12 states join Utah

[MTGomer]

Just delivered another proposal to a repeat client for my firm to complete an ALTA survey on one section ( 640 acres ) of Arizona State trust land.
Should my client be the successful at auction, we’ll have work subdividing it for years.
It’s extra valuable because it backs to BLM recreation opportunities on two sides.

we will subdivide YOUR hunting spot too, if you let the state get ahold of it.

 

[rogerthat]

Fantastic comments and links on this subject. This right here is why I stick around here.

Edit: well that and to bitch about montana hunting

 

[INMT]

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

Just wait until November 6. He'll join the suit then.

 

[brymoore]

If you believe politicians in favor of this such as Labrador intend those lands to stay public you are mistaken.

Labrador has a high probability of being Idaho’s next governor.

 

[mtmiller]

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

Marty will get on it immediately.

 

[COEngineer]

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/439

 

[Wild Bill]

Marty will get on it immediately.

He lives like a block and a half down from me. I'll have to walk the dog down that way..... ooooops I forgot a bag!

 

[WesternWyoming]

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.

Thank you Big Fin!

 

[3855WIN]

I understand that nearly all of us want the most access to outdoor recreation.
But is there a legal argument that 70% of a state should be Federal land? Asking, as I have no idea.

 

[mtmiller]

He lives like a block and a half down from me. I'll have to walk the dog down that way..... ooooops I forgot a bag!

We went to school together. We have different political views, but I have lots of respect for him.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

If I recall correctly, @jimh406 lives in AK? And if I’m following correctly, AK has shown the downside of lands being federal vs state for us hunters. I’m still on team Randy for us lower 48ers but the feds sure eff non-subsistence users on AK public lands.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I understand that nearly all of us want the most access to outdoor recreation.
But is there a legal argument that 70% of a state should be Federal land? Asking, as I have no idea.

Good primer on the constitutionality of it all:

Private: Public Land Transfer Laws: Not Constitutional Then, Not Constitutional Now | ACS

www.acslaw.org

TLDR: States gave up claim to those lands once admitted into the union.

 

[SAJ-99]

I understand that nearly all of us want the most access to outdoor recreation.
But is there a legal argument that 70% of a state should be Federal land? Asking, as I have no idea.

I think that is a very complicated question that we have been arguing about over 200years. Property Clause is the typical basis of argument for transfer, but 200 years of precedent has said "no".

I think the short answer(s) is 1) in the early days of western statehood, corruption was the name of the game, so the Feds just kept control of everything with a good use. 2) the state typically didn't want management because of the cost. If it couldn't be farmed or ranched, no one wanted it. Now, the natural resource discoveries lead to the states saying "give us the land", (notice the "give" and not "let us buy"). The public outcry against it is loud because so many people enjoy federal lands and the lands generate a lot of needed resources and funds....(and corruption is maybe still a problem in some places). If Utah wanted a piece of Fed land granted to build a public university, the feds would probably be willing to listen. Just IMO.

The interesting thing here is Utah cut out the middle man...the citizens. They went straight to SCOTUS (you know, that group of unelected government employees with no accountability to the citizens). Any congress person or even governor can simply say "Sorry, nothing I can do...".

 

[3855WIN]

Thanks for the above replies.

 

[ID_to_NV2012]

Check. Makes a difference starting with the county offices.
Lots on my "They Mean Well" but will do no good folks in my county.

I think they are clueless. It's beyond me why these folks will push for this.