Let’s Stand Up and Play Offense in 2025

[TOGIE]

I personally place immense value on that access- but most people don’t. From a purely financial perspective (which is exactly how many would view the issue), this would be a net win for most people.

Also- I don't think it’s reality to claim that this would threaten all federal land.

i think from a financial perspective it would certainly be a win for the residents of these states over the non residents of the state if look at it financially.

again. is it more fun to win the mega millions and share it with 6 million people or 335 million people?

again, whatever the acreage ultimately ends up being in colorado, my pie of it from a trustee/financial perspective just go much bigger whereas your pie just disappeared. all the while the federal deficit still ballooned because everyone was hoodwinked along the way that this would do anything beyond a drop in the ocean for the federal budget.

 

[Treeshark]

all the while the federal deficit still ballooned because everyone was hoodwinked along the way that this would do anything beyond a drop in the ocean for the federal budget.

I personally agree with you here- it will be a drop in the bucket in comparison to the overall debt.

But you have to admit- this is low-risk red meat to the Doge bros and their loyal followers, and their timing might be just right.

 

[TOGIE]

But you have to admit- this is low-risk red meat to the Doge bros and their loyal followers, and their timing might be just right.

i do agree. which is why it's even more worrisome.

 

[SAJ-99]

So what you’re saying is the only thing preventing competent land management is the Federal government? You’re probably right in many cases, but thats making a point that I don’t think you wanted to make.

I can’t say that agree with the premise that competent land management is necessarily at odds with public access and conservation 100% of the time. Not all development is good, but not all is bad either.

If a state finds that these decisions being made without consideration towards those things, the residents of those states should probably address this with their land boards.

If an acre of land is usable/buildable, there is no way to make a financial NPV calculation work that would exceed the benefit of selling the land and putting the money in an average investment fund. Ask Idaho. This makes everything close to an "urban" area or even a remote "vacation destination" a top target for sale. Eventually we will end up with public land that is almost unuseable, at least until the some technology comes about that can extract value from it (see 12mil areas of Nevada desert for solar). "Starve the beast" is great on a bumper sticker, but it is dissonate with wanting to access millions of acres for free. The inability to place a $ value on public access, natural lands, etc will be the downfall of public lands. Eventually, once outdoor enthusiast and hunters lose access, they will stop caring at all. It already happened in many states east of the Mississippi. That is why applications jumped in the west.

 

[Treeshark]

My personal experience in my own state does not lead me to believe that losing recreational access is a forgone conclusion.

 

[Big Fin]

I don’t understand this- states are able to manage the wildlife on federal land just fine, and yet they become incompetent when it comes to managing the land itself?

That doesn’t make sense.

It makes sense when we consider that 200 million acres of these Federal lands are considered "critical habitat" under the Endangered Species Act and that any land management decisions by states, if they were owners, would never get implemented. The ESA will still rule these management outcomes if states own the lands. They are not exempted from such.

And the litigators, who are pros at this, would run circles around state AGs who have no budget or experience litigating these issues. There is not a single land management action in those 200 million acres that will not be litigated. That leaves the states in the same spot as the Feds, yet without the printing presses at the US Treasury.

The presence of the ESA classifying lands as "critical habitat" makes land management actions far different than wildlife management. ESA only cover certain species, yet is allowed to cast a far wider blanket when it comes to land and habitat.

If Congress wants better land management on Federal lands, they could tweak those things that are disrupting such. But, it's Congress, so the likelihood of beneficial change is close to zero.

 

[Treeshark]

I appreciate that post, @Big Fin. I am not trying to be cute in saying this, because I know you do not agree and are not going for this affect: in my opinion the points you made lead to a logical conclusion supporting more federal wildlife management on federal lands, not less.

That makes sense. Fed or state management for land and wildlife: one or the other, not mixed.

 

[BigHornRam]

I appreciate that post, @Big Fin. I am not trying to be cute in saying this, because I know you do not agree and are not going for this affect: in my opinion the points you made lead to a logical conclusion supporting more federal wildlife management on federal lands, not less.

That makes sense. Fed or state management for land and wildlife: one or the other, not mixed.

You are starting to drift into the sour spot.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I appreciate that post, @Big Fin. I am not trying to be cute in saying this, because I know you do not agree and are not going for this affect: in my opinion the points you made lead to a logical conclusion supporting more federal wildlife management on federal lands, not less.

No, BHR, it's a full-on drift to the edge of illogical conclusion based on lack of understanding of state wildlife management on behalf of citizens of the state versus the unrelated federal management of federal lands. It might make a "sour spot" drift if federal lands were managed soley as wildlife habitat, but that is far from the case.
Furthermore, the points made by Big Fin are not so much his opinion, as they are hard fact, established laws, engrained policies, and even a litany of litigation cases.

That makes sense. Fed or state management for land and wildlife: one or the other, not mixed.

Sensible only if skewed by a simple analogy, like apples to watermelons.

This issue has been so extensively explained through various mediums on this forum, time and again by Big Fin and others, that it is surprising that someone would come to such conclusions and choose to challenge the experience, expertise, knowledge, and encyclopedia of state wildlife management information and explanation of any related multiple use of federal public lands so thoroughly expressed by Big Fin ... repetitively.