MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State

[howler]

Big Finn, I think your description of the opportunities Montana has opened up to NR as laying the pipe to them is uncalled for and over the top, MT does give an advantage to the resident sportsmen as does all other States, Laying the pipe to them is not even close,

 

[noharleyyet]

Pretty fair census of employees paying taxers also.

1. Exxon Mobil
> Income tax expense: $31.0 billion
> Earnings before taxes: $78.7 billion (the most)
> Revenue: $428.4 billion (2nd most)
> 1-yr. share price change: +14.5%
> Industry: Oil and gas

Exxon Mobil is one of the nation’s largest companies by a number of measures. The oil and gas titan trails only Walmart in revenue and has the highest pre-tax income of any American public company. Not surprisingly, Exxon Mobil also pays more in taxes than any other corporation. In its most recently reported full year, the company’s tax expenses totaled nearly $31 billion. Exxon Mobile’s foreign income totaled more than $67 billion in its most recent fiscal year, which helped boost its effective tax rate to 44% of before-tax income. However, foreign taxes are not the company’s only drain on profits. For much of last year, the company had to contend with diminishing profitability from its refining operations.

http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/01/08/companies-paying-the-most-taxes/3/

 

[roadhunter]

Fin,

After reading your post its almost sounds like the land is simply a burden to manage and only big brother has deep enough pockets to properly do so. Basically no state should want to take control of the land because they could not afford it. Many states already do have some sizeable pieces of land to manage and they do so in a much more efficient manner. It's not like this would be the first time the state had to do this. I think it would still probalby require federal funding being given to the state but I think the state could manage it mroe efficiently with less cost and do a better job of managing resources and getting some additional income from the land such as fair market value for grazing contracts and additional income from logging which in turn could help decrease the costs of firefighting becasue of less fires or easier to contain fires.

Agree on the fringe minority part 100%. I guess I think states might be able to ignore some of what you are talking about better than the federal government. An example would be the most recent squatter/Bundy case. Would a state government been able to better take care of this land than basically letting the guy graze for free for many years and then gettingt into some stupid standoff with nothign to show for it but a black eye? I've gotta think that most states would handle the land better than that.

From what I have seen in the construction business the federal proejcts have the most red tape and ridiculous requirements compared to other state and county goverment proejcts. It also seem like the state government is able to better serve the states needs and operate more efficiently than the federal governmetn can.

Do you think the federal government is particularly good or efficient at doing anything these days? I sure don't. I think that in most cases states can do a better job than the federal government can and do it with less cost to taxpayers.

Like I said eralier when the federal governmernt was shut down the state of South Dakota was interested in operating MT Rushmore. I see no reason why the people of South Dakota could not do a better job of operating the federal porperty in the Blak Hills with significantly less federal money than what is currently spent. Honestly it is pretty amazing what some states and other organizations have done to increase the available public hunting/fishing opportunities both in acres and in habitat improvement. South Dakota is a good example of a state that works really hard to bring in NR' hunters and support the hunting and recreational industry in the state with the land they manage.

It is staggering how much more manpower it seems like is required to manage federal land compared to other state and private land owners. I've been on ranches where 4-5 people kept up with managing the land and the livestock on over 100k acres. Everything from farming, branding, calving, fencing, machine/building/barn/house/road maintenence, etc..

Compare that to federal NWR's which require a small army of people, bologists, maintenence, secretary, etc... along with millions in facilites and equipment plus whatever work they contract out. Same with the local USFS office in my area. 30+ employees to manage a fairly small piece of land and that's not including JobCorps which is another complete waste of money that we have yet to touch on. The federal government deided it could do a better job teaching people life skills than technical colleges so they decided to go in the education business. Yet another example of state and private groups being better than the federal government at doing something, in this case providing 16-25 year olds technical training. Would be much cheaper for taxpayers and better for the students to get technical training elsewhere and give scholarships to them instead of what job corps has turned into for the USFS.

I'm not buying the "they are going to sell our public land" yet. I have no doubt that could change at some point but it seems more like something to shock people with instead of a genuine concern at this point but I probably just don't know what is really going on. The USFS and BLM land could listed on EBAY of China as we speak. At least if we sold it to them we sould actually get paid instead of just borrowing more money from them to buy land from ourselves.

If you givve a rancher land he will make money with it. If you give land to a farmer he will make money with it. If you give land to a logging company they will make money with it. If you give land to an O&G company they will make money with it. If you give land to an outfitter they will make money with it. If fyou give land to a resort they will make money with it. When we give land witha ll those pssibibities to the federal government it costs us an enormous amount of money. Why not try giving it to the state to see if they can do better?.

 

[Big Fin]

Here are the footnotes to the Exxon financial statements, related to tax expense.

Exxon reported $1.391 Billion of income tax expense, both current and deferred income taxes, payable to the Feds/States, on $9.746 Billion of pre-tax income.

1.391 / 9.746 = 14.2%

 

[schmalts]

Big Finn, I think your description of the opportunities Montana has opened up to NR as laying the pipe to them is uncalled for and over the top, MT does give an advantage to the resident sportsmen as does all other States, Laying the pipe to them is not even close,

So a father from out of state wants to take his kid and or wife, or grandpa to hunt federal land in MT for a deer and elk outing. The price for the tags comes to $1,952.00 for the combo. A MT resident would have to shell out $72.00 for the pair. Fair enough, that is your opinion of fair bargaining and nonresidents should be happy to support keeping your state mostly federal hunting lands and pay taxes to keep it up. So I do have to ask though, at what future hypothetical prices would you say the nonresidents are getting the pipe laid to them? 5k? 10K? 15K? When would you say "Man I don't blame nonresidents for voting to transfer federal lands to the state because we kind of used them"? Just curious

 

[shoots-straight]

So a father from out of state wants to take his kid and or wife, or grandpa to hunt federal land in MT for a deer and elk outing. The price for the tags comes to $1,952.00 for the combo. A MT resident would have to shell out $72.00 for the pair. Fair enough, that is your opinion of fair bargaining and nonresidents should be happy to support keeping your state mostly federal hunting lands and pay taxes to keep it up. So I do have to ask though, at what future hypothetical prices would you say the nonresidents are getting the pipe laid to them? 5k? 10K? 15K? When would you say "Man I don't blame nonresidents for voting to transfer federal lands to the state because we kind of used them"? Just curious

Put those lands in state hands and see what happens. You might be able to buy a tag, but where you going to hunt? My guess, you'll have to pay a trespass fee that will make the $1952 seem like pocket change.

Go ahead stand on the side lines. My dad had a saying for those type of people, "They would cut off there nose to spite their face".

Are you willing to roll the dice?

 

[tjones]

That scenario is not unique to Montana Schmalts. Run the numbers on a sheep or brown bear hunt in Alaska, or a wilderness hunt in Wyoming, don't forget to factor in the outfitter.

I see it as not laying the pipe to NR'S but under charging R's. YMMV

Nice try though.

 

[BuzzH]

roadhunter...really?

I've been on ranches where 4-5 people kept up with managing the land and the livestock on over 100k acres. Everything from farming, branding, calving, fencing, machine/building/barn/house/road maintenence, etc..

Do you honestly think this an accurate conclusion to draw...a 100K acre deeded cattle ranch (which there are damn few of), compared to the management that is required of BLM and FS lands?

When was the last time a cattle rancher had to worry about managing recreation, wildlife, T&E species, timber, water quality, clean air, conducting research, fighting fires, 380,000 miles of NF road maintance, thousands of miles of trail maintance, manning look-out towers, public relations, maintaining a fleet of engines, aircraft, vehicles, administrating grazing leases, conducting compartment stand exams, wilderness management, WSA's, NEPA requirements, and thats just a fraction of what the BLM and USFS are required, BY LAW, to accomplish.

If all they had to do was raise cows on private land...yeah, then it would be a fair comparison.

BTW, its not that managing federal lands is a burden. The FS annual operating budget, as has already been mentioned previously, is a fraction of 1 percent of over-all federal spending. The tax burned placed on the individual American taxpayer, for the management of public lands, is literally pennies per person.

Hardly anything to get worked up about when considering all the things that Congress spends/wastes money on. Wen considering the vast amount of varied habitat and management requirements placed on the BLM, FS, USFWS, etc., the American citizen doesnt really have much to complain about.

To me, the tax "burden" that I pay each year for having places to fish, hunt, camp, hike, birdwatch, etc. is well worth what I pay...and wayyy less than what I'd pay for similar opportunities on private lands.

In fairness, as a tax paying Citizen, I also have the right to guide management of those lands via public involvement, my congressional delegation, and as an active citizen. Something I've been doing for a long time.

Go try to be an active participant in making management decisions on someones private land...good luck with that.

You need to really educate yourself on public lands related topics. Your hatred of the Federal Government is not allowing you to think logically.

Once Federal land is gone...its gone forever and nearly impossible to "undo".

Another thing to consider is if State land acquistion is such a great thing...then why do the R's and in particular the tea party R's, try to pass "no net gain" in State lands laws? They use the same arguments that many on this thread use...that any gains in State lands would be too burdensome on the State Lands Departments. Yet, in the next breath, they want millions of acres of Federal Lands handed over to their states...which, I guess would be no burden to the states. But hunter dollars being used in purchase state lands for wildlife would be?

Think about that one...

 

[Big Fin]

Big Finn, I think your description of the opportunities Montana has opened up to NR as laying the pipe to them is uncalled for and over the top, MT does give an advantage to the resident sportsmen as does all other States, Laying the pipe to them is not even close,

I guess we will disagree on that one.

A 30X differential between resident and non-resident fees for the most popular species, elk/deer, meets my definition of laying the pipe to non-residents. Not saying other states don't have disparities, but we lead the way. And, I think that is a factor in convincing NRs how important this issue is to all hunters, residents and NRs, and that it will only get worse if this transfer occurs.

I understand if you feel otherwise.

Fin,

After reading your post its almost sounds like the land is simply a burden to manage and only big brother has deep enough pockets to properly do so. Basically no state should want to take control of the land because they could not afford it. Many states already do have some sizeable pieces of land to manage and they do so in a much more efficient manner. It's not like this would be the first time the state had to do this. I think it would still probalby require federal funding being given to the state but I think the state could manage it mroe efficiently with less cost and do a better job of managing resources and getting some additional income from the land such as fair market value for grazing contracts and additional income from logging which in turn could help decrease the costs of firefighting becasue of less fires or easier to contain fires.

Agree on the fringe minority part 100%. I guess I think states might be able to ignore some of what you are talking about better than the federal government. An example would be the most recent squatter/Bundy case. Would a state government been able to better take care of this land than basically letting the guy graze for free for many years and then gettingt into some stupid standoff with nothign to show for it but a black eye? I've gotta think that most states would handle the land better than that.

From what I have seen in the construction business the federal proejcts have the most red tape and ridiculous requirements compared to other state and county goverment proejcts. It also seem like the state government is able to better serve the states needs and operate more efficiently than the federal governmetn can.

Do you think the federal government is particularly good or efficient at doing anything these days? I sure don't. I think that in most cases states can do a better job than the federal government can and do it with less cost to taxpayers.

Like I said eralier when the federal governmernt was shut down the state of South Dakota was interested in operating MT Rushmore. I see no reason why the people of South Dakota could not do a better job of operating the federal porperty in the Blak Hills with significantly less federal money than what is currently spent. Honestly it is pretty amazing what some states and other organizations have done to increase the available public hunting/fishing opportunities both in acres and in habitat improvement.

It is staggering how much more manpower it seems like is required to manage federal land compared to other state and private land owners. I've been on ranches where 4-5 people kept up with managing the land and the livestock on over 100k acres. Everything from farming, branding, calving, fencing, machine/building/barn/house/road maintenence, etc..

Compare that to federal NWR's which require a small army of people, bologists, maintenence, secretary, etc... along with millions in facilites and equipment plus whatever work they contract out. Same with the local office i my area. 30+ employees not including JobCorps which is another complete waste of money that we have yet to touch on. The federal government deided it could do a better job teaching people life skills than technical colleges so they decided to go in the education business. Yet another example of state and private groups being better than the federal government at doing something, in this case providing 16-25 year olds technical training. Would be much cheaper for taxpayers and better for the students to get technical training elsewhere and give scholarships to them instead of what job corps has turned into.

I'm not buying the "they are going to sell our public land" yet. I have no doubt that could change at some point but it seems more like something to shock people with instead of a genuine concern at this point but I probably just don't know what is really going on. The USFS and BLM land could listed on EBAY of China as we speak. At least if we sold it to them we sould actually get paid instead of just borrowing more money from them to buy land from ourselves.

I'm not defending the Federal government as the model of efficiency. Never have, and never will. I agree with the point you are making about the Feds being financially inefficient, but I also look at that in the context of how many rules they are subjected to, not just with land management, but everything else they are part of.

But none of that is solved on western lands by the states taking control. The states are not going to be any more efficient at winning court cases brought under the ESA. The states are not going to be able to convince people to move away from the fire-cycled forest any more than the Feds could convince them. I doubt state politicians will look at the people and ask them to accept that their house burning down is a consequence of building there. I doubt people would accept that news any better from state officials. I could go on and on of issues that people point to that will be the same, no matter who owns the land.

Point is, when it comes to these land policies, the rub is not about economic inefficiencies that drive you and I nuts. It is about the centuries-old battle of ideologies of who is going to have control over the lands. Recently, the courts have handed an disproportionate control to groups who are good at manipulating the process and the Federal laws we have.

The issue at hand, as it relates to these Federal lands is about people not getting their way in how the lands are managed. Not an unexpected outcome when we have 300 million citizens all asking for different things from those lands.

None of it relates to the financial inefficiency of the Federal government. That inefficiency is just a political opportunity for these fringe operators to further their real goal of disposing of public lands.

It is hard to not laugh out loud when a fringe operator screams about how much the Feds lose on grazing, yet they are the same person who advocates that we keep the grazing rates at 1964 pricing. Or, they scream about not "getting out the cut," yet market rates of stumpage are so low, you cannot sell it for enough to cover the costs of the timber sale. I could mention many more examples. If they were concerned about a return on those lands, they would change all these crazy rules that they support when it benefits them or their friends.

I hope you are correct about them not selling these lands, but having listened to, and read, some of their comments, they are very bold in talking about disposing of the lands, until they know someone might use it against them. Then they change the argument to an issue of inefficiency, not wanting people to hear the true motive.

But, even if not sold, how do we replace access and recreation opportunities lost due to state laws that say where you cannot camp or hunt on state lands, or cannot do so in the same manner we can today? Or, the states who get these lands and pass laws further restricting recreation access?

I tell these folks that I would accept this transfer to the states under one condition. Every acre of land transferred to the states would have the deed amended to give public access to these lands the same as access existed prior to transfer and such access be in perpetuity; perpetuity applying to future owners. If they really had no intent to dispose of them, seems they would gladly guarantee public access until the ends of time.

When you bring that idea up to them, they spit, stammer, call you a few names, and tell you little you understand about the issue. I suspect I understand more than they want me to understand.

 

[spook12]

So a father from out of state wants to take his kid and or wife, or grandpa to hunt federal land in MT for a deer and elk outing. The price for the tags comes to $1,952.00 for the combo. A MT resident would have to shell out $72.00 for the pair. Fair enough, that is your opinion of fair bargaining and nonresidents should be happy to support keeping your state mostly federal hunting lands and pay taxes to keep it up. So I do have to ask though, at what future hypothetical prices would you say the nonresidents are getting the pipe laid to them? 5k? 10K? 15K? When would you say "Man I don't blame nonresidents for voting to transfer federal lands to the state because we kind of used them"? Just curious

Just turn the other cheek.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

I like your replies (normally) but I have to call you out with B.S.

And you were right too. I stand corrected. Exxon paid 14% income tax. I was wrong, and gladly admit that I was corrected.

What was your percentage? Mine was about 32%.

 

[jryoung]

Here are the footnotes to the Exxon financial statements, related to tax expense.

Exxon reported $1.391 Billion of income tax expense, both current and deferred income taxes, payable to the Feds/States, on $9.746 Billion of pre-tax income.

1.391 / 9.746 = 14.2%

As a tax guy, all I can say is.....

We'll maybe that and, taxes, like nearly everything else we discuss 'round here is far more complicated and nuanced than what you see in the headlines.

 

[BigRack]

I tell these folks that I would accept this transfer to the states under one condition. Every acre of land transferred to the states would have the deed amended to give public access to these lands the same as access existed prior to transfer and such access be in perpetuity; perpetuity applying to future owners. If they really had no intent to dispose of them, seems they would gladly guarantee public access until the ends of time.

I think that the general public would agree with that demand.

But the problem is with Washington. If that can be fixed, there wouldn't be a call to transfer the land.

When did the land transfer issue first start coming up?

When will some people on this board start blaming Washington and the groups trying to stop hunting?

I haven't seen any threads against the HSUS on here. I haven't typed HSUS into the search engine yet.

I don't understand why some hunters want to divide the minority hunter community. Apparently, politics is more important to them than hunting and ownership of guns.

 

[BigRack]

I searched HSUS and lawsuits. Not a lot of threads.

I guess it is just about politics.

That is what happens when the Federal Government gets too big.

 

[spook12]

When did the land transfer issue first start coming up?

Almost since our inception,but more recently since the 70's.

 

[schmalts]

Put those lands in state hands and see what happens. You might be able to buy a tag, but where you going to hunt? My guess, you'll have to pay a trespass fee that will make the $1952 seem like pocket change.

Go ahead stand on the side lines. My dad had a saying for those type of people, "They would cut off there nose to spite their face".

Are you willing to roll the dice?

The ones already priced out or who do not hunt already sit on the sidelines and they will care a lot less than those who have not sat out. What percentage of owners of the federal land do you think intend to hunt in your state on their federal land? What interest do they have to support your right to do the same? If you think no one has been priced out of hunting in Montana you really need to take a look at what has happened to the availability of deer and elk tags since the last price hike.
Interesting though that you already assume that a state that relies so heavily on nonresidents to fund your hunting costs would all the sudden shut out the cash cow when if they had to assume even more added cost to take over federal land. I would bet it would not effect the availability or price of nonresident tags one bit.
I think you guys are missing the simple point me and Randy are trying to make and it is there very well come a day that hunters will need voters on a federal level to give a damn about the right to hunt federal land.

 

[shoots-straight]

The ones already priced out or who do not hunt already sit on the sidelines and they will care a lot less than those who have not sat out. What percentage of owners of the federal land do you think intend to hunt in your state on their federal land? What interest do they have to support your right to do the same? If you think no one has been priced out of hunting in Montana you really need to take a look at what has happened to the availability of deer and elk tags since the last price hike.
Interesting though that you already assume that a state that relies so heavily on nonresidents to fund your hunting costs would all the sudden shut out the cash cow when if they had to assume even more added cost to take over federal land. I would bet it would not effect the availability or price of nonresident tags one bit.
I think you guys are missing the simple point me and Randy are trying to make and it is there very well come a day that hunters will need voters on a federal level to give a damn about the right to hunt federal land.

It's not because their are priced out. It's because of the same old BS that hunters are complacent. Out-of-state hunters are no different. Also, a lot of the hunting public are very right wing. "Reference to cuting one's nose off" The hunters are not the ones that are going to make or break this thing.It will be the other 80% of the public that put value on the public lands. I'm hopeful that they are a lot less selfish than our brothers and can see what could be lost.

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.

 

[Straight Arrow]

What may or may not allow NR's to feel better, current news is that the hunting license fee study group has concluded and now legislation is drafted for the 2015 Montana legislative session to increase resident hunting license fees for the ensuing four years. It appears that most Montana hunters are in favor of increased funding for Montana FWP and are willing to more equitably share the costs with NR's.

 

[roadhunter]

roadhunter...really?

I've been on ranches where 4-5 people kept up with managing the land and the livestock on over 100k acres. Everything from farming, branding, calving, fencing, machine/building/barn/house/road maintenence, etc..

Do you honestly think this an accurate conclusion to draw...a 100K acre deeded cattle ranch (which there are damn few of), compared to the management that is required of BLM and FS lands?

When was the last time a cattle rancher had to worry about managing recreation, wildlife, T&E species, timber, water quality, clean air, conducting research, fighting fires, 380,000 miles of NF road maintance, thousands of miles of trail maintance, manning look-out towers, public relations, maintaining a fleet of engines, aircraft, vehicles, administrating grazing leases, conducting compartment stand exams, wilderness management, WSA's, NEPA requirements, and thats just a fraction of what the BLM and USFS are required, BY LAW, to accomplish.

If all they had to do was raise cows on private land...yeah, then it would be a fair comparison.

BTW, its not that managing federal lands is a burden. The FS annual operating budget, as has already been mentioned previously, is a fraction of 1 percent of over-all federal spending. The tax burned placed on the individual American taxpayer, for the management of public lands, is literally pennies per person.

Hardly anything to get worked up about when considering all the things that Congress spends/wastes money on. Wen considering the vast amount of varied habitat and management requirements placed on the BLM, FS, USFWS, etc., the American citizen doesnt really have much to complain about.

To me, the tax "burden" that I pay each year for having places to fish, hunt, camp, hike, birdwatch, etc. is well worth what I pay...and wayyy less than what I'd pay for similar opportunities on private lands.

In fairness, as a tax paying Citizen, I also have the right to guide management of those lands via public involvement, my congressional delegation, and as an active citizen. Something I've been doing for a long time.

Go try to be an active participant in making management decisions on someones private land...good luck with that.

You need to really educate yourself on public lands related topics. Your hatred of the Federal Government is not allowing you to think logically.

Once Federal land is gone...its gone forever and nearly impossible to "undo".

Another thing to consider is if State land acquistion is such a great thing...then why do the R's and in particular the tea party R's, try to pass "no net gain" in State lands laws? They use the same arguments that many on this thread use...that any gains in State lands would be too burdensome on the State Lands Departments. Yet, in the next breath, they want millions of acres of Federal Lands handed over to their states...which, I guess would be no burden to the states. But hunter dollars being used in purchase state lands for wildlife would be?

Think about that one...

I do think it is interesting to compare the manpower required to manage land per acre between federal, state, local and private landowners. Believe it or not the ranch I am referring to also conducts recreational activities including hunting as well as the ranching and farming activities. They have abundant wildlife even though they don't have an army of biologists or an airplane to maintain. Ranched so a whole lot more than just take care of cows. As you mentioned the fences, roads, buildings, etc.. And yes some even manage to do logging operations, O&G explorations, farming, outdoor recreation, managing the wildlife, etc... They just do it with a whole lot less $ and manpower.

I think folks like you want everyone to believe it is so complicated to manage land that no state could afford to do it. In reality some of the best hunting around is on private lands that dont' have all the wasteful spending on unnecessary items like all the stuff you referred to. So what is all that doing for the people or the wildlife? That is the point. Large tracts of land can be managed without all the waste the USFS wants us to believe is necessary. You cite all these things that are so expensive but when you go look across the fence at the private land with no biologists doing studies it's really not much different and in many cases the wildlife is actually better on the private land where no money was wasted on these things. I guess what I am saying is you can take a private section and a USFS/BLM section sitting right next to each other. The government section will have all the things you are talking about including a army of people to do all the paperwork. And in most cases you won't be able to tell the difference between the two pieces of land. So what are we accomplishing by spending all this money? In many cases, nothing.

In reality taxpayers in highly populated states are paying the bill for maintaining the land in low population states like Montana and Wyoming. Works out good for you but bad for a guy on the East coast who rarely if ever uses the land he is helping to pay to maintain. Especially when he finds out that he can't hunt the wilderness land he pays to maintain in Wyoming and has to pay an arm and a leg in states like Montana for the opportunity to go elk hunting in the NF. Easy to see why he would not care about keeping land he never uses anyway.

No doubt that there is other waste but that is not what we are talking about. That actually seems more like a change the topic type statement. "Hey, every other government agency is doing it, so this is no big deal". That is the type of attitude that has gotten us up to our ears in debt and will likely cause major issues when the financial chit hits the fan at some point.

If you give a rancher land he will make money with it. If you give land to a farmer he will make money with it. If you give land to a logging company they will make money with it. If you give land to an O&G company they will make money with it. If you give land to an outfitter they will make money with it. If you give land to a resort they will make money with it. When we give land with all those possibilities to the federal government it costs us an enormous amount of money. There lies the problem. Why not try giving it to the state to see if they can do better?.

I think you want to scare us into believing that if the land is not under the control of the USFS it will be lost forever. I don't believe that in any way.

Do you think the USFS should be in the technical/trade education business with the Job Corps program?

 

[Straight Arrow]

What seems to be lost is that this federal government is not some alien entity from outer space that imposes all of these laws, regulations, policies, programs, and "wasteful spending" on managers of federal public lands. YOU ... Straight Arrow, Big Fin, roadhunter, schmalts, Shoots Straight, etal ARE the government, through a representative democracy and those managing agencies are in effect, your employees. As difficult and lengthy a process it is, there are means to change those undesirable management programs. It has taken at least a hundred years for them to be put in place, so don't get impatient, just work for improvements with diligence, reason, and positive energy. BUT, to transfer to states, then privatize and eventually sell off the American public lands treasures is shortsighted and one-time revenue and change that will be forever lose and deprive our progeny of the public lands uses we now freely enjoy.