Public Lands - The Congressional Football

[FI460]

but whether or not you care about public lands and wild spaces shouldn't be wholly dependent on whether or not you're given ample opportunity with a tag to hunt them. ever floated the bob? ever rafted the grand canyon? ever perched on an alpine peak and watch the sun rise?

these things, these places, have an intrinsic, albeit somewhat intangible, value. i would just be as horrified to see them transferred and disposed if i wasn't a hunter as i would be as a hunter.

my user hours hunting federal public land are probably outnumbered by 10x the hours i've spent doing things not hunting on federal public land. doing things anyone anywhere on the globe can come here and do whenever they want.

let's just not make this about tag allocation.

This right here. I have no interest in hunting basically anything east of the Mississippi, but I'll definitely visit the Everglades, the Smokies, etc...

 

[sclancy27]

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.

The way FS/BLM is set up is to have local officials manage the land. Unfortunately, the combo of lawsuits against management practices (logging etc) and DC pushing different agendas has led to where we are now. I work for a non-land management agency, what DC thinks is a good idea compared to what it is in each state, MT for example, are wildly different. All these agencies need to take on the "decentralized command" concept instead of the human centipede concept.

 

[seeth07]

As for recent state land sales, Utah is the king. Rather than truly fund their schools with recurring revenue, they use "asset liquidation." Not that they are running out of their most prime inventory for sales, they want their hands on all those great Federal parcels that could really ramp up the cash.

I'm not inclined to see Federal lands in Utah sold because their politicians don't have the nads to propose bills to raise fees/taxes to the required level. The liquidation approach eventually runs out of assets to liquidate. If you wonder why Utah is such a big advocate of state transfer, their refusal to fund schools through other mechanisms is a big part of that.

This website, shows the frequency of state land sales, with each past auction listed on the left. Link here - https://trustlands.utah.gov/work-with-us/surface/land-sales/

Yes, Utah is a very bad apple here and I was aware of that. For the sake of this discussion, what I'm really hoping to discover is how does the table that @wllm posted (which I am assuming to be the current 2023 state land ownership representation) compare to say the exact same table from 2018? How about 2008?

I want to see those numbers just for the sake of seeing what some states are currently actively doing with their state lands. Are there states where the state land ownership is actually going up? I've donated to many projects and purchases in my home state to acquire land that is now state land as wildlife management areas so I would actually be appalled a bit to find out if there was actually a net loss in this state.

I get and totally understand how bad this scenario would be for pretty much every Rocky Mountain State. Its very evident from this forum with many great examples of why its a horrible idea. However, federal policy isn't based on how a few states feel about an idea but rather how the entire union collectively feels about it. The House and Senate are setup specially to ensure this based on how those officials are elected. Since most of this forum is from those Rocky Mountain states, some times its good to open your minds and at least think about and consider how those people from Maryland, Florida, Texas, Hawaii all view this topic. You make your argument better if you can understand your entire audience first and then formulate opinions from there.

For the record here, I'm in no way an advocate of the legislation that was from the original post. I'm honestly neither for or against it because I don't feel I'm actually educated enough on the topic to actually form an opinion with factual evidence to back it up.

 

[seeth07]

o and I do believe the actual intent and motive right now from these types of legislation is like mentioned - to transfer to state and then transfer to private to make some $$$. I'm not blind to that obvious connection either. But think about this: What if that wasn't the actual motive and creative minds were able to formulate the bill in such a way that would actually be beneficial to all Americans? Like @Big Fin mentioned in a prior post, its not exactly like the federal government actually does a good job at managing those lands...

 

[44hunter45]

Is this the table being requested?

View attachment 260173

You Nevadans should be digging up McCarran's grave.

Nate Schweber points out in "This America of Ours" that Nevada double dipped. After McCarran's crones in the state house sold themselves all the state lands that had surface water, they went to Congress for more land. They used the excuse that the children would not get educated without more land transfers. They got the land and sold it to themselves again! When they went to Congress the third time, the door was closed.

 

[sclancy27]

You Nevadans should be digging up McCarran's grave.

Nate Schweber points out in "This America of Ours" that Nevada double dipped. After McCarran's crones in the state house sold themselves all the state lands that had surface water, they went to Congress for more land. They used the excuse that the children would not get educated without more land transfers. They got the land and sold it to themselves again! When they went to Congress the third time, the door was closed.

That is exactly what would happen in MT, except replace surface water with elk

 

[44hunter45]

Don't take my word for it.

Listen to Hal Herring's interview with Nate Schweber. This interview promoted me from advocate to activist. Like McCarran, my family has labeled me a leftist.
Meaning anyone who believes less than Creation was made for the exploitation of Man - OR - less than property rights mean you can do anything with your land regardless of the cost to others.

BHA Podcast & Blast, Ep. 141: Public Lands Journalist Nate Schweber

BHA Podcast & Blast, Ep. 141: Public Lands Journalist Nate Schweber

www.backcountryhunters.org

 

[Big Fin]

I'd ask folks, do you want to have to hike in/out of Region G & Region H every day of your deer hunt. I mean, it's only a 6 hours hike (each way) from the trailhead. Transfer the USFS lands of the Bridger-Teton to the State of Wyoming and that is what you would have to do.

Want to hunt the Thoroughfare, you have to ride your horse in an out every day. Twenty miles each way. Why? Because the elected leaders of Wyoming do not allow camping on State Lands. Transfer these lands to the State of Wyoming and those rules now apply.

Draw that once-in-a-lifetime elk tag for the Gila in New Mexico. They don't allow camping on state lands, so when the Gila NF becomes property of New Mexico, you get to drive from Datil or Quemado, three hours each way, both morning and night.

If you like recreational shooting on public lands, better not live in Arizona when Tonto, Coronado, Coconino, Kaibab, or Apache-Sitgreaves NF become State Lands. Or the volumes of BLM land. Why? Because Arizona doesn't allow recreational shooting on State Lands.

I could go on and on and on with examples that show why we are better off demanding improved management of the Federal lands than we are to seek the transfer of these lands to states. It is not a binary discussion. Unlike what politicians would want us to think, we can have better management of these lands and still have the benefits of the access we get while under Federal control.

Now, if you want to see a recent spin on this that goes the other way, look at how the US Government, mostly DOI and USFS, are handling hunting for non-subsistence hunters in Alaska. Every hunter should be pissed about the Feds telling Alaskans what can/can't be hunted on Federal lands, as it drives a huge hole in the case for keeping these lands as Federal. Especially with the robust state land sales program Alaska has. If we think it has no impact on us when DOI or USFWS does stupid shit like they've recently done in Alaska, we are wrong.

 

[sclancy27]

I'd ask folks, do you want to have to hike in/out of Region G & Region H every day of your deer hunt. I mean, it's only a 6 hours hike (each way) from the trailhead. Transfer the USFS lands of the Bridger-Teton to the State of Wyoming and that is what you would have to do.

I bet it would increase buck numbers....

 

[jryoung]

Probably a good time to bump @Big Fin lengthy series surrounding public land transfers.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLdxutimd-JsEtFEIVd4kfFhn3EMTBRuC

 

[BuzzH]

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.

If the western states were worried about opportunity to dig out of the red, (WY has a 2 billion rainy day fund)...they should have developed their own resources instead of allowing the private sector to do it.

In true fashion, the brain trusts running states like MT, WY, CO follow the same script, privatize profits and subsidize/socialize losses.

The amount of money that Wyoming could have generated developing its own OG resources instead of farming it out to the OG companies is staggering. Same with timber in Montana. Same with mining copper, uranium, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Southern Elk]

Is this the table being requested?

View attachment 260173

Yes!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If the western states were worried about opportunity to dig out of the red, (WY has a 2 billion rainy day fund)...they should have developed their own resources instead of allowing the private sector to do it.

In true fashion, the brain trusts running states like MT, WY, CO follow the same script, privatize profits and subsidize/socialize losses.

The amount of money that Wyoming could have generated developing its own OG resources instead of farming it out to the OG companies is staggering. Same with timber in Montana. Same with mining copper, uranium, etc. etc. etc.

+ Remember that time WY didn't buy every other section of railroad land.

Point being states want free land to sell not more land to manage.

1 million acres for 1.3 Billion

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I'd ask folks, do you want to have to hike in/out of Region G & Region H every day of your deer hunt. I mean, it's only a 6 hours hike (each way) from the trailhead. Transfer the USFS lands of the Bridger-Teton to the State of Wyoming and that is what you would have to do.

Want to hunt the Thoroughfare, you have to ride your horse in an out every day. Twenty miles each way. Why? Because the elected leaders of Wyoming do not allow camping on State Lands. Transfer these lands to the State of Wyoming and those rules now apply.

I find it very hard to believe that in the highly unlikely event of USFS land being transferred to the State of Wyo that the no camping rule would remain. Not supportive of transfer just highly doubtful that Wyo would just up and say "Sorry no more camping".

 

[BuzzH]

Yes, not that hard for a western nonresident to imagine your scenario at all- your figures basically line up with what a typical landowner tag costs.

My final thoughts: this illustrates why residents of western states should think twice before shafting nonresidents just for a slightly larger slice of the pie. We are stronger fighting things like this together than we are apart.

You're already apart...if only obviously from your posts.

You think you're getting shafted because you can't get the tags you want, when you want, in a state you don't live in.

I don't complain because I pay more to hunt a whitetail in Wisconsin and would never advocate for transferring federal public lands there because I can't.

I also believe the Residents of Wisconsin should keep whatever slice of their wildlife pie they desire...its theirs, not mine.

I'll take the smallest slice or even the crumbs and call it good.

 

[BuzzH]

I find it very hard to believe that in the highly unlikely event of USFS land being transferred to the State of Wyo that the no camping rule would remain. Not supportive of transfer just highly doubtful that Wyo would just up and say "Sorry no more camping".

I don't know that I agree...with the State having to cover the costs of a hunter, backpacker, etc. leaving a campfire. Like happened a few backs in the Greys River, that's a huge expense the state would have to cover.

Would be easier for them to just say no overnight camping to avoid the risks and costs.

I could be wrong though...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@mulecreek
Probably should bring up Lee's 2022 bill S. 4062



The intention is absolutely to privatize these lands, they won't be managed as public hunting grounds.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I find it very hard to believe that in the highly unlikely event of USFS land being transferred to the State of Wyo that the no camping rule would remain. Not supportive of transfer just highly doubtful that Wyo would just up and say "Sorry no more camping".

No one in the transfer movement has presented a plan on how these lands would be managed.

The promises of any politician are worth the paper they're printed on. Until there is a plan that actually shows a difference in management, the safe assumption is that they would be managed as state trust.

In the absence of information, we must rightly assume the status quo is the actual management prescription.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

I don't know that I agree...with the State having to cover the costs of a hunter, backpacker, etc. leaving a campfire. Like happened a few backs in the Greys River, that's a huge expense the state would have to cover.

Would be easier for them to just say no overnight camping to avoid the risks and costs.

I could be wrong though...

Maybe...

So many solid arguments against State transfer. Have always felt the no camping argument was the weakest.

Either way, I am going to sleep confidently tonight knowing its not something I need to worry about anytime soon.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

the safe assumption is that they would be managed as state trust.

Agree to disagree. Safe assumption in my mind is that camping in region G would remain a thing. Overnight camping in the Thorofare would remain a thing. Almost sounds silly for me to say otherwise.