Oh, the irony!

[Treeshark]

Someone can check my numbers but I believe the discretionary budget for the USFS and BLM in 2024 is something like 10.82 billion dollars combined. The BLM brought in over 7 billion in revenue. Not sure what USFS revenue is.

So, assuming population of ~340 million, each American paid roughly 31 bucks to manage and have access to hundreds of millions of acres of BLM and USFS land.

I don’t mean to come across as pedantic, but your math assumes that every one of the 340 million people in the country pay the same amount of taxes. They do not, and close to half don’t really pay much of anything towards things like this.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Can anyone on here tell me why the United States set aside BLM lands and State Trust Lands in the first place? I don’t know if I have seen that mentioned yet. The original intent for those lands that is.

Everyone just talks and parrots about not wanting to see them get sold or transferred and how bad that is and I don’t disagree.

I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t so you could set up gongs at 1200 yards and shoot your fancy 7prc on Saturdays and it wasn’t for hunters to kill the last walking mule deer.

Your states are bleeding drop by drop.

This entire situation is 100% everyone’s fault who has showed up to the polls and voted/elected people who are not fiscally responsible even on a 3rd grade level.

About: History of BLM: National Timeline | Bureau of Land Management

National Timeline With historical roots dating back to the earliest days of the nation, the BLM administers the lands that remain from America's original "public domain." Created in 1946 through a government reorganization during the Truman Administration, the BLM is the successor to the...

www.blm.gov

If you "know" the original intent, why does it need stated?

 

[Hammsolo]

I think I always go back to simple math.

N - N = 0 N = ANY number

If we sell these lands at any price it will be probably spent, and most likely spent poorly. It won’t be put in a trust. It won’t be invested. Eventually we will be back to 0, and the land will be in the hands of the wealthy. Do we really want an oligarchy?

 

[TheTone]

It might be a good time to try to convince that poster that your argument is a good one. If your idea doesn’t convince here, how will it play to the rest of America?

if hundreds of comments across multiple threads aren’t going to convince him I’m not sure what more I can add.

How about spend 4- 8 years in college studying wildlife and resource management ? Maybe that will help. Or I sure hope he enjoys wildlife and recreation getting sold to those with those most money. That goes great until you’re priced out and sitting on the sidelines watching others

My state land management agency had lots of money to spend to acquire lands a fee years ago. Farm and timber interests complained big time that they were going to be priced out of acquiring these lands and from my understanding the money went largely unspent with very few properties purchased.

I have zero say in the management of state lands here, there is no public comment for projects. I do have that opportunity with FS and BLM projects. I’ve also seen roads and trails just randomly closed, i can think of one that in the last three years has went from open to pickups, to atvs only and now is completely barricaded. The road is excellent gravel and rock. Also incredibly dumb is I can legally get to the back side of the gate by coming from open FS roads and trails. State land here suffers from a complete lack of consistency with management, little to no public oversight, and from what I’ve seen little desire to interact with the public. If it can’t be logged, grazed or mined then it’s of little use to the state management

 

[Forkyfinder]

if hundreds of comments across multiple threads aren’t going to convince him I’m not sure what more I can add.

How about spend 4- 8 years in college studying wildlife and resource management ? Maybe that will help. Or I sure hope he enjoys wildlife and recreation getting sold to those with those most money. That goes great until you’re priced out and sitting on the sidelines watching others

Im not sure theres convincing someone out of victim/entitlement mindset.

I think thats the real source of the problem with some of the commenters.

 

[3855WIN]

I hear you, but perhaps he hasn’t read every thread and post. I’m just saying that person could be convinced to be on your side. A small tent attitude likely won’t work.

 

[TheTone]

I forgot to add I have never once heard a state lands employee call the land they manage public lands, they will always quickly correct you and call it endowment land. By the amount of money I pay in taxes and levies for schools that endowment ain’t doing enough.

Sure is fun watching entire mountains being clear cut though. Will be awesome when they replant it with 7 times more trees than they cut and then do a pre commercial thinning job in 10-15 years and cut down 2/3 of the trees they planted and leave them to rot. If people think walking through blowdown and bug kill sucks try out a pre commercial thin job

 

[Nick87]

I think I always go back to simple math.

N - N = 0 N = ANY number

If we sell these lands at any price it will be probably spent, and most likely spent poorly. It won’t be put in a trust. It won’t be invested. Eventually we will be back to 0, and the land will be in the hands of the wealthy. Do we really want an oligarchy?

This.

 

[Irrelevant]

You see that's where you and I differ.

We don't actually differ.

For me, the only time I'm truly free is when I'm out on those public lands.

Same here. But can you not see the position of privilege? Federal public lands are the greatest gift ever bestowed upon me. But only because I was fortunate enough to be born in a state that has a plethora of them. In the amount of time it will take me to write this I could be recreating on public land. That's a luxury most Americans don't have. So you're damn right I want to retain them as is where every Iowan, Indianan, and Connecticutian(?) subsidize this massive public land estate that I disproportionately benefit from.

I can also assure you that there is a human saturation point where that estate is no longer a place where you can feel free. I don't think many people have experienced it.

 

[Nick87]

hat's a luxury most Americans don't have.

I don't think the majority of the people your referring to even know they exist.

 

[Ben Lamb]

What do you mean specifically?

Not trying to steer you to a gotcha, I am interested in your view on this if you don’t mind taking a minute to explain.

Randy has done a remarkable job pulling together this information so first and foremost, check out the podcasts and videos he's put together. He does a solid job of explaining the differences and why we all lose out if this happens.

But, the TLDR of it is that states like Wyoming do not allow any overnight camping and even hunting access can be at the will of the lessee. You do not have the right to hunt of Wyoming State Trust lands - you have the privilege that is extended to you by the grace of politicians.

Montana - no dispersed camping. All camping is to be within a short distance of a legal access point. Guys like @Elky Welky lose 31 years of family traditions as those lands transfer to states. People who hunt the backcountry don't get to camp in those areas either so good by to DIY overnight hunting trips in MT. Offroad travel is prohibited on all MT State Trust lands, and in fact, those lands are primarily closed to all motorized travel unless signed open, so even the motorheads would see a massive reduction in available acreage for recreation. It was only in the 1990's that Montanans got the ability to pay for the privilege to hunt on state trust lands.

Colorado only recently allowed it's citizens privileges on some state lands as well and it was a herculean effort to get the state to move towards a more equitable system that has only now started to allow for hunting access on state lands on a broader scale. In fact, around 2/3's of Colorado's state trust lands are unavailable for hunting and the 900,000 acres that are available are leased by CPW for access.

Compare that to Wisco, MI & MN and you see a massive inequity between how those lands are managed for citizens to recreate on them and excurse their basic freedoms like walking outside, camping, hunting and motorized use. Midwestern states also don't have the kind of expenses that western states do on fire-fighting, etc.

Then there's the cost of managing that kind of estate. Proponents will tell us that this will save the federal government billions. What they do not tell you is that the states will have to raise taxes to pay for the transferred lands or sell them off. So the people of the west (and that includes @Irrelevant) will end up with a significantly higher tax burden to deal with fire management, noxious weed management and you lose freedom to simply be outside. Fire fighting in particular is a budget eater of epic proportions as weather events escalate and fire becomes far more catastrophic in scope.

States are often times much more expensive to lease for livestock grazing due to the different constitutional requirements of state trust lands to manage the land for the highest revenue return, rather than for the reasons cited under the Taylor Grazing Act and the Multiple Use Mandate of the Federal Estate.

Which brings up another issue with minerals. If the mineral estate stays with the federal government, then the transfer from that perspective is really a ball-buster for industry that now has two government entities to deal with rather than one on leasing and surface use.

So - there are significant real concerns about the transfer that proponents tend to gloss over because they have refused to actually put plans in place to make the transfer make any kind of fiscal or personal sense. Because if those lands get dropped on states today - your food will be more expensive, your gasoline will be more expensive and your electricity will be more expensive as your taxes climb to fight fires on millions of acres that the rest of the country doesn't cover. You also no longer have the basic freedom to camp overnight on so many millions of acres. And - your right to hunt and fish is no longer valid because the primary constitutional purpose of state lands is not to ensure you have a place to pop a deer or elk. It's to bring in money for the trust.

 

[Forkyfinder]

We don't actually differ.

Same here. But can you not see the position of privilege? Federal public lands are the greatest gift ever bestowed upon me. But only because I was fortunate enough to be born in a state that has a plethora of them. In the amount of time it will take me to write this I could be recreating on public land. That's a luxury most Americans don't have. So you're damn right I want to retain them as is where every Iowan, Indianan, and Connecticutian(?) subsidize this massive public land estate that I disproportionately benefit from.

I can also assure you that there is a human saturation point where that estate is no longer a place where you can feel free. I don't think many people have experienced it.

Interesting.

Those people have more access to this public land. More than ever. Its never been as easy to travel. To rent gear. To learn a hobby. You can rockhound. Backpack. Camp. Overland. Predator hunt. If you do any of those - even a 3 times in a lifetime, assuming mean taxpayer, still gets a hell of a deal compared to what that would be on private. Let alone the facilities. The ironic part - if commercial fees on this land were closer to fair, it would do more than pay for itself.

Do you feel the same way about people that live adjacent to a city park in your town? What do you notice about the price/desirability of those properties?

 

[FI460]

I forgot to add I have never once heard a state lands employee call the land they manage public lands, they will always quickly correct you and call it endowment land. By the amount of money I pay in taxes and levies for schools that endowment ain’t doing enough.

Sure is fun watching entire mountains being clear cut though. Will be awesome when they replant it with 7 times more trees than they cut and then do a pre commercial thinning job in 10-15 years and cut down 2/3 of the trees they planted and leave them to rot. If people think walking through blowdown and bug kill sucks try out a pre commercial thin job

Nothing like having your honeyhole turned into an Idaho moonscape huh?

We don't actually differ.

Same here. But can you not see the position of privilege? Federal public lands are the greatest gift ever bestowed upon me. But only because I was fortunate enough to be born in a state that has a plethora of them. In the amount of time it will take me to write this I could be recreating on public land. That's a luxury most Americans don't have. So you're damn right I want to retain them as is where every Iowan, Indianan, and Connecticutian(?) subsidize this massive public land estate that I disproportionately benefit from.

I can also assure you that there is a human saturation point where that estate is no longer a place where you can feel free. I don't think many people have experienced it.

The same argument could be made for every government program. I don't have kids so why am I paying for schools? Because there is likely some societal value there.

I'm sure there are a couple million antiwar Americans that would see our defense budget slashed to zero, but that's likely not wise.

Tons of folks would absolutely gut federal research subsidy given the opportunity, but everyone seems to love honeycrisps and would throw a fit if the local extension station went belly up...

 

[Treeshark]

Thanks Ben, I enjoyed reading that post and appreciate the time it must have taken to write that out. You made some really good points, perhaps a bit hyperbolic there at the end. But don’t we all, sometimes…

It seems to me there has been some fairly significant mission-creep within this thread (including by me)- this lawsuit is specifically discussing unappropriated BLM land, is it not?

We are beginning to discuss this as an all-or-nothing proposition when it really isn’t. National forests will still allow for all of those things, as would BLM etc…

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thanks Ben, I enjoyed reading that post and appreciate the time it must have taken to write that out. You made some really good points, perhaps a bit hyperbolic there at the end. But don’t we all, sometimes…

It seems to me there has been some fairly significant mission-creep within this thread (including by me)- this lawsuit is specifically discussing unappropriated BLM land, is it not?

We are beginning to discuss this as an all-or-nothing proposition when it really isn’t. National forests will still allow for all of those things, as would BLM etc…

Just because UT is starting with BLM lands doesn't mean the end goal isn't all. The maps produced by groups like the American Lands Council include National Parks and Indian Reservations. The architects of this are politicians and honestly, if you believe what a politician is telling you then perhaps more time in woods is needed to clear your head

Going back to the original effort to divest and Bernard DeVoto's stirring rebuttal - the end goal of this effort to eliminate the federal lands entirely. Tactics change but the goal remains the same.

 

[Treeshark]

It’s not something that I feel is an immanent threat, but you’re probably right about that being the end-goal.

 

[Irrelevant]

Interesting.

Those people have more access to this public land. More than ever. Its never been as easy to travel. To rent gear. To learn a hobby. You can rockhound. Backpack. Camp. Overland. Predator hunt. If you do any of those - even a 3 times in a lifetime, assuming mean taxpayer, still gets a hell of a deal compared to what that would be on private. Let alone the facilities. The ironic part - if commercial fees on this land were closer to fair, it would do more than pay for itself.

Do you feel the same way about people that live adjacent to a city park in your town? What do you notice about the price/desirability of those properties?

Sure you could say they get a helluva deal. Just not as good of deal as you get

 

[Big Fin]

It seems to me there has been some fairly significant mission-creep within this thread (including by me)- this lawsuit is specifically discussing unappropriated BLM land, is it not?

We are beginning to discuss this as an all-or-nothing proposition when it really isn’t. National forests will still allow for all of those things, as would BLM etc…

I would suggests reading what Wyoming put out on this with their support. They want it all, not just "unappropriated" BLM lands.

And, the attorneys I've hired have pointed out the legal contradiction of what Utah has asked for. They are bifurcating BLM lands from other "unappropriated" lands, which makes no sense from a legal or Constitutional argument. I would suggest reading their claim and it is obvious that the selective clauses and law they have chosen for support do not make any distinction between the types of Federal lands. Either it is Constitutional for the Feds to own lands other than post offices, ports, and military installations, or it is not Constitutional.

If the Constitution prohibits the Feds from owning BLM lands, the same legal theory would apply to National Forest, USFWS, and other lands. Based on the rationale submitting by Utah, the court would have to make the decision on all lands, not just the royalty-producing BLM lands Utah claims they deserve.

Some speculate that Utah did it this way, as they know if they were to make that claim for all Federal lands, it would be a complete shit storm from a public relations standpoint. It would include National Parks, of which Utah has many and upon which many businesses are dependent. It would include National Forests, which are the lands most Utah ski resorts and corresponding businesses rely on.

So, from a legal construct, the way Utah has made their argument for the Constitutionality (or lack thereof) of Federal land ownership, it is "all or nothing." Even if their request doesn't ask for USFS or other lands, the legal basis they've claimed can't be selectively applied by the courts.

 

[SAJ-99]

It’s not something that I feel is an immanent threat, but you’re probably right about that being the end-goal.

I think we are in a stage where people tell themselves all kinds of things to justify their beliefs (or vote). Maybe all Big Fin is saying is PAY ATTENTION, particularly on who you are giving your money too. Because of the price of groceries, voters took a hard right turn and now find themselves in the crazy section of town, where things once thought illogical and improbable are now distinct possibilities. I feel like I am in the burnout stage where fighting this stuff, or even trying to explain it, is pointless. So, pitter patter...

Utah v. United States - Mountain States Legal Foundation

Imagine living in a state where nearly half the land—millions of acres rich in resources—remains locked away under federal control, stifling economic growth and silencing your community’s voice. For the people of Wyoming, this isn’t a distant scenario, it’s the harsh reality they face every day...

mslegal.org

 

[Treeshark]

And, the attorneys I've hired have pointed out the legal contradiction of what Utah has asked for. They are bifurcating BLM lands from other "unappropriated" lands, which makes no sense from a legal or Constitutional argument.

It is an interesting angle for sure, I agree. It does seem to me that that transferring national forests, national parks etc is an impossibly heavy lift. Perhaps I am misguided here though, always that possibility.

Out of curiosity, are these the same attorneys you consulted with on the corner crossing discussions?