MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State

[schmalts]

.

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.

This is my last post on this because you really seem to miss my point even though I said I was playing devil's advocate. I'll let you in on the truth about montana's hunting price fees for the combo. It benefits me well since my odds went from 60% drawing to being able to get the tag literally over the counter via leftovers. I no longer have a mortgage or car payments so paying the fees for 100% odds is no skin off my back and it works in my favor. However since I am a conservationist I know that even though it works out well for me to get 100% odds or buy Landowner vouchers in other states I will still fight to kill both advantages because I know it is not in the best interest for the future of hunting(this is how politicians need to think). I would rather sit out some years if I felt it was more affordable for those cannot make ends meet. Those who cannot see how hunting becomes a rich man's sport until it is too late should look at the early warning signs of other states and countries. .... Just because Montana's fees are in line with other states doesn't mean it is going in a healthy direction and that's the point me and I believe Randy are trying to convey. And this topic brings new light to more reasons why it is bad on a federal voting level so in the end I believe it is related. Peace my friend. . P.S. if my spelling sucks blame it on bad eyes and small smartphone screens

 

[Ben Lamb]

They have abundant wildlife even though they don't have an army of biologists or an airplane to maintain.

Thanks to the subsidized management brought to you by the local game and fish agency.

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.

Thanks to the work of other people like logging companies who monitor, state inspectors who look after wells, and DEQ who makes sure that the well water on the ranch isn't contaminated by fracking, etc.

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.

It may be the best, but it's because it is tightly managed and you haven't thrown the gates wide open and said "have at it." It's managed, right? It's restricted access, right? It's still subsidized by my tax and license dollars, right?

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.

Horsechit. We accomplish the administration of Public Land as directed by Congress and the Executive. That land is owned by all Americans, which means there's a lot more accountability than if it were owned by the Wilks Brothers or whatever other billionairre is going to buy our politicians and our public lands. Private land isn't managed alone. It's done so in conjunction with other gov't entities. What if they have CRP? What about working with the agencies on wildlife? If you can't see government helping that operation, you ignore the obvious.

BTW - The U.S. Forest Service has 193 million acres in it's care and 30,000 permanent employees. That equals about 1 employee per 6300 acres. As opposed to your scenario where it would take 3-4 people to handle it.

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.

Actually, most public opinion polls in the US show a high popularity for public lands regardless of geographic disposition. Public Lands enjoy broad support in the U.S. because the people in states like New York understand what we have and don't take it for granted.

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.

This comment ignores a 20 year decline in funding for the FS and BLM. IF you're looking for gov't waste, start looking at the Pentagon and the President's discretionary budget. I'm kind of tired of paying def tech CEO's 7 figure salaries with my tax dollars.

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?.

The Farm Bill, trade negotiations, cheap grazing rates, lower tax rates for property, exemptions from certain laws related to child labor, etc all help make those operations profitable. I subsidize the ranching community

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?

You better be scared. The people who are pushing this have been pushing elimination and sale of public land for at least 20 years. Just because you don't know your own history doesn't mean others aren't going to fight to keep something that very few other countries have: Public Land.

If you want a state with little public land, move to Texas. I'm sure someone will let you in on their lease for a few grand.

 

[tjones]

Ben seems to be sharpening his skills for the upcoming session.

 

[BuzzH]

I can see why those South Dakota farmers make money off the land...good old Uncle Sugar kicked in 11.1 billion from 1995-2012.

Seems S. Dakota land owners have become pretty good at "farming" the Government...

http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=46000

 

[roadhunter]

Ben obviously you are a believer in big government. We simply disagree on that topic. I don't think the federal government is particularly good ad doing anything to be honest with you and the bigger it gets the worse it gets at accomplishing anything it seems.

What exactly do you think the federal government is good at doing these days? Wasting money comes to mind as one of the few things they are good at IMO.

I love how you are trying to scare us into thinking if the land is not under federal control it will be lost forever. I guess if what you say it true this will be the last year to hunt federal land since it will be sold by next year. I just don't believe that is actually happening.

I'm not sure how you can claim the federal government is managing all the private land as well. What exactly do you think the government is doing on the average Montana ranch to manage the land for the owner? In reality the landowner is managing most aspects of the land, not the government like you want us to believe is the case

Again pointing to other wasteful government spending is simply changing the subject. I do agree about CEO's salaries but that is not what we are talking about. The attitude of "everyone else is doing it" does not work for me.

I've lived in Texas. Fine state. Really enjoyed no state income tax. Would have no problem living there again.

 

[RobG]

Ben obviously you are a believer in big government. We simply disagree on that topic. I don't think the federal government is particularly good ad doing anything to be honest with you and the bigger it gets the worse it gets at accomplishing anything it seems.

I think the disagreement is mostly about who it would be managed for. With state management it would be managed to the detriment of the fish and wildlife. With fed management it would be managed to the detriment of the oil, mining, logging and other extractive industries.

I learned in Idaho that at the local level any government agency is bullied by local commercial interests. If they didn't have the big boss in DC to fall back on our land would have been trashed long ago.

And I lived in Texas too... fine people, but didn't like the massive sales tax compared to MT. However, the lack of public land was a huge factor in me leaving.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I believe that government exists to protect people from undue influence by those who would eliminate my birthright of public land. You seem to believe that government exists to keep people down while helping billionaires.

Also, you support a massive growth in state government with this land grab. How many more thousands of dollars are you willing to pay to fund fire-fighting, etc? Fire-fighting, road maintenance, etc will crush county & state budgets, causing them to raise taxes to pay for management. Livestock producers will see a massive increase in grazing fees as they now have to pay 600% more per AUM because the state won't subsidize grazing. So who really supports big government? Looks to me like it's you.

So be it.

You claim that the land management agencies are creating our debt and waste money. The budget tale & reality tells us your view is false.

 

[jryoung]

Again pointing to other wasteful government spending is simply changing the subject. I do agree about CEO's salaries but that is not what we are talking about. The attitude of "everyone else is doing it" does not work for me.

Context matters, the USFS budget is 1% of the DOD Budget, only a slightly larger percentage of SS, Medicaid/Medicare. But more importantly, we know that the ROI on conservation dollars are substantial to local economies. When land must be managed for all, all must compromise.

To see only the tree and not the forest (pun intended) is foolish.

 

[roadhunter]

I believe that government exists to protect people from undue influence by those who would eliminate my birthright of public land. You seem to believe that government exists to keep people down while helping billionaires.

Also, you support a massive growth in state government with this land grab. How many more thousands of dollars are you willing to pay to fund fire-fighting, etc? Fire-fighting, road maintenance, etc will crush county & state budgets, causing them to raise taxes to pay for management. Livestock producers will see a massive increase in grazing fees as they now have to pay 600% more per AUM because the state won't subsidize grazing. So who really supports big government? Looks to me like it's you.

So be it.

You claim that the land management agencies are creating our debt and waste money. The budget tale & reality tells us your view is false.

Land Grab?

Ben, You are simply trying to scare us into believing your message. We already spend a fortune managing this land and if we could find somebody who could do a better job and be more efficient it would cost less. But that is not what you want to see. You want more funding for the USFS which I do not think is the answer although the government wants you to believe that throwing money at a problem is the best strategy.

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.

Not sure how you can believe that the USFS does not waste money or contribute to the national debt but it is obvious that you can't look at government agency's and see the waste because you believe in big government.

 

[ingomar]

Been following this thread with great interest. I have a simple question: How many of the Montana residents who have posted on this thread plan on writing Letters to the Editor on this subject, or calling their local legislators, or telling their friends what is going on, or will get involved in the next legislative session???

It is very easy to sit on the sidelines and write on a blog whereas it takes a lot more effort and time to get actually involved in the process. If you care, please get involved and help the organizations like MSA, MWF, PLWA, MBA, Audonbon, TU, Back Country Hunters and Anglers, etc. that fight these battles every day.

Vito Quatraro

 

[roadhunter]

I think the disagreement is mostly about who it would be managed for. With state management it would be managed to the detriment of the fish and wildlife. With fed management it would be managed to the detriment of the oil, mining, logging and other extractive industries.

.

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.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It is a land grab. It's the classic denifinition of a land grab: Using political power to change ownership of land with the goal of privitizing it.

Just because you refuse to look at the facts doesn't make them less factual. The USFS & BLM do not contribute to the debt. They are revenue generators for this nation. Montana alone has a 5.8 billion dollar economy that supports 68,000 jobs because of public lands.

If you think that paying "fair market value" for grazing means that producers won't sell out, you obviously don't know western agronomy. Those below cost leases help ensure plentiful winter range on private land and they can help manage habitat for big game when done correctly.

You don't like government. I get it. Yet you're willing to grow government at the state level to burn down agencies you have a vendetta against.

That seems kinda small minded and petty to me.

 

[Big Fin]

So, I'm the trustee of a lot of trusts at my CPA firm. I am accountable to the beneficiaries of that trust.

Suppose that the governing instrument, or the trust document that Mom and Dad set up, is writting poorly, so the return assets is not what we would like to get. What is the trustee to do?

Following the logic of the sell the public land crowd, the directive for me as trustee would be, "Well, managing these assets for these beneficiaries, under these guidelines is difficult, so I'm just gonna give/sell the assets to my buddies and they can deal with it. Hell with the beneficiaries."

When you stand back and look at it, that is really what is being promoted by these groups. They're too ignorant, too lazy, too meek, or too something or other to accomplish anything good. So they adopt the mantra of, "Let's just get rid of the assets in question."

In effect, they are saying, "Let's not bother changing the governing rules that create some of these problems. Let's not work hard at this to make a better solution. Let's take the easy route and in the process, make sure our pals get these trust assets, or at least beneficial use of these assets, for little or nothing. Screw the rest of them. They're just the working stiffs who are too busy raising families, trying to get by, volunteering for Little League, and other daily grinds of life to even know what we're doing."

That's how I see it. I see it as a bunch of lazy asses with political agendas having no regard for the long-term future. The quest for power drives them. The money from outside keeps their machines running. I have no use for any of them, and as of late, nothing but spite for their existance as supposed representatives of our communities.

They look at the landscape as nothing more than a game of chess, with the assets of the America citizen as a currency by which they can repay their political favors; the party-allegiant voters predictably falling in line and being their pawns to accomplish such.

They don't give two chits about economic efficiency. To say they do is laughable, given the manner in which they govern and hand out subsidies to their pals. They don't give a rat's arse about fiduciary responsibility to those who have made the public lands such great treasures. They see those lands as nothing more than another spoil to be spread out among the poltical victors.

I don't care what party they are from, what state they claim to represent. The greatest legacy I have received in my life, other than being born a white male in America, is the public lands of this country. Anyone who intends to take that legacy from my children and grandchildren better start building political foxholes, 'cause the artillery is being loaded.

I'm one of millions who feel the same way. Why should we have any allegiance or concern of any party. They both intend to do what is best for them, not what is best for us. Concern for party allegiance, or tags of Liberal or Conservative, doesn't even make my Top 10,000 list.

After my Family, Friends, and the future of hunting, protecting access to these public lands makes my Top 5 list. There is some politician, somewhere, who intends to screw over my children and grandchildren. So long as I have a breath in my body, he will wish I never existed. Any chucklehead politician who doubts that commitment is in for a big awakening and a political ass whooping of the highest degree.

 

[roadhunter]

It is a land grab. It's the classic denifinition of a land grab: Using political power to change ownership of land with the goal of privitizing it.

Just because you refuse to look at the facts doesn't make them less factual. The USFS & BLM do not contribute to the debt. They are revenue generators for this nation. Montana alone has a 5.8 billion dollar economy that supports 68,000 jobs because of public lands.

If you think that paying "fair market value" for grazing means that producers won't sell out, you obviously don't know western agronomy. Those below cost leases help ensure plentiful winter range on private land and they can help manage habitat for big game when done correctly.

You don't like government. I get it. Yet you're willing to grow government at the state level to burn down agencies you have a vendetta against.

That seems kinda small minded and petty to me.

Ben,

I don't believe the USFS generates 5.8 billion of revenue in Montana. You are good at spinning things but we all know that one is not true either. Just changing the name on a deed from federal to state government does not mean all the wildlife will be lost and nobody will come to Montana to use the land. Yet another scare tactic you are trying to use that makes no sense when you think about it logically.

You are making all kinds of personal remarks that you have no idea if they are true. Plenty of Americans are frustrated with the federal government and how it operates. That does not mean they have a vendetta or are anti American. It means they actually give a crap and can see the direction this country is going.

I'm not going to go that route and insult you like you did me. I'm sure you have a good brain but are just biased because of what you do for a living. That seem to be the main focus of this discussion is folks who work for the government or work in a related field telling us how we need the federal government to manage the land for us but they just need some more money to do a better job. Then throw in the scare tactics of all the land will be sold to private landowners and Montana will lose 6 billion in recreation if the feds don't manage the land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Well said, Ben.

Further realize that states must follow the same laws, regulations, and policies that result in huge federal budgets. This transfer of lands to states would grow big governments out of relatively smaller state governments and then would you want the lands transferred to the counties? Perhaps then you could have several tiers of big government with big budgets and huge tax appetites to whine about.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

I don't believe the USFS generates 5.8 billion of revenue in Montana. You are good at spinning things but we all know that one is not true either. Just changing the name on a deed from federal to state government does not mean all the wildlife will be lost and nobody will come to Montana to use the land. Yet another scare tactic you are trying to use that makes no sense when you think about it logically.

You are making all kinds of personal remarks that you have no idea if they are true. Plenty of Americans are frustrated with the federal government and how it operates. That does not mean they have a vendetta or are anti American. It means they actually give a crap and can see the direction this country is going.

I'm not going to go that route and insult you like you did me. I'm sure you have a good brain but are just biased because of what you do for a living. That seem to be the main focus of this discussion is folks who work for the government or work in a related field telling us how we need the federal government to manage the land for us but they just need some more money to do a better job. Then throw in the scare tactics of all the land will be sold to private landowners and Montana will lose 6 billion in recreation if the feds don't manage the land.

Spare me the sanctimonious pablum. You throw out crap about how I love big gov't without knowing a thing about me, and when someone treats you the same way, you holler like a stuck pig. Grow a pair.

You don't know how states manage land. You want to grow state government and raise taxes and fees on people, but I'm the big gov't lover?

Yews, the outdoor industry in Montana is a $5.8 billion/year enterprise. https://outdoorindustry.org/images/ore_reports/MT-montana-outdoorrecreationeconomy-oia.pdf

Yes, the state of montana has no obligation to even consider wildlife when it comes to state trust lands, which these lands would be. It has a constitutional mandate to maximize yield, not to conserve habitat and wildlife.

Most other states are in the same bind.

And most other states understand that this is unconstitutional. Do you support the Constitions of the United States and individual states?

 

[BigRack]

Yes, the state of montana has no obligation to even consider wildlife when it comes to state trust lands, which these lands would be. It has a constitutional mandate to maximize yield, not to conserve habitat and wildlife.

Most other states are in the same bind.

And most other states understand that this is unconstitutional. Do you support the Constitions of the United States and individual states?

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think the State can ignore wildlife easements and other criteria when It accepts land.

 

[RobG]

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

Historical fact. Other than that, just a hunch.

 

[BullMooseGazette]

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]

Spare me the sanctimonious pablum. You throw out crap about how I love big gov't without knowing a thing about me, and when someone treats you the same way, you holler like a stuck pig. Grow a pair.

You don't know how states manage land. You want to grow state government and raise taxes and fees on people, but I'm the big gov't lover?

Yews, the outdoor industry in Montana is a $5.8 billion/year enterprise. https://outdoorindustry.org/images/ore_reports/MT-montana-outdoorrecreationeconomy-oia.pdf

Yes, the state of montana has no obligation to even consider wildlife when it comes to state trust lands, which these lands would be. It has a constitutional mandate to maximize yield, not to conserve habitat and wildlife.

Most other states are in the same bind.

And most other states understand that this is unconstitutional. Do you support the Constitions of the United States and individual states?

Ben,

You are still spinning. It's been real and it's been fun but I dont' think we are going to change each others mind. Thanks for sharing your opinions on the matter. Have a great day.