Not even 2 days into the 115th Congress and the House of Representatives has put our public lands on the chopping block.

The House put a cap on their first day with a vote in favor of giving away America’s public lands and waters free of charge. This move has raised several red flags across the hunting/fishing and outdoors industry.

Alan Rowsome, senior government relations director for The Wilderness Society, said in a statement, “Right out of the gate, Congressional Republicans are declaring open season on federal lands… This is not Theodore Roosevelt-style governing, this move paves the way for a wholesale giveaway of our American hunting, fishing and camping lands that belong to us all,” The Washington Post reported.

Randy Newberg, a voice of public land hunting, had this to say in a Facebook post:

If you love the outdoors like I do, this is your time to stand up. Sportsmen, campers, hikers, and anyone who shares a passion for the outdoors stands to lose it with these moves. It’s time to speak up; contact your House members TODAY by phone at (202) 224-3121 or by email.

Like
Like Love Haha Wow Sad Angry

Image courtesy Flickr

  • yukon cornelius

    I firmly believe that an attack on the public lands of this nation is an indirect attack on the 2nd amendment. The fewer places we have to hunt/shoot(and just enjoy the great outdoors) the fewer the number of people that will take part in those activities, and the smaller our voice will be as sportsmen and women. Once these lands are gone they are not coming back. I am not a landowner and owe 90% of my shooting and shooting expierience to having a public place to go and practice and enjoy these activities. I pray and will fight for my children to be able to enjoy the places/rights that i have.

  • Joe

    This is absurd. However, this is what your vote got you! I am an angry American who is getting angrier with the stupidity I am seeing in Washington where elected officials have no concern for their constituents.

  • Rainbird

    You guys all voted for them. Too wound up by “Hillary’s comin’ fer our guns” to think about the implications of voting for corporations to take over.

  • tom

    This entire proposal amounts to nothing less than treason and yes, a back door attack on the 2nd amendment, I agree. I am angry beyond words. Anyone who voted for this atrocity should lose office and/or go to prison. The entire Washington establishment should be overthrown and we should start over.

  • chuck2

    Yep, seems all the ill-informed, “Hil will tak mu guns crowd” who “Voted for change”. a giant step for hypocrisy, did not want to change most of elected,,,, so 90% return rate and use such to go really weird and do as lobbyist pay for… majority vote was for H, but what we ended up with is a congressional horror in progress, seems as old saying goes, with slight mods, “We the unwilling being led by the totally unqualified” and paid for by the lobbyists (again). So remember, be careful for what you wish for, as seem it might happen…only most so ilinformed, they did not know what they really wanted.. or unfortunately, now have!”

    Note was not a fan of H, nor most n congress, as fact checks on most, scary results… and am not a issue voter///

  • Steve Ridling

    I expected nothing less from trump and his group of minions. It’s gonna be a long 4 years.

    • L. Roger Rich

      8 years troll Steve. how does it feel that you Hillary LOST

  • Tom

    you all have it all wrong. What they want to do is give the land back to where it was originally, before it was snatched up by the federal government.

    • Linda Hoberg Delaughter

      What they want to do is return it to the states, which will then be free to sell it off to lumber and mining interests. This has been in the works for some time. Nice try with your idea….but that is the simplistic view.

  • frank

    Drain the swamp

  • Pistolero

    The land belonged to the states. The federal government took it away. It is going back to the rightful owners.
    Now, you may think that the rightful owners won’t deal with it wisely, but the fact is that it belongs to the states to do with as they wish.
    If you want the federal government to “protect us from the evil of local government”, you can always vote for liberals. They love to do that.

  • Ock

    You dems are wrong as usual. Knee jerk reactions. What’ll make it a long “8” years is having to listen to your cry baby drivel. The land isn’t given away. It’s returned back to the states. It was absconded by the Feds. A federal wrong has been righted. So because of that the states are going to just sell it off to mining and lumber? What BS! If your state is selling all the public land to mining and lumber then you haven’t been paying attention for a long time….. This doesn’t just happen in a day. In fact that’s not happening…… What is happening is the tide is turning on the Feds and they are losing their grip around our throats. Long live the republic!

  • tom

    “As usual” you have no idea what you are talking about. And “as usual” you will never admit it. And most of us know that. You just can’t resist displaying your ignorance along with your corrupt enablers in Washington.

  • Steve Waskow

    The reason they’re doing it now is this that this gives people the longest period of time to forget or cool off before the next election. Most controversial legislative actions are take as soon after an election as possible. When we’re close to the next election they will be trying to sucker you into voting for them with some progun law. You have to make note of who was doing what right after the election, that’s when you see the closest thing to their true colors. The problem is we get to pick between antigun and in some instances pro animal rights Democrats and give to the states so their financial backers can buy it for a song Republicans. I’m sure Scot Walker would love to hand the whole of the national forest system in Wisconsin to his backers so they could develop it for their own benefit and his party’s.

  • Art

    It’s not the Federal Governments place to give or take state resources. The government closest to the individual governs best.