes on their land? 


T


----------



## ArmyTaco (Apr 11, 2010)

redlevel said:


>



touche'


----------



## Quercus Alba (Apr 11, 2010)

I think we need to purchase more while we still have the chance.


----------



## redlevel (Apr 11, 2010)

Quercus Alba said:


> I think we need to purchase more while we still have the chance.



Whose money do you propose we use to buy it?


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 11, 2010)

redlevel said:


> Whose money do you propose we use to buy it?



Yours


----------



## Throwback (Apr 11, 2010)

redlevel said:


> Whose money do you propose we use to buy it?



"the rich" which is defined as anyone with more money than they have. 


T


----------



## Bigdipper (Apr 16, 2010)

In thenlong term the government would actually lose money. Since it's about 20 bucks for a wma permit and there are thousands of ppl that use wma's each year this source of revenue is actually fairly large. In the short term It might be benificial to chipping away at the deficit To sell but not in the long term. Even bringing that up is makin Roosevelt turn over in his grave right now.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 16, 2010)

Bigdipper said:


> In thenlong term the government would actually lose money. Since it's about 20 bucks for a wma permit and there are thousands of ppl that use wma's each year this source of revenue is actually fairly large. In the short term It might be benificial to chipping away at the deficit To sell but not in the long term. Even bringing that up is makin Roosevelt turn over in his grave right now.




I would disagree with you on how significant of an amount of money that is.  I still haven't been able to find data for how many WMA stamps are sold each year, but lets just say every deer hunter in GA (roughly 240,0000) bought a WMA stamp(which they did not)  that would only be 8.4 million a year, which does not even account for 3% of the DNR's annual budget.


----------



## Throwback (Apr 16, 2010)

about 1/3 of DNR WRD's budget comes from license sales, 1/3 from federal money (grants/matching funds, etc) and 1/3 from state coffers. 

T


----------



## Derek Edge (Apr 17, 2010)

The only problem I have with the idea of selling "some" of the land is that the government gets the money and then what?  Do you honestly think they would make good use of the funds?  Heck no, and then the land is lost forever.  Sorry, I have no trust in the government at all at this point.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 17, 2010)

Derek Edge said:


> The only problem I have with the idea of selling "some" of the land is that the government gets the money and then what?  Do you honestly think they would make good use of the funds?  Heck no, and then the land is lost forever.  Sorry, I have no trust in the government at all at this point.



Yeah, I think everyone agrees that they wouldn't make good use of the money, but you could say that about anything the gov't owns.  Once again with GM, I could say they shouldn't sell it b/c they'll just waste it on something else.

The discussion is focusing on whether or not the gov't should own and maintain recreational land.  And furthermore, if they do, who should pay for it purchasing and maintaining it?


----------



## Derek Edge (Apr 17, 2010)

Yea, sorry, I read you're first post and then commented.  Your initial question was "should the government sell it's public land to consume the national debt", not who should pay for puchasing and maintenance.  It's always funny to see where these threads go.  Silly me, I guess I should have sat here and read through all the bashing that seems to be going on.  And for what it's worth, I don't hunt WMA's and don't care too.  Luckily I have enough places to hunt between my family and in-laws.  I just don't like the idea of taking those lands away from our kids future.  Furthermore, yes, where the money is spent is a concern, because if it's not spent to consume the national debt (remember, that's what the post was about) then what have we achieved?


----------



## hayseed_theology (Apr 17, 2010)

Derek Edge said:


> Yea, sorry, I read you're first post and then commented.  Your initial question was "should the government sell it's public land to consume the national debt", not who should pay for puchasing and maintenance.  It's always funny to see where these threads go.  Silly me, I guess I should have sat here and read through all the bashing that seems to be going on.



Yeah, when I first threw the question out there I mentioned that as a possible use for the money(I also mentioned other possible uses for the money).  People like you have pointed out that that would be a mistake, and I agree.  Irresponsible spending must be addressed on its own.  My comment on the national debt has turned out to be misleading.  I started the thread b/c I was questioning the constitutionality of publicly held recreational land.  In presenting the question, I just threw out reducing the national debt as a possible use.  That wasn't really the focus in my mind, but it has been the focal point for many of the responders.  My fault for misleading.  The debate has also drifted back and forth between federal and state land.   The discussion has gotten more refined and focused since my OP.  Amidst the bashing there have been some good points made on both sides of the argument.


----------



## whitworth (Apr 19, 2010)

*Some government action is good actions*

And I would include the government's preservation of land within the United States.  

Yellowstone would never exist without government intervention.  My disagreement is that more of this land, like Yellowstone, should be open for some hunting.


----------

