Public Lands - The Congressional Football

[44hunter45]

You aren’t. However, you do get to feel a little less screwed when states like WY go to 90/10 for animals living largely on your public federal land or have bans on you hunting your federal wilderness lands without an outfitter. So the rewards are basically priceless.

I don't see how pointing out that any state can screw over non-resident's helps your case.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It always fascinates me how quickly the issue of federal land ownership can make a Federalist out of the staunchest ‘States’ Rights’ guys.

What fascinates me is being labeled as a result of making a valid statement. Oh, by the way, as a lifelong Montanan I have always been (a"Federalist") appalled by a history replete with the "states rights" Montanans willing to sacrifice Montanans treasures to line their pocketbooks that I can only guess they take with them to their lonely graves.

 

[RobertD]

You aren’t. However, you do get to feel a little less screwed when states like WY go to 90/10 for animals living largely on your public federal land or have bans on you hunting your federal wilderness lands without an outfitter. So the rewards are basically priceless.

LOL
Your solution to having to wait 2 extra years to hunt a deer/elk/antelope is to open up huge swaths of deer/elk/antelope habitat to transfer and eventually sale
Brilliant

 

[seeth07]

Is there a way to easily see state land sale history for a given state?

 

[Beignet]

Agreed. Here in NY, the state does a pretty decent job managing state land and we have a lot of it (more than 3 million acres).

But NY has managed a lot of that land under the guidance of concepts established before the USFS existed.

My understanding is that state forests are mostly areas to be preserved instead of exploited for resources, as they saw the writing on the wall in the early days of timber over harvest.

Agreed that they do a fairly good job of it though. I would not use them as a model for how other states would manage land though.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I’m very aware. My point is that perhaps it would be best if we let them own and manage the federal land within their borders as well.

It always fascinates me how quickly the issue of federal land ownership can make a Federalist out of the staunchest ‘States’ Rights’ guys.

I think that's a bit of a fallacy. Federalism is the rallying cry for turning those land over. Ken Ivory is making a mint out of peddling false theories of federalism now, rather than trying to stel public land.

Regardless, states quit all claims to those lands once they entered the union. It's in their founding documents. so the states gave up the right to ask for those lands back when they were admitted into the Union, acknowledging the Federal Govt's right to own them, while they held on to the management of wildlife, right up until they have proven that they can't manage them (ESA, Migratory bird treat, etc).

 

[Southern Elk]

@Big Fin can you post up the chart that shows how much state land each state has sold off? That makes it pretty easy to see what would happen.

 

[seeth07]

@Big Fin can you post up the chart that shows how much state land each state has sold off? That makes it pretty easy to see what would happen.

I've seen this before and can find the total but its a little bit deceiving as a lot of the land sales happened awhile ago. I'd be curious to know what the actual current rate of land selling is for a given state.

There are also going to be some unknown drivers for a land sale that wouldn't be shown. I just watched a piece of landlocked state land go for sale near my home to an adjacent landowner. It was actually a great purchase because the funds they received from it was directly put towards a purchase they just finalized to preserve a critical area of wetlands. A very positive land swap. But the stats would show "state selling land" and not tell the story.

 

[brushcreek]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. The only reason the federal government can "handle" maintenance, upkeep, etc. is because we borrow from China to do it.

 

[TheTone]

ID actually has pretty stringent mining regulations. Just because they are state lands does not mean they can side-step NEPA or federal regulations for air/water quality. Also minerals are where you find them, changing hands doesn't mean they will suddenly appear and mining will go rampant. To be honest mining on BLM isn't really that much more challenging than on State Lands, NEPA has all the teeth..

Agreed , it’s just that the only activities really covered by code on state lands are grazing, mining or cutting trees. Outside that it’s kind of a free for all and empty “threats”

 

[RobertD]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. The only reason the federal government can "handle" maintenance, upkeep, etc. is because we borrow from China to do it.

So give it to Wyoming, who can then borrow from the federal government who borrow from China to do it?

 

[Beignet]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. The only reason the federal government can "handle" maintenance, upkeep, etc. is because we borrow from China to do it.

LOL. That’s such a small part of the budget.

Should the US government stop maintaining aircraft carriers to avoid selling T-bonds abroad?

 

[Dougfirtree]

But NY has managed a lot of that land under the guidance of concepts established before the USFS existed.

My understanding is that state forests are mostly areas to be preserved instead of exploited for resources, as they saw the writing on the wall in the early days of timber over harvest.

Agreed that they do a fairly good job of it though. I would not use them as a model for how other states would manage land though.

That's largely true (though state lands outside of the Forest Preserve (Adirondacks and Catskills) do see some extractive uses). This speaks to my point of the intentions of the state. Support for protecting state lands is widespread here and so the state is interested in preserving and expanding the amount of land, access, recreation, etc. That's just not true in many western states.

 

[Southern Elk]

I've seen this before and can find the total but its a little bit deceiving as a lot of the land sales happened awhile ago. I'd be curious to know what the actual current rate of land selling is for a given state.

There are also going to be some unknown drivers for a land sale that wouldn't be shown. I just watched a piece of landlocked state land go for sale near my home to an adjacent landowner. It was actually a great purchase because the funds they received from it was directly put towards a purchase they just finalized to preserve a critical area of wetlands. A very positive land swap. But the stats would show "state selling land" and not tell the story.

I’m not talking about swaps.

 

[FairWeather]

Time to write my congressman. Though, if they’re anything like my last congressman, I’ll get an email in 4 months saying that they’ll read it someday…then I’ll get a bunch or requests for donations. Sigh.

 

[elkduds]

Time to write my congressman. Though, if they’re anything like my last congressman, I’ll get an email in 4 months saying that they’ll read it someday…then I’ll get a bunch or requests for donations. Sigh.

Or if he/she/they is on the wrong side of this issue, vote for a rep who endorses and supports federal public lands.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm not sure where I stand on this. The only reason the federal government can "handle" maintenance, upkeep, etc. is because we borrow from China to do it.

Who paid for:
Irma
Harvey
Katrina
Sandy
... etc.

The fed is still on the hook for the costs.

Also that whole bit about "cost a lot of money" well....

The USFS budget for management excluding fires is 1.9B, BLM 1.2.

Fire budget is 2.1B.


BLM generated 23B from Minerals/OG last year.

Home

This site provides open data about natural resource management on federal lands and waters in the United States, including oil, gas, coal, and other extractive industries.

revenuedata.doi.gov

Timber sales... Definitely have declined over the years but that's a lot of cash on the landscape.




I wonder why Mr. Lee wants the federal lands so bad...

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Emotionally, I want to agree that this is a bad thing. Logically, I’m not so sure it is.

Many make the argument that it’s good that the states own and manage their own wildlife (including the USSC, however personally I’m not sure that agree with this). If we apply that same logic, why we can’t expect the same of the individual states when it comes to land?

This also offers western states a great opportunity to dig out of the red and not be so economically reliant upon other states.

States are required to manage their wildlife for the citizens of the State. State land boards are directed to make money off of State owned lands. The two are vastly different from a management point of view, one for the interest's of the state citizens, one for the state's pocket books. When the state land board cant make money off a piece, they sell it. Every western state has shown this is how they manage their lands that were granted to them by the Feds at statehood, Nevada being one of the most egregious examples.

 

[Treeshark]

I understand, but is selling/otherwise monetizing that land necessarily a bad thing if that’s what the residents of said state choose for themselves?

I’m just trying to reconcile the whole “states rights” thing with respect to wildlife decisions vs land ownership.

 

[RobertD]