If you don't currently see it, then either your not looking very hard or you head is, ah...in the the sand.
Great American Outdoors Act
- Thread starter FlatlanderAZ
- Start date
If you don't currently see it, then either your not looking very hard or you head is, ah...in the the sand.
MTLabrador
Well-known member
If you think they’re poorly managed now then imagine what they’d look like under the state budgets. Especially in a bad fire season. The states just don’t have the resources.
Please define poorly managed, it’s a oft repeated comment and I’ve never seen someone really say what they think it means
Most of the “poor management” of federal lands is due to a few key factors: 1.) Multiple use management. Roads may be beat up from oil trucks, areas you want to hunt may be full of sheep, etc 2.)Up until last year the forest service was forced to use over 50% of their funding on fighting forest fires 3.) The same politicians who complain about poor management are the same folks who keep cutting budgets for our federal land management agencies
seeth07
Well-known member
Examples from Wisconsin Federal Lands:
1) Boat ramps closed due to lack of funds to repair them (closed to avoid injuries/damage)
2) Forest roads closed due to rain wash out
3) Not having funding to replant a pine forest after it was logged due to tornado
FI460
Well-known member
So advocate for more funding, like this bill would provide.
That's peanuts compared to what many western states have done with their state lands. Nevada has sold almost the entirety of it's 4 million acres it was granted.
The federal lands have been chronically underfunded since Senator Heyburn was in office.
seeth07
Well-known member
Sorry. I'd rather my Federal taxes don't go up. More funding isn't always the answer. We aren't communists.
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
Yea, you kinda need to get a little more informed on the issue. Your confusion lies in the fact that state lands in the west are nowhere even comparable to state lands in Wisconsin, not even close. They are not managed for multi-use like our lands are. I live by state, county, and federal lands. The whole "federal lands are mismanaged" is just BS that is believed to be true because people keep saying it enough times in my opinion. Many studies have shown that transferring lands to states is an economic nightmare for the state, especially wildfires. Lastly, we already have some in the legislature who complain that our state lands aren't being managed, how are we going to take on the Chequamegon, St Croix Riverway, etc.?
Northwoods Labs
Well-known member
I'd like to here about specific lakes on number 1. Never had this problem. Selfishly, I'd say number 2 is a good thing....hahaha
How do you think it gets funded? Do you want it “managed” or not?
Does it cost money for the state to manage? Where does that come from?
FI460
Well-known member
The money has always been there. Our priorities have not.
seeth07
Well-known member
Look at chequamegon waters and cold creek on the upper miss wildlife refuge.
I'll concede that I know almost nothing about how lands are actually used in the west in terms of state and fed. What I do know is that in this Midwest state, it would be a good thing. And I'll gladly pay a state tax boost for management here. I'll pay out of state licence fees for my part when I visit a state. Paying it federally for all other states use where I could care less about that states lands is what I don't like.
seeth07
Well-known member
Yes I know and furthermore just from royalties on extraction of resources from Federal lands.
Actually no, royalties from offshore oil and gas.
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,078
And there you go. If it’s not directly benefitting you, what value is it, right?
Take a state like Wyoming, which non residents love to hunt. I plan to hunt there this fall. Maybe you’ll want to hunt there in the future. Wyoming doesn’t have the sort of tax base (low population, low state taxes) to pay for the management of all that land. So if it’s to remain public, it’ll have to be paid for in other ways, and no doubt those ways would be ugly. Personally, I’ll fight like hell to not see that happen.
Last edited:
rtraverdavis
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2016
- Messages
- 4,078
This cannot be overstated.
BuzzH
Well-known member
When you find yourself in a hole....
Full stop then, research more
Your state lands are managed differently from mine, but i sure don’t know a lot about how they are differently managed, just how mine are - just as a slightly relevant analogy, would it feel fair or well informed of me to argue then that your state should sell all its lands to fed because they’ll be managed better?
The states do not view the State Trust lands as public lands. They view them, correctly so, as private lands over which the state is trustee, on behalf of a particular beneficiary (the education system). That may come as a surprise to you, but it is a fact, and upheld by law.
You are supporting transferring lands from a public Federal agency that grants us use to those lands at no charge, and advocating such currently accessible lands be given to a State Trust that has a defined beneficiary; the state schools.
Why do you think you can't camp on WY state lands, or NM state lands, or hunt on CO state lands, or recreational shoot on AZ state lands, or........
The reason why is that those lands are not public lands. Ask any western state land board and they will tell you the same. Doubt this fact, look at below, a screen shot from the NM State Land website. And AZ, UT, and CO previously had the same big banner notice on their websites until we did a video series on the topic, after which they took that statement off their websites. All of them will tell you that once the lands are part of their Trust, the lands are no longer public lands.
What you are supporting is transferring public lands to an institution that is not public. Just because the state is the Trustee doesn't make it public.
Why would you want to lose 23 million acres of hunting access in Colorado? Why would you want to be forced to day hunt the Wyoming Range for mule deer when those USFS lands were transferred to the state agency that doesn't allow camping? Why would you want to have to spend 3-4 hours driving in/out of the Gila each day on your elk hunt because that state agency won't let you camp where you can currently camp? I suspect you don't want any of those outcomes, but that is the result that will happen if your position became reality.
You stated you had a different perspective. Yes, it is a perspective, a perspective that lacks information, facts, and context.
You stated that the states with a lot of public land don't sell those lands. Yes, they do sell those lands and that is why the anti-public land crowd views the state land boards as such good agents/conduits to accomplish their goal of getting the Federal public lands into private hands. Here are the results of some of the largest public land states in the lower 48. They're really good at selling lands once they get them from Uncle Sam.
To save some embarrassment, I'd recommend you understand how western state land boards work. Maybe study the history of the anti-public land movement and how they attempt to accomplish their goals of getting these lands into the hands of their friends and donors. If you think the disposals in the chart above went to good old hard working average folks, you would be mistaken. They went to the well-connected and the well-financed entities, not to Joe or Jane Public.
