MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State

[Ben Lamb]

Are you willing to pay more in taxes to fund firefighting, weed control and subsidize logging & energy development?

 

[jryoung]

Does it really matter who technically owns the property as long as it is still available for public use for things like camping, hiking, hunting, fishing?

Tell me how that "as long as it is still available" happens. Does that mean all the resources are managed somewhat in balance to provide sufficient opportunity for all users?

Burning forest aren't necessarily a loss either...the extent we go to fight them is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Tell me how that "as long as it is still available" happens. Does that mean all the resources are managed somewhat in balance to provide sufficient opportunity for all users?

.

Constitutionally, the state has no obligation to provide recreational opportunity on state lands. We have had to fight for any kind of access to those lands.

And I would rather than the Fed manage for everyone than sell it off. The same people who are trying to eliminate public land have starved these agencies of funding to do the work. Now they try and tell us that the system is broken. Maybe it is, but it's congresses fault - and more specifically - the House's fault.

 

[Nameless Range]

The forests will burn regardless of whether they are logged or not. When the Lolo Complex destroyed 5 homes and 8000+ acres last year, it did so on largely Plum Creek Lands(Private Timber Co.). Firefighters were relegated to raking pine needles in people's yards.

The interface is the problem.

Much better to get paid for the resource (trees in this example) by a logging company who will replant after logging. Repeat in 10-15 years and deposit the check from the logging company

1) Land that is solely for extractive profit is not that good for other things, namely hunting. (MT State Lands)
2) 10-15 years? Not in 90% of the west.
3) Undeveloped land is one of the primary reasons MT's second largest industry - Outdoor Recreation- generates 5.8 billion annually. Significantly more than logging could ever hope to.

 

[spook12]

Is the federal government really good at managing anything?

Is it crazy to think that the state might be able to do a better job at managing these lands as opposed to the federal government?

Does it really matter who technically owns the property as long as it is still available for public use for things like camping, hiking, hunting, fishing?

My answers are No, No, No.

Quite frankly I dont' see how the USFS could do a worse job of managing the lands they are in charge of. They basically give away the grazing rights which should provide some nice income for whoever is managing the land. They rarely create any income from the resource they are in charge of from thing like logging. Instead they let the forest get overgrown, then it starts on fire, then they throw piles of money (airplanes, helicopters, government firefighting crews) at the fires to put them out. Then they pay a bunch of government employees and contractors to go clean up the mess that the fires left behind such as damaged roads, culverts, fences, dangerous trees near trails and roads, etc.. Not sure how one could look at what they do and think it is a good system. Especially after you see what is costs, at that point it is pretty easy to see how the USFS is mismanaging the resources they are in charge of. Between all the resources the land offers there should be a way to manage this land without costing this country a fortune in the process.

Much better to get paid for the resource (trees in this example) by a logging company who will replant after logging. Repeat in 10-15 years and deposit the check from the logging company.
As opposed to doing nothing, watching a valuable resource go up in flames, then spending a fortune to put out fires and even more money to clean up the mess left behind. Then paying government employees or contractors replant trees just so the USFS can mismanage them again in 10-15 years and cost taxpayers even more $.

I'm not sure what is so impressive about how the USFS manages public lands. Feel free to point out what it is that they are good at as I can't seem to find anything that would indicate they are doing a good job at it.

While these may all be good points,don't you think it matters that the rest of us don't really want to give you what is ours.

You may take care of my home better then I do. You might be able to maximize the earning potential of my small piece of ground better than I do,but that doesn't mean I am obligated to just give it to you. At least up to this point in time the American people have spoken and we've decided that we like what we have.

One more really cool thing.........................We reserve the right to change our minds in the future on all of those points you raised. While the USFS doesn't do everything just the way I wish they would I can accept the fact that In most cases they try to manage land the way that most of the owners can agree with.

 

[jryoung]

Their budget is $5.6B and in return they contribute $36B to gross GDP. I'm only an accountant for a living, so by no means accept my opinion as gospel, but that is a solid return even if indirect...especially when we consider how many different end users are considered.

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/budget/2014/FY2014ForestServiceBudgetOverview041613.pdf

 

[quackaddict]

Is the federal government really good at managing anything?

Is it crazy to think that the state might be able to do a better job at managing these lands as opposed to the federal government?

Does it really matter who technically owns the property as long as it is still available for public use for things like camping, hiking, hunting, fishing?

My answers are No, No, No.

Quite frankly I dont' see how the USFS could do a worse job of managing the lands they are in charge of. They basically give away the grazing rights which should provide some nice income for whoever is managing the land. They rarely create any income from the resource they are in charge of from thing like logging. Instead they let the forest get overgrown, then it starts on fire, then they throw piles of money (airplanes, helicopters, government firefighting crews) at the fires to put them out. Then they pay a bunch of government employees and contractors to go clean up the mess that the fires left behind such as damaged roads, culverts, fences, dangerous trees near trails and roads, etc.. Not sure how one could look at what they do and think it is a good system. Especially after you see what is costs, at that point it is pretty easy to see how the USFS is mismanaging the resources they are in charge of. Between all the resources the land offers there should be a way to manage this land without costing this country a fortune in the process.

Much better to get paid for the resource (trees in this example) by a logging company who will replant after logging. Repeat in 10-15 years and deposit the check from the logging company.
As opposed to doing nothing, watching a valuable resource go up in flames, then spending a fortune to put out fires and even more money to clean up the mess left behind. Then paying government employees or contractors replant trees just so the USFS can mismanage them again in 10-15 years and cost taxpayers even more $.

I'm not sure what is so impressive about how the USFS manages public lands. Feel free to point out what it is that they are good at as I can't seem to find anything that would indicate they are doing a good job at it.

Trust me when I say, how the NF lands are managed ARE NOT how the USFS wants to manage them. USFWS, special interest groups, and Washington dictate how the forests are managed.

 

[roadhunter]

The forests will burn regardless of whether they are logged or not. When the Lolo Complex destroyed 5 homes and 8000+ acres last year, it did so on largely Plum Creek Lands(Private Timber Co.). Firefighters were relegated to raking pine needles in people's yards.

The interface is the problem.



1) Land that is solely for extractive profit is not that good for other things, namely hunting. (MT State Lands)
2) 10-15 years? Not in 90% of the west.
3) Undeveloped land is one of the primary reasons MT's second largest industry - Outdoor Recreation- generates 5.8 billion annually. Significantly more than logging could ever hope to.

I am of the belief that proper thinning and logging can decrease the likelihood of a fire and if there is a fire make it easier to control and contain the fire by minimizing large tracts of heavily timbered and overgrown land that burn out of contol.
I am also of the belief that we are better off to get paid to sell a tree and have it replanted than we are to pay someone to put it out after it is on fire and basically lost all it's value. It's a fairly simple concept.

The USFS employees are experts on taking a valuable resource and not only making it worthless by allowing it to burn but also costing taxpayers a fortune in the process.

Not sure what comparing logging to outdoor recreation has to do with. People sill still use the land even if it has burned or been logged, makes little difference. The difference is one take a valuable resource, makes it worthless, and ends up costing millions upon millions of dollars and the other takes that same resource and generates income. The USFS has gotten so good at wasting our $ that we don't seem to notice how bad they are at managing our land for some reason.

 

[roadhunter]

Trust me when I say, how the NF lands are managed ARE NOT how the USFS wants to manage them. USFWS, special interest groups, and Washington dictate how the forests are managed.

I have no doubt this is 100% true.

Could some of this be fixed by allowing the states to manage the land? I don't know but I can't see how it could be any worse than our current system which is a complete financial disaster.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I have no doubt this is 100% true.

Could some of this be fixed by allowing the states to manage the land? I don't know but I can't see how it could be any worse than our current system which is a complete financial disaster.

The question still remains: Are you willing to increase your tax burden by several thousand dollars a year to pay for it?

 

[quackaddict]

I have no doubt this is 100% true.

Could some of this be fixed by allowing the states to manage the land? I don't know but I can't see how it could be any worse than our current system which is a complete financial disaster.

It could be fixed by allowing the USFS to manage the forests like they need to be. Not for one species of owl, not for a species of woodpecker, but for a healthy forest over-all. My best friend is a silvicultrualist for USFS...I get to listen to him bitch about the broken system all the time.

 

[jryoung]

How is it a complete financial disaster? If it was a complete disaster there would be less contributions to GDP than the USFS budget. Could it be better? Absolutely, but disaster should be reserved for Pentagon projects that run in the $100s of billions then scrapped like the F22.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Could also be fixed by not starving this agency for funding and changing how fire fighting is funded.

50% of the USFS budget is now firefighting.

 

[katqanna]

I was looking on the Republican site for the new platform, but Vito found the Montana Republican Party Resolution Supporting Granting Federally Managed Public Lands To The States - on the American Lands Council website.

Take a look at the Whereas'. They are using this EQC SJ15 work group that we are paying for, which Sen. Jennifer Fielder chairs, as validation for this position in Montana. They stated it was passed, approved and adopted unanimously.

 

[schmalts]

The question still remains: Are you willing to increase your tax burden by several thousand dollars a year to pay for it?

Another question, think as a voter from say New York, do you think he would be interested in paying less taxes to dump the land to the states because he could give a darn about hunting in Montana or going to Yellowstone. Even if his taxes never change you know they would be interested, at least a lot of them.

 

[BigRack]

Technically it's not public land. It becomes state trust land. In states like Wyoming, that means no camping at all. State Trust lands are easier to sell, easier to develop and easier to kick people off of than actual Public Land.

Public Land is land owned by all Americans. State Trust Land is owned by the state for the benefit of schools. Those lands have a constitutional duty to maximize economic yield for the state. Most states do not have the kind of public input in management of state trust lands that Public Land does.

And Breitbart should be considered paper for the bottom of the bird cage.

The public is the beneficiary of State trust land which makes it public land. The Federal Government is no different then the State when it comes to access. Remember when you couldn't hunt Federal land during the shutdown?

Why don't you lobby to have the laws changed regarding land use in the States you have a problem with?

Like I said, you better articulate it to the general public because bashing a link is not going to help our cause.

 

[Straight Arrow]

They are using this EQC SJ15 work group that we are paying for, which Sen. Jennifer Fielder chairs, as validation for this position in Montana. They stated it was passed, approved and adopted unanimously.

It was my understanding that the bill passed to form the interim committee to study management of public lands in Montana and determine means of improving state input into management decisions.. However, Fielder, White, etal, morphed the process into an anti-government platform for promoting state acquisition of federal public lands.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Big Rack, you may not be aware of this, but a few short years ago it required a lengthy difficult process to gain access for recreation on Montana State Trust lands. The access to federal lands is distinctly different from the access to state lands. You have misstated that in asserting that federal public lands are just like state trust lands. Not true.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The public is the beneficiary of State trust land which makes it public land. The Federal Government is no different then the State when it comes to access. Remember when you couldn't hunt Federal land during the shutdown?

Why don't you lobby to have the laws changed regarding land use in the States you have a problem with?

Like I said, you better articulate it to the general public because bashing a link is not going to help our cause.

You could hunt federal public land during the shut down, with a few exceptions like Wildlife Refuges, etc. To say that public lands were off limits is not true.

There is a major legal difference between public land and state trust land. One is owned by you and I and is held in trust by the Fed. That means we all get a say in how it is managed. State Lands are managed by Land Boards with little to no public involvement thanks to efforts by some folks to eliminate that involvement in favor of expedited drilling, logging, etc. You have much less input on how these lands are managed than Public Lands. You have no right to access state lands like you do public lands.

If you think that will change, then you've not been paying attention. It took decades to get the privilege to hunt on state lands in Montana. Many other states do not allow hunting or recreational use on State Trust lands.

Plus, the concept of transference is unconstitutional. So, those who pursue this are violating their oaths to uphold the constitution and they're going to raise taxes on the middle class to do it. What part of that do you like?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Another question, think as a voter from say New York, do you think he would be interested in paying less taxes to dump the land to the states because he could give a darn about hunting in Montana or going to Yellowstone. Even if his taxes never change you know they would be interested, at least a lot of them.

With a multi-trillion dollar debt and the constant erosion of tax revenue from oligarchical corporations, do you really think anyone from NY or WI would see lessened tax burdens?

I don't.