119th house rules - transferring federal land

[seeth07]

"We support the granting of federally managed public lands to the state, and development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer."

https://mtgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024_Party_Platform.pdf

Seriously? Why the heck would you not include the ENTIRE QUOTE? O yeah, because it doesn't support your narrative!

"We support the granting of federally managed public lands to the state, and development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer. Any lands transferred from the federal government to the state shall be administered for the purpose in which they are conveyed, while maintaining public access and usage"

 

[Nameless Range]

Seriously? Why the heck would you not include the ENTIRE QUOTE? O yeah, because it doesn't support your narrative!

"We support the granting of federally managed public lands to the state, and development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer. Any lands transferred from the federal government to the state shall be administered for the purpose in which they are conveyed, while maintaining public access and usage"

Because I am not arguing that I would lose access or stake in BLM lands in Montana. I am arguing that I would lose access and stake in lands not in Montana.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Seriously? Why the heck would you not include the ENTIRE QUOTE? O yeah, because it doesn't support your narrative!

"We support the granting of federally managed public lands to the state, and development of a transition plan for the timely and orderly transfer. Any lands transferred from the federal government to the state shall be administered for the purpose in which they are conveyed, while maintaining public access and usage"

Show me anyone who supports the transfer that has conveyed what that plan would look like.

 

[seeth07]

Show me anyone who supports the transfer that has conveyed what that plan would look like.

That is what I want before I decide anything. Sure beats tossing out fake numbers and making this look like the world is about to end.

 

[Nameless Range]

Because I am not arguing that I would lose access or stake in BLM lands in Montana. I am arguing that I would lose access and stake in lands not in Montana.

Just take the two states adjacent to me where I have spent many a day enjoying public lands, their dominant political party's platforms, and the verbiage in their planks.

Idaho: The Idaho Republican Party believes that due to state and federal governmentsadministering the majority of Idaho lands, we need to limit and reduce the amount ofland owned or administered by the federal government. We believe Idaho should manage and administer all state and federal lands.

Wyoming: The Wyoming Republican Party believes in the state’s primacy over water, wildlife, minerals, and natural resources, and the lands within Wyoming that were unappropriated to the state on July 10, 1890, and supports any actions which assures Wyoming’s primacy over its water; i.e. the doctrine of prior appropriations, and the land within its borders.

I don't see anything there to lead me to believe that they would consider a Montanan (or someone from the other 48 states) as having any stake or share in those lands. I could keep going, but the premise remains. But @seeth07, the National Parks point was fair and I will use 560 million acres when marshalling this argument moving forward. Curiously, I don't know why folks feel differently about National Parks. USFS, BLM - they're birthrights to American citizens just the same.

 

[Ben Lamb]

That is what I want before I decide anything. Sure beats tossing out fake numbers and making this look like the world is about to end.

You won't see a plan because they don't want you to know what will happen.

Utah commissioned a report in 2014. It was pretty eye opening regarding the overall cost of management and what it would take to make it work.

The TLDR of it is: massive development of public land and a massive sell off.

 

[SAJ-99]

That is what I want before I decide anything. Sure beats tossing out fake numbers and making this look like the world is about to end.

Whatever the acreage number is, it doesn’t change the discussion on how will this work? Some want to think that it will be so much better managed under their state, but that is fantasy. If you want to know what it looks like long term, follow the money. Your DNR has budget problems. Budget problems and understaffing are an argument for why federal management is so poorly implemented. The irony is the state of WI wants to tap federal funds to help cover the shortfall. This seems like a surefire way to irritate the average US taxpayer- take the land but make them continue to pay for management. This situation isn’t unique to your state. Transferring land and hoping it works out is not a bet I would make.

DNR says fish and wildlife account is approaching a roughly $16M deficit

The DNR says the state’s fish and wildlife account is approaching a $16 million deficit by 2026, which funds 20 percent of its workforce.

www.wpr.org

 

[seeth07]

The TLDR of it is: massive development of public land and a massive sell off.

For some Western states, sure maybe. What we are a nation of 50 states and maybe this is better for 40 of them? I don't know.

This idea of a massive sell off however I think is a bit crazy. Have you seen property prices in those Western states? They are outrageously through the roof. Do you really think all the Montana Property owners want to see 8 million acres of BLM land go up for sale? Some of which they have landlocked and have access to for free while others can't? Think about what the surplus of supply does to the property costs? Value would dip while property taxes surely wouldn't. Do you think that would make them happy?

 

[Nick87]

Whatever the acreage number is, it doesn’t change the discussion on how will this work? Some want to think that it will be so much better managed under their state, but that is fantasy. If you want to know what it looks like long term, follow the money. Your DNR has budget problems. Budget problems and understaffing are an argument for why federal management is so poorly implemented. The irony is the state of WI wants to tap federal funds to help cover the shortfall. This seems like a surefire way to irritate the average US taxpayer- take the land but make them continue to pay for management. This situation isn’t unique to your state. Transferring land and hoping it works out is not a bet I would make.

DNR says fish and wildlife account is approaching a roughly $16M deficit

The DNR says the state’s fish and wildlife account is approaching a $16 million deficit by 2026, which funds 20 percent of its workforce.

www.wpr.org

I know one thing, I don't want my state in control of any of them.

 

[seeth07]

Your DNR has budget problems. Budget problems and understaffing are an argument for why federal management is so poorly implemented. The irony is the state of WI wants to tap federal funds to help cover the shortfall.

We can get into this specifically in PM as it doesn't relate to this overall topic. The WI DNR operated with a surplus budget until about 6 years ago. I can point you to why.

 

[Big Fin]

Where do the 2.6+ million acres of county forest and 1.5+ million acres of state-managed DNR land get factored in here?

They don't, at least for this discussion. Those are disconnected from the topic of transferring these lands to state land boards.

The privateers do not want these Federal lands to go to county forests or wildlife agencies. Those two agencies do not sell lands like state land boards, so the privateers are not going to transfer these Federal lands to those agencies.

 

[BuzzH]

I've come to the conclusion there's a lot of "hunters" that live in denial about this issue.

Anyone that is so gullible to believe this movement is only about BLM lands, would also believe in the tooth fairy.

Anyone that believes the states would have anything close to a sustainable budget to even fight fire on their newly acquired lands, well, they believe in the Easter bunny. I won't mention other management costs the states also couldn't afford.

Also, anyone that believes it would stop with national parks if successful on the 560 million acres of PLT, simply has their head up their ass.

These people that want those lands want it all, and they wouldn't stop until they got them all.

Fact.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I think is a bit crazy. Have you seen property prices in those Western states?

Yes, we have seen the property prices soar. However, when a large, but somewhat representatively sized ranch sells for $200 miliion, crazy property prices obviously don't even cause a bit of reluctance to those gazillionaires who could pay whatever astronomically high real estate prices for their own private piece of "Yellowstone" country!
Your argument no longer holds $$$ meaning.

Do you really think all the Montana Property owners want to see 8 million acres of BLM land go up for sale?

"Montana Property" owners are a peepsqueak drop in the big bucket relative to this issue, with little to no sway.

 

[Treeshark]

They don't, at least for this discussion.

Yes they absolutely do.

This thread is troubling. If the arguments against this rely upon the intellectual dishonesty and multiple logical fallacies thrown against the wall here, public land supporters are screwed.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Anyone that believes the states would have anything close to a sustainable budget to even fight fire on their newly acquired lands, well, they believe in the Easter bunny.

Montana does not even have enough tax base to fund cleaning the toilets in USFS campgrounds!

 

[SAJ-99]

We can get into this specifically in PM as it doesn't relate to this overall topic. The WI DNR operated with a surplus budget until about 6 years ago. I can point you to why.

I think money is at the core of this whole idea. I’m sure you can tell me why the budget went red but it doesn’t change the fact that it is. And by tone of that article, funding sources continue to get worse.

 

[Big Fin]

You realize though we aren't talking about 640 million acres? Again, doing just what the other side is doing and giving a false narrative. Yellowstone National Park isn't going to be put up for bid under this legislation. It would be more reasonable to use 250 million acres - the rough amount of land owned by the BLM.

This a red herring. No one is discussing the transfer of 640 million acres. This is primarily about BLM with some national forest land as a fringe possibility.

Go read the Utah case pleasings. The case claims it is Unconstitutional for the Federal government to hold lands that are not designated for a purpose. If such is held to be, and is the same claim made in party platforms and Congressional resolutions, it applies to all Federal lands in all states, not just BLM land and not just in Utah. It would affect all 640 million Federal acres.

Also, go read Wyoming's support for the Utah case. They want everything that is Federal; National Parks, National Monuments, BLM, USFS, USFWS.

That is not a false narrative. It is the narrative promoted by the American Land Council, the Mountain States Legal Foundation and it's former ED, William Perry Pendley. It is the narrative promoted by the dark money groups like Americans for Prosperity and the American Stewards for Liberty (pardon me while I laugh at that name and compare it to their legislative priorities), and lone with many other dark money groups who have the ears of elected officials promoting this as "a mandate of the voters."

If those are red herrings, they are red herrings chummed into the waters by the groups who want to privatize these lands, not by those of us pointing out the flaws of their logic and their true intentions they've stated since I was first engaged in this issue in 1986. Nothing has changed, just different marketing shit coming from different assholes.

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, we have seen the property prices soar. However, when a large, but somewhat representatively sized ranch sells for $200 miliion, crazy property prices obviously don't even cause a bit of reluctance to those gazillionaires who could pay whatever astronomically high real estate prices for their own private piece of "Yellowstone" country!
Your argument no longer holds $$$ meaning.

"Montana Property" owners are a peepsqueak drop in the big bucket relative to this issue, with little to no sway.

Correct. The newly acquired lands Montana would get, very little of those lands would be purchased by full time Montana residents when they went up for sale.

They would be snapped up at the outrageous prices by the same type of folks buying them now.

The wealthy have done a fabulous job of shifting that incredible wealth to the very top. The last remaining wealth is the land, and this bullshit PLT movement is their chance to get that too. And also to make sure that only the top .1% get it.

So blatantly obvious, yet most don't want to see it.

 

[Big Fin]

Yes they absolutely do.

This thread is troubling. If the arguments against this rely upon the intellectual dishonesty and multiple logical fallacies thrown against the wall here, public land supporters are screwed.

Ok, tell me how wildlife agencies purchasing lands relates to the attempts to transfer Federal lands to State Land Boards?

There is nothing intellectually dishonest in stating what I have. If anything, it is purposeful ignorance to conflate the issue with actions/ideas that are not even part of the proposed action being discussed.

So, for me to accept your answer, I'd need to know, "how does lands subsequently acquired by your DRN wildlife agency with hunter/angler license fees and excise taxes relate to the Utah lawsuit, the Wyoming et al amicus briefs, and the attempts by the dark money groups to transfer Federal lands to State Land Boards, with land boards completely different than wildlife agencies?"

I appreciate your wildlife agency acquiring lands for hunting and fishing. I wish there was more of that going on in every state. Yet, I need some guidance as to how this relates to the topic of this thread.

 

[44hunter45]

I still have that memory burned in my head of VP Vance snarkily responding to a reporter that Project 2025 is not a directional statement for the Administration.

E&E News: Trump’s BLM chief has a plan for housing: Sell off public lands

William Perry Pendley has long pushed for disposing the federal government of many of its protected lands in the West.

subscriber.politicopro.com