Public lands for how long? by Don Thomas

[katqanna]

Public lands for how long? by Don Thomas

Hunting, fishing and wildlife are important to Montanans. These are the reasons many of us live here, and tourism and outdoor recreation are now the state’s largest economic driver. Support for these values helped make Steve Bullock a blue governor in a red state, and politicians took notice. No matter what their ultimate intentions, U.S. Rep. Greg Gianforte and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke both took pains to portray themselves as allies of Montana sportsmen. So did U.S. Sen. Steve Daines.

Their performance in Washington, D.C., has proven otherwise. Now Daines has introduced the ominously titled Protect Public Use of Public Lands Act. Why “ominously”? Because Washington politicians have developed a double-speak that allows them to sugarcoat legislation in ways that imply the opposite of its intention. This bill won’t protect anything...

It is always instructive to note who has signed on in support of bills like this. What about the endorsement from Big Game Forever (BGF)? Since numerous studies show that undisturbed security habitat is crucial for elk — our most popular big game animal — this group’s name sounds suspiciously like another example of double-speak, and it is.

BGF is an offshoot of the Utah-based Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife (SFW), founded by Don Peay, a privatization advocate who once said, “It’s time to revisit the widely accepted principle… that game is a public resource.” These two groups cut a deal in Utah that allowed them to profit directly from the auction of big-game tags there. They also secured large sums from the state to control wolves even though there were no wolves in Utah. The Salt Lake City Tribune has reported extensively on their inability to account for that money...

 

[406LIFE]

+1 to Don Thomas. I will certianly take him if Ducks Unlimited won't. He speaks for the litte man very well.

(And my 1000th post!)

 

[Southern Elk]

I agree with everything he said. That reminded me that I need to contact Senator Daines to voice my displeasure.

 

[onpoint]

http://flatheadbeacon.com/2017/12/21/protecting-public-use-public-lands/

Daines being Daines..........................

 

[JLDemo]

Actually wrote both senators and congressman on this very topic today, but good on Mr. Thomas for this publish, agree wholeheartedly. I challenged our representatives to stop following the examples of others and start being the example in regards to unlocking our landlocked lands. Although I fear my letters will fall on deaf ears, I'm a small fish in a large pond. But what I am is a veteran, I served to keep our way of life in tact and my way of life includes public lands, I didn't serve to see it unravel via minced words and politicians lining their pockets off of commercial gains on public lands, so I'll keep on writing them. I'm glad there are others with a larger voice than I stepping up such as Mr. Thomas and you, Kat as well as others. Thanks for sharing.

 

[onpoint]

Actually wrote both senators and congressman on this very topic today, but good on Mr. Thomas for this publish, agree wholeheartedly. I challenged our representatives to stop following the examples of others and start being the example in regards to unlocking our landlocked lands. Although I fear my letters will fall on deaf ears, I'm a small fish in a large pond. But what I am is a veteran, I served to keep our way of life in tact and my way of life includes public lands, I didn't serve to see it unravel via minced words and politicians lining their pockets off of commercial gains on public lands, so I'll keep on writing them. I'm glad there are others with a larger voice than I stepping up such as Mr. Thomas and you, Kat as well as others. Thanks for sharing.

Great message JLDemo.
I know of a fair number of veterans as well as a lot of public employees who seem to feel they have and are already doing/have done their part and stay out of this side of things. This stuff never ceases, we as sportsmen/women would do well to not cease either.
Glad to see a veteran voice what you just did. Your voice is certainly no less than any one else's.

 

[Big Fin]

Actually wrote both senators and congressman on this very topic today, but good on Mr. Thomas for this publish, agree wholeheartedly. I challenged our representatives to stop following the examples of others and start being the example in regards to unlocking our landlocked lands. Although I fear my letters will fall on deaf ears, I'm a small fish in a large pond. But what I am is a veteran, I served to keep our way of life in tact and my way of life includes public lands, I didn't serve to see it unravel via minced words and politicians lining their pockets off of commercial gains on public lands, so I'll keep on writing them. I'm glad there are others with a larger voice than I stepping up such as Mr. Thomas and you, Kat as well as others. Thanks for sharing.

As onpoint said, thanks for doing this. Thanks you for your service. Do not underestimate how far your words go.

 

[katqanna]

Because Washington politicians have developed a double-speak that allows them to sugarcoat legislation in ways that imply the opposite of its intention... this group’s name sounds suspiciously like another example of double-speak, and it is... The Daines bill predictably comes wrapped in promises of “access.” Montanans don’t need more roads, but we do need legal access to public land we own.

This double-speak crosses into a number of arenas, including some of the ag program names that are actually anti wildlife or access.

In that National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act that passed Nov. 28, 2016, it was sponsored by WY Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R). Lummis is part of the Federal Land Action Group, a congressional team that will develop a legislative framework for transferring public lands to local ownership and control, created by Utah Reps. Stewart and Bishop.

I was already concerned about this Trail Stewardship Act, especially after reading Sec. 7 with the credits for outfitters and guides. If they do trail maintenance, it could offset all or part of their land use fee. Often we hear of how cash poor our federal agencies are, as a reason why they can't do trail maintenance and such.

Call me cynical, but there are loopholes for abuses to this Act that can undermine our historical public access prescriptive easement process. For example, if an adjacent landowner to FS lands happens to be an outfitter. Let's just use Chuck Rein and MOGA VIce-President, in the Crazy Mountains as an example, where access is cut off. An outfitter can volunteer to maintain a trail or part of a trail that might benefit him, while not helping the general public who doesn't have access. He could then offset his fees by this volunteer work.

Additionally, historic prescriptive easements are legally defended and ruled based in part by maintenance and who did that maintenance. If it is the public and the FS, it applies towards our public monies paid in and the public and agency maintaining the road/trail. If they are no longer on the record as doing that maintenance, using the access for that purpose and the monies paid, but the adjacent landowner is, that works in their favor, not ours, part of the 5 year reverse adverse use of Montana law.

Now I was at the December Board of Outfitting meeting, when during a break, Mac Minard, the executive director of MOGA was sitting against one wall of the room, talking with two of the Board members and another gentleman, when he spoke of the Crazy Mountain access situation, brought this National Forest System Trails Stewardship Act (which I have already been watching) up in conjunction, then stated, "This will be great for outfitters." My requested information on this pilot program and Montana might be interesting, perhaps revealing, to see who takes advantage of it, what trails, etc.

I don't trust the double-speak of this particular Act, who sponsored it and the agenda of transferring federal public lands or their management to the states. Daines' bill is just another that caters to the same privatization. When I received Daines' announcement in my email, and saw the various groups used to validate it, I was not surprised to see certain counties supporting this, CBU, BGF, Safari Club International, nor the recently changed Russell Country Sportsmen.

Those counties are ignoring the economic benefit of the wilderness study areas. At that meeting I went to in Red Lodge, this summer, Headwaters Economics made a presentation on the economic value of public lands, especially protected federal public lands.

Sample of Peer-Reviewed Research. The following brief summary of peer-reviewed research on protected public lands may be useful to western communities working to promote a more robust economic future:

• Protected public lands can and do play an important role stimulating economic growth — esp ecially when combined with access to markets and an educated workforce — and are associated with some of the fastest growing communities in the West ( Rasker 2006 ).
• Wilderness designation enhances nearby private property value (Phillips 2004).
• Western non-metropolitan counties with protected federal lands had faster employment growth and higher per capita income. Counties that had more than 30 percent of the county’s land base in federal protected status increased jobs by 345 percent over the last 40 years. By comparison, similar counties with no protected federal public lands increased employment by 83 percent. In addition, in 2010, per capita income in western non-metropolitan counties with 100,000 acres of protected public lands was on average $4,360 higher than per capita income in similar counties with no protected public lands (Rasker, Gude, and Delorey 2013).
• Wilderness is associated with rapid population, employment, and personal income growth relative to non-Wilderness counties. Services jobs are increasingly mobile, and many entrepreneurs locate their businesses in areas with a high quality of life (Lorah and Southwick 2003).
• Protected lands, and creating new visibility for them through designations, also helps safeguard and highlight the amenities that attract people and businesses. Higher population growth occurred in counties with amenities, which included climate, topography, and water area (McGranahan 1999).
• Public lands conservation is associated with more robust population growth and slightly higher net migration rates in counties with more protected lands (Lewis, Hunt and Plantinga 2002).
• While Wilderness recreation benefits to local communities are modest, the presence of Wilderness appears to draw residents and new economic activity, and has a substantial positive impact on local economies (Rudzitis and Johnson 2000).
• A study of 250 non-metro counties in the Rocky Mountains found no evidence of job losses associated with Wilderness and no evidence that local economies more dependent on logging, mining, and oil and gas suffered job losses as a result of Wilderness designation (Duffy-Deno 1998).
• Outdoor recreation is important to western economies. In New Mexico, for example, the Outdoor Industry Foundation (OIF) reports that active outdoor recreation contributes $6.1 billion annually to the state’s economy, supporting 68,000 jobs. Nationally, OIF estimates an economic impact of $646 billion from active outdoor recreation (bicycling, camping, fishing, hunting, paddling, snow sports, wildlife viewing, and trail-running, hiking, climbing), supporting 6.1 million jobs (Outdoor Industry Foundation 2012).
• For many seniors and soon-to-be retirees, protected public lands and recreation provide important aspects of a high quality of life. Non-labor sources of income already represent more than a third of all personal income in the West and will grow as the Baby Boomer generation retires (Frey 2006).
• Protected natural amenities—such as pristine scenery and wildlife—help sustain property values and attract new investment (Deller and Tsai 2001).

 

[Irrelevant]

Bit of a tangent...accessing landlocked lands is moving up the latter of importance in my book. Here in WA it seems like every road is public. Accessing even small 1/4 1/4 is relatively easy in a lot of instances. But HOLY COW, trying to sort out access in WY has been brutal. There's like three acknowledged public roads in the entire county! We need make a concerted effort to gain access and publicize that access. As a side note on that last point, publicizing it is just as important. Our local PUD purchased a bunch of fishing access easements on the Wenatchee River as part of a mitigation package for re-licensing on of their dams. But they didn't push that info out to the public. And now there's very little record of them and the current landowners are unaware and will call the sheriff on you, and he's unaware of it so you get a trespassing warning or ticket and have to go through that legal hassle to fight it. Three steps forward, two back.

End of tangent. Sorry.