119th house rules - transferring federal land

[BuzzH]

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?

It's been tried. You're fighting entrenched forces at the State level that are not inclined to give habitat, recreation, etc a single move up the rung of the value ladder.

I mean to the point that livestock/real estate, etc. interests thwart legislation for a state lands recreational use permit that would generate over a million for the State trust.

They don't even want to give the impression of a competing interest.

I don't think State ownership gives you any more local control, but absolutely does limit your ability to use State trust lands (no camping on Wyoming trust lands as one example of many).

 

[Sytes]

Enhanced/Increased "Good Neighbor Authority" and less Federal to State transfer of our lands.
Federal Government CRS .pdf attached.

 

[Flynarrow]

It's been tried. You're fighting entrenched forces at the State level that are not inclined to give habitat, recreation, etc a single move up the rung of the value ladder.

I mean to the point that livestock/real estate, etc. interests thwart legislation for a state lands recreational use permit that would generate over a million for the State trust.

They don't even want to give the impression of a competing interest.

I don't think State ownership gives you any more local control, but absolutely does limit your ability to use State trust lands (no camping on Wyoming trust lands as one example of many).

And Colorado leases out some of their State lands to outfitters if i'm not mistaken. Kiss your a** access away baby.

 

[Treeshark]

Kiss your a** access away baby.

*Free access.

 

[BuzzH]

*Free access.

Many places money won't even get you access.

 

[Hydrophilic]

@Big Fin , is this pretty much copy and paste language from previous republican congresses? I seem to remember you pointing out this language in the past. Either way, you are correct about contacting our congressman. Maybe I’ll send Zinke a reminder.

From what I could find it also appeared:
115th House rules (Jan 3, 2017- Jan 3, 2019): https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20170102/BILLS-115hres5-PIH-FINAL.pdf

118th House rules (Jan 3, 2023 - Jan 3, 2025): https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/5/text

and now 119th house (Jan 3, 2025 - Jan 3, 2027)

 

[Irrelevant]

It's been tried. You're fighting entrenched forces at the State level that are not inclined to give habitat, recreation, etc a single move up the rung of the value ladder.

I mean to the point that livestock/real estate, etc. interests thwart legislation for a state lands recreational use permit that would generate over a million for the State trust.

They don't even want to give the impression of a competing interest.

I don't think State ownership gives you any more local control, but absolutely does limit your ability to use State trust lands (no camping on Wyoming trust lands as one example of many).

If you can't convince your own state, a state full of constituents that greatly benefit from increased public land, then what hope is there in an entire country? The battles, no matter where they're played, will always be there, it seems prudent to focus on reinforcing the weakest and potential most influenced walls first.

 

[BuzzH]

If you can't convince your own state, a state full of constituents that greatly benefit from increased public land, then what hope is there in an entire country? The battles, no matter where they're played, will always be there, it seems prudent to focus on reinforcing the weakest and potential most influenced walls first.

Freedom caucus.

 

[BrentD]

L

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

Sounds cute, but it is a damn lie. Really.

 

[seeth07]

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.

I have to admit that I've been wrong.

I had to do some digging and ask a few questions and turns out that lands labeled "state forest" aren't managed by the BCPL in WI but instead by the WDNR and forest management with the Division of Forestry. So my impressions of how well managed the forests such as "Flambeau State Forest" were skewed and not necessarily representative of the BCPL.

I'm actually struggling to find any detailed information on the land and policies and strategies for managing the few 70k acres they have. Without this information it makes it hard to know anything about what they would do with an increase in ownership.

 

[Treeshark]

Without this information it makes it hard to know anything about what they would do with an increase in ownership.

My guess is the state would charge counties with managing the land for multiple use (in the form of county forest) as they have done in the past. That or a fee title acquisition by the WDNR.

 

[Treeshark]

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.

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

 

[Nameless Range]

I think if we were to argue the consequences in terms of what would actually happen, it seems far more likely based on the background evidence of what Land Boards have done with past parcels under their purview, that many if not most states would see a net-decrease in public lands.

But really, one of the strongest arguments against PLT is simply one of heritorship.

Any given US Citizen currently has 640 million acres of land on which they are entitled as anyone else to hike, explore, seek adventure, and a million other things on. I'll just use myself as a Montanan, to expound on the outcome. If PLT were to transpire, I, someone who has 640 million American acres to play upon, all of a sudden only has 30 million acres of which I am a defacto beneficiary of. I just lost my stake in 610 million acres. It's worse for the majority of those in the other states.

It's a taking of an American birthright, and no amount of finangling in State Legislative bodies would change that.

 

[BrentD]

I think if we were to argue the consequences in terms of what would actually happen, it seems far more likely based on the background evidence of what Land Boards have done with past parcels under their purview, that many if not most states would see a net-decrease in public lands.

But really, one of the strongest arguments against PLT is simply one of heritorship.

Any given US Citizen currently has 640 million acres of land on which they are entitled as anyone else to hike, explore, seek adventure, and a million other things on. I'll just use myself as a Montanan, to expound on the outcome. If PLT were to transpire, I, someone who has 640 million American acres to play upon, all of a sudden only has 30 million acres of which I am a defacto beneficiary of. I just lost my stake in 610 million acres. It's worse for the majority of those in the other states.

It's a taking of an American birthright, and no amount of finangling in State Legislative bodies would change that.

Exactly. The federal lands in Wyoming do not belong to Wyotes. They belong to Americans. All of them.

 

[seeth07]

I think if we were to argue the consequences in terms of what would actually happen, it seems far more likely based on the background evidence of what Land Boards have done with past parcels under their purview, that many if not most states would see a net-decrease in public lands.

But really, one of the strongest arguments against PLT is simply one of heritorship.

Any given US Citizen currently has 640 million acres of land on which they are entitled as anyone else to hike, explore, seek adventure, and a million other things on. I'll just use myself as a Montanan, to expound on the outcome. If PLT were to transpire, I, someone who has 640 million American acres to play upon, all of a sudden only has 30 million acres of which I am a defacto beneficiary of. I just lost my stake in 610 million acres. It's worse for the majority of those in the other states.

It's a taking of an American birthright, and no amount of finangling in State Legislative bodies would change that.

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.

 

[Treeshark]

If PLT were to transpire, I, someone who has 640 million American acres to play upon, all of a sudden only has 30 million acres of which I am a defacto beneficiary of.

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.

 

[BrentD]

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.

I don't know where you get this. I do not care if it is one acre of Mississippi bottomland. I think you have missed the points entirely.

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

Most PLT efforts, are not solely focused on BLM. The include USFS as well. Lets subtract the 80 million acres of National Parks, which is fair. We are now talking about 560 million acres. Does that make it better?

For the sake of argument though, let's subtract USFS. There's 8 million acres of BLM in Montana. I just lost my stake in 235 million acres of American Public Land. Are you under the impression that should be an acceptable outcome to me? It would be far greater of a taking for the majority of Americans.

 

[Nameless Range]

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.

We can argue about USFS vs BLM, but the PLT proponents I've spoken to (I know the guy who wrote the plank for the Montana GOP) include USFS. But again, even if we were to simply focus on BLM, why should Americans support losing their stake in hundreds of millions of acres in public
land?


"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

 

[seeth07]

We can argue about USFS vs BLM, but the PLT proponents I've spoken to (I know the guy who wrote the plank for the Montana GOP) include USFS. But again, even if we were to simply focus on BLM, why should Americans support losing their stake in hundreds of millions of acres in public land?

I do care and agree from our perspective we shouldn't allow the transfer to a private entity. What I do care about is getting the facts straight and not providing false numbers and narratives because it makes you look just as bad as them.