12 states join Utah

[mtmiller]

If I believe your hypotheticals, it could be a big change.

I’m not a lawyer, but from what I read in the article, the reality is the federal govt just needs to define the purpose of the properties and the lawsuit is over.

It seems that’s the solution to keep the status quo which you seem to want. Last I heard, BLM land isn’t managed very well, and I can’t see why the land doesn’t need a defined purpose.

To be clear, all federal property is controlled by whichever party is in control at the time. Obviously, all state land is as well.

This series should be required viewing before jumping in with both feet (I was going to go with another term, but you get the idea).

And Buzz, way to f up a good story.

 

[44hunter45]

This series should be required viewing before jumping in with both feet (I was going to go with another term, but you get the idea).

And Buzz, way to f up a good story.

Seriously recommend Hal Herring's explanations of "Defund and Decry" on the BHA Podcast and Blast as well. Of course the same people saying that Federal lands are mismanaged say that Hal (and me) is a Green Decoy. Funny how they want you to follow the money trail of those that oppose them, but not their own "movement". That sword definitely cuts both ways.

Hal's movie is free on YouTube. What an eye opener. This film made me tear up my "Sagebrush Rebel" paraphernalia. For a ranch raised Republican Boomer, that is a big deal.
I came away appalled that I had been so deceived for so long.

 

[mukbowhunt]

Joining the fight to push back on this. It would be a disaster for hunting and fishing. However I also don’t want the government putting clean energy plants on every piece of BLM or building affordable housing on it.

We need to fight this land grab with everything we have!

 

[Jnasa]

I don't understand how this lawsuit is a problem unless you trust the federal government more than the state government. Maybe some of you do when your party is in control.

I suppose you like the prospect of federal lands being turned over to the states? Then for the states to sell them to the highest bidder because they don’t have the funding to manage lands. If you believe politicians in favor of this such as Labrador intend those lands to stay public you are mistaken.

 

[hank4elk]

I was not going to vote this year, screw em I said to the tv.
Never been a member of a party. I hate both of the 2 running things.
Being run by $.

My love of our Public Lands and watching the Public Trust film might have saved me.

I know if they take my Public Lands and sell them off to destroy forever, they will take my little 140 acres in a heartbeat.

 

[Bonasababy]

I don't understand how this lawsuit is a problem unless you trust the federal government more than the state government. Maybe some of you do when your party is in control.

My take...welcome comments on it....us that the real intent is borne out of western states school trust land "success"...which has taken public land and dedicated it towards extractive industries with a primary goal of immediate income production.

Big money from industry behind it.

The claim the feds need to designate is just cover for the goal of states getting control over the lands so they can hand it over to industry....at the expense of anything else, which will fall below that in priority.

 

[Djfan]

I just want to understand the dominant view here, so here goes.

The concern is that these lands, once in state control, will be greatly restricted like state lands are now, and probably sold off to contributors, big business, etc., instead of land used for recreation?

Sorry to sound uninformed. It's just that I am probably misinformed.

 

[Southern Elk]

Here’s the chart that shows what the states did with land that they were given. It’s a good indicator of what will happen if they get their hands on more.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Is it always the case that state land is significantly higher fees for recreation and commercial use?

Curious how struggling small time cattle operations paying 6x the fee to run cattle on state in lieu of blm never crossed anyones mind.

 

[Big Fin]

I just want to understand the dominant view here, so here goes.

The concern is that these lands, once in state control, will be greatly restricted like state lands are now, and probably sold off to contributors, big business, etc., instead of land used for recreation?

Sorry to sound uninformed. It's just that I am probably misinformed.

Correct. If not sold, which the best of them will be, the use is highly restricted and often to the exclusive benefit of certain groups. They will no longer be "multiple-use," rather exclusive use to those who have the political connection to influence state law.

It is why state lands in Colorado are off limits to anything, without permission from (usually acquired by payment to) the lessee. It is why you cannot camp on state lands in WY and NM. It is why you cannot recreational shoot on state lands in AZ, NM, CA.

The part many will try to tell you is that the states will do a better job. They won't. They don't have the resources. And, they are not exempt from Federal law in how they manage these lands.

The states will still be tied up in courts due to the ESA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and multiple Federal laws that are a huge part of the reason BLM and USFS management actions are litigated and usually stopped. If one looks at a map of the western US and overlays a map of areas that have an ESA species designation, it's a huge commonality. But, the folks promoting this idea don't want us to think about it that way, as it makes it very apparent that they aren't interested in better management, rather having it tied up in courts and making it unprofitable to retain these formerly Federal lands, which in turn, under state land board rules, would require these lands be sold.

After I did a Fresh Tracks weekly on this a few weeks ago, a person retired from one of the land agencies in Utah, who happens to be a big hunter, got in touch with me. He led the agency for many years. He told me to stick with this topic and not let of, as what I have been illustrating as the motivation is exactly the end goal of the many politicians he had to deal with in Utah.

Thanks for your interest in the topic.

 

[morley.tyler]

You nailed it in a single sentence.

I just want to understand the dominant view here, so here goes.

The concern is that these lands, once in state control, will be greatly restricted like state lands are now, and probably sold off to contributors, big business, etc., instead of land used for recreation?

Sorry to sound uninformed. It's just that I am probably misinformed.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

What's stupid is that south Dakota hardly has any BLM land and yet signed onto the brief. That tells me we don't actually care, because no one in the state is bringing this up as an issue. We likely signed on for political reasons and that irks me. Can't say I'm surprised, but it still irks me regardless

 

[SAJ-99]

Whatever happened to "I have a pen". If it was worth a diaper change to the current CIC, he could have already signed an executive order making all unappropriated federal land a national monument, yes?

Yes and no. There are rules as to what qualifies, but there is no check on Potus and that person has full authority for the declaration under the Antiquities Act, but it cuts off the "multiple use". Given about 25% of all oil output comes from Federal Land, that would cause a bit of a problem. Then the next Potus comes along and wipes it all away with the swipe of the pen. Choas and confusion is no way to run a country.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ask the proponents of these boondoggles to show you their plan for management.

Not one of them has one. So, they want the land, but they don't have any concept of how to pay for it, manage it, or change their own laws to ensure access to it. Nobody has talked about AUM grazing rates (state land rates tend to be exponentially higher in cost that fed grazing rates), mineral rights, etc.

We fought this off 10 years ago across the west. The entire issue is a political red herring for one party to try and capitalize on the anti-federal gov't bent of some westerners. The topic doesn't come up at all when "their team" is sitting in the Oval office.

 

[Bonasababy]

What's stupid is that south Dakota hardly has any BLM land and yet signed onto the brief. That tells me we don't actually care, because no one in the state is bringing this up as an issue. We likely signed on for political reasons and that irks me. Can't say I'm surprised, but it still irks me regardless

As a SD landowner and occasional hunter, your school trust lands--which are NOT managed for recreation or wildlife as they should in part be--are the template. Lots of them. You'd never know it as they are grazed to death, farmed hard, or otherwise look nothing like lands managed for multiple uses including hunting or fishing or fish and game.

 

[Forkyfinder]

One of the most frustrating myths is that these departments are inherently inept at managing.

I am certain theres some waste/issues.... However vast majority of management issues we are frustrated about are primarily driven by litigation and the associated programming/schematics of why the platniffs are incentivized to sue.

Not one bit of that changes - and i can only imagine the stupid 3 way political football game that would transpire between state management, federal regulation, and suite ready "enviromental" orgs.

 

[SD_Prairie_Goat]

As a SD landowner and occasional hunter, your school trust lands--which are NOT managed for recreation or wildlife as they should in part be--are the template. Lots of them. You'd never know it as they are grazed to death, farmed hard, or otherwise look nothing like lands managed for multiple uses including hunting or fishing or fish and game.

Sadly you are correct. I've hunted them a few times for mule deer out west, but they're pretty sad and never seem to hold any deer, grazed until there's nothing left

 

[CT_SD]

I’ll be contacting the SD attorney generals office to voice my displeasure.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I’ll be contacting the SD attorney generals office to voice my displeasure.

Does this mean i should thank MTs for not being a numbnutz for the first time?

 

[elkduds]

If you don't understand the problem with this proposal, I suspect you're not well informed on how things work on state lands in most places in the west.

Let's walk through just a few scenarios as to why it has nothing to do with which party is in control, rather it has everything to do with losing hundreds of millions of acres where we currently can hunt, fish, camp, shoot, hike, etc.

A few examples below, by state, if Federal lands are transferred to the state land boards of the west. This assumes the states wouldn't sell them as Utah wants to do, which is a bad assumption:

Arizona - You just lost 28 million acres on which you can currently recreationally shoot and you will not be able to do so when it is under state ownership.

New Mexico - You just lost 24 million acres where you can no longer camp or recreationally shoot when it is under state ownership. Currently you can do all of that on Federal lands, but you will not be able to do any of that if this Utah land grab goes through. And NM G&F will have to pay a hell of a lot more than it currently pays to allow license holders to hunt on the current state owned lands.

Colorado - You just lost 23 million acres currently open to hunting, camping, hiking, biking, shooting. None of that is allowed on state owned lands unless you are the lessee of such lands.

Wyoming - You just lost camping on 29 million acres of lands currently open to such, as Wyoming doesn't allow camping on state lands. Wanna hunt deer in Region G or H? No backcountry hunts, as you can't camp, so you have to hike in and out each day. No camping at a nearby trailhead, as you can't do that now, so you have to drive from Jackson or Alpine or Daniels or (insert here). Wanna hunt the Thoroughfare? Better have some damn good horses than can ride in/out 20 miles each day, as you can't camp back there once these are state-owned lands.

Nevada - Currently there is unrestricted camping and shooting on 56 million acres in Nevada. Under this proposal, it would require a permit and application for such uses, subject to denial.

California - You just lost shooting and hunting on 45 million acres when the state becomes the owner.

I could go on and on about Utah, Alaska, Oregon, Washington. Not sure it makes any difference to anyone who looks at every issue through the lens of political parties.

The only reason this is partisan is that Rs make up 100% of the people who signed on to the stupid idea that would cost us hundreds of millions of acres of places to hunt, shoot, camp, hike. That is a fact. Everything I have cited above, and a lot more I could write, is fact. None of that is partisan politics as you imply.

I vote for a lot of Republicans, but they are completely wrong on this idea. This pigheaded effort is going to be the focus of my platforms in the coming months. I don't care if they are R or D, if you try to screw us out of places to hunt, fish, camp, hike, shoot, I'm going to make you the focus of my efforts.

Cracks me up when the hyper-partisans want to defend every action of "their guys" even when it would eff them out of their places to hunt and fish.

What you can do about this travesty against our public lands legacy: Vote blue.