Donald Trump: Don't hand federal lands to states

Donald Trump doesn't want states to control land.

Real estate mogul Donald Trump would not let states take control of federal lands, the Republican presidential candidate said in a recent interview.

"I don't like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don't know what the state is going to do," Trump said during a talk with Field & Stream magazine earlier this week.

The trade publication, sitting down with Trump at Las Vegas' Shooting, Hunting, and Outdoor Trade Show, had asked about the issue of turning over federally controlled lands to individual states -- an idea previously floated by rival 2016 contender and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and supported by staunch states-rights activists.

Read more:
www.cbsnews.com...

How does this potentially affect ranchers, like in Oregon? Are they going to lose grazing land?

Ranchers, farmers and others in Malheur County are opposing a proposal to designate 40 percent of the Eastern Oregon county as a national monument or wilderness area.

ONTARIO, Ore. — An effort by conservation groups to have a large chunk of Malheur County set aside as a national monument or wilderness area has riled up ranchers and farmers in the area.

Read more:
www.capitalpress.com...

PORTLAND, Ore. (Oct. 13th, 2015) -- Moved by the critical role that Oregon’s wild, beautiful public lands play in the state’s economy, more than 100 Oregon businesses [ED1] have signed on to letters to U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) urging him to support permanent protection for the Owyhee Canyonlands in southeastern Oregon.

Read more:
www.pitchengine.com...

Shouldn't states have a say in what happens to lands within their bounds?

Thoughts?

God I hate to say I that I agree with Trump on anything.

The states would sell the land to developers to build high price condos only the rich could afford or build gated communities to keep the riff raff out; Or allow mining, drilling and ruin the places as recreational spaces for the people. The States are as corrupt as the feds.

Of course he's going to tell "Field and Stream" this, it's a hunting magazine and Trump knows how to pander to those listening to him. This is a guy that has made millions off of building hotels and resorts so I find it hard to believe he actually believes what he's saying here.

Also, isn't Trump running on a platform that's supposed to want the federal government to be smaller? How is this going to help in that regard?

originally posted by: Gully
Donald Trump doesn't want states to control land.

Well, not exactly. He said he is opposed to turning over what is now Federal land (i.e. owned and usable by all US Citizens) to individual state's control. Not quite the same as saying he doesn't want states to control land.

Thoughts?

May be the first thing out of his mouth I agree with.

originally posted by: olaru12
God I hate to say I that I agree with Trump on anything.

The states would sell the land to developers to build high price condos only the rich could afford or build gated communities to keep the riff raff out; Or allow mining, drilling and ruin the places as recreational spaces for the people. The States are as corrupt as the feds.

Could be, could be.

States, Feds they're all politicians --- lying, deceiving, minions of big business and the elite. I think they should all be managed by a public trust staffed with people that have the appropriate mix of scientific and professional credentials --- not a bunch of lawyers for God's sake...

oh my!

I agree with him, too!!
It's hard for me to imagine that it's actually happening, but I've done things in my life that caused me to pause and think, "What the hell am I doing?" before......

so - well -
I agree with him. The "states" (GOVERNORS and state CONGRESSES) make stupid decisions.

To wit: Kansas.

If the "state" had control of our school system and national parks, well - that would make it actually uneffingbearable to live here. It's bad enough as it is - but at least our schools aren't teaching Creationism.....yet.....

"we" just have a broken budget, a huge failed attempt at Dominionist/Austerity Statism, a tax plan that didn't work, millions of people without health care, minimal social safety, and a Governor who is an inept, backward, ignorant, corrupt, sick joke.




SOME STATES have done well with establishing working systems for their citizens - Kansas is not one of them.

originally posted by: jtma508
States, Feds they're all politicians --- lying, deceiving, minions of big business and the elite. I think they should all be managed by a public trust staffed with people that have the appropriate mix of scientific and professional credentials --- not a bunch of lawyers for God's sake...

Sounds reasonable!

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Of course he's going to tell "Field and Stream" this, it's a hunting magazine and Trump knows how to pander to those listening to him. This is a guy that has made millions off of building hotels and resorts so I find it hard to believe he actually believes what he's saying here.

Right, hard to tell.

a reply to: olaru12
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yep! And I agree with Trump on this point, too.

Well, as the old saying goes, He'll say anything to get elected. Trump has spoken out on the Bundy takeover in Oregon, disagreeing with it; but what he says about it, "You have to maintain law and order, no matter what," sounds rather authoritarian. Trump can say something that sounds reasonable, then he continues talking and sounds crazy.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
This is a guy that has made millions off of building hotels and resorts so I find it hard to believe he actually believes what he's saying here.

No doubt. Maybe what he really is saying, to himself, is, "When I'm POTUS, when I'm the guy in charge in Washington, I'll see to it that Federal land is available for business efforts. Nevada will be mine to give away!" Maybe he'll take the "magnificent" parts, build a great wall around them with a beautiful door, and build a huge resort right outside.

The question people need to be asking themselves is, is it more effecient to petition your federal or state level politicians for your grievances? Centralization ruins everything, politics need to get back down to a local level and I believe that is why the founding fathers emphasized states rights.

It is a cunning ploy to get new people to agree with him. So much so that those new people might forget all the other lies he tells.

Seen from Denmark, we believe you guys yet again will get a democrat president.
We refuse to believe there are enough stupid people to secure Trump a presidential seat.

originally posted by: olaru12
God I hate to say I that I agree with Trump on anything.

The states would sell the land to developers to build high price condos only the rich could afford or build gated communities to keep the riff raff out; Or allow mining, drilling and ruin the places as recreational spaces for the people. The States are as corrupt as the feds.

Spot on, that's what the preppers without a cause over in Oregon don't understand. The states, much less the local counties would be hard pressed to put up the money and resources to manage the areas, especially with ranching involved. The squabbling would never end.

a reply to: jaws1975

Centralization ruins everything, politics need to get back down to a local level and I believe that is why the founding fathers emphasized states rights.

There are times that one needs to go over local heads.

e.g. Kim Davis

a reply to: jaws1975

is it more effecient to petition your federal or state level politicians for your grievances?

Nope! It isn't.....

In my experience, having been a voter for nigh on 40 years: All attempts at communication and grievance result in form letters, in canned responses - same as it's been for decades now.

As a famous ATSer used to say: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury.


Make of that what you will.

*cough*Kim Davis*cough*

give the federal land in NY to the state, I imiagine that by the time they were done, they'd be insanely more into debt as they gave the land to their buddies to develope, along with the bulk of the money to develop it, along with tax breaks and whatever else they could think of....
Id rather trust the american indians with it or see a new homestead act, for some of it.