119th house rules - transferring federal land

[seeth07]

Wisconsin was granted 10 million acres at statehood. Your state land board (BCPL) was put in charge of managing those lands, and has retained 78,000 of those acres. So, the elected officials of Wisconsin sold 99.22% of the lands granted at statehood. Fortunately, the Feds stepped in a reserved 1.5 million acres of National Forests and your DNR has been purchasing fee title lands.

Here's a good reference for Wisconsin from your legislature - https://bcpl.wisconsin.gov/bcpl.wisconsin.gov Shared Documents/Press/LRBPublicLands-June_2010.pdf

That's not much different than the other states with great agricultural lands. The productive lands were sold to settlers with the proceeds retained by the state land/education boards. That's what Congress had in mind when they established the Northwest Ordinance in 1787.

I think it's important to understand this.

That paper is old but is found right on the state dnr website under public lands and I've shared it on the site already as it's very informative on the history of the public lands in WI and helps show the growth of them recently from our state department. From it is this quote:

"The majority of this land was sold over 100 years ago, the proceeds of which established
four trust funds that continue to grow to this day."

The value and intended purpose of the lands in the late 1800s when most of this land was sold is entirely different than where it's at in this age. Instead of selling land to establish the state and allow it to provide for its citizens the state is instead investing and purchasing land for it's citizens.

An investing thing of note about WI public lands is the county land. It is a bit deceiving to say WI sold all 10 mil when a lot of that land was indeed sold but it was sold to the county so they could manage it to generate revenue for the county roads and public water and sewer departments. 2.6m acres are owned by counties and the recreational use is very similar to the state lands.

Lastly, a lot of that 10 mil acreage wasn't part of what was "given" to the state at statehood. It has been awhile since I've been to the WI maritime museum but there is some really cool history there explaining the history of rivers in WI and their use for commerce. The state owned them and sold them as power companies built dams to build reservoirs. So 1 mil may have been lost but was replaced with 1 mil acres of water - which is 100% public in WI. The power companies all pretty much allow recreation so basically public too.

So honestly, it gets me a bit agitated that we are fighting this with the same antics the other side is using. They are saying housing land is needed and we have useless public BLM land we can use for it (bullcrap story they are pouring out) and then this side is saying the land will get immediately sold to the highest bidder and 99% of it will be gone overnight (bullcrap too)

 

[Beignet]

Those folks have been quite open about their transfer intentions in the past. The most recent party platform just couched those intentions in some softer language and threw in a mention of housing to make it more appealing.

Big Fin hit the nail on the head with “[G]iven the American sport of hating on our government, scapegoating Uncle Sam and all that land he is hoarding fits their narrative.”

I’m afraid that public land is diminishing as a third rail issue, even in Montana.

 

[seeth07]

WI was given 1/36 at statehood so 34.8m x 1/36 = +/- 970k acres.

I cant find a 2025 number but its for sure morw than the number from that paper that reports 1.6 mil. My narrative is we have increased our public lands by 165% while also ensuring that 7.4 mil acres of water is clean and public.

 

[Big Fin]

So honestly, it gets me a bit agitated that we are fighting this with the same antics the other side is using. They are saying housing land is needed and we have useless public BLM land we can use for it (bullcrap story they are pouring out) and then this side is saying the land will get immediately sold to the highest bidder and 99% of it will be gone overnight (bullcrap too)

I've not seen anyone say that 99% of it will be gone or that it will be gone overnight.

History and state statute show that if these lands go to the states, within two decades huge amounts, I'd predict more than 50%, of it will be gone to private parties. The lands sold will be the most valuable to developers and recreation property buyers, likely controlling access to huge portions of the lands that are retained.

And when it happens, these lands will be sold to the highest bidder, unlikely to be any of us here on Hunt Talk.

None of that is bullcrap. The disposal by states is supported by history; from Ohio (99%) to Illinois (99%) to Wisconsin (whatever % you want to put to it) to North Dakota (77%) to California (9%) to Nevada (99%). And history shows many other western states have sold more than 50% of these lands.

Some of that disposal was by design, and much of that happened 150 years ago. The focus in Congress should be what we do to protect and better manage what we are left with today. Congress seems too lazy and derelict to work on changing the problems of Federal land management.

Giving it to western states who have zero experience defending land management actions from litigation is the exact recipe the "privateers" want and thus their desire to see these lands end up with western state land boards. I realize the currents in favor of the privateers and against those of us wanting to keep these lands as public and managed in more productive ways. The best path I know to fight those currents is to advocate for better land management that will steal much of the fuel needed by the privateers to accomplish their end goal of ridding American of these lands.

 

[Sytes]

I’m afraid that public land is diminishing as a third rail issue, even in Montana.

Agree. MT and elsewhere. Off the cuff thought, more of the rising generations are less outdoors, hunting, hiking, camping and more intercity, internet, and computer defined for extensial activities..
Pre and into the world of computers/internet, there was a grasp on getting out for enjoyment.
Saddened as this fades. As it fades, less strength. I'm all for opposing land transfer though supportive of some level of combined effort between state and federal, just as state facilitates the hunting /fishing on our federal lands. I believe there is opportunity to find a mutual agreement versus fighting an all out war, outnumbered. We lose, it's gone.

 

[BuzzH]

I think it's important to understand this.

That paper is old but is found right on the state dnr website under public lands and I've shared it on the site already as it's very informative on the history of the public lands in WI and helps show the growth of them recently from our state department. From it is this quote:

"The majority of this land was sold over 100 years ago, the proceeds of which established
four trust funds that continue to grow to this day."

The value and intended purpose of the lands in the late 1800s when most of this land was sold is entirely different than where it's at in this age. Instead of selling land to establish the state and allow it to provide for its citizens the state is instead investing and purchasing land for it's citizens.

An investing thing of note about WI public lands is the county land. It is a bit deceiving to say WI sold all 10 mil when a lot of that land was indeed sold but it was sold to the county so they could manage it to generate revenue for the county roads and public water and sewer departments. 2.6m acres are owned by counties and the recreational use is very similar to the state lands.

Lastly, a lot of that 10 mil acreage wasn't part of what was "given" to the state at statehood. It has been awhile since I've been to the WI maritime museum but there is some really cool history there explaining the history of rivers in WI and their use for commerce. The state owned them and sold them as power companies built dams to build reservoirs. So 1 mil may have been lost but was replaced with 1 mil acres of water - which is 100% public in WI. The power companies all pretty much allow recreation so basically public too.

So honestly, it gets me a bit agitated that we are fighting this with the same antics the other side is using. They are saying housing land is needed and we have useless public BLM land we can use for it (bullcrap story they are pouring out) and then this side is saying the land will get immediately sold to the highest bidder and 99% of it will be gone overnight (bullcrap too)

I think Bigfins point is still valid, assuming the counties did retain a fraction of the 10 million acres, around 25%.

Pretty tough to call that a public land victory when 75% of it is in private ownership. Even tougher to claim that WI has done anything close to a "good job" with their state lands. They've done like shit in my opinion.

The study funded by the State of Utah told the story pretty well. Utah would have to sell the best/most valuable half of their newly acquired federal lands to maybe afford to manage the remaining half. I think every Western state would be in the exact same position.

There is no doubt that all the Western states would quickly become real estate agents if they acquire federal lands.

The answer is to demand Congress to properly fund the land management agencies.

Also, if anyone is under the delusion they'll be able to afford to buy any of it at fire sale prices for hunting, they better pull their heads out. You won't be competing for that land with your broke uncle.

 

[seeth07]

None of that is bullcrap. The disposal by states is supported by history; from Ohio (99%) to Illinois (99%) to Wisconsin (whatever % you want to put to it) to North Dakota (77%) to California (9%) to Nevada (99%). And history shows many other western states have sold more than 50% of these lands.

Some of that disposal was by design, and much of that happened 150 years ago.

See you are still doing it (misdeceiving your audience with your scary numbers) until you tossed in that one sentence disclaimer. Different time, different purpose.

Let's talk today. 2000 to now, so the last 25 years. Show me a chart of state lands from 2000 to 2025. Are the states buyers or sellers?

You mention Ohio. 800k granted and ok, maybe 99% of it was sold by 1900. But it's now up to over 200k. Quick Google search and I see in the last 2 years 3 big purchases of over 5k acres expanding wildlife state areas.

 

[BuzzH]

See you are still doing it (misdeceiving your audience with your scary numbers) until you tossed in that one sentence disclaimer. Different time, different purpose.

Let's talk today. 2000 to now, so the last 25 years. Show me a chart of state lands from 2000 to 2025. Are the states buyers or sellers?

You mention Ohio. 800k granted and ok, maybe 99% of it was sold by 1900. But it's now up to over 200k. Quick Google search and I see in the last 2 years 3 big purchases of over 5k acres expanding wildlife state areas.

Many Western States have no net gain in state land laws in place.

Some are still disposing of state lands as well, the agitator of this current crap leading the pack.

 

[BigHornRam]

3 years + ago the New York Times did a piece on the red tape involved in selling off unused federal properties. Washington cannot continue to operate in this unsustainable manner.

Plan to Sell Unused Federal Property Becomes ‘Arm-Wrestling Contest’ (Published 2021)

A little-known independent board created to expedite the disposal of unused land and buildings has been hampered by a lawsuit, staff shortages and pushback from other agencies.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Treeshark]

Many Western States have no net gain in state land laws in place.

Now would probably be a great time for residents of those states to get to work on changing that.

Some sort of fed-to-state transfer movement seems fairly likely at this point.

 

[BuzzH]

Now would probably be a great time for residents of those states to get to work on changing that.

Meh. My guess is the USSC isn't going to entertain Utah's horseshit.

Met with our Governor a couple weeks back, they are so concerned about Utah's lawsuit they don't have a mechanism in place to take the lands.

Let alone any plan on how those lands would be designated.

That's the political way of saying we know it's going nowhere and we look stupid signing on with Utah.

 

[Treeshark]

Meh. My guess is the USSC isn't going to entertain Utah's horseshit.

You may be right on that. I’m not sure that’s going to be the only attempt we see at this over the next four years.

 

[SAJ-99]

See you are still doing it (misdeceiving your audience with your scary numbers) until you tossed in that one sentence disclaimer. Different time, different purpose.

Let's talk today. 2000 to now, so the last 25 years. Show me a chart of state lands from 2000 to 2025. Are the states buyers or sellers?

You mention Ohio. 800k granted and ok, maybe 99% of it was sold by 1900. But it's now up to over 200k. Quick Google search and I see in the last 2 years 3 big purchases of over 5k acres expanding wildlife state areas.

how much was funded by federal matching PR funds?

 

[Straight Arrow]

The answer is to demand Congress to properly fund the land management agencies.

YES!!!

 

[recon6036]

Michigan’s use of State land

Michigan plans to clear 400+ acres of state forest near Gaylord for solar farm

Officials with the DNR recently assessed 1,200 acres of public trust land in Otsego County near a major power transmission line to decide whether it was suitable for solar arrays.

www.mlive.com

 

[SAJ-99]

Meh. My guess is the USSC isn't going to entertain Utah's horseshit.

Met with our Governor a couple weeks back, they are so concerned about Utah's lawsuit they don't have a mechanism in place to take the lands.

Let alone any plan on how those lands would be designated.

That's the political way of saying we know it's going nowhere and we look stupid signing on with Utah.

I certainly hope you are right. It takes 4 justices to agree to take the case. I know there are 3 that are an easy "yes".

 

[Big Fin]

You may be right on that. I’m not sure that’s going to be the only attempt we see at this over the next four years.

I suspect you are correct in that concern.

See you are still doing it (misdeceiving your audience with your scary numbers) until you tossed in that one sentence disclaimer. Different time, different purpose.

Let's talk today. 2000 to now, so the last 25 years. Show me a chart of state lands from 2000 to 2025. Are the states buyers or sellers?

You mention Ohio. 800k granted and ok, maybe 99% of it was sold by 1900. But it's now up to over 200k. Quick Google search and I see in the last 2 years 3 big purchases of over 5k acres expanding wildlife state areas.

No, I'm not "misdeceiving" anyone. Everything I put there is a fact.

I would challenge your notion that it is not worth looking further back than just 2000. The reason many states (CA, NV, and the midwest states) have not had much for sales since 2000 is because they liquidated almost all of their inventory a long time ago; in some cases, more than a century ago. If these states still had inventory, they would likely have robust auction programs like those I will list below.

You are conflating different issues by mixing State Land Boards and Wildlife Agencies. The proposals are to give these lands to state land boards, far different than state wildlife agencies.

Wildlife agencies have used license and excise tax dollars to acquire lands, such as the examples you mention in Ohio. That is not what we are talking about with these proposals. Wildlife agencies, their purpose, and the statutes governing them are far different than state land boards.

Your Wisconsin BCPL is far different than your wildlife agency. My Montana DNRC is far different from my FWP wildlife agency. Different in mission and governing statute. Conflating the two types of state agencies is irrelevant to the proposal of the privateers.

This is a discussion of what State Land Boards would do with these lands, not state wildlife agencies. To add in wildlife agency acquisitions alters/ignores what these privateers are proposing. That's why I focus on State Land Board actions (BCPL, DNRC, and others).

Only one western state land board has increased ownership; Arizona. They have sold their lands in the Phoenix/Tucson metro areas for huge sums and used some of those proceeds. it to acquire more rural lands.

If we want to talk about recent auctions, here are the three most active western states in land auctions over the last ten years:

Utah State Land Board (SILT) auctions in the last five years. They have the most robust program and thy are showing the other states what can be done if a state decides to treat land as "salable inventory" rather than investment to be held for long-term returns - https://trustlands.utah.gov/work-with-us/surface/land-sales/

Alaska State Land Board auctions (you have to do input search criteria). Anyone can nominate parcels. I have Alaska family members who have nominated and purchased quite a few parcels - https://dnr.alaska.gov/mlw/landsales/

Oregon State Land Board - https://www.oregon.gov/dsl/lands/pages/land-sales.aspx

Seems we disagree with the notion of what would happen, and how quickly it would happen, if Federal lands were granted to the states. You seem less concerned about what would happen and I seem more concerned. Those differences are based on how we are assessing the situation and interpreting how we see the events unfolding.

I hope we never have to find out which degree of concern was more correct.

 

[Hydrophilic]

Yet the focus of the people we vote into office all carry the ideal that our public lands and waters are a high priority. Why is that? Don't you think it is because it's what the residents of this state strongly want the people we vote in to do?

The fact that your western politicians get voted in and don't want to serve this purpose by selling the land off is what scares me because that means the either the residents of those states don't care about public lands and waters or they are so uninformed by twisted policies to make them believe otherwise.

Oregon residents want the same. There was so much public uproar it didn’t go through.

Things change and constituents views and wants change, even if that doesn’t seem possible. Financial burden is completely different for states.

 

[quarterhorse]

Make no mistake, this effort is about getting public lands into private hands. It is not about affordable housing, better land management, or federal vs. state government. Those are just red herrings to confuse the issue.

States are simply the avenue to make the land sales happen. Politicians see dollar signs and the wealthiest and most powerful people and companies see opportunity.

 

[Irrelevant]

There are 3 types of lies, lies, damn lies, and statistics.

You can find data to support just about anything. We all have different perspectives based on our life experiences. None of us are likely to be 100% correct.

There seems to be a lot of effort put into trying to sway decisions at a federal level with regard to public land management, where we individually have less say, and not in trying to change things at the State level where we have proportionally more say. Why not focus on changing MT regs to allow net increase in public land ownership? Why not work to modify the mandate for trust lands to value recreation and wildlife habitat on equal footings as revenue?