MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State

[roadhunter]

Historical fact. Other than that, just a hunch.

I just love statement like this with no rhyme or reason. It just is because you say it is?


States are a lot smarter than you might think and they work really hard to bring in NR hunters and other recreational users. They also do a lot to increase hunting opportunities with thing like walk in hunting areas. The states already set most hunting regulations on federal lands anyway. Call Colorado they will let you speak with a hunt advisor/planner to get all setup to hunt in the state. In Kansas you can go to the state parks and you will find all kinds of habitat improvements including food plots, they do a great job of managing the land they are in charge of at places such as Cedar Bluffs State Park.. South Dakota also does a good job with things like game production areas, walk in hunting, etc..that help bring pheasant/deer hunters to the state. Look at a public access map for the state and you will see how hard the state works to increase hunting opportunities for NR's. Oklahoma does a great job of managing some of the larger pieces of public land in the state at places such as Packsaddle WMA where they have worked really hard to help animals such as the bobwhite quail with studies and habitat improvement.. Nebraska also spends a lot of money on walk in hunting areas to improve hunting opportunities for NR's with things like $5 NR youth tags for deer/turkey/antelope/etc. Montana seems to have taken a slightly different approach to the NR hunter so that may be what you are referring to but I think I have given you plenty of examples where sates are working really hard to promote hunting and outdoor recreation to NR's. .

Can you give some examples of what you are talking about with the state not promoting hunting/fishing/recreation on state lands and trying to keep NR hunters out?

 

[roadhunter]

If you don't believe states want to draw NR's hunters and they will shut out the NR hunter forever if the federal land is given to them here is proof that they do indeed care about NR hunters and are doing everything they can to draw them to the state. It's a competitive business and the states are working hard to keep the NR's $ flowing into the state.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2011/02/colorado-trying-attract-non-resident-hunters


Colorado Trying to Attract Non-Resident Hunters


by Chad Love


0





The state of Colorado is launching a nationwide ad campaign to attract non-resident hunters to the state.

From this story in the Denver Post:
After years of watching sales of elk licenses slide, Colorado wildlife officials are launching a nationwide ad campaign to bring more hunters to the state. The trick will be convincing people who pay hundreds of dollars for a nonresident hunting license in some states that the 23 million acres of public land and 300,000 elk in Colorado are the best in the West. "We have exceptional elk hunting. It's very good in many of the western states," said Al Langston of the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. "It's up to the hunter to decide what system fits." The Colorado Division of Wildlife gets about two-thirds of its $110 million budget from hunting and fishing licenses, but sales of elk licenses in Colorado dropped by more than 37,000 from 2005 to 2009, with revenue falling by roughly $8 million in that time, Director Tom Remington said.


About 229,000 limited draw and over-the-counter licenses were sold in 2009, with thousands left unsold. The division largely doesn't get money from the state's general fund, drawing instead from lottery funds, federal excise tax revenue and mostly, licenses. "It's critically important for us to attract elk hunters. It's our very survival," division spokesman Randy Hampton said. This week, the division is launching its "Elevate Your Game" marketing campaign with a new website˜huntcolorado.org˜that went live Monday.

In related news, groups representing Colorado's resident elk hunters are launching their own competing ad campaign entitled *"Don't Listen to Those Dudes, Just Stay Home."


Another one.
Another example of a state doing what it can to help wildlife. In this situation it's quail on some state owned land in Oklahoma.

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/hunting/quail/packsaddlemortality.htm

Another one in SD. The state cares so much about hunting opportunities that they have enrolled 1.25 million acres of walk in hunting land.
http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/private-land/walk-in.aspx

 

[Topgun 30-06]

ss: "Your just using this land deal to further your agenda of bitching about high NR fee's. That's a whole other topic, and I"ve seen Randy support those costs in comparison to other states. We all know that Montana is in line with the Western states".

I don't believe I've ever seen Randy support the high NR fees that Montana charges on this or any other website Iv'e seen him post on. To the contrary, he has just stated earlier on here that they are way out of line compared to resident fees or do you have selective reading on the Forums?! Montana is nowhere near in line with a lot of the other states in case you haven't looked at NR fees lately and that's why they now have leftover tags!

 

[JoseCuervo]

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.

Are you a 5th grader, or just terribly naive?

Get out in the world, go see what State lands look like. Go try and camp on State Lands in Wyoming, see what happens.

Go to Idaho, and see if you can camp and hunt on the State Lands in Idaho that are a bunch of "for profit" mini-storage units in downtown Boise. Go see if you can hunt on the State Lands along Payette Lake that have $3 million lakefront mansions that are owned by the State of Idaho.

The State Land Board in Idaho has ONE mission: MAXIMIZE revenue to the state's school systems, PERIOD. Nothing else, no charter to provide hunting, fishing, recreation access, just $$$$$.

 

[Big Fin]

Can you give some examples of what you are talking about with the state not promoting hunting/fishing/recreation on state lands and trying to keep NR hunters out?

Examples? That's a lollipop home run ball if ever there was one.

Colorado - Hunters are not allowed on State Trust lands, unless CPW leases the hunting rights from the state land board. They currently only have budget to lease a very, very, small portion of those state lands.

Result, Colorado would take over 23 million acres of currently accessible public hunting lands, of which they have budget to lease not one single additional acre. Hunters would lose access to 23 million acres of USFS/BLM land in Colorado.

Probably the biggest example in the entire discussion and the most black and white outcome with really no argument by either side as to what would be the end result.

Where do those tens of thousands of residents and non-residents go to hunt, once Colordo were to take over the Federal lands? What happens to the West Slope communities whose businesses are very much impacted by the influx of public land hunters, both resident and non-resident?

No one has an answers to that, other than some bullchit rhetorc they heard on AM talk radio. It is points like that where the rubber meets the road and the bullchitters get sorted from the buckwheat.

Imagine the screaming if the President, by executive action, decided to close 23 million acres of public lands to hunting. There would be a firestorm like you have never seen. Yet, when a group of fringe operators in the Tea Bag ship of fools proposes doing the same thing, some hunters are standing up to defend that proposal.

I would ask anyone, "Look at the difference between those two outcomes and explain why one should not be any more/less offensive to hunters?"

 

[RobG]

Thanks for posting this.

Some participants on this thread are debating the details while the devil is in the main intent.
Montanans will decide in the election this Fall which side of the land transfer deal they will be on.

Here is the deal that's going down.

Millions of acres of land and waters worth trillions of dollars remain in federal public ownership.
The Lords of Capital, whose power rests on ownership, look at those public assets and see perhaps the last great North American opportunity to seize undefended wealth for the benefit of private power. 'Greed is Good,' remember.

With the nation's financial economics already firmly in Elite control, what is left? Land and water!
{I will skip the process of small and mid-size private land holdings being bought up and consolidated to focus on this federal public land takeover scheme.}

But how to seize that vast public wealth tied up in illiquid assets? You can't do unto American citizens the way you did unto Indians; and you can't seize this nation's natural resource wealth by bribing corrupt dictators and governments of failing states as these same Lords are doing right now in Africa, South America and Southern Asia.

In the United States the people must be persuaded to volunteer to surrender their mutually owned assets. Fortunately for the American Elite, common folk in this country have always been suckers for a bottle of snake oil. Observers like Mark Twain an H.L. Mencken have despaired over this social weakness but there it is nevertheless. All you have to do is divide and confuse Americans with obtuse counter-arguments and Americans will mill about tearing at each other while the Wall Street foxes rob the public treasury.

So here is how they intend to do this deal:
First, the necessary ingredients: 1. Control of both houses of Congress. 2. Support from affected states. 3. Willingness of majority-controlled state governments to act as intermediary "pass-thru accounts" for the actual transaction of selling public assets to private buyers. 3. A compliant federal bureaucracy 4. Control of the White House would also be nice but not necessary.

Next, the process: 1. State legislatures will pass bills modeled on the Utah example demanding transfer of ownership. This creates the fake political legitimacy that a Congress controlled by Big Money can cite as reason to pass land transfer legislation. 2. The federal bill is passed and signed into law by the President (a veto override may be necessary depending on party in power). 3. Ownership transfers begin to states on a drawn-out piecemeal basis. 4. Compliant state governments "discover" they don't have financial ability to manage such large assets and authorize sales to pay the cost of ownership. 5. The lands selected for sale are those calculated to produce the most revenue, which are the high-value natural resource parcels; i.e. headwater forests to control water rights, recoverable minerals, and natural amenity areas rich in saleable wildlife, exclusive estate value, etc.

You may choose not to believe any of this; but now you have been told.

Unimaginable? All we really are talking about here is the physical asset version of the great finance robbery known as TARP (remember when 'bank bailout' was the talk of the town).

“Here is your country – do not let anyone take it or its glory away from you. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skim your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance. The world and the future and your very children shall judge you accordingly as you deal with this sacred trust.”
~~ Theodore Roosevelt, 1913.

 

[roadhunter]

Examples? That's a lollipop home run ball if ever there was one.

Colorado - Hunters are not allowed on State Trust lands, unless CPW leases the hunting rights from the state land board. They currently only have budget to lease a very, very, small portion of those state lands.

Result, Colorado would take over 23 million acres of currently accessible public hunting lands, of which they have budget to lease not one single additional acre. Hunters would lose access to 23 million acres of USFS/BLM land in Colorado.

Probably the biggest example in the entire discussion and the most black and white outcome with really no argument by either side as to what would be the end result.

Where do those tens of thousands of residents and non-residents go to hunt, once Colordo were to take over the Federal lands? What happens to the West Slope communities whose businesses are very much impacted by the influx of public land hunters, both resident and non-resident?

No one has an answers to that, other than some bullchit rhetorc they heard on AM talk radio. It is points like that where the rubber meets the road and the bullchitters get sorted from the buckwheat.

Imagine the screaming if the President, by executive action, decided to close 23 million acres of public lands to hunting. There would be a firestorm like you have never seen. Yet, when a group of fringe operators in the Tea Bag ship of fools proposes doing the same thing, some hunters are standing up to defend that proposal.

I would ask anyone, "Look at the difference between those two outcomes and explain why one should not be any more/less offensive to hunters?"

No offense but you picked a state that really works hard to bring in NR hunters to use as an example. Quite frankly Colorado seem to be working really hard and is ahead of the curve to promote NR hunting in the state. I posted links to information that show how hard they are marketing their hunting opportunities to NR's.

Here it is again.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2011/02/colorado-trying-attract-non-resident-hunters

First line=The state of Colorado is launching a nationwide ad campaign to attract non-resident hunters to the state.


Didn't they even sponsor your show and film you buying your tags from the DOW for the sole purpose to promote NR hunting in the state?:hump:

Dont they have hunt advisors standing by to help encourage NR's to come hunt in the state?:hump:

 

[Big Fin]

No offense but you picked a state that really works hard to bring in NR hunters to use as an example. Quite frankly Colorado seem to be working really hard and is ahead of the curve to promote NR hunting in the state. I posted links to information that show how hard they are marketing their hunting opportunities to NR's.

Here it is again.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/hunting/2011/02/colorado-trying-attract-non-resident-hunters

First line=The state of Colorado is launching a nationwide ad campaign to attract non-resident hunters to the state.


Didn't they even sponsor your show and film you buying your tags from the DOW for the sole purpose to promote NR hunting in the state?:hump:

Dont they have hunt advisors standing by to help encourage NR's to come hunt in the state?:hump:

No offense, but you're ignoring the facts. You asked for examples. You got the biggest one out there and you choose to ignore it. It is black and white with no argument from either side as to what would happen.

I did three episodes to promote hunting in Colorado. The CPW is a good group, and like most state wildlife agencies, being hammered by the Tea Bagger influence.

Tell me how CPW is going to overcome the loss of 23 million acres of public hunting ground?

They can't do enough promo to over come 1/50th of the loss that would create.

More than glad to have a discussion. Your disregard for any facts presented to questions you ask make it hard to have much of a discussion. But, it allows other readers of these threads to see the issue for what it is.

How would you react if President Obama closed 23 million acres of Federal lands to public hunting?

I would be pissed beyond what anyone could imagine, if the President did that. I am sure you would be also.

I'm equally pissed when a bunch of wingnuts propose doing the same thing with their stupid legislative agendas.

And I'm probably more pissed that some hunters are giving those screw ball Tea Baggers not just a free pass, but support for such stupidity. None of them deserve a free pass when they are doing something so blatantly detrimenetal to hunting.

 

[RobG]

I just love statement like this with no rhyme or reason. It just is because you say it is?

It is history
Therefore it is no mystery
I could clue you in
But I won't, because I can't top Big Fin

There is your rhyme and reason. Over and out.

 

[roadhunter]

No offense, but you're ignoring the facts. You asked for examples. You got the biggest one out there and you choose to ignore it. It is black and white with no argument from either side as to what would happen.

I did three episodes to promote hunting in Colorado. The CPW is a good group, and like most state wildlife agencies, being hammered by the Tea Bagger influence.

Tell me how CPW is going to overcome the loss of 23 million acres of public hunting ground?

They can't do enough promo to over come 1/50th of the loss that would create.

More than glad to have a discussion. Your disregard for any facts presented to questions you ask make it hard to have much of a discussion. But, it allows other readers of these threads to see the issue for what it is.

How would you react if President Obama closed 23 million acres of Federal lands to public hunting?

I would be pissed beyond what anyone could imagine, if the President did that. I am sure you would be also.

I'm equally pissed when a bunch of wingnuts propose doing the same thing with their stupid legislative agendas.

And I'm probably more pissed that some hunters are giving those screw ball Tea Baggers not just a free pass, but support for such stupidity. None of them deserve a free pass when they are doing something so blatantly detrimenetal to hunting.

Just because school trust land in Colorado is not huntable does not mean that the state is closing off 23 million acres to hunters if this transfer happens. This is just another scare tactic designed to shock but not necessarily 100% true. I tried searching but could not find anything that said 23 million acres was or is going to be shut down to hunting. Do you have a link to that information?

I also find it interesting that you claim they are anti NR hunter but they sponsored your show to promote NR hunting in the state. which completely proves that is false.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Land Grab?



I have no problem with ranchers paying a fair market price for grazing. It is amazing to me how you can try to twist how the federal government basically gives away grazing rights and act like that is somehow helping. How terrible it would be if the ranchers paid what other ranchers pay to graze cattle? Not at all. Pretty funny really.

.

Would you being ok with me being able to outbid the rancher for the grazing rights and not allow any grazing on the land?

 

[smarandr]

Just because school trust land in Colorado is not huntable does not mean that the state is closing off 23 million acres to hunters if this transfer happens. This is just another scare tactic designed to shock but not necessarily 100% true. I tried searching but could not find anything that said 23 million acres was or is going to be shut down to hunting. Do you have a link to that information?

I also find it interesting that you claim they are anti NR hunter but they sponsored your show to promote NR hunting in the state. which completely proves that is false.

Wow. Just, wow.

 

[smarandr]

Would you being ok with me being able to outbid the rancher for the grazing rights and not allow any grazing on the land?

Easy there Mr. Marvel.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I also find it interesting that you claim they are anti NR hunter but they sponsored your show to promote NR hunting in the state. which completely proves that is false.

Not to step on Randy's toes here, but what the hell are you talking about?

 

[roadhunter]

It is history
Therefore it is no mystery
I could clue you in
But I won't, because I can't top Big Fin

Rhyme, reason. Over and out.

I provided examples in multiple states where they are working hard to bring in NR hunters. Those are facts that prove they want NR hunters in their state. You have not provided even 1 example. None. And now you claim victory. That is funny.

Nice rhymes by the way. Reminds me of watching cat in the hat with my daughter.

 

[BuzzH]

roadhunter,

Time for you to tap-out...you're making yourself look foolish.

 

[JoseCuervo]

What makes you think the states would manage the land to the detriment of fish and wildlife?

States spend all kinds of money promoting tourism in their state and that includes hunting tourism. Look at the states game and fish departments and you can see how hard they work to increase NR hunters each year. It's not like that would instantly change and all hunting would be shut down to NR's. The state already sets most hunting regulations on federal land anyway. That is yet another scare tactic that is not based on any truth.

Running around telling people that if this happens the sate will shut down hunting and fishing and only allow logging, O&G, and mining on the property is quite frankly ridiculous.

Please show me where in the Idaho State Constitution that the condition of fish and wildlife is considered?

Here is what the State Constitution of Idaho says about managing State Lands.

SECTION 8. LOCATION AND DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC LANDS. It shall be the duty of the state board of land commissioners to provide for the location, protection, sale or rental of all the lands heretofore, or which may hereafter be granted to or acquired by the state by or from the general government, under such regulations as may be prescribed by law, and in such manner as will secure the maximum long term financial return to the institution to which granted or to the state if not specifically granted; provided, that no state lands shall be sold for less than the appraised price.

The State Supreme Court has repeatedly held up that other "benefits" do not pass muster with the Constitution. It must be "maximum long term financial return".

 

[roadhunter]

Not to step on Randy's toes here, but what the hell are you talking about?

Colorado Dow sponsored OYOA at one time and there was at least 1 episode that I remember where Randy did a hunt in Colorado. They showed him stopping by the DOW office to buy his tag to go elk hunting. It was done to promote NR hunting in the state of Colorado to show how easily it can be done. There was even links on the website to get you to call or click and get tags to go hunting. They work really hard bringing in NR hunters with things like hunt planners available to help you plan your hunt.

 

[Big Fin]

Just because school trust land in Colorado is not huntable does not mean that the state is closing off 23 million acres to hunters if this transfer happens. This is just another scare tactic designed to shock but not necessarily 100% true. I tried searching but could not find anything that said 23 million acres was or is going to be shut down to hunting. Do you have a link to that information?

I also find it interesting that you claim they are anti NR hunter but they sponsored your show to promote NR hunting in the state. which completely proves that is false.

Really? That is hilarious. Hold on, I gotta pick myself up off the floor.

Where did I say CPW is anti-NR hunter? Please provide citation.

What do you call it when 23 million acres is closed to hunting? You got a better term for it?

It is not a scare tactic. It is an absolute FACT. To date, you are the first person on either side of the discussion who seems to disagree with that as an outcome.

Would you support Obama closing 23 million acres to hunting in Colorado? Would you support Obama closing 100+ millions acres of land to camping in NV, NM, MT, WY?

 

[Straight Arrow]

roadhunter,

Time for you to tap-out...you're making yourself look foolish.

..... four pages ago!