HUNTER INTRODUCES TEDDY ROOSEVELT BRING BACK OUR PUBLIC LANDS ACT(Duncan Hunter)

House.gov ^ | 7/31/07 | Duncan Hunter

[pissant]

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) today announced the introduction of the Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back our Public Lands Act in the U.S. House of Representatives. The legislation seeks to reduce costs incurred by out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property.

Congressman Hunter’s statement of introduction follows:

“In 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great “Outdoor President,” with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

“From the Adirondacks and the Blue Ridge of the East to the Sierra Nevada of California, every outdoorsman could now be the master of enormous sporting opportunities. The only price was a stretch of the legs and an investment of time and a modicum of woodsmanship.

“Because of Teddy’s Roosevelt’s leadership and efforts, the public land of the federal government became truly the “estate” of the average American.

“A carpenter in Indiana or Iowa could saddle up the old Chevy pick-up and take his sons elk or deer hunting on a long weekend in Colorado. A steel worker in Pennsylvania could drive “straight through” with his pals to that certain Aspen grove in Western Wyoming where big bucks always abounded on opening morning. Thus, until a few years ago, the outdoor legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and the birthright of outdoor Americans were secure.

“Not any more.

“Today, bureaucracies in state governments are closing down the outdoor opportunities for average Americans. They are slamming the door on outdoor families the old fashioned way: with outrageous fees for non-resident hunters, even when the hunting is done exclusively on federal land.

“For example, the out-of-state license fee in Wyoming is $281 for deer, $481 for elk; in Colorado it is $301 for deer, $501 for elk; in Montana, it is $643 for both. In New Mexico, if two sons decide to take their dad on a weekend getaway, they each face fees of $355 for deer and $766 for elk.

“What makes these high prices so unfair is that they are applied to out-of-state American outdoorsmen who hunt exclusively on federal property. The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans. The notion that they are viewed as the domain of state legislatures runs against the principle of public usage of federal property.

“Certainly, individual states have the right to regulate the private land and state-owned property within their boundaries. No one quarrels with that. But placing prohibitive fees on hunting that is conducted on federal public lands quickly becomes a method of exclusion.

“What happens, for example, if New Mexico should raise its out-of-state fees to $2,000 for bull elk? This increase would have the same effect as a locked gate for thousands of average Americans who want to hunt elk on any of the six national forests in New Mexico, over 11 million acres of federally owned land.

“The bill I am introducing today will restore acres for all American hunters to Theodore Roosevelt’s “Great Estate” of national forests and other public land. I acknowledge that some small amount of states’ wildlife resources are expended on federally owned and managed lands. Therefore, it is only right that out-of-state hunters share in this minimal expense.

“My bill, therefore, says this: No state may charge more than $200 for a big game license, specifically, elk, deer, antelope or bear, for hunting that is carried out exclusively on national forest or BLM federal land.

“The $200 fee strikes a balance between two interests. The first interest is the state’s legitimate need to recoup the few dollars that it expends in the management of federal land. The second, and most important, is the interest of helping that father with two teenagers who does not have the $2,300 the state of New Mexico will charge this year for a family of three to hunt on national forest for bull elk.

“In most cases, even a $200 fee will be a windfall for states; far out-pacing any help they give the federal government for wildlife management in national forests. Any American, from any state, should be allowed to earn a fall morning hunting elk in the Rockies with a healthy hike and a good shooting eye, regardless if he has a large bank account. My bill restores that opportunity.”

The Teddy Roosevelt Bring Back Our Public Lands Act has been referred to the House Committee on Resources for further consideration.

[pissant]

This will drive PETA nuts.

[ejonesie22]

They have already been driven to nuts.

And berries, celery, cabbage, tofu, carrots...

[pissant]

Oh, and no sex with carnivores

[Red6]

Hunter is awesome!

[billbears]

“In 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great “Outdoor President,” with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

Excuse me?!? Sell it off. To private bidders. National parks too. There's no sense for the federal government to own land. Perhaps in 1792, and only then to sell it off to the highest bidder. But today? No.

[Carry_Okie]

“In 1909, when President Theodore Roosevelt signed the last piece of legislation successfully creating over 42 million acres of national forest, the American outdoorsman came into his own. Our great “Outdoor President,” with a stroke of his pen, dedicated more land to American citizens for hunting and fishing than all the royal estates of Europe combined.

Thus creating an incompetent and malfeasant armed government monopoly in the land entertainment business. They get their product for free, can afford to charge nothing to use it, and don't have to worry about liability. Who could afford to compete with that?

The USFS holds over 190 million acres at risk of catastrophic fire. Hunter thinks this was a good thing? I sure don't think so. Here's what you get:

The USFS holds over 190 million acres at similar risk of catastrophic fire. Now here's a photo of private ground just down the road that survived the same fire.

Boy, do I need to get to that boy and straighten him out but good. I've offered to talk to them, because it's going to take at least a year for the guy to get up to speed on how the enviro-racket works and how to fix it.

[jazusamo]

Good for Duncan Hunter, non resident license fees have gone completely out of sight.

[pissant]

Good luck with that one.

[Cold Heart]

Mixed feelings on this one. Although I would like to pay less for tags when I hunt out of state, I don’t like the idea of the federal government having any say in hunting.
The game is not owned by the land owner.

I would rather see the federal government use tax dollars from say New York city to reimburse the out of state hunter. I would also accept tax dollars from New Jersey for the reimbursement.

[absolootezer0]

yeah, and turn all that land into strip malls, and factories, and housing developments, leaving us with no national forrests?

[taxed2death]

“Excuse me?!? Sell it off. To private bidders.”

Think about it. Really. Do you want Ted Turner and all his Lib-pals buying up huge swaths of land and then donating it to some left wing eco-nutters when they die?

That is EXACTLY what would happen.

Let FedGov keep the land....but FORCE fedgov to give access to the taxpayers. We just need to keep the Eco-nuts in check that work for the departments that over-see OUR Federal land!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pissant]

Not sure National forests would be the first thing on my list for the Feds to divest from. I’d start with education, transportation, tobacco and alcohol, hate crimes, farming and about 50 other things first.

[Weeedley]

If this is indeed public land, a $200 fee to hunt land all the citizens own in common trust is not one bit awesome.

[ejonesie22]

Yeah, cause that bites!

[Kevmo]

Bump for Duncan Hunter, even though I’ve got no dog in this particular hunt. There’s some irony in that statement if you look for it.

[billbears]

Think about it. Really. Do you want Ted Turner and all his Lib-pals buying up huge swaths of land and then donating it to some left wing eco-nutters when they die? That is EXACTLY what would happen.

So? Gives you reason to save up and buy some of your own doesn't it? And they have to pay tax on it don't they? Think of the tax on 42 million acres of land year after year after year.

OUR Federal land!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

About this 'our' bit. I don't seem to find an argument for it. Anywhere. If you want to keep it as a preserve and charge folks to shoot on it, then by all means do so.

[billbears]

yeah, and turn all that land into strip malls, and factories, and housing developments, leaving us with no national forrests?

Hmmmmm, from a federal government standpoint (namely paying for that behemoth) which is more important? The taxes gained from honest work, production, and housing? Or a pine tree? I'm quite sure enough of it would be bought up by private trusts to keep you happy. Not to mention the millions of acres purchased by timber companies that would be continuously reseeded for more product. But no, I do not find a reasonable argument for the federal government to hold onto tens of millions of acres of land for no reason.

[vetsvette]

I think that he has little/no chance at the Presidential nomination, but you gotta love this guy.

Between the anti-hunting libs; the anti-gun nuts; and the evironmentalcases, we’re lucky we can even set foot on Federally owned land.

Maybe they should have an open season on Federal land for all nutroots.

[Disambiguator]

I lived in NM in 2000 when the USFS set a (ahem) “controlled burn” which then practically burned down the city of Los Alamos. This was the infamous Cerro Grande fire.

You can still see the devastated mountainside from downtown Los Alamos, looking west.

You’re right, the govt. hasn’t done a very good job maintaining the woods, but I think the environazis are more to blame, as they oppose any kind of sensible forest management, as trees will be cut down and possible profits taken by private businesses!

[Sonny M]

Think about it. Really. Do you want Ted Turner and all his Lib-pals buying up huge swaths of land and then donating it to some left wing eco-nutters when they die?

With that kind of logic, one could argue the government should own EVERYTHING, like they did in the soviet union.

That land should not be "communal proper", this is not a communist nation, it should be in private hands.

Let the free market decide what is the best use of that land.

[ClaireSolt]

This is not China where the government claims to own the land. I want them to sell it and reopen it for homesteading. Their poor land management is a disgrace.

[airborne]

Nuts to PETA.

It’s as much our land as it is the enviro-nazis.

Kudos to Duncan Hunter for proposing common sense legislation.

[Sonny M]

yeah, and turn all that land into strip malls, and factories, and housing developments, leaving us with no national forrests?

In a free market, if that is what the people decide, sure.

[mjolnir]

Great post!

Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, not a conservative, and he is not a political model to be emulated.

Public lands that are owned by everyone are in effect the responsibility of nobody yet the property of everyone, like the dorm fridge that everyone eats from but nobody restocks.

As Aristotle said in the Politics:

“For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he himself is concerned as an individual.”

An essential aspect of small government conservatism is therefore selling off public lands.

[Sonny M]

Excuse me?!? Sell it off. To private bidders. National parks too. There's no sense for the federal government to own land.

I agree with you 110%, but the marxist and the closet marxists and the rest of the socialist folks would go absolutly bezerk at even the idea.

They don't even like private property now.

[vetsvette]

“There’s no sense for the federal government to own land.”

Bull!!

Just as an example, why on earth would any citizen, except the elites of course, prefer that we sell off Yellowstone to the highest bidder so that it can be fenced off to the general public and have access restricted to only those of Royal bloodlines?

The Government may own lots of land better put in private hands, but they also own lots of land that is a national treasure and that can only be preserved by Federal ownership.

[airborne]

Am I missing something?

Where does it mention selling land?

[Freedom4US]

This is symptomatic of how governments react when faced with declining revenues and/or inflation. Taxing the heck out of hotels (mostly out of staters) is a classic. Florida has different tax rates for out-of-state homeowners, etc. It’s relatively painless politically because out of state folks can’t vote (or aren’t supposed to anyway)

[RightWhale]

The 190 million acres of national forest and 258 million acres of BLM are the birthright of all Americans.

Guess if you don't know. Nope, guessed wrong. It is public property and you aren't the public.

[RightWhale]

they also own lots of land that is a national treasure and that can only be preserved by Federal ownership.

Such as, for example 99% of Alaska.

[ishabibble]

Also, fishing. The gov’t got involved and it all went to hell.

GOTTA LOVE DUNCAN’S NEW BILL!!

[vetsvette]

“Such as, for example 99% of Alaska.”

I’m not suggesting that the Government doesn’t own some land that should be sold — but I am suggesting that they own lots of land that should never be made private.

I’m an avid hunter, but my beliefs aren’t selfish in nature as I have more than enough personal wealth to deal with whatever privatization that might occur. That said, with massive privatization, the average American would be forever denied access to national treasures that are the birthright of every American regardless of personal means. And, to what end — so that payment for those treasures could be squandered in about 15 minutes of leftist Government spending?

[RightWhale]

99% of Alaska isn’t just some land. It is nearly the entire state.
ANWR is on FedGov land, as is most everything else of interest to developers.
I am not aware of much of anything in Alaska that is an American birthright treasure and should not be in private hands.

[billbears]

Just as an example, why on earth would any citizen, except the elites of course, prefer that we sell off Yellowstone to the highest bidder so that it can be fenced off to the general public and have access restricted to only those of Royal bloodlines?

So? It's just a bunch of rocks isn't it? And I sincerely doubt that would happen. The private owners would recognize the gold mine they would be sitting on, both from a tourist standpoint as well as a natural resource standpoint. Strip mine one half and let tourists visit the other half. Or turn it into a massive strip mall. It would be theirs to do with as they please. The government would be receiving tax monies from it, lower taxes for us, more investment capital, you may even be able to buy some land for yourself.

I don't see 'protection of national treasures' in the Constitution anyway.

[Carry_Okie]

You’re right, the govt. hasn’t done a very good job maintaining the woods, but I think the environazis are more to blame, as they oppose any kind of sensible forest management, as trees will be cut down and possible profits taken by private businesses!

The enviro-nazis are merely useful idiots for very powerful financial interests held by tax-exempt "charitable" foundations, many with competing international investments in mining, food production, and energy. The resource agencies are equally complicit, gaining lifetime employment to manage a corrupt consent decree with the RICOnuts (court orders are considered non-discretionary spending).

If you want to know more about how this wicked system works, and how to fix it, go here. I wrote the book.

BTW, I took those pictures after the Rodeo/Chediski Fire.

[Carry_Okie]

While your list resembles much of mine, allow me to remind you of the strategic importance of domestic resource industries. Enviro-racketeering is crushing farming, mining, ranching, timber, energy production... all of which are necessary to sustain an independent nation in time of war.

Think of how we destroyed the Japanese and Germans in WWII, in part by depriving them of raw material. IMHO, we are being set up for the same thing.

[woodbutcher1963]

Great, the next thing they will want to do is cut trees down.

[pissant]

I’m all in favor of the states that are intersted negotiating with the feds to turn over some of the land. Then the states can deal with their citizens on what to do with it. However, since that is not happening on any scale to speak of, then I’m in favor of keeping the federal lands open to hunters, hikers etc. It is every bit as much my land as everyone elses until the sell it off.

[pissant]

It doesn’t.

[narby]

we sell off Yellowstone to the highest bidder

There are always ways to handle private property in very attractive locations so that everybody wins.

For example, beach front property in California must allow public access.

Personally, I think they should sell the rim country around the Grand Canyon. Seriously. From the bottom, or from one rim to the other, you can't even see the large buildings of the government run lodges. Pass some laws regarding what kind of buildings can exist, and access to public trails, then sell the whole rest of the rim.

The government has mismanaged the Grand Canyon badly. Despite charging for every car in the gate, they haven't been able to even build enough parking lots, while they threaten to close those that do exist and push everybody into a communal choo-choo-train. The road along the rim only covers about 15% of it, the other 400-500 miles are pure wilderness without even maintained trails, except down in the mid-canyon area.

Selling the rim land, even leasing a small percentage of it, would create a huge amount of wealth, and a new "destination" resort complex that would be one of the best on the planet. What we have now are the beautiful, but very out of date lodges built in TRs day, when the government wanted the people to enjoy the national parks, unlike today where the enviro-nuts dominate the Park Service and barely tolerate visitors only because they can't shut down the services that already exist.

[WildcatClan]

Hunter is a hunter, go figure, and it appears is attempting to make it affordable for as many as possible on Federal lands.

I don’t quite understand how the discussion got to selling public lands. This bill has nothing to do with selling anything except hunting fees and Hunter seems to think some of those fee’s are exorbitant.

There is plenty of private land, available to all. I see nothing wrong with selling timber rights, or allowing grazing and this is done. America is beautiful, naturally, and I see nothing wrong with preserving a small portion of that beauty, although, again, this bill has nothing to do with that.

It’s about hunting and making it more affordable. I think we ought to do whatever we can to get it done, to the extent we can, and then let the people take a look at it, if they can, if the people want this then, if its possible to do this, I think I might be for it, if that’s what the people want. I’m all for it, but I think we probably should do it, unless the people don’t want it, but if they do, we ought to take a look at it and that way I can make sure my position on this is the popular one.

[pissant]

Hunter is a big proponent of mining and oil extraction too. So leases on gov’t land for that would certianly accelerate.

[WildcatClan]

Hey, I am with you and Teddy on this. Hunter would certainly be up for selling resource rights, as would I. Like I said, there is plenty of private land and I see nothing wrong with preserving a bit for future generations to enjoy. I suppose, I am just lost as to how the discussion evolved from hunting fees to selling federal lands. :)

Regards,
Steni ( Future owner of the Grand Canyon Starbuck’s)

[airborne]

There is nothing in the bill about selling any land.

It’s about opening up public land to the citizens for more affordable hunting.

[airborne]

Hunter is a hunter!

DH is in the top row , on the right!

[trisham]

This is really excellent. Good for Hunter.

[dschapin]

Actually public access/ownership of forest lands is strongly rooted in the tradition of freedom. One of the rights that King John was forced to grant in the Magna Charta was the right to hunt in the Kings forests. If the federal government was to sell off all the forest lands working class American’s would lose the ability to enjoy these national treasures. I think that the Fed should consider selling some BLM land in the West were they own almost half of some states but I do agree with the general principle of national forests. I don’t think the wealthy have any more right to these national treasures than any other American.

[taxed2death]

“Let the free market decide what is the best use of that land.”

...and it will go to the highest bidder. What if that bidder is not a Ted Nugent type.
Again....what if Ted turner types get their hands on the majority of the “free market” land and then donate it to the Sierra Club. Then no one gets use of it.....and since it’s a non-profit Org....I believe it won’t be taxed anyway.

I guess you’re OK with that? It’s happening more and more.

My point is we should work diligently within the system to change the rules / laws regarding the use and access of Federal land by all taxpayers. At least that way... the “little guys (and gals) can still have access to it.

[vetsvette]

“There is nothing in the bill about selling any land.
It’s about opening up public land to the citizens for more affordable hunting.”

I know, I was just answering some folks that think the Government should own no land at all.

[airborne]

OK 8^)