What's this about

Discussion in 'Community Forum' started by Strutter, Feb 11, 2019 at 7:29 PM.

  1. ojibwa62

    ojibwa62 12 pointer

    4,358
    2,191
    Jul 1, 2018
    N.O.T.W
    The other thing I hate is the what about me how is going effect me attitude many have, people need to get over this me me me attitude the bottom line is the federal government is not supposed to be in the land business, as the Constitution says except for specific purposes. Should some state and federal lands be set aside yes but not near the amount they own now..
     
    EdLongshanks likes this.
  2. Munson

    Munson 8 pointer

    763
    214
    Dec 24, 2011
    Natural Bridge
    Don't we the people own the federal land but the feds administer it? Im with Wildman, something doesn't seem right about this.
     
    KY Swamp Beagler likes this.
  3. Duster

    Duster 12 pointer

    If this does pass watch who the high bidder is, bet it will not be a USA citizen. Selling off America one acre at a time.
     
    KY Swamp Beagler likes this.
  4. EdLongshanks

    EdLongshanks 12 pointer

    7,784
    3,179
    Nov 16, 2013
    Northern Kentucky
    Teddy Roosevelt was a communist. A true scumbag. The federal government has no authority to own that much land. It’s unconstitutional and a complete waste of money and resources. The sooner the land is transferred back to its rightful owners (the states), the better. By the way, we are completely broke and shouldn’t be subsidizing hunting spots for anyone.
     
  5. gettin bit

    gettin bit Fawn

    16
    8
    Jul 14, 2017
    Woodford Co.
  6. Carl

    Carl 12 pointer

    2,731
    1,522
    Dec 1, 2003
    Underground Bunker in KY
    Muslims will probably buy it. I used to like Rand but after this *)(&%%^&
     
  7. Carl

    Carl 12 pointer

    2,731
    1,522
    Dec 1, 2003
    Underground Bunker in KY
    Well it seems like they are on a roll, it could turn into Dearborn, KY.
     
  8. JDMiller

    JDMiller 12 pointer

    10,176
    2,323
    Jun 12, 2005
    " Between the Rivers "
    While I agree that the Ky state constitution does not specifically give anyone the right to a "free hunting spot" ..... the Ky constitution was amended in 2012 via House Bill 1 that put hunting & fishing as a personal right on the ballot. It overwhelmingly passed and ultimately resulted in what I bolded below.

    Which its a weak argument on this aspect of the subject.....it specifically states "public hunting & fishing shall be a preferred means of managing & controlling wildlife" and to back-up a little it states..... "preserve the future of hunting & fishing".

    To me this somewhat implies its an obligation of the state (KDF&WR's) to provide "public" properties to hunt & fish.

    So....loosing or selling any state or federal properties in Ky that currently allows hunting (which DBNF does) somewhat goes against this.


    Kentucky Constitutional Amendment

    Section 255A Personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife - Limitations.

    The citizens of Kentucky have the personal right to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, using traditional methods, subject only to statutes enacted by the Legislature, and to administrative regulations adopted by the designated state agency to promote wildlife conservation and management and to preserve the future of hunting and fishing. Public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

    Text as Ratified on: November 6, 2012.

    History: Creation proposed by 2011 Ky. Acts ch. 4, sec. 1.
     
  9. EdLongshanks

    EdLongshanks 12 pointer

    7,784
    3,179
    Nov 16, 2013
    Northern Kentucky
    I don’t think that in any way implies the idea of the state or federal government owning land to ensure a hunting spot.
     
  10. JDMiller

    JDMiller 12 pointer

    10,176
    2,323
    Jun 12, 2005
    " Between the Rivers "
    I said it was a weak argument...... but in Ky how are you going to preserve & protect the future of hunting(specifically) without providing access to do it.

    Again this is a state constitutional amendment voted on by its residents.... basically to protect hunting & fishing in Ky.

    Which understandably DBNF is federal property and somewhat a different animal concerning governance.

    But when DBNF was created ...it originally belonged to residents of this state in one form or another. More than likely people were displaced and forced to sell their land to the government.

    So.... I have a personal opinion... the people / families/ heirs that originally owned the property and was forced to sell .....should have first option at buying it back..at the price the government paid them. Which in itself would be less lucrative for the government to be tempted to sell.

    Overall..... this is still a loss of huntable ground for Ky and couldn't support the sell for that fact alone.
     
  11. KY Swamp Beagler

    KY Swamp Beagler 12 pointer

    3,013
    999
    Feb 20, 2011
    the swamps of Western KY
    Federal public lands are owned by the citizens of the United States of America. The federal government is entrusted with management of those lands.

    If you want to rally hunters and anglers, non-hunters, anti-hunters, fence sitters, environmentalists, conservationists and so-called tree huggers...then start talking about selling public lands.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2019 at 12:29 PM
  12. EdLongshanks

    EdLongshanks 12 pointer

    7,784
    3,179
    Nov 16, 2013
    Northern Kentucky
    We need bows and guns to hunt as well. Should the state pay for weapons? What about warm hunting clothes? Seems like the individual should be responsible for creating their own opportunities, including land. The US constitution says that my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed....how else can that be achieved if they don’t buy me a weapon?

    I’m fine with allowing families the first right of refusal if they can prove they held the deed at some point. They would obviously have to pay fair market value.
     
  13. Ataulbe1

    Ataulbe1 8 pointer

    560
    362
    Oct 27, 2017
    Estill/Wolfe County
    Have to say I'm very surprised to hear so many outdoorsmen say sure sell it off and do away with state parks. Not sure of the reasoning there? Do you have such faith in the state spending that money wisely?

    What selling off state parks WILL do is ensure my kids and grandkids are never be able to enjoy landmarks like Natural bridge, the gorge, etc. Where does that rabbit trail end? Are we going to sell off Yellowstone and Grand Canyon access to fund Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal? They would love that cash cow.

    If our options are preserving this state's natural resources (which generate revenue) vs selling it off so they can piss the money away in 6 months I believe I'll go with the first.
     
  14. EdLongshanks

    EdLongshanks 12 pointer

    7,784
    3,179
    Nov 16, 2013
    Northern Kentucky
    I don’t understand how so many people think the federal government can somehow magically manage property 1,000’s of miles away, better than the states themselves? The federal government has consistently proven that they can’t do anything productive outside of the military. Also, if there is such a high demand for parks...the free market will provide for that in faaaaaaar better ways than the government could ever dream of. That’s just how it works.

    It’s crazy to me that everyone wants to be “ultra-conservative”....until you have to put it in practice. You either believe in states rights, the right to private property, and the beauty of the free market....or you don’t.
     

Share This Page