# Clintons plans for our public lands



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/brie...ative-stewardship-of-americas-great-outdoors/

Highlights:

"Expand access to public lands for hunting, fishing and recreation by making publicly accessible 50% of the public land that is currently inaccessible"

"Expand public access to public lands: Because some public lands are surrounded by private lands, an estimated 4 million acres of national forests and other public lands in the West are currently inaccessible to the public. To confront this problem, Clinton will set a goal of unlocking access to at least 2 million acres of currently inaccessible public lands by the end of her first term - halving the amount of public land that is currently off-limits - by pursuing voluntary conservation partnerships with private landowners and state governments to establish new access points, trails, and easements to open public access to public lands. "

"Fight efforts to turn public lands private: In recent years, special interest groups have been supporting efforts to dispose of or sell off America's public lands, which would privatize national forests, national monuments, and even national parks. Clinton strongly opposes these proposals to sell off America's natural heritage. She will fight to protect the rights of our children and grandchildren to explore the lands and waters that define us as a nation"


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

At what cost 'cause it ain't free. LO's won't do it unless there is an incentive...


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

That whole statement has the smell of the south end of a northbound bull. Sounds like Mrs. Bill Clinton is trying to scrabble for votes in the camps she's lost, starting with the people who think guns are ok.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

what a ludicrous plan. the federal government owns about 520 million acres of property in the west. 4 million acres that are 'not accessible' represents 0.0077 percent of that total and 2 million acres that will be 'opened' for access is half of that or 0.0038. be still my beating heart. I cant wait for this to happen. it going to be life changing. I cant imagine the endless new opportunities. and to imagine this is going to be accomplished in only her first term in office - bring on the second term and the potential to unlock all 4 million acres! oh my.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> what a ludicrous plan. the federal government owns about 520 million acres of property in the west. 4 million acres that are 'not accessible' represents 0.0077 percent of that total and 2 million acres that will be 'opened' for access is half of that or 0.0038. be still my beating heart. I cant wait for this to happen. it going to be life changing. I cant imagine the endless new opportunities. and to imagine this is going to be accomplished in only her first term in office - bring on the second term and the potential to unlock all 4 million acres! oh my.


I love math, it's easy. The other side wants to take away 520 million acres of public land in the west and sell it off. That's 100.0000%

#1Deer 1-I's thread says 2 million acres of the 4 million acres in the west that's inaccessible will be unlocked. That's 50.0000% of what's locked up.

Unlocking 2 million acres is better than nothing, better than anyone else is offering. Actually, 2 million acres is a lot of ground. Yellowstone NP is enormous and it's 2.2 million acres

.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> what a ludicrous plan. the federal government owns about 520 million acres of property in the west. 4 million acres that are 'not accessible' represents 0.0077 percent of that total and 2 million acres that will be 'opened' for access is half of that or 0.0038. be still my beating heart. I cant wait for this to happen. it going to be life changing. I cant imagine the endless new opportunities. and to imagine this is going to be accomplished in only her first term in office - bring on the second term and the potential to unlock all 4 million acres! oh my.


Unlocking 2 million acres of PUBLIC land we are currently locked out of is anything but ludicrous. It's actually the best and only plan so far giving a layout of more access for the public. Like wyogoob said, the GOP wants to lock you out of 520 million acres, so which sounds better to you? I don't like Clinton, but here's her plan, and a quick view into what a presidency under her for public lands might look like. Clinton is one of the worst candidates for president there has ever been, but at least we get to see her cards before going all in on a blind hand.


----------



## Loke (Sep 7, 2007)

So trading access to 4 million acres for our freedom to own firearms, pick who we will use as health care providers, decide what our children will learn in school is a fair trade?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Loke said:


> So trading access to 4 million acres for our freedom to own firearms, pick who we will use as health care providers, decide what our children will learn in school is a fair trade?


Actually, you would be trading access to about 520 million acres of public land if our lands are privatized...

...and, to respond to your argument, I only own guns in order to hunt. If I don't have access to huntable land, I wouldn't own a gun. Although I am certainly against any kind of legislation that limits my ability to buy and own guns, the limits liberals are talking about seem to affect types of guns I don't really care to own. Also, even with Obamacare I chose my health care provider. And, how much say do you really have as a parent regarding what your child is taught? Don't the teachers have a much larger say than you do regardless of Common Core? As an educator and besides the fact that I like Common Core, unless you take your kid to a very specialized private school, you really don't have much choice as far as what is or is not taught in individual classrooms. So, I think I would make that choice!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Just remember how much land that her husband locked up with the swipe of a pen.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

where is this plan to have the federal gov divest itself of all public lands? don't believe I have ever seen a formal proposal from the gov to do that. not even the rob bishop plan has that. and it would have to pass congress and the senate - like that is even remotely plausible. some states may rumble - but seriously - how far do you think they will get? and even then it would be state land, not public and im not one who believes the state would wholesale it off. and goob is right, 2 million is better than nothing. however - just how is this to be accomplished? its locked up currently - I think we can safely assume that it is unaccessable because someone owns the property around it, either private or public: state or otherwise. this implies only 2 methods of acquiring access - buy it or eminent domain. if it was for sale and could be bought, it likely would have been already - example thousand peaks ranch is not willing to sell a right of way from weber canyon over moffat pass to the bear river for any kind of access. it is more likely than not that eminent domain would be the tool to acquire access to these lands and I am not in favor of that option. 
for me, this is nothing but an empty promise - one that has nearly no potential to be fulfilled. there is no good way of making it happen other than eminent domain.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> Just remember how much land that her husband locked up with the swipe of a pen.


I forgot. How much was it?

.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> where is this plan to have the federal gov divest itself of all public lands? don't believe I have ever seen a formal proposal from the gov to do that. not even the rob bishop plan has that. and it would have to pass congress and the senate - like that is even remotely plausible. some states may rumble - but seriously - how far do you think they will get? and even then it would be state land, not public and im not one who believes the state would wholesale it off. and goob is right, 2 million is better than nothing. however - just how is this to be accomplished? its locked up currently - I think we can safely assume that it is unaccessable because someone owns the property around it, either private or public: state or otherwise. this implies only 2 methods of acquiring access - buy it or eminent domain. if it was for sale and could be bought, it likely would have been already - example thousand peaks ranch is not willing to sell a right of way from weber canyon over moffat pass to the bear river for any kind of access. it is more likely than not that eminent domain would be the tool to acquire access to these lands and I am not in favor of that option.
> for me, this is nothing but an empty promise - one that has nearly no potential to be fulfilled. there is no good way of making it happen other than eminent domain.


You know there is no written plan to to divest all of the public lands nor are there formal plans to take away our right to bear arms, be forced which insurance company I have or teach my grandkids something that's not Conservative-like. Geeze, Randy give me a break and let me wear a tinfoil hat once in awhile. 

There are ways to acquire public access to Federal Lands:
1. Easement Acquisition.
2. Land Exchanges
3. Reciprocal Right-of-Way Grants
4. Acquiring Access Through Condemnation Procedures
5. Others
a. Land and Water Conservation Fund
b. Donations
c. Easement Transfer from Oil, Gas, and Power Companies
d. Private Landowner Cooperative Agreements

These are all cool but most of the acquisition decision-makers are most times local government people or groups of people that may favor coal mines over elk hunting.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Critter said:


> Just remember how much land that her husband locked up with the swipe of a pen.


Locked up? That land that Clinton designated as wilderness includes some of my favorite places on earth--places I hunt! How is it locked up? It is open to the public to recreate including hunting and fishing!


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

well reasoned goob. 
lets roll the other direction as well. how about access to all private property landlocked by public property as well? is that not also fair game in the broad scheme of things? seems that if you have one there may be an obligation to the other. you know what that would do the north slope with its checkerboard of public/private due to the railroad holdings. so - unintended consequences?


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

just to be clear - I don't oppose the notion of trying to 'unlock' public property... I just think that its all political promising... pandering with little chance of substantial implementation. I doubt seriously if secretary Clinton even knows she has made this particular promise much less has any serious intent or knowledge of how it might be implemented or at what cost.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> well reasoned goob.
> lets roll the other direction as well. how about access to all private property landlocked by public property as well? is that not also fair game in the broad scheme of things? seems that if you have one there may be an obligation to the other. you know what that would do the north slope with its checkerboard of public/private due to the railroad holdings. so - unintended consequences?


Yeah, good point. I spent half of my hunting career hunting private property, most in the Midwest the rest here in Wyoming. Private is nice, you know who is going to be hunting on it, but if it is adjacent to public it's a mess for all the fence-jumpers.

My point was there are legal avenues for accessing public land locked by private land but politics, the political agenda of one or a group, gets in the way. Whatever, these people will get voted in again.

I think Clinton's talk about freeing up access to 2 million acres of locked-up government ground is a positive thing. I didn't say I was going to vote for her. good grief

.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Its going to be an ugly five months. As a gun owning independent who leans left, because of how we mismash so many ideas into one platform, I have no clue how this is all going to pan out. 

Promises about public lands.....I am torn about this "lockout" issue. First, I was a delegate a decade ago and I no longer trust platforms. They are ideals disguised as strategy and that never bodes well for the complexity of our federal government. Ideas like this would need to either be legislated through a historically conservative congress (not necessarily ideology alone but the relative difficulty of simply passing through the gauntlet reduces the amount of change) or executive order (even as a left-leaning person I tend to distrust that ever-increasing trend), then be budgeted for and ultimately not challenged judicially. Even if it does pass we are talking 4-8 years out before anything like that makes it way to implementation.

I also tend to think the "lockout" might just benefit wildlife conservation in general. I studied wildlife biology and ecology for my degree and I have to say having reservoirs of relative safety for our wildlife is critical to their survival including harvestable numbers. Its the reason so many seasonally migrate to private land. Difficult to access public land seems a benefit to the long-term benefit of our sport. Its a cost-benefit analysis that that does not have a black and white answer but its a variable worth considering. 

I will just stay out of the partisan side of the conversation. I have been glad to generally to be absent from social media the last 5 months and I am rather enjoying the comradery of a shared passion, including those of diverse political persuasions.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Sounds like she has already locked in a couple votes already as in "selling a birthright for a bowl of pottage"...

She is a cheap suit politician who will say anything to get elected. I own firearms for the very reasons it was kept as a constitutional right, not just for hunting. She does support a UN task force to disarm America.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> Just remember how much land that her husband locked up with the swipe of a pen.


Locked up? I'm pretty sure you, me, and any other American can go camp, hike, hunt, and recreate on those millions of acres for now into eternity. "Locked up" is a divisive and misleading term to use that is just flat out a lie.

And for everyone turning this into a gun thing, where did I bring up in my original post anything about guns. It is an overview of her public land plan, and an informational post and nothing else. Your second amendment is a right, and they will have a far harder time trying to take your guns away than your public lands which are not a right. Obama was gonna take our guns, now Clinton is. For the most part each side has their fear mongering and it just depends which sides fears you want to play into.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Please explain why public land is not a right. Is it because it is not explicitly listed?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Perhaps "locked out of" was a bad choice of words. 

But anytime with just a signature land can be designated wilderness or what ever you want to call it with no public or congressional input I believe it is just wrong.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> Perhaps "locked out of" was a bad choice of words.
> 
> But anytime with just a signature land can be designated wilderness or what ever you want to call it with no public or congressional input I believe it is just wrong.


Then you might not be a big fan of Theodore Roosevelt who despite under heavy criticism during his time created national forests and public lands we enjoy today. If you think what Roosevelt did was popular during the time you are wrong. As future generations that he thought of during his time though he is looked at as one of the most insightful presidents we had to protect our natural resources and wildlife over the greed of present situations that would rather rape and pillage the land than conserve it. I am happy that 2 million acres is safe for me and future generations. That does not mean I want to see all areas locked up from development, we absolutely need extraction of resources from our lands, but many of the greatest ideas and accomplishments weren't appreciate during their time.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

What Roosevelt did at the time needed to be done. There was no other recourse to save what he ended up saving at the time. 

A hundred years later Presidents are using the Antiquities Act to create a legacy for themselves and all it takes is a signature. No input, no hearings, they don't even need to ask the citizens of the state not to mention the area what they think. And I am not just saying the last few administrations but just about all of them.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Critter...you really think your going to have a "say" if the State gets control of the ground...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter I would put public lands in Obamas hands, long before I would ever allow Rob Bishop or Mike Lee to do what they see fit with them, not my firearms I trust the opposite way for sure. It's not that liberal politicians don't care what you think, it's that no politician cares what any of us really think, they all have their own agenda you're right. The ones that care the least are those that run in states (liberal or conservative) that have no threat of being voted out because they know they have the right letter in front of their name. This isn't a pro-Hillary or pro-liberal post, it is a layout and link to one of the two ridiculously pathetic candidates we have to choose from at this point. You're next president will be Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and it's better to make an informed vote than a bias one tracked mind vote. I would say both choices are top 5 worst to ever run for office, but it's what we are left with. Given their past I would say Hillary is not as liberal as she plays it and Trump is not as conservative as he plays it. Just letting you know what we might get stuck with if Trump says the thing that finally pushes his poll numbers off a cliff between here an Novemeber. Now instead of meandering down this path, let's get back to what you think of her public land plan specifically and not the other issues this thread is not about everyone before it gets locked.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I don't want the state to get a hold of them either, that would be a worse disaster and then they could rename Utah, West Texas. And if a lot of the liberals got control of them then you could forget about riding your ATV, truck, or anything else into them. But if you have horses or are young enough or in good enough shape to hike into them then go ahead. I've seen this happen to a few hundred thousand acres in Colorado. Where there were roads there are now gates in place and the more acreage that they can do this to the happier they are. How many hundreds of thousands of citizens are now locked out of a area because they are either too old to enjoy these areas or can't afford to hire a outfitter to pack them in on horses? 

I just don't want any politician saying what they are going to do to them one way or another. There are checks and balances in place to take care of either development or to create a wilderness area. When Roosevelt did what he did there were no checks and balances and if he didn't do what he did then I doubt that we would have the parks and open areas that we now have. All you need to do is look at the states east of the Mississippi, the vast majority of these states is private property. Granted they are not similar to Utah or Nevada and who would purchase land on the west desert in Utah where there is no water or any hope for it. But the National Forest land would be gobbled up in a hurry. 

I always love to hear what a politician says around election time, they will promise you the moon and a bucket of gold but when they get elected they would turn face and stab you in the back one way or another.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

This is my favorite thread.

Hey, can someone start a "They're gonna take our guns away" thread. Pure sugar for the ole Goob. Let's not wait till after the Democratic Party Convention this election year.

thanks

.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> It's not that liberal politicians don't care what you think, it's that no politician cares what any of us really think, they all have their own agenda


Politicians only have as much power as you (in a generic sense, more like we) allow them to have. I wish people ( in a generic sense) would stop thinking they hung the moon.

The short of it is, they put their pants on one leg at a time the same as everyone else, and yes, their "stuff" does stink...

Teddy did what he did from the standpoint of social experiment engineering. Teddy was a socialist, like it or not. What a better way for joint ownership of the "the people" than to designate land as equal ownership without the ability to let the evil concept of Capitalism make someone rich off the land. It levels the playing field of personal wealth so just a few (in power) can develop what's left and everyone else just has to make do with what is given. The other benefit was to guarantee gov't could control the land and how it was used. A novel concept, gov't ownership of things such as business, agriculture, industry, land...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

On the topic of her statements:



> To confront this problem, Clinton will set a goal of unlocking access to at least 2 million acres of currently inaccessible public lands by the end of her first term - halving the amount of public land that is currently off-limits - by pursuing voluntary conservation partnerships with private landowners and state governments to establish new access points, trails, and easements to open public access to public lands.


This is already being done, at least in most western states. Utah has made huge strides to formally open land to the public. I would wager that many of the remaining inaccessible acres of public land are surrounded by private property who are not going to "voluntarily" build partnerships. One thing many people value about property, on either side of the political spectrum, with a public lands boundary is the buffer it gives them.

I am not sure there are many major victories left with this voluntary approach. The low hanging fruit is gone.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

The problem is that John Q Public hasn't a clue what is going on. The people that pay attention do but let's face it we are a very small minority. We need to get the word out. Or we will lose these lands period


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

Hoopermat said:


> The problem is that John Q Public hasn't a clue what is going on. The people that pay attention do but let's face it we are a very small minority. We need to get the word out. Or we will lose these lands period


I agree with you hoopermat. Before joining this forum I had no idea as to some of the things going on in regards to public lands or other things but I've learned a lot so far. I'm still struggling with how to get involved but I'm a lot more aware than I used to be


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> And if a lot of the liberals got control of them then you could forget about riding your ATV, truck, or anything else into them. I've seen this happen to a few hundred thousand acres in Colorado. Where there were roads there are now gates in place


Utah could use a few more gates closing roads! My heck, i can't find a place to go hike without running into a dam ATV!! Seems like those things are simply out of control!

every grove of aspen on the mountain has an ATV trail through it!
i'm fine with leaving _legal_ roads open. but my heck, can we get all the _illegal_ roads closed???


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

PBH said:


> Utah could use a few more gates closing roads! My heck, i can't find a place to go hike without running into a dam ATV!! Seems like those things are simply out of control!
> 
> every grove of aspen on the mountain has an ATV trail through it!
> i'm fine with leaving _legal_ roads open. but my heck, can we get all the _illegal_ roads closed???


I agree with you on that point. I have hunted 5 different states and have yet to see one with the number of ATV's out and about running around and having trails designated for them.

What I am talking about are roads that have been on US Forest Service and BLM maps for over 50 years being gated off. Or them placing signs on them that say that the road is open only for administrative use.

I'll never say that we need more roads but to just leave the ones that area out there now alone. I can understand the ones that go nowhere and dead end after a 1/4 of a mile or even the logging roads that should be reclaimed after the logging is done.


----------



## Huntoholic (Sep 17, 2008)

What would be nice is if they spent a fraction of the money used to file lawsuits, fight all these lawsuits, impact studies, and all the rest of the garbage, on good old fashion law enforcement. 

More then enough laws to take care of abusers. But it is easier to restrict usage.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter -- you cant' just leave the existing roads. you have to close the illegal roads -- those roads created just by people using them because they want to get from point A to point B. Some of those are on maps too -- that doesn't make them OK.

Boulder Mountain is covered with these roads. close 'em. then enforce it*.


and, while we're at it, protect more public lands!


*but who's going to enforce the rules? We're kicking out all the Federal and State law enforcement in favor of local county law enforcement, and those county mounties won't enforce the federal rules!!


We're in a bad place. And it's getting worse.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

PBH said:


> Utah could use a few more gates closing roads! My heck, i can't find a place to go hike without running into a dam ATV!! Seems like those things are simply out of control!
> 
> every grove of aspen on the mountain has an ATV trail through it!
> i'm fine with leaving _legal_ roads open. but my heck, can we get all the _illegal_ roads closed???


This is a generally small area of the Monroe unit on the Cove side. In red I have highlighted most of the trails and I'm sure I've missed plenty. These are open road that are regularly used. We have plenty of trails in this state. I would love to see a few more closed roads and places to get away from things. This takes into account roads that have been closed by the forest service over the last five years which has been a few, but anyone complaining there isn't enough trails or roads better be joking.


----------



## bekins24 (Sep 22, 2015)

It does seem like more and more it is harder to get away from the roads especially if it is sandwiched into an area and there are trails coming from both sides.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

PHB, that is essentially what I said. I have no problems closing the illegal roads that riders are making, and I believe that if anyone gets caught the ATV, motorcycle, truck, or what ever needs to be confiscated on the spot not just a ticket. 

But when they are putting gates on roads that have been there for 50+ years and are marked on a Forest Service or BLM map that is where I have problems. So far I haven't seen a illegal road marked on a Forest Service or BLM map yet.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Utah is the least likely state to benefit from this idea because Herbert is thoroughly owned by the people who have locked in that land in this state. At the very least his owners will run him at this issue until his political career dies of exhaustion, and when a guy has as many dirty connections as Herbert does he won't go down easy. If he does he'll leave plenty of nefarious little technicalities to screw it up for the average joe.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Part of FS management plans to have only a certain amount of miles of road density. So, they will close off roads regardless of whether or not it's been there for umpteen years to meet their goal, quota, or whatever.


----------



## utahgolf (Sep 8, 2007)

I wouldn't be surprised if the gun lobby creates an anonymous splinter group that endorses and donates to the Clinton campaign. It's good business for gun and ammo companies when a Dem is in the whitehouse.


----------

