STEALING YOUR PUBLIC LANDS - The Colorado Example

[Big Fin]

Today we released the 6th video in our series – Public Land Transfer. This video examines the scenario of what would happen if BLM and USFS lands were transferred to the state of Colorado. We lose access to 23 million acres of public land. Take note of the facts at time code 1:45

We are now starting our state-by-state analysis of what State Transfer would look like in each state. After this Colorado video, the next state we will examine will be Wyoming.

The YouTube link to the Colorado State Transfer video is below:

https://youtu.be/qc5yljh2Y-Y


I hope you will share these videos with your fellow public land advocates.

Our schedule is to release a new video every Wednesday. The video roll order is:

1. State Transfer - An Introduction (released May 18)
2. History of Public Lands in the West (released May 25)
3. Destroying the Myths of State Transfer (released June 1st)
4. Costs of Land Management – Why the States would sell (released June 8th)
5. History of State Land Sales – These lands will get sold! (released June 15th)
6. Colorado – What would happen under state transfer? (released today)
7. Wyoming – What would happen under state transfer?
8. New Mexico – What would happen under state transfer?
9. Montana – What would happen under state transfer?
10. Nevada – What would happen under state transfer?
11. Utah – What would happen under state transfer?
12. Alaska – What would happen under state transfer?
13. Oregon – What would happen under state transfer (Elliot State Forest, our crystal ball)?
14. Arizona – Had to add this one. Too much going on to not explain what would happen under state transfer
15. The people trying to steal your public lands
16. What you can do to help

We have built a YouTube playlist for these public land videos. If you would rather follow the playlist, it is at this link - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLdxutimd-JsEtFEIVd4kfFhn3EMTBRuC

Thanks for all your advocacy on behalf of public lands. We have a lot more in store, besides these State Transfer videos. I hope you will share and distribute these over your media platforms.

 

[ingomar]

Randy, keep up the great work!!! Thanks for all you do for sportsmen.

 

[Fireguy69]

Thank you for doing this, I am going to send it to the candidates running to represent my area in the Colorado House this fall.

 

[junior88]

thank you in advance for adding AZ.

 

[u1299]

Well, I feel sorry for those (if there are any) who still don't get it. Right on Mr. Newberg.

 

[Oneye]

For some reason the link is working but the video is not in the videos section of your YouTube page. Great video!

 

[Big Fin]

For some reason the link is working but the video is not in the videos section of your YouTube page. Great video!

Glad you like it. I see it on our video list and the Public Land playlist, even when I log in as a non-subscriber.

 

[NVBighorn]

Great work BigFin.

https://youtu.be/ekv996IhjLM

www.sportsmensaccess.org

 

[coloelkman]

Randy - First off THANKS for all you do on this crucial topic! One comment I had was that most of the discussion seems to focus on loss to hunters and fisherman. Wouldn't it be advantageous to include all public recreation? ie. hikingers, birdwatchers, bikers, backpackers, etc. I know it is mentioned occasionally but it seems like including all recreational activities in the discussions and presentations would add a little more "diversity" to this issue. Since there are many anti-hunters around, including other groups in this discussion might appeal to an even wider audience. Just something I noticed in the discussion/presentations that not much is mentioned about the other groups that would be impacted, many of which don't have an interest in hunting or fishing. Keep up the good work!

 

[Big Fin]

Randy - First off THANKS for all you do on this crucial topic! One comment I had was that most of the discussion seems to focus on loss to hunters and fisherman. Wouldn't it be advantageous to include all public recreation? ie. hikingers, birdwatchers, bikers, backpackers, etc. I know it is mentioned occasionally but it seems like including all recreational activities in the discussions and presentations would add a little more "diversity" to this issue. Since there are many anti-hunters around, including other groups in this discussion might appeal to an even wider audience. Just something I noticed in the discussion/presentations that not much is mentioned about the other groups that would be impacted, many of which don't have an interest in hunting or fishing. Keep up the good work!

Your observation is correct. But, for two reasons, I have focused on the hunting impacts; 1) our audience is a hunting audience and that is who is watching our YouTube channel, and 2) as large as the outdoor recreation community is, their leaders are frustrated in how disengaged their membership is, so it seems I am best to stay focused on the hunting world and let those folks try to rally their troops in the outdoor recreation world.

I do make mention in all of these about hiking, camping, etc. We went and res-shot some of these, to not be wearing camo, as I was wearing in the first takes, just so it might have more appeal to those in the larger outdoor recreation community.

A reality is that advocacy on this issue is not a big deal at the grassroots level of the larger outdoor recreation community. For the most part, they are disengaged, though not all. I have been in talks with some of the leaders on that side and they ask me how it is that hunters are so avidly engaged. Comments such as that cause me to rethink my ideas of hunters being as apathetic as the rest of society, when some other segments see hunters as more engaged and less apathetic than society in general.

Hope that answer makes sense.

 

[MTBirdhunter]

I understand the need and the want to keep these lands public, but my question is why do those people feel the federal government is the best answer? Just looking at the way the federal government acted in the last decade....they handed out BILLIONS to individuals company's that contributed money to their elections, I.e. the "green" industry. They gave BILLIONS to the banks. BILLIONS to the auto industry. What would stop them, from, instead of taking OUR tax dollars and taking it, take OUR public lands? What makes you think they couldn't do the same with land? Wouldn't we be better off with LOCAL control? It seems to me local control is much better, easier to run into your state representative at the grocery store or fair then your U.S. Senator or House member. Easier to put amendments on the Ballot. Easier to raise concern on a state wide basis then national. Just my thinking.

 

[James Riley]

. . . as large as the outdoor recreation community is, their leaders are frustrated in how disengaged their membership is . . .

A reality is that advocacy on this issue is not a big deal at the grassroots level of the larger outdoor recreation community. For the most part, they are disengaged, though not all. I have been in talks with some of the leaders on that side and they ask me how it is that hunters are so avidly engaged.

We've discussed this before and I respect your position. I stipulate that the rec side is disengaged on this issue. However, as noted before, there is a reason they are disengaged: Most of them vote Left anyway so they deem themselves as doing their part already. They can call their congressman/woman and preach to the choir, but of what avail? Their congressman/women is already on board against transfer. It would be like calling Sarah Palin and asking her to support the Second Amendment.

They could call the "other" congressman/woman, but what good would that do? The "other" knows these people don't vote for him/her anyway and could give a S about their position. It's not like the Left would support this Right person if only the Right person would vote against transfer. It would be like calling Sarah Palin and asking her to support gun control.

In other words, the rec side deems themselves fully engaged, if not specifically on this issue, and that's even if their industry doesn't see it. I don't know why Bunnyhugger Backpacks would wonder why their customer base isn't all up in arms over this.

I think the hunting community is in a different, almost unique position. Many of them vote Right but it's the Right that they must wrestle with. Their congressman/woman might actually listen to them because they are "one of them." It would be like the NRA calling Sarah Palin and telling her to support background checks on Muslims.

The only thing the Left can do is try and bring the Right over (not the congressman/woman, but the voter) to the side of goodness. But the Right hates the Left so the Left is better off remaining silent and letting the Right wrestle this out on their own. I'm not so sure you would want a bunch of bunny huggers showing up at your meetings with Congressmansellitall.

 

[James Riley]

I understand the need and the want to keep these lands public, but my question is why do those people feel the federal government is the best answer? Just looking at the way the federal government acted in the last decade....they handed out BILLIONS to individuals company's that contributed money to their elections, I.e. the "green" industry. They gave BILLIONS to the banks. BILLIONS to the auto industry. What would stop them, from, instead of taking OUR tax dollars and taking it, take OUR public lands? What makes you think they couldn't do the same with land? Wouldn't we be better off with LOCAL control? It seems to me local control is much better, easier to run into your state representative at the grocery store or fair then your U.S. Senator or House member. Easier to put amendments on the Ballot. Easier to raise concern on a state wide basis then national. Just my thinking.

If the feds were bent on selling it, they would've done it already. When the States have it, they sell it. The federal government is the best answer. End of story.

 

[MTBirdhunter]

If the feds were bent on selling it, they would've done it already. When the States have it, they sell it. The federal government is the best answer. End of story.

I think you forgot .....and everyone lives happily ever after.

 

[BuzzH]

MTBirdhunter,

I think your question is legitimate, and I think Randy has done a great job of answering it in his video series.

The main problem is, that the States WILL NOT agree to retain transferred lands as public lands. That is a huge red flag. Judging on the history of what all the states have done with their state lands, its a safe bet that they would only accelerate that process if they suddenly acquired all the federal lands within their States.

As much as you may LIKE the fact that you run into your local representative at the store, I'm equally as concerned about that when it comes to decision making. State Legislators are "bought off" rather cheaply in comparison to National Representatives.

Even IF the states kept the lands "public" they technically are not even public lands as you know the Federal Lands to be now. The lands in question would be administered by the States and subject to all kinds of State statutes, laws, resolution, etc. Plus, the mandate for state lands is NOT to benefit wildlife, not benefit recreation,...but simply to make money for the State. When the mandate is revenue driven, there is a very strong likelihood that other concerns are either going to be an after-thought or at best a very low consideration.

I'll give a perfect example in a State land transfer that myself and other Sportsmen are fighting right now. There is a landowner that wants the state to give him over 1000 acres of property for 295 acres of his private. The State Land board is ONLY mandated to consider a couple things:

1. Will the trade make more money for the school trust.

2. Is the "valuation" of the land the same.

They don't give a chit that this trade will result in land-locking 3100 acres of BLM and NF lands that elk hunters, deer hunters, hikers, birdwatchers, etc. currently have access to.

Sure, we can comment, but at the end of the day, the State Land board can flat ignore those concerns.

With the mandate under Federal Policy, the NF, BLM, etc. MUST consider the most beneficial and judicious use of those lands, and that doesn't mean the uses that will produce the most revenue or unit output of resources, get the highest priority. In other words, hunting, recreation, aesthetic value, wildlife values, water quality issues, all have to be considered and given equal consideration under the various management guidelines, rules, acts, laws, forest plans,etc.

As to your comment that "local control" is better...I somewhat agree. But, there is gigantic misconception that management decisions on Federal Lands are ALL coming for D.C. That's so far from reality, its laughable. The locals have a very disproportionate amount of influence on their local FS and BLM lands. Not saying that's a bad thing, but I don't think anyone that makes the claim the locals dont have any say or control over the public lands they live near, is just a flat lie.

I have worked extensively with the FS and BLM on issues...sometimes I get my way, sometimes I don't. But, there is NO question that my voice is heard and that the local Federal Agencies are absolutely considering local concerns and reaching out for local involvement.

There is no perfect answer, but IMO/E, the Federal Lands are best left in Federal control...no doubt in my mind at all.

 

[James Riley]

I think you forgot .....and everyone lives happily ever after.

Not everyone. The locals who want to get at it (and the corporations they own or work for, and their shareholders) are probably not happy at all. But that's okay. They can always pay fair market value to do on private land whatever it is they wanted to do on public land. After all, private land is subject to better management and thus has more of what they want anyway. They don't want that worthless old federal land that's been ruined by the gbm't.

 

[Big Fin]

Not everyone. The locals who want to get at it (and the corporations they own or work for, and their shareholders) are probably not happy at all. But that's okay. They can always pay fair market value to do on private land whatever it is they wanted to do on public land. After all, private land is subject to better management and thus has more of what they want anyway. They don't want that worthless old federal land that's been ruined by the gbm't.

You many not have meant to come across this way, but the bolded comment above is an excellent expression of a perspective that fuels the fires "Sell/Transfer" fringe elements need to have any appeal out here in the colonies of rural America. The very simplified Left-Right paradigm by which you often present analysis on the forum (and used in this thread), seems to be as common among those I interact with who you have identified as "Left" those I interact with who you would call "Right."

Like many debates, there is a mindset often expressed that lacks perspective and seems rather incomplete. In the case of these changing land priorities, I might go as far as to call it arrogantly elitist when viewed/read by those whose daily lives and dreams are the currency by which society pays for the costs of changing land use priorities.

I would caution the groups/people you place on the "Left" that continued colonial view of rural America is only going to give more energy to the misdirected opportunist who feed on frustration. And that doing so without acknowledgement that lives are impacted when these decisions are made, will result in far greater battles ahead, rather than less.

I completely understand how it is easier to lump people into generalized groups of "The locals who want to get at it (and the corporations they own or work for, and their shareholders)" rather than try to see the perspectives those people have. I have many friends who would fall in your category of "Left" who are adamant that they never generalize or group people into stereotypes; that only the "Right" does that. Yet, they squirm when I tell them they do it when it comes to this discussion that is mostly a rural-urban discussion. I get it. I'm sure I do it in situation where my life experiences give me no context to see other perspectives. Simplifying arguments to fit our comfortable world vision happens on all sides, maybe even more so today than ever.

It is a reality, that to the victor goes the spoils. And plenty, not all, of these victors will sit in their concrete jungles, import their food, fiber, and energy, smugly toasting to their like-minded and equally-disconnected neighbors that when they go to their vacation homes to ski this winter they have solved the world's problems by advocating for new land priorities. And then wonder, sometimes aloud, why those low-mobility serf out in rural America would listen to those fringe element politicians promoting "Sell/Transfer" rather than building eco-tourism businesses to chauffeur Stetson-wearing dudes around when they land at the airport. Surely they could make a living manicuring lawns of these second/third homes owned by the environmentally-enlightened highbrowed intellectuals who come for summer horseback riding.

Yes, I know that preceding paragraph is an over-exaggeration to some degree, but it is for the purposes of illustration. Until such time as the "Left" (as you label them) takes some interest in how their advocacy for land priority changes contribute to the appeal snake oil "Sell/Transfer" preachers have among those most affected, expect this struggle to continue/increase.

 

[VAspeedgoat]

You many not have meant to come across this way, but the bolded comment above is an excellent expression of a perspective that fuels the fires "Sell/Transfer" fringe elements need to have any appeal out here in the colonies of rural America. The very simplified Left-Right paradigm by which you often present analysis on the forum (and used in this thread), seems to be as common among those I interact with who you have identified as "Left" those I interact with who you would call "Right."

Like many debates, there is a mindset often expressed that lacks perspective and seems rather incomplete. In the case of these changing land priorities, I might go as far as to call it arrogantly elitist when viewed/read by those whose daily lives and dreams are the currency by which society pays for the costs of changing land use priorities.

I would caution the groups/people you place on the "Left" that continued colonial view of rural America is only going to give more energy to the misdirected opportunist who feed on frustration. And that doing so without acknowledgement that lives are impacted when these decisions are made, will result in far greater battles ahead, rather than less.

I completely understand how it is easier to lump people into generalized groups of "The locals who want to get at it (and the corporations they own or work for, and their shareholders)" rather than try to see the perspectives those people have. I have many friends who would fall in your category of "Left" who are adamant that they never generalize or group people into stereotypes; that only the "Right" does that. Yet, they squirm when I tell them they do it when it comes to this discussion that is mostly a rural-urban discussion. I get it. I'm sure I do it in situation where my life experiences give me no context to see other perspectives. Simplifying arguments to fit our comfortable world vision happens on all sides, maybe even more so today than ever.

It is a reality, that to the victor goes the spoils. And plenty, not all, of these victors will sit in their concrete jungles, import their food, fiber, and energy, smugly toasting to their like-minded and equally-disconnected neighbors that when they go to vacation homes to ski this winter they have solved the world's problems by advocating for new land priorities. And then wonder, sometimes aloud, why those low-mobility serf out in rural America would listen to those fringe element politicians promoting "Sell/Transfer" rather than building eco-tourism businesses to chauffeur Stetson-wearing dudes around when they land at the airport. Surely they could make a living manicuring lawns of these second/third homes owned by the environmentally-enlightened highbrowed intellectuals who come for summer horseback riding.

Yes, I know that preceding paragraph is an over-exaggeration to some degree, but it is for the purposes of illustration. Until such time as the "Left" (as you label them) takes some interest in how their advocacy for land priority changes contribute to the appeal snake oil "Sell/Transfer" preachers have among those most affected, expect this struggle to continue/increase.

Thank you for this. As a ninth generation farmer, this is essentially the road block I find when talking to some ill informed but well intentioned people all over the country. What you are advocating in undersranding would go a long way on many environmental, wildlife management, and land management issues. Well stated, and in my opinion not all that exagerated.

 

[James Riley]

Yes, I know that preceding paragraph is an over-exaggeration to some degree, but it is for the purposes of illustration.

I find that those who are better at it are often called on their rhetoric, while those who are not are given a pass. That is understandable, expected, and, given the American inclination toward the underdog, probably a good thing. I have broad shoulders. As a general principle though, with me the temperature gets turned up proportionally and responsively, even if the opposition is not as good at it. One need only read threads chronologically to see this. But in doing so, an eye, and memory, must be kept on the post to which I respond. Compare my response to your post as opposed to his.

Back to the Left/Right analysis, yes, there is a push back principle involved. But "locals", "corporations they own or work for" and "shareholders" is balls-on accurate and not Left/Right at all. He brought up locals, not I. I merely took the entire load off of locals and expanded it to outside interests who are in accord. Your response about arrogant, elite, smugly toasting, stetson-wearing dudes, highbrow, etc. was *not* called for. Had I said something about "low-mobility serf" or ignorant, knuckle-dragging, land rapers or something stupid like that, then your response might have been called for. But I did not.

The guy asked a question (including stuff about billions to the green industry, etc.), I gave an answer (short and sweet), he got cute, I responded, accurately.

The only Left/Right analysis was my response to your post on the rec industry. It's an uncomfortable situation some hunters are in. I get that. But the absence of the Left from the advocacy you seek is precisely what you seem to be asking for here. You can call it rec industry, or Left, or Dem, or Green, or Socialist, or whatever you want. They *do* have empathy for people of all ilks who are getting screwed by the exact same outfits that are behind the screwing, urban or rural. But they aren't going to quit being who they are and start voting R to avoid hurting feelings. Many on the Left have been warning these folks for decades about what was coming. But it's like water in west: During drought, people plan. When it rains, forget the planning, let's party. Kind of hard to extend too much sympathy to those who don't pay attention just because the warning comes from Birkenstocks.

I've known loggers, lived in logging communities, had a friend killed by a tree. I've weeded and thinned beats and pushed a few cows around. I also remember their rhetoric. It makes this thread look like a tea party. The English kind. Maybe my push back comes from that. Maybe because I'm better at it I need to take the high road, scale it back, tone it down, or whatever. But yes, an over-exaggeration to some degree, is for the purposes of illustration.

 

[OutdoORegon]

On the edge of my seat waiting for the Oregon video. Elliott State Forest is a jewell and I fear that we face a real possibility of losing access to 84,000 acres of outstanding habitat and incredible hunting, or almost as bad, we face another Wayerhauser pay to play scenario where you can buy a walk in permit for $50.00 per hunting season, or a drive in permit for $300 per season.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/the_elliot_state_forest_report

The environmentalists do not like it any more than we do. Here's a short read that appeared in the largest newspaper in the state of Oregon, and was written by an environmental attorney who works for a preservationist organization. These are the folks who file those lawsuits that stop forward progress.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/07/selling_the_elliott_state_fore.html