MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State

[katqanna]

I have to put disclaimers up for everything, so let me preface that I am an independent, but I cant control what any of the parties do, just link to it.

A couple weeks ago at the Democratic convention they voted to remove the "eradication of brucellosis from wildlife" statement in their platform. Which is a big woohoo for me. And they also made it a plank to uphold Federal ownership of Public Lands. But they are working on the new pdf and I have been checking everyday, couple of times a day and they still dont have the new one up yet to link to.

Then the Republican Party just had their convention with a unanimous vote for Federal Lands Transfer to the States. Not even a debate on the subject.

MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State

At the 2014 Montana Republican Platform Convention this weekend, the GOP unanimously passed a resolution in favor of shifting public land management away from Washington DC control.

 

[CabinFever]

I hate political talk, but as someone who typically votes conservative, they(GOP) are making it harder and harder to keep siding with them when it comes to conservation issues.

 

[katqanna]

Senator Walsh just came out with this press release today.

Walsh introduces legislation to prevent Congress from selling public lands "In Montana, public lands drive the tourism economy that supports 64,000 jobs and annually generates $5.8 billion in revenue."

I was doing some research this week at U of M's Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research concerning hunting and found this report, among other things.
Nonresident Values of Montana's Natural Areas Report
This study states that 3/4's of nonresident vacationers to Montana are primarily attracted to characteristics of public lands such as national parks, mountains, forests, and open space. This was a study involving values so there are lots of value charts. Results show that nonresidents value Montana's public lands - a variety of them. The active group represented 57% of respondents and included: fishing, hunting, gathering, hiking, backpacking, horseback riding, bicycling, downhill skiing/boarding, cross-country skiing and non-motorized water activities. The passive group represented 17% of respondents and included: developed and primitive camping, nature center activities, nature study, wildlife viewing, viewing natural features, visiting historic sites, picnicking.

 

[schmalts]

Based on the above post I will play the Devils advocate here. Even more in states like Oregon who allow little nonresident hunting opportunities on federal land some nonresidents may look at this as a good thing. They may say that if federal land in those states cost him tax money but he is given little opportunity to hunt it put the ownership to the state because maybe there is an advantage to him. I recently read a long thread on MM about NM screwing the nonguided hunters and someone posted that it will get to a point where voters will stop caring about hunting rights on federal land since they're excluded anyway.
Once again this is a devil's advocate post but it is also food for though when nonresidents are getting priced out to cover the cost of residential hunters fees. As hunters we forget there is a lot of people who don't give a damn about our love of hunting.

 

[Nameless Range]

The incessant knee-jerk reactions in support of anything anti-government by the MT GOP is getting old. Facts trump ideology, but they don't get that.

Not only will this be bad for our economy, wildlife, sportsmen, and the average public land user. This places enormous liability on the State of Montana. One bad fire season, and we are in the red.

That would be bad enough, but how will they get us out of the red? Oh right, the revenue off selling our public lands. Then, the gulches we fish and hunt will belong to (insert filthy rich corporation here).

Pissing on our public lands legacy should come as no surprise from this contingent really.

Brought to you by the same people who would have you be issued a trespassing citation for hopping out of your raft on the Big Hole, Jefferson, or any other MT river and standing on the streambed. Brought to you by some of the same people who posed a no-net-gain in State Lands to the previous legislature.

Back Country Hunters and Anglers has come out against this. The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation needs to follow suit - clearly and loudly.

 

[shoots-straight]

Based on the above post I will play the Devils advocate here. Even more in states like Oregon who allow little nonresident hunting opportunities on federal land some nonresidents may look at this as a good thing. They may say that if federal land in those states cost him tax money but he is given little opportunity to hunt it put the ownership to the state because maybe there is an advantage to him. I recently read a long thread on MM about NM screwing the nonguided hunters and someone posted that it will get to a point where voters will stop caring about hunting rights on federal land since they're excluded anyway.
Once again this is a devil's advocate post but it is also food for though when nonresidents are getting priced out to cover the cost of residential hunters fees. As hunters we forget there is a lot of people who don't give a damn about our love of hunting.

Is hunting the only reason for supporting public lands?

 

[quackaddict]

Is hunting the only reason for supporting public lands?

I'd say no, but seeing as how timber sales, sound forestry practices, and wildlife management are pretty much out(unless there's an endangered species present, then they "manage" for that sole species), I'd say hunting/fishing/hiking are pretty much top of the list.

 

[Big Fin]

Based on the above post I will play the Devils advocate here. Even more in states like Oregon who allow little nonresident hunting opportunities on federal land some nonresidents may look at this as a good thing. They may say that if federal land in those states cost him tax money but he is given little opportunity to hunt it put the ownership to the state because maybe there is an advantage to him. I recently read a long thread on MM about NM screwing the nonguided hunters and someone posted that it will get to a point where voters will stop caring about hunting rights on federal land since they're excluded anyway.
Once again this is a devil's advocate post but it is also food for though when nonresidents are getting priced out to cover the cost of residential hunters fees.

Unfortunately, you are on to something that is going to rear its head in this discussion. I think you are correct that the way non-residents are treated in western tag pricing and tag allocation certainly helps foster the sentiment you stated.

If I was a NR and felt I was getting the pipe laid to me at every turn, you would have a hard time convincing me to get too worried about this issue, at least until you gave me a lot more explanation of what I have to lose. Such is a consequence to be accepted for treating NRs the way we do. And, my home state of MT has written the book on how to do it.

That being said, once the "teach them to screw me over" feeling subsides, the NR will hopefully realize that they are losing a lot, also. Take some examples.

Colorado host more non-resident elk hunting than any other state. And probably hosts as much non-resident deer hunting as any state. Suppose all 23 million acres of USFS and BLM land become State Lands in Colorado.

In Colorado, you cannot hunt state lands, unless CPW has acquired the hunting rights. They can hardly afford the little bit of critical hunting access they currently lease from the State Land Board. Now, add 23 million acres of new state lands opened to leasing for hunting and outfitting, and look at what the NR gets out of that. Not much, other than the opportunity to bid on some leasing or to hire one of the outfitters who will build a business model around this new dynamic.

Assume you don't hunt, you just camp or hike public lands. The 31 millions acres of USFS/BLM lands in MT are now heavily restricted on your camping. Suppose you want to backpack hunt. Guess what, the MT State Land recreation rules state you must camp within 200 yards of the access point to such lands. So much for backpack hunting some of our high country. Wonder what the backcountry outfitter will think of that idea?

And, on most of the MT lands you can only camp for two days. I can see a NR finally drawing a Break archery elk tag, and now the public lands of the Breaks is state land. He drives 1,500 miles, only to find out he can camp for two days and must camp within 200 yards of the access point.

Here are the MT rules. Gonna be a lot of people having to apply for the Special Recreation Use License, just to camp or hunt in the same manner they and their families have for generations.

http://dnrc.mt.gov/trust/REMB/statues/recreationaluse.asp

I regret that NRs have been treated the way they have, such that it will be difficult to convince them that they have a lot to lose. NRs don't like it when they are told that the states can do whatever they want with wildlife, whether it lives on public or private ground, but that is how the US Constitution allows for states' rights to manage wildlife opportunity.

That said, just because states have that right, doesn't mean it is good practice to lay the pipe to NRs. States do that both in pricing and in allocation of opportunity. For residents of western states to now ask the NR to come to their aid is going to be a tought ask, though I hope the NR can see through the first cloudy layer and see what is really at risk for all hunters, resident and non-resident alike.


If the NRs sit idly by and the residents of the western states are able to defeat the fringe operators promoting this idea, which I think will be the case, I suspect residents of those western states will look around and see that the NRs sat silently by, or worse yet, joined the "sell the land crowd" and once the smoke clears, getting residents to treat NRs in a manner that is better than it is today, will have vaporized. If that is how it unfolds, I would expect NRs to get treated even worse as a result. I hope that is not the case. Regardless of the outcome of this issue, I hope that residents of the abusive states reconsider the manner in which they treat NRs.

 

[schmalts]

But the problem is most likely the nonresident will not care. As an experiment I just asked 3 non hunters what they though about the feds giving the states the land. All 3 didn't care and 2 said the federal government should not be owning it anyway. So you price or quota a nonresident from hunting on federal land I think his give a damn meter will be pegged and he will fall in line with the non hunters. The attitude would be you did not stick up for me why should I vote to help you out. For years I have taken heat for saying there needs to be some fair consideration with nonresident pricing and quotas because of the land that the majority of western hunting takes place on. It seems that opinion will matter very soon.

 

[schmalts]

Randy I am not so sure your last paragraph would be what happens. If a state needs cash to operate the land and is strapped they may step back and look at the easy money. Hey lets sell more limited draw tags to nonresidents at high dollar to cover the debt. You never know what will happen when certain wildlife Orgs say we can help you raise money with auctions!

 

[Straight Arrow]

Either schmalts misunderstood or completely missed the data and information provided in the post by katganna. Hunting issues are obviously important to us on this site, but the vast percentage of public land users, viewers, and supporters are not hunters, so the discussion surrounding this issue of state ownership of public lands is much broader than hunting concerns.

Also, once again there is expressed confusion regarding the state's entrusted responsibility in managing wildlife and hunting of wildlife on behalf of citizens of the State of Montana versus the federal responsibility and authority in managing federal public lands. Please realize the distinction that federal public lands management is funded by taxpayers from all states and that Montana is a "welfare state" in this regard. Montana taxpayers contribute a very small portion of the funds to manage those public lands. Fire suppression is a small part of the picture, when you consider the personnel costs to manage silviculture, leasing, law enforcement, and a myriad of other responsibilities in managing and protecting public lands ... accomplished by folks right here who are your neighbors, volunteer coaches, Lions Club members, hunters, taxpayers also, and so on.

If Montana acquires ownership and the incumbent responsibilities, then expect huge recreation and usage fees, exponentially increasing grazing fees, humongous resource extraction taxes & fees, and the selling of public lands to pay the costs. Get the picture?!! Montana acquisition of federal public lands is a really stupid, shortsighted, purely ideological idea.

 

[shoots-straight]

I'd say no, but seeing as how timber sales, sound forestry practices, and wildlife management are pretty much out(unless there's an endangered species present, then they "manage" for that sole species), I'd say hunting/fishing/hiking are pretty much top of the list.

So if you add fishing and hiking then that would be it? What about grazing, wildlife viewing, trapping, mushroom picking, firewood cutting, etc. Isn't there far more coming from public lands than just hunting/fishing/hiking?

I started a several threads on the bowsite community forum to see the response to the take over, and most of those responders supported the idea. Usually with a few insults added to go along with the responses.

 

[mrmedora]

What an interesting topic kat has brought up for us! I sit on the Board of Commissioners in one of the 4 counties in ND with Forest Service land in it. This issue has recently caught speed with the study going on in West. We have some other reasons for and against this idea other that recreating, such as road projects, culvert and bridge replacements, MOU's for maintenance, and best practices for grazing. But none the less, a very interesting topic that I look forward to hearing opinions from the HTers.
Scott

 

[Ben Lamb]

2 GOP Legislators are distancing themselves from this:
http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_8f7f209a-fc04-11e3-8b29-001a4bcf887a.html

I've been impressed with both Pat Connell & Steve Gibson as legislators. They have been on our side when the chips are down.

On the issue of transference - μολὼν λαβέ

Come and take them.

 

[schmalts]

Either schmalts misunderstood or completely missed the data and information provided in the post by katganna. Hunting issues are obviously important to us on this site, but the vast percentage of public land users, viewers, and supporters are not hunters, so the discussion surrounding this issue of state ownership of public lands is much broader than hunting concerns.

Also, once again there is expressed confusion regarding the state's entrusted responsibility in managing wildlife and hunting of wildlife on behalf of citizens of the State of Montana versus the federal responsibility and authority in managing federal public lands. Please realize the distinction that federal public lands management is funded by taxpayers from all states and that Montana is a "welfare state" in this regard. Montana taxpayers contribute a very small portion of the funds to manage those public lands. Fire suppression is a small part of the picture, when you consider the personnel costs to manage silviculture, leasing, law enforcement, and a myriad of other responsibilities in managing and protecting public lands ... accomplished by folks right here who are your neighbors, volunteer coaches, Lions Club members, hunters, taxpayers also, and so on.

If Montana acquires ownership and the incumbent responsibilities, then expect huge recreation and usage fees, exponentially increasing grazing fees, humongous resource extraction taxes & fees, and the selling of public lands to pay the costs. Get the picture?!! Montana acquisition of federal public lands is a really stupid, shortsighted, purely ideological idea.

I didn't miss anything. That is why I used the term devil's advocate.

 

[katqanna]

ITRR had another 3 page Review of 2013 for 2014 outlook. Travel and Recreation, The Economics of "We Like It Here." This included Montana residents.

The contribution of these vacationers is greater than 50 percent of the $3 billion nonresident spending. These 5.1 million vacationers are active in the outdoors. Seventy-two percent of them participated in scenic driving, 49 percent watched wildlife, 48 percent did nature photography, and 44 percent participated in day hiking (Figure 1). The top four activities alone show the draw that nonresidents have toward our state’s natural environment. This strongly suggests that visitors “like it here!”

Montana residents, on the other hand, are even more in tune with the natural environment than nonresidents. Montanan’s spent $210 million on outdoor recreation trips at least 50 miles away from home in 2013. This equates to 4.2 million person trips taken by residents for outdoor recreation. Eighty-eight percent of Montanan’s over 18 years of age participate in outdoor recreation, significantly higher than national numbers of 49 percent who participated in outdoor recreation in 2012 (Outdoor 2013). Montanans use
their outdoor spaces. Recent data show that the top eight types of outdoor facilities and areas used by residents are favored by more than 50 percent of our population (Figure 2). In addition, 74 percent of Montanan’s over 18 visit public lands, and 95 percent of Montanan’s say outdoor recreation is important to their personal quality of life (Nickerson & Metcalf 2013). This means that residents also “like it here!” What does this suggest? Montana’s beautiful landscapes, clean air, and clear waters provide the environment for fishing, hunting, hiking, and all outdoor recreation. Isn’t it our duty to ensure that the ability to enjoy the most spectacular, unspoiled nature than anywhere else in the lower 48 states continues, so as to enhance our quality of life and to fuel the economic drivers
in Montana? Let’s hope so.

 

[Straight Arrow]

schmalts, the point is that your "devil's advocate" dissertation was very narrowly focused on NR hunter issues and thus skews the perspective in critical analysis. Katganna's information painted a much broader user group involved in this issue.

 

[spook12]

Either schmalts misunderstood or completely missed the data and information provided in the post by katganna. Hunting issues are obviously important to us on this site, but the vast percentage of public land users, viewers, and supporters are not hunters, so the discussion surrounding this issue of state ownership of public lands is much broader than hunting concerns.
.

I'm of the opinion that while most people are ''Supporters'' of the idea of public land,how many are truly ''Advocates''? Of all the things that the average U.S. Citizen has to deal with on a daily basis, I'm not so sure that we should bet on them being there when we need them.

Just an example. If WY. decided tomorrow to just take over YNP there would be A major rumble across this Country ( because people all over love it) but I'm not so sure that they couldn't pull off the takeover of just as much Fed owned land that people elsewhere don't have have that affinity for. People will defend what they care about.

The people in states with large amounts of Public land that would like to see that land remain public would be well served to assist others in developing a love of those places however possible.

 

[schmalts]

^^^^^ true that

 

[Ben Lamb]

I'm of the opinion that while most people are ''Supporters'' of the idea of public land,how many are truly ''Advocates''? Of all the things that the average U.S. Citizen has to deal with on a daily basis, I'm not so sure that we should bet on them being there when we need them.

Just an example. If WY. decided tomorrow to just take over YNP there would be A major rumble across this Country ( because people all over love it) but I'm not so sure that they couldn't pull off the takeover of just as much Fed owned land that people elsewhere don't have have that affinity for. People will defend what they care about.

The people in states with large amounts of Public land that would like to see that land remain public would be well served to assist others in developing a love of those places however possible.

What it takes is someone who is willing to talk to 10 friends and encourage them to do the same. Advocates aren't born. They're created. What are each of us doing to recruit new voices?