Federal Land acquisitions / bad idea?

[Po Monkey Lounger]

With respect to wildfowl conservation efforts, I used to be of the mindset that wetland acquisition by the federal government, via purchase using duck stamp revenues and other revenues , was a good way to use such funds. However, after the recent events in Nevada and other areas with federal overreach regarding use of such federal lands, I am changing my opinion.

As demonstrated, if the federal government owns the land, then they can control the land, deciding what the land can be used for, how , when, by whom, and at what price -- fairness, reasonableness, tradition, and prior use be dam###. And federal land -- such as NWRs ---upon which hunting is allowed on portions thereof, could be available for such use today, but not tomorrow, based upon a sudden policy change by governmental agencies that seem to be far removed from any meaningful congressional oversight and accountability to the people.

For many reasons, I am losing trust in our federal government. The federal government no longer enforces the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. Instead, the current administration only enforces the laws it likes, and does not enforce laws its doesn't like. And Congress does nothing about it. So, in such a climate of federal government lawlessness, it no longer seems like a good idea for the federal government to own and control any more lands than it currently does now. Can we really trust the federal government to continue to manage wetlands for waterfowl conservation, or to continue to allow and support public hunting on such lands? Can we trust it to continue to allow waterfowl hunting at all, so that we get to enjoy the fruits of our conservation efforts and $$$? Or to allow us to have firearms to hunt with? I don't think we can under the new "Progressive"/Socialist ideology that permeates the Democratic Party.

Well over half of all the land in Nevada is federally owned. Think about that. Further, the Feds own large chunks of other western states. It's hard to exercise state sovereignty when the Feds own most of your state.



Question: Are our federal duck stamp dollars used by the federal government to purchase more land for conservation? Or do they pay it to private landowners to conduct conservation activities? If the former, how can such be stopped?

[davidees]

Interesting post and I agree with every word, but I'm a "right wing extremist" so take it fwiw.

[Northbigmuddy]

....98% to acquire habitat

http://www.fws.gov/duckstamps/conservat ... vation.htm

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Wow. 98% of our duck stamp dollars used by federal government to PURCHASE habitat ( LAND) for use within the NWR system. The federal government is expanding its land ownership holdings every year with our money. I think we need to re-think this policy. Does the federal government really need to own more land, taking land out of the private sector and into the public sector? Is that good for our country? Is it good for our state? Is it good for us, as hunters.

What IF, the Feds decide that they aren't going to allow hunting on any NWRs. In one stroke of an agency head pen, our hunting opportunities on a lot of land, paid for by hunters, could be taken away from us. Without a vote by Congress. Without any constitutional amendment. Just a decision by an agency head, appointed by the Executive branch, at the direction of the Executive branch.

In the past, our willingness to use our duck stamp dollars in such a way was supported by a belief in, and trust in, our federal government to reasonably use such federal land, with direct oversight by members of Congress answerable to the people. By putting it in federal hands, the conventional wisdom of the past was that such lands would be forever protected from private commercial interests, and thus the duck resource protected, for the benefit of all of us who have a passion for waterfowling. Without such trust, the same previously acceptable scenario now looks much different --- a bit scary. Our Congress has apparently abrogated much of its oversight duties and responsibilities, delegating such to unelected agency heads answerable to none of us --- they have the day-to-day oversight and management of the federal government on auto-pilot, freeing them up to demagogue, hold meaningless hearings that never seem to produce any tangible results, and engage in perpetual campaigning and fundraising, cronyism, and rascalism. It will only get worse until Congress decides to take back Congress from the agencies.

I think we should seriously consider a strong push for such dollars to be used in the future to subsidize private habitat land owners for conservation efforts, as opposed to direct land purchases. Keeping the lands in private hands means keeping it out of federal government hands. If any governmental entity needs to own habitat, it should be our local state government ---- where there is more accountability to our state's citizens --- where we have more of a say in how the land is to be used and managed.

[SWAG]

[Wingman]

The main complaint I hear from people about conservation money is that they think it is going to private landowners to fix their private holes, instead of to public land.

[420 racin]

I can show you alot of land throghout the ARK-LA-MS Delta that was bought and paid for with YOUR and MY money that you can't hunt or even birdwatch on because an agency head said so. Plus alot of land that has previously been public hunting that very well may be closed come next year due to budgets and such...which to me means the gov spends all this money buying land but sets none aside to manage whats already purchased...so they close it...yet continue to buy more. and this goes fromthe State all the way up to the Feds (BLM, USDA, DOD,etc...)

[teul2]

[Po Monkey Lounger]

Wingman brings up a great point. And that concern has been part of what fueled the past trust in federal ownership and control of the habitat resource. But, we may need to find another path now --- one that strikes a balance between private ownership and government ownership at the local level.

As long as the Feds have jurisdiction over migrating waterfowl, then they can require a federal duck stamp in order to legally hunt. And we may have little influence over the use of those federal dollars. But, instead of purchasing multiple duck stamps in order to support conservation, I think our extra dollars might be spent more wisely closer to home, or within states within our flyway. The disconnect we are all feeling with our federal government is only going to get worse, IMO. And a new, fresher approach that keeps more conservation dollars going toward conservation entities and efforts closer to home or within the flyway states, within our more direct influence and control would seem to be the answer. I trust my state government in MS. I trust the MDWF& P. MS is not going to take away my right to hunt, fish, bear arms, etc. Can't say the same regarding our federal government, of which we are only a small part.

[Wingman]

[JaMak84]

I would support a federal program like the walk-in hunting program in Kansas. I'm sure other states have similar programs, but that's the only one I have experience with. A program where private landowners open up their property for public hunting in exchange for management funds and property tax funds. I envision a program where farmer Joe enrolls his land in such a program. The state wildlife department creates a management plan for the property and an estimated annual budget for the plan. Uncle Sam agrees to pay the state property taxes and 50% of the management cost. The state is guaranteed to get it's property taxes. Farmer Joe receives financial assistance to improve wildlife habitat and the general public gets access to more opportunities. Both the private landowners and Uncle Sam have a vested interest in the property without the government actually acquiring more land it can't properly manage. This type of program would also allow the federal government to meet it's goals of creating more habitat.

[mottlet]

The ding dong in Nevada just wanted something for nothing. Federal grazing rights are offered at laughably low prices, but low ain't free so it wasn't good enough. Take off Bundy's hat and switch grazing rights for food stamps and Sean Hannity wouldn't be able to crucify the dude fast enough. I think he's lucky the Feds didn't call his bluff and if he gets itchy and wants to play another game of cowboys and indians, I say let em. Doesn't take a real long history lesson to see how that'll go.

Somebody mentioned walk-in programs. Most of the money for those state programs comes from federal grants under the Open Fields program in the Farm Bill. It's also worth pointing out that management decision at federal agencies are not made with the stroke of a pen. A long process of listing draft proposed rules in the Federal Register, taking public comments, proposing and listing amended rules that incorporate public comments and then accepting public comments AGAIN before drafting a final rule that the public can, you guessed it, comment on has to be followed. Also just about every single federal agency action with regard to our public lands is subject to NEPA review and historical uses, economic benefit of hunting and angling, etc. are all considered when performing the analysis of how a new rule would affect public lands.

Friend of mine put it this way when it comes to public lands:
"No nation on earth provides for its citizens, immediately upon their birth, the full rights and privileges of a public lands network open to hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, solace, solitude, families, friends, and an endless assortment of activities, regardless of your net worth. No other country in the world. The great landscapes still left to my kids and your kids have been conserved in trust, and belong to all Americans. Defend that right, as a fundamental and unique liberty. It is a core part of the American identity."

Me hunting on federal public lands in Mississippi (a really long time ago...sheesh I done got old):


My view while hunting on federal public lands in Virginia:


Me hunting on federal public lands in Colorado:


Obviously, public lands mean a lot to me and have a pretty radical effect on my hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, birding, and all the other ways I get outside. Getting rid of public lands is to trash the North American system of wildlife management, the most successful management model the world has ever seen. Because if wildlife belongs to the people, but they can't GET TO IT, the whole thing falls apart.

I'm not trying to start a big thing or call anybody out. But this stuff matters to me and I thought I'd pitch in my two pennies. Take em for what they're worth.

[deltadukman]

Mottlet,

Without us working on or around "The Hill" what can where can we as common MS Boys stay abreast to the liberals up there that would like to take away our hunting right? Where can one "make public comments" from here without travleing to DC?

[Bercy]

On the other hand - In the mid-1970's there appears to have only been one NWR and the NF - ie, not much public access to delta land. In the past few years, a certain NWR has obtained ~10k new acres that are now mostly available to hunt plus it has allowed hunting on other acres that used to not be open for some hunting.

[Wingman]

Yep. 6 NWR's, at least three state WMA's on land bought by the COE, and numerous FHA tracts now a part of the Refuge system and open to the public.