BigGameHoundsmen.com

The sagebrush rebellion is a movement by the states in the west to take over our federal lands and let the states run them. It is a movement to restore our right to use our public land and not just lock it up to all. The rebellion would like to restore use to all types of use to generate money to pay to maintain the forest. The USFS has forgot that they do not own the land they over see, it is ours. And we need to band to gather and remind them before they take all of it from us. Arizona and Utah have bills to do so. Look up the sagebrush rebellion on the web and you can get all of the facts. In AZ it is SB-1332 call or email your government and tell them to support us. Several other states have similar bills.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2012/03/23/20120323arizona-federal-land-takeover.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews

I am not so sure thats a good idea. While it seems a good idea in theory, there is a real possibility that land will be sold off to developers and we will end up loseing more land to hunt on. As it is we can hunt forest land and wilderness areas.

Here where I live In the Huachuca mtns The City of Tombstone is trying to grab more water than they have used Historically, these Springs are on Forest land and Wilderness area. Tombstone is claiming to own 5 acres around each of its 24 springs and if they really owned this land, which would be possible if the state could sell it to them. They would keep everyone out. They already put up signs Illegally last year on Forest land stating that it was the property of the City of Tombstone, no trespassing Violators will be persecuted. If they controlled that land it would effectively keep everyone out of Upper Miller canyon.

While the Federal government’s handling of the matter was not perfect it could have been far worse if Gov Brewer had her way, She gave the City of Tombstone $50.000 and declared an emergency, where there was none. This “emergency” is part of the reason the Forest service allowed Tombstone to used heavy Equipment in a wilderness area, destroying some denning trees and tearing up a stream. We now have no water in the steam for over a mile due to tombstone increasing its water take. Tombstone also got the Forest service to close down the upper Miller canyon trail and 1/4 mile to either side while they did the work effectively shutting the canyon down for 3 months this winter. That would be permanent if Tombstone owned the land.

The forest service already allows Grazing, mining, logging, hunting ect on Forest land.

Utah's bill has already passed and has support from the governor. I fully support the legislation. The federal government has a contract to return the land to the state of Utah by 2014 and Utah's bill is requiring them to fulfill the contract. It's easier to have control of what happens at the state level then it is at the federal level. The feds don't care about the people.

and the states sell land every time they have a zero balance in the checking acount of money they pissed away that we give them! talk about being between a rock and a hard place, i guess everyone is learning they all stink!

we need to be dang careful what we ask for or we will end up with the states selling the lands and then only the rich will be able to hunt.

I agree 100% with Tom

I agree that we have to be careful what we ask for. With the states broke, and lots of people or corporations with lots of money, this could end up with a lot of the land being bought and blocked off completely to the public. Hello TEXAS!

Not to mention the mining companies destroying more at a faster pace than ever before, windmills on every mountain top, and huge expanses of feral horses dotting the landscape. Sounds wonderful!

NOT!!!

The federal government has already sold the land. To who? the environmentalists. I cant tell you how many times I have pulled in to one of my favorite spots to see a road closed sign. Or how many grazing permits have been cut due to the clean water act. Or loggers put out of work due to the spotted owl, ranchers cows eaten up by the gray wolf in NM & AZ. Were I grew up in the Gila forest the town is a almost dead and gone thanks to the federal government shutting down all industry and use on public lands. Just so it can all burn up! On the Kaibab forest there is a group working with the forest to file a law suit to end all hunting outfitter permits on the forest. Check them out on the web they are called Pacific Environmental Advocacy Center or PEAC. So why they have not technically sold the land they are not letting me use it. They make more wilderness all of the time. Now they are doing it under a new name they call them national scenic areas and have several planed for AZ, and the Wild Lands Restoration Act both to start soon. Each forest in AZ is schedule for a use assessment. Which they just did on the Coconino & Kaibab. And what did they do...? Close more roads. Now I am thinking I may need horses to hunt. Ok, but what about feed and shoes? That is just what they want. The cost to get so high that we cant afford to hunt. So people will quit hunting on the land. Then there is less people to fight them when they close it all. If you dont think that is what they want when was the last time they opened up more land? or made a wilderness smaller? or opened a road that was closed?. When was the last time that some thing went the way that we wanted? It is always the way the environmentalist want. So once again that is who they sold the land to. If it is public land why is a road closed? Because it is not public any more! The forest service will not be happy till there is no one allowed on their land Period! In Sedona they do not want you to walk off of the trail because you kill the soil. What kept the soil alive before the forest service? They jusst want to control were you go and how you go there. They cut the number of permits that are given to the mule rides in the grand canyon in half, One of the oldest activities at the canyon. They will be out of business soon, but that is what they want. Dont think so? try to get a outfitter permit from any forest. I have made my living off of forest lands for 22 years and every year they take a little more from me. I will be last generation to be able to do this if some thing does not change. Just my opinion on our "public lands" if that is what we still call them, I think they are private more now a days.

What if the states put the property into a trust like we have here in AZ. The state's or rather the citizen's land is held in public trust. The land can only be sold, i'm pretty sure, for education, schools, etc. I do think you have to have a permit for the land, but maybe instead of that the state's in the west could each have their own State Bureau of land management. I to am concerned about it being sold to the highest bidder. Maybe we could find some common ground to work with some of the less extreme environmental group/s to ensure that the land is available for all for now and in the future. Just my $.02.

A trust would be great but I bet most states wouldn't do that. In my state federal land is more accessible than the state land we have. The state does things to improve access for hunters but it is on a small scale, the federal land is always open for access. Sure some roads are being abandoned or closed but I would want the feds to keep control.

HMmmm a trust , would that be anything like a treaty , you know the things the government worked out with the native americans ? if you think you can trust a trust ha ha ha . when the states get the land you can bet they gonna sell to the highest bidder . they will probably set aside a couple hundred acres we call em wma's in texas wich is just about all privately owned .

What about the FACT that the feds have until 2014 to turn the lands over to the state of Utah? Over 20 million acres, in fact. The feds have done nothing but close roads and try to enforce their will on the local people in our area. I have already written my state rep, who happens to be the chair of the natural resources commitee, and asked him to sponsor legislation requiring the state to keep the land publicly owned and open to hunters. At least if it's at the state level, we have a voice.

In My state anyone that wants access to DNR land now has to buy a permit. It costs 30 dollars a year. The WDFW Has been buying land as fast as it can. Reason why, wa state sells over 500,000 hunting licences every year. Most hunters hunt on both state DNR and federal land. Some of the time its all mixed up. In washington we have the the worst elk herds in the west our bull to cow ratio is between 3-15 bulls to every 100 cows depending on where you are, and we have over 70,000 elk hunters. Our state only cares about money and could care less about the animals that live in it. It would be sad day when My state buys up all the federal land. We would have locked gates on every road and if you wanted to hunt on it you would have to pay a fee.

This is a tough call. In Texas you have to buy a state permit to hunt on federal land. I have to agree with Tom Jr. and The post that said be careful what you wish for. Too much access and you get slobs in the country. Where I hunt There are only 2 roads and I spend half my time picking up trash and empty beer cans on the side of the road.
I would rather have harder access and the feds own it than a state that can sell 5 acres in the middle of the forest to a guy that does not like dogs. That has happened to all our national forest land in Texas. Big bucks for big bucks has also about killed hound hunting in Texas unless you have access to private land.

M Evertsen wrote:I agree that we have to be careful what we ask for. With the states broke, and lots of people or corporations with lots of money, this could end up with a lot of the land being bought and blocked off completely to the public. Hello TEXAS!

Not to mention the mining companies destroying more at a faster pace than ever before, windmills on every mountain top, and huge expanses of feral horses dotting the landscape. Sounds wonderful!

NOT!!!

You're spot on here! DO NOT GIVE UP THE FEDERAL LAND. Even though federal management is not perfect, it's protected and available and still public.

It has been demonstrated time and again that the more local a government is, the more responsive it is to the electorate. If you don't agree with the policies of a county commissioner it is much easier to replace them than it is to replace a state senator, if you don't like the policies of a state senator, it is much easier to replace them than it is to replace a US senator. The only way we will ever get anything like freedom back in our country is to replace all elected officials who work to take away our freedoms. The best way to do that is by replacing the local officials who do not support freedom with those who will support freedom, and who will help to hold less local elected officials accountable. As the less local elected officials are held accountable their true colors will come more into focus and it will become more obvious that they are anti-freedom, which will make it easier to replace them. And so on up the chain.

Just out of curiousity, can anybody quote section and paragraph of the constitution which gives the Feds authority to permanantly own any land other than Washington DC and assorted other lands that are necessary for national defense, ie military bases and forts.

If you can't, then please explain why you would expect the feds to honor the constitution in other areas when you support them in dishonoring the constitution in this area.

Just my $.02

Bill A. Brockman