This land is your land... for now

[JM77]

There is no doubt that in Wyoming recreation on public land would NOT benefit from the state gaining control of Federal land. On the priority list of the Office of State Lands and Investments, recreation is dead last!

We here in Wyoming we are on constant watch for land trades, sales and closures we may have to fight. Most transactions do little to benefit hunters and fisherman, and a lot to benefit agricultural interests. The state manages it's trust lands for maximum return to the beneficiaries of the trust.(mainly schools)

On state land in Wyoming you cannot camp or have open fires, and you cannot hunt on cultivated state land. It is not considered a right to hunt or fish on state land in Wyoming.

 

[Big Fin]

The only people to oppose state control of public land are those that are afraid the federal tit they suck on would dry up and the ones that think the federal government doesn't do a good job because it isn't big enough.

Yeah, sure.

 

[shoots-straight]

There is a lawsuit now.

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_043609ec-ae35-513b-8fb6-73ea6f078c27.html

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/03/05/4867748/lawsuit-renews-vigorous-debate.html

I'm not saying the States should manage the Missouri River. I am saying that Fed Management is not the holy grail some of you make it out to be.

Anyone can sue anyone at anytime. The ruling will be interesting to follow. I won't make judements until then. Neither should you.

 

[shoots-straight]

The only people to oppose state control of public land are those that are afraid the federal tit they suck on would dry up and the ones that think the federal government doesn't do a good job because it isn't big enough.

Dumbest statement of the year. Another expert bar stool psychologist.

 

[Straight Arrow]

....afraid the federal tit they suck on would dry up...

sagebrush AZ

Heck, we can't even afford a bra for that tit.

Yah, you betcha! We in Montana, with a population of about a million and many of those not contributing taxes, realize that we are a "welfare" state. Montana struggles to maintain parks, management areas, and what other relatively small amount of state land we now oversee. Assuming control, management, and responsibility for BLM and USFS lands would bankrupt this state.

States all would appreciate more local input into management of federal lands, but ownership?
Get real !!!!

 

[JoseCuervo]

You really want to see someone reconsider their position on State ownership of Federal lands? Ask your local Welfare Rancher what he thinks of the idea of competitive bidding for grazing leases as State Land Boards are compelled to seek the maximum return for the School systems....

Bye bye $1.35........

 

[theat]

Unfortunately my local state senator is front and center in that article. She is also involved with a local conspiracy theory group with strong ties to the Montana Militia. These guys would like nothing more than to privatize all public resources in our area. Google Sanders County Resource Council to get a little insight into what these types are all about.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sanders County has been a hotbed of armed dissidents who have some strange attitudes. The Sanders County guy who claimed to lead the "Montana Militia" made the mistake of setting up a booth at a gun show in Helena back in the late nineties. Then Montana Adjutant General, MG Gene Prendergast, paid him a visit in uniform and advised him that there is one and only one Montana Militia (fully trained and ready) and there's established proof of that, at the state and national level. Furthermore, the Montana Militia owes allegiance to all citizens, regardless of political persuasion. Apparently the guy got the point. Perhaps coincidental, but it seems the Sanders County "Montana Minutia" has been relatively quiet since then.

 

[BullMooseGazette]

Homegrown Montana public land privateers

You don't have to go all the way to Utah to find the great sagebrush land grab at work. Right now State Senator John Brenden is leading a so-called study committee to examine the idea of Montana following the Utah example and demanding takeover of federal lands. (SJ 15 from the 2013 Legislature).

And there is this from the candidates:

Rosendale calls for transferring federal lands to state

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...d20-55db-95ec-72fb88fd1d20.html#ixzz2zN04zL8M

and this:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/sta...521-5317-8f21-aa5d93e85820.html#ixzz2zN13FwDV

 

[BullMooseGazette]

The national political agenda. Republicans make a big push to sell off federal lands every five or ten years. The program is always the same. GOP dominated state legislatures pass sell-off resolutions to create the myth of grassroots demand. This is coordinated with the national party and with Congressional Republicans who introduce bills to 'give the states what they want.' We gone through about four of these campaigns since the early 90's. Does anybody recall Richard Pombo?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/11/3277571/republican-party-state-public-lands-drilling/

 

[bigskyblueman]

The same bill of goods being sold to the public . If something the public owns doesn't turn a profit, then it must be intrinsically bad and gotten rid of. A different group of Charlie McCarthy dummies with changeable heads who all say the same thing. The states won't have to manage these lands for long, as they would be given away to Big Business .

 

[Ben Lamb]

The same bill of goods being sold to the public . If something the public owns doesn't turn a profit, then it must be intrinsically bad and gotten rid of. A different group of Charlie McCarthy dummies with changeable heads who all say the same thing. The states won't have to manage these lands for long, as they would be given away to Big Business .

Public lands are major economic drivers, but just not for the chosen industries that these guys represent.

Montana alone has a $5 billion/ year outdoor economy. Are we willing to sacrifice that kind of long term, sustainable economy for boom & bust of extraction?

We're still paying for the folly of this kind of thinking in places like Butte, East Helena & Zortman.

 

[bigskyblueman]

Precisely. and the threat to our public lands by privatization is not going away.

 

[BigHornRam]

I was at a Montana Forest Stewardship conference last year where Governor Bullock was a speaker. He voiced frustration in how the USFS manages their lands with in the state of Montana. Here is some of the current uproar over Governor Bullock's attempts to work within the system......

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_e2ff3494-c5a4-11e3-9942-0019bb2963f4.html

 

[Ben Lamb]

I was at a Montana Forest Stewardship conference last year where Governor Bullock was a speaker. He voiced frustration in how the USFS manages their lands with in the state of Montana. Here is some of the current uproar over Governor Bullock's attempts to work within the system......

http://missoulian.com/news/state-an...cle_e2ff3494-c5a4-11e3-9942-0019bb2963f4.html

One of the best things the Bush Administration did was the Healthy Forests Initiative. The Farm bill, which was the catalyst for Bullock's action, included the provision (through the hard work of Sen. Baucus at the time) and had a very quick timeline for enactment. Bullock is right to do what he is doing. The complaints over the litigation crowd are hollow as always.

This is a good move, and that it's backed by both industry and conservation should tell most of us that it's a solid move designed with a good level of thoughtfulness.

 

[BigHornRam]

Agree Ben. Although, with guy's like Garrity and Koehler out there, it is hard to achieve a "good level of thoughtfulness" in the debate over the management of our federal public lands