Sportsmen Slam House Bill Limiting Public Lands Acquisitions

Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge
Sportsmen Slam House Bill Limiting Public Lands Acquisitions

Backcountry Hunters and AnglersWASHINGTON-(Ammoland.com)- A bill that would inhibit the strategic acquisition of public lands and waters for access, recreation and fish and wildlife habitat is drawing strong criticism from Backcountry Hunters & Anglers. H.R. 2167, introduced last week by Rep. Morgan Griffith of Virginia, would legislate a “no net increase” in the size of the public estate, stipulating that for every acre acquired by the federal government, an equal amount must be sold or divested to state or private interests.

The “Acre In, Acre Out Act” would unnecessarily deprive entities such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service of a critical tool in their efforts to increase public access opportunities and address the needs of specific game and fish populations, said BHA President and CEO Land Tawney.

“American citizens must remain committed to providing our land management agencies the tools they need to successfully conserve key lands and waters and enhance public access to the outdoors,” said Tawney, “and the ability to strategically acquire important acreages is central to achieving this goal.

“Under Congressman Griffith’s legislation, we the American public land owners would be forced to sell off our lands – potentially at a fraction of their value – in order to enable land managers to do their jobs,” Tawney continued. “This type of contemptible horse trading deserves to be swiftly and summarily rejected. Hunters and anglers must unite in urging our elected officials to stand strong in opposing Mr. Griffith’s bill, just as previous Congresses have done.”

This marks the third time Rep. Griffith has introduced the legislation, which so far has failed to advance.

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the sportsmen’s voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.

72
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
14 Comment threads
58 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
17 Comment authors
Brock GingeryWild BillThe RevelatorVanns40oldvet Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Al
Guest
Al

@wild bill– actually no Supreme Court over ruled Dred Scott. The 14th Amendment made slaves citizens not Supreme Court. This Court that you quote for their 1840 decision never saw the light of day and recognized how heinous slavery is.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

It is interesting when some people think their own opinion invalidates factual evidence or historical fact. Notice the dismissal and mischaracterization of our argument on the supreme court, trying to state we were calling it corrupt and that we are in error. Neither of us directly used the term corrupt in regards to the supreme court, but instead referred to the corruption of the Federal Government. The specific term we both were referencing was Politicization in regards to individuals, or the use of office to advance political agendas. It is something that has been going on since the two party… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

Politicization is a form of corruption.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Al, I did not write that it had. And I am aware of the history of the 14th Amendment. Correct, that case was not about slavery

oldvet
Guest
oldvet

@WB maybe just maybe the axe is beginning to fall. Trump fired Comey today.

oldvet
Guest
oldvet

And a head usher day or two ago, what better hide for a mole.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@oldvet, I had not heard. Bout time.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Al, I did not say or imply that Dred Scott had been overruled. U.S. v. Gratiot is one of the first cases standing for the proposition that the federal government has the authority to own property beyond forts and Washington, DC, and that is all that I used it for.

Al
Guest
Al

@wild bill –And yet you think a ruling from 1840 by the Supreme Court should still be adhered to but not one from 1857,.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Al, When the S.Ct overrules a previous S. Ct in some later opinion, that change is not based upon the mere passage of time.

BJI
Guest
BJI

Are not most of the government controlled lands NO GUN ZONES PROHIBITING CONCEALED OR OPEN CARRY OF HANDGUNS FOR SELF-DEFENSE???!!! Aren’t most of those gov’t. controlled lands POSTED NO HUNTING OR FISHING???!!! WHY do we need MORE OF THE SAME?

Gil
Guest
Gil

Sound like a lot of Trumpian property developers trying to seize public land at rock bottom prices.

Mike Murray
Guest
Mike Murray

I the government, ANY government, city, county, state, or federal, wants to seize and control more land, I AM AGAINST IT.

Scott Jordan
Guest
Scott Jordan

The Agenda 21 has morphed into the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development 2015/2030 Agenda… It had a couple of other names in-between. 1st = Rio+5 (1997) 2nd = Rio+10 (2002) 3rd = Agenda 21 for culture (2002) 4th = Rio+20 (2012) 5th = Sustainable Development (2015). Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments… Read more »

PA hunter
Guest
PA hunter

Looking at the Backcountry Huners & Anglers Wikipedia entry,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backcountry_Hunters_%26_Anglers
makes them look them look like good-guy outdoorsmen.

Clearly, there are some who question the objectivity of the Wiki entry, which reads:
“This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. Please help improve this article by adding links that are relevant to the context within the existing text. [….]

Maybe someone who knows the details could contribute to the Wiki entry.

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

They are not good guys. See my first post with who funds them. They are a false flag group.

Colonialgirl
Guest
Colonialgirl

Ammoland; KNOOCK OFF the leftist land grabbing bullshyte and work toward forcing the Federal Government BACK to its Consitutional LAND owning limits;
Washington, DC and such land AS NEEDED for Federal office buildings and military bases.

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is nothing more than a Misnamed left winger Anti-gun bunch of socialist morons.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@CG, I don’t disagree with you lightly because you are quite correct so very often, however, and with all due respect, the claim that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to manage land beyond the District of Columbia or military bases is false. A subcommittee (7 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 1 Independent) of the Conference of Western Attorneys General completed a two-year analysis of this argument and determined that it was unfounded. The S. Ct has ruled that the federal government has a right to own lands beyond DC and the various forts, going all the way back to… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Because we have never seen the Supreme Court ever used as a back door work around on our Constitution and the Founding Fathers’ original intent by activist judges before………….

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@The Revelator, I think that there were fewer politically infected S. Ct. justices in 1840. Perhaps you should appeal.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Well, it was apparently common enough that Thomas Jefferson had something to say about it. Would you like to explain this quote then? ” You seem, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions;  a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.  They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@The Rev, I would be glad to explain the Thomas Jefferson quote to you! But if you are going to put me to work, then I expect to be paid appropriately. My fee is $600 per hour. You can send it to the First National Bank of Yantis, Tx. When I get your draft for the first hour, I will get right on your thoroughly out of context quote. And that barb about feet is so vague, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Ah guys, I think we’re basically on the same side here with a few minor differences. Let’s have a beer and not make this the Alamo without a backdoor. 🙂

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Vann, you are a very good man. Perhaps it is fatigue or the late hour, but I wish that I had read your post before I responded to this person.

TS
Guest
TS

Yes, a lot of you conservatives are fonder of backdoors than you publicly let on.

Al
Guest
Al

Actually WB, the situation we find ourselves in today with a corrupt Federal government is not new. In the 1840-1860 time period it was slavery that divided the nation. In the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court ruled that slaves were indeed property. To assume that the Court was somehow virtuous during those times would be a mistake.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Al, For most of human history, slavery was a common condition, and not viewed as the evil that we know it to be, today. To conclude that the S.Ct. was corrupt, by judging it by todays standards would be a logic error. And the debate that this article generates is about the proper ownership of now public land.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

I’ve read your comments in depth, both here and in other articles on ammoland. I can say without a doubt that your services are no where near the value of $600 an hour. Maybe a couple of wooden nickels, but that’s about it. The Jefferson quote itself contains all the context within itself. That is why I posted the long form version of it, so that there would be no room for you to wiggle around and argue that it didn’t really mean what Jefferson was saying. In fact, judging by your most recent comment to AI, you are still… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Vanns40 I respect your opinion, and your call for a beer summit even though I do not drink. I have nothing against you though if you do though. I’d like to give you a clue about me. I don’t care about who wins. I care about what is right Constitutionally, Historically, and Factually. I do everything I can to keep personal opinion out of it, and when I do inject personal opinion I label it as such. “Evidence proves fact, Facts prove Truth” is a quote you will see me use quite often. I also despise hypocrisy. I am not… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rev, The context of Jefferson’s quote is that it was a private letter never intended for publication. Jefferson was pontificating on the Marshal court’s decision in Marbury. Jefferson never said this publicly, nor did he ever say that it should be public policy. Your quote was merely Jefferson being Jefferson in confidentially to his friend.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rev, I did not “…claim it stripped the Federal Government of lands for private development purposes.” I did say, “Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2017/05/sportsmen-slam-house-bill-limiting-public-lands-acquisitions-3/#ixzz4gclJ47qk Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook Managing wildfire, weed control, and roads on 640 million acres is expensive. The U.S. Forest Service spent $2.6 billion in 2015 just on fighting and managing wildfires. Sparsely populated Western states would have to raise taxes to cover those costs if they took on management of the land. Pressure would mount to sell those lands rather than raise taxes. A 2016 study by an… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rev All I opined was that the expenses of up keep may be too great for individual states to bear. The states might then sell some or all of the lands. Once the lands are in private hands, there will be no hunting for 72% of sportsmen. And that hunting is a corner stone of American tradition.

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Bill: All the millions of acres that are designated National Monuments by BLM, and that’s a lot more than just the ones that we’re familiar with (Yellowstone etc) are off limits not only to hunting but to any incursion, hiking, camping, anything! I don’t understand why these lands can’t be turned over to the States with the proviso that: 1. The States receive the same revenue rebate that the Federal Govt. was allotted. 2. The States can only use these funds for maintenance and upkeep of the lands. 3. The lands cannot be sold, leased or developed for commercial development.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Vann, I like it all but I don’t think that a limitation like it can never be sold. I know that there is a rule against perpetuities that applies to people and trusts. The idea is that land can not remain the exclusive property of a family lineage forever. I don’t know if it applies to States.
I just don’t like the idea of land, that 72% of the hunters in the US depend upon, falling into the hands of some corporation, thus depriving those hunters and following generations forever.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

Ooops, my error. It should read, ” I don’t think that a limitation like it can never be sold is legal.” Sorry.

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Bill: Actually there is precedent for selling land with stipulations in perpetuity and it’s one of the most famous in the country: Arlington National Cemetery! When the Lee Family was finally paid for the land that was seized, including the Lee Family home, one of the stipulations was that the Federal Govt. would maintain the Lee Home, as it was, in perpetuity! And they have to this very day.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Vanns, I did not know that the Lee family eventually got paid. I thought that it was just seized real-estate. Who maintains the property? Is it just like when it was seized, furniture etc?

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Went all the way up through the appellate level. Govt had ruled that since Lee had failed to pay his taxes he had forfeited the land. However, his wife had gone down with payment but Govt agaentsbstayed that it must be paid by Lee himself. This would have met his immediate arrest. After the was the family sued and won quite a large settlement. That was part of the settlement. It was put in their to rub the noses of the North in it and force them to remember it rvery time they see it or clean it. They hated… Read more »

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Sorry, I can barely stay awake. See you tomorrow

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Vanns, Wow, learn something every day. Hasta mañana, hombre.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Bill, You are referencing your reply to my comment. Here is the original quote I am referencing. “The U.S. Forest Service spent $2.6 billion in 2015 just on fighting and managing wildfires. Sparsely populated Western states would have to raise taxes to cover those costs if they took on management of the land. Pressure would mount to sell those lands rather than raise taxes.” Ok, so instead of paying taxes you are saying the land would be sold off to private interests or developers. That comment was made to me before I had ever replied to one of yours. In… Read more »

Tionico
Guest
Tionico

The “Acre In, Acre Out Act” would unnecessarily deprive entities such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service of a critical tool in their efforts to increase public access right, except it would not UNNECESSARILY deprive these illegal inconstitutuional entities their ability to seize and regulate MORE lands…. they need to be divested of their present level of control, as this federal control of lands is NOT authorised under the Constitution. these clowns are NOT acting for the good of the country. They are opposed to our US Constitutioni. ALL these lands… Read more »

Al
Guest
Al

Absolutely correct.

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

So you want the states and private owners to decide what happens with all wild country. Thank God you’re not in charge.

Al
Guest
Al

Many of these lands are already in the public’s hands because they are state owned. Allowing states to manage their own land makes sense to me. As a disabled hunter I am happy that much land remains accessible. I have seen too much land made available to only the young and fit in my lifetime. Allow all of us to use our land.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Al, The lands available to us would soon be in private hands. Managing wildfire, weed control, and roads on 640 million acres is expensive. The U.S. Forest Service spent $2.6 billion in 2015 just on fighting and managing wildfires. Sparsely populated Western states would have to raise taxes to cover those costs if they took on management of the land. Pressure would mount to sell those lands rather than raise taxes. A 2016 study by an independent consulting firm commissioned by Wyoming found the state could not afford management of 25 million acres of federal land within its boundaries. And… Read more »

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

There is a case to be made for letting wildfires run their course when they don’t endanger homes. One of the major problems is that the Park Service has forbade the removal of undergrowth, in populated areas, which fuels the fires when they do occur. A true case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Larry Brickey
Guest
Larry Brickey

I’m with Wild Bill on this. Expansion of wild lands is a good thing. I’m not sure why some are against it.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

It’s not the expansion of wild lands, it is our federal government’s ownership and views on use of large parcels of land out west. Note, the bill does not mention state lands, only “Lands purchased or held by the Federal Government.” Seems to me that was one of the problems that led up to 1776. It used to be that the king owned the land, the deer, everything else in between, and then decided who had “permission” to make use of those resources. Good intentions don’t erase evil. Do your due diligence, stay vigilant, and be careful what you support… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@The Rev, “72 percent of American hunters depend on public land”. Please see Sportsmen’s Access Coalition Website. And also see: the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, which confirms that statistic. Losing public land to private owners would be a death blow to hunting as we know it, which is a cornerstone of our American heritage.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@The Revelator, “Seventy-two percent of American hunters depend on public land”. Please see Sportsmen’s Access Coalition Website. And also see: the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, which confirms that statistic. Losing public land to private owners would be a death blow to hunting as we know it, which is a cornerstone of our American heritage.

Gil
Guest
Gil

*Gasp!* I think I might be agreeing with WB on something. :/

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

God please no.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

@Wild Bill I will again restate what was stated in my previous comment. The Bill in question is not getting rid of public access land. It is instead stating that the Federal Government can no longer continue to annex large portions of states out west, but instead leaves that open to the individual state to continue. It also does not say that the Federal Government must get rid of the land it has. All it says is that if the Federal government wants to purchase one hundred square miles of land, then they must also sell one hundred miles of… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rev, I appreciate that you took the time and effort to restate. Thank you. You write, “…the proceeds of all use of that land go to the Federal Government. Now, if that money within the state went to the state to help pay for the upkeep of the land… Wow, who knew? Common sense just reared its head. Land in Nevada should benefit people in Nevada.. Land in Wyoming should benefit people living in Wyoming. What a novel idea!” Suppose the people in Nevada or Wyoming decide that the land should only benefit them, and thus exclude Ohio hunters or… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Guess what, that is their right if they live in that state. And you know what? There is a reason we have Non-resident hunting licenses, In-state Tuition, and Residents of one state not being able to legally vote in another. In fact, here is a great example. I am one of the people who remembers back to the 1980’s and 90’s despite my current age, that states like California and Wyoming wanted to pipe great lakes water to their states for their use. Plans in 1998 also tried to ship great lakes water to Asia. So the states and Canadian… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rev, Every one of your paragraphs is a morass of vague ill defined issues. There are so many that it is impossible to deal with. Where do you get “… that is their right if they live in that state.” Who is they? What is the right that you are referring to. Are you referring to a statutory right or a state constitutional right, or a Federal civil Right? Every paragraph is a frustrating mess with little barbs thrown in as if you think that you are winning some debate. Why don’t you pick one issue and define your terms.… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Wild Bill, Just because you do not comprehend something does not invalidate it’s legitimacy or factuality. Now if it is that hard for you to figure out that Residents within a state should have greater rights within that state as opposed to non residents. Who is “they” that I am referring to? You asked “Suppose the people in Nevada or Wyoming decide that the land should only benefit them, and thus exclude Ohio hunters or non- Nevada or non-Wyoming buyers, or California hikers or Minnesota anglers?” My answer was “That is their right to do so” in regards to the… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@the rev, First, the States do not have rights, thus the governments and agencies of the States do not have any rights. See Amendment X. A State does not have the authority to exclude a resident of a different State. See Anti-Okie laws. If a State did have the authority to exclude residents from hunting in the State asserting such authority, then the public lands currently owned by the Federal Government should remain federal, so that hunters of all states could hunt on public land. Almost everything touches or concerns Interstate Commerce. The use of a napkin that may have… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Boy Bill, you really should read carefully before you comment. Remember that “Barb” about how one of your feet tastes compared to the other? Ever hear the phrase “Open mouth, insert foot”? First, Amendment Ten. “Powers not Delegated to the United States(I.E. the Federal Government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Now, I know this is hard for you, but it aint rocket science. Amendment Ten specifically limits Federal Government saying that it has only the powers Specifically listed in the constitution, and… Read more »

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

No, that means the states have authorities. You need to take a class. All your self taught concepts about the constitution are wrong. You are so broadly and deeply wrong that it is beyond my ability in a form like this to teach you. You need to learn the language and principles of constitutional interpretation. Then we will correspond.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Oh, I’m sorry. The states have “Authorities”, even though the tenth amendment says Rights. I am also guessing you think the Second Amendment is referencing the National Guard, Obama never lied to the American People, and Anna Nicole married for love. Got it. Excuse me while I step outside to laugh hysterically.

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Bill, In case you have not figured it out yet. It is specifically that loose interpretation that has our country in the mess it is in. It’s because it isn’t an interpretation at all. The Constitution is a wonderful document. It actually says what it means! In fact, the only time I have heard Barrack Obama tell the truth was when he said…. “The Constitution is actually a Charter of Negative Liberties.” That is correct, but only if you are looking at it from the viewpoint of it being a restriction on the over reach and abuse of Federalized Government.… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

In fact, We are making that point five that you have gotten wrong.

5. Instead of reading the Constitution, we must specifically be taught the correct way to think of those words like “Rights” and “The People”, and the correct Interpretations as approved by our glorious Comrades who lead the Nanny State Federal Government. After all, if they are part of the Federal Government, they are here to help.

Wild Bill
Guest
Wild Bill

@Rev, The Tenth amendment says powers. The Tenth amendment is the authority of the several states. Thus governments have powers and authorities, but only people have rights. As to: “Oh, I’m sorry. The states have “Authorities”, even though the tenth amendment says Rights.” That’s ok. I accept. Have a nice night.

Brock Gingery
Guest
Brock Gingery

The Tenth Amendment does indeed say powers. Keep in mind I specifically inserted the word right in there as a slight on your “You have to interpret Words in the Constitution to say what they actually mean comment.” So are we not doing that any more, or do you think you are the only one qualified to do so? Or are you willing to now say that Yes the Tenth Amendment does limit the Federal Government to powers only listed specifically within the constitution, and the rest are reserved to the states or the people. IE, The People. Citizens.. Individuals.… Read more »

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

@Rev: Let me jump in just for a moment here and interject one thought. Part of the problem IS the management. BLM has been notorious for its heavy handed, dare we say authoritarian attitude toward lands it has “seized” over the decades. They have it, we pay them to have it and we get absolutely no use out of it! That’s the best reason I’ve ever heard of to take it away from them and return it to the States along with the accompanying funds. My one caution would be that those funds be locked into the maintenance of the… Read more »

The Revelator
Guest
The Revelator

Spot on accurate there Vanns40. And yes, here in Ohio a common state and local government phrase is “Its ok, we can borrow money from the general/rainy day fund to pay for it!”

I’d say, don’t just be untrusting of state officials with revenue, but all government entities, State, Local, and Federal.

Richard G. Combs
Guest
Richard G. Combs

The headline should read “Leftist Ecofascist Sportsmen Slam …”

https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/

“Taken together, BHA’s funding sources and leadership make clear that the interests of hunters and anglers are the least of their concerns. Environmentalist activism is the name of the game at BHA, and hunters and anglers are just the facade.”

Jim S
Guest
Jim S

Do not believe anything this crowd says. Go search on their name and funding..

Vanns40
Guest
Vanns40

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is a false flag group funded by environmentalist wackos. Read their real history and who funds them here: https://www.greendecoys.com/decoys/backcountry-hunters-and-anglers/

Felixd
Guest
Felixd

I can’t determine if this group is just liberal or are they Socialist. And why does Ammoland seem to support them?