ismith
Well-known member
For the sake of argument, does it really matter who's in charge of it as long as it stays public and wild?
Utah People, thoughts on this?
- Thread starter KingOfTagSoup
- Start date
KingOfTagSoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 160
No it wouldn't in theory, but states aren't seeking control because they want to keep lands wild. They want to parcel it off for revenue
In theory or in practicality? In theory a case can be made that it wouldn’t matter. Yet in practicality and under law, the states can’t leave them as is and make them “public.”
All the western states claim their State Trust Lands are NOT public lands. No state land board has any incentive to keep them wild they have every incentive to give the highest priority to income producing activities. And MT DNRC is charged with making a profit, which means unprofitable lands get sold.
I remember when MT state lands were the same rules as CO has for their state lands - no hunting without permission of the lessee. Going back to that is not out of the question with folks asking to be in charge of public land policy at the state level.
And this is really not about what Montana voters want, regardless of political affiliation. Every poll, for both R and D voters, shows overwhelming support for public lands and improved management. Same in Utah, the state that is the origin of this thread.
What this is about is a fringe element that has ideological opposition to public ownership of land and an intense desire to see those lands get privatized. They’ve been at it for decades. They don’t intend to stop their efforts until these lands are privatized.
That’s the practicality surrounding the issue.
ismith
Well-known member
I understand that, but in theory aren't their ways to ensure that the land stays undeveloped and accessible?
KingOfTagSoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 160
In theory probably, but it requires an assumption that keeping it undeveloped is the intention of the state. And @Big Find makes a good point in that legally the state is required to generate revenue from state trust lands....which usually doesn't involve keeping them wild. Kind of a "lesser of two evils" thing I would say.
KingOfTagSoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 160
ismith
Well-known member
Both are fair game I suppose. In theory is common sense; practicality and under the law is common sense after considering all the greed, apathy and corruption in state and federal government. The states will leave them as is if the people the states represent demand it, unless of course the state isn't "for and by the people". The idea that state school trust land isn't public must be challenged.
I don't have all the answers, or probably any of the answers, but we are currently watching everything slip away, and that's a non-partisan damned shame.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Sure they will…
IDL Priest Lake lot auction raises over $11 million for public school endowment fund
IDL says the money will go toward funding Idaho state public schools.
www.krem.com
ismith
Well-known member
"unless of course the state isn't "for and by the people".Sure they will…
IDL Priest Lake lot auction raises over $11 million for public school endowment fund
IDL says the money will go toward funding Idaho state public schools.
I bet the rates I pay in taxes to support schools don’t go down at all.Sure they will…
IDL Priest Lake lot auction raises over $11 million for public school endowment fund
IDL says the money will go toward funding Idaho state public schools.
Last I knew IDL was sitting on lots of money that was earmarked for purchasing more land but they’ve taken lots of heat from farmers, private timber companies and legislators that they can out pay others and thus need to not spend the money
ismith
Well-known member
Seems like they put forward a new mill levy for schools ever damn year.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Another point of stark reality regarding practicality is likley the overwhelming financial reason for states not taking control of federal public lands and attempting to manage them.
States have difficulty funding management of what lands are now under their control. To think that public lands such as USFS lands with huge budgets for management of campgrounds, trails, roads, fire mitigation and suppression, law enforcement ... and on and on, would be better managed by the states lacking the monies required is a practical stone wall to such a foolish idea.
For those of you who don't live in Utah, those federal public lands belong to you as much as to Utah folks ... so do you really wish to relinquish your public lands ownership?!
Furthermore, for those in Utah or Montana or wherever who complain about lack of local input by ranchers, county commissions, and other folks in close proximity to federal public lands (such as misstated in the Missoula debate last evening) that is complete bull pucky! Management designed to consider local concerns and factors is why there are district ranger offices, regional offices, opportunity at the Capitol in DC to voice local input, surveys at every decision juncture, and much more to consider the input of all stakeholders.
The rebuttals to the bad idea of handing over federal public lands to the states are strong, valid, and extensive enough to fill a thick book!
Agree.
The hyper-partisans need fuel for their fires, so they take every issue, e v e r y single issue, and make it partisan. The public land and access issues has been made political by hyper-partisans from one side. Gun rights have been made political by hyper-partisans from one side. Defending only parts of the Constitution have been made partisan by both sides. The list goes on and on.
No matter the issue, we seem to be better off if we can fend off the hyper-partisans, as daunting as that seems with the money and power they bring to the table. Sorry to ramble. I need to go find some elk.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Please elucidate on what you point to in the phrase "currenty watching everything slip away".
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,693
Copied and pasted for those who wont look.
"
We oppose the federal government removing additional lands from productive uses by placing
them off limits using special land designations. Current programs to set-aside more land includes
but is not limited to Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (Biden 30 x 30 plan), the United Nations 50
x 50 Plan, and initiatives such as the American Prairie Reserve, all decisions are subject to
approval by the Montana State Legislature."
All of these private land sales to APR are subject to approval by the legislature? Am i understading that correctly?
Last edited:
Yup. So much for free markets and advocacy for property rights.
In other words, you can’t sell or donate to certain groups or buyers without approval of a government entity. I guess communism/socialism is acceptable if it's a certain variety of communism/socialism.
KingOfTagSoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 160
Don't we all
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,693
Yes. It absolutely matters. Fiscally especially. The state cant readily absorb some of the heavy and unpredictable cost of wildfire. If they were going to - recreational and commercial use fees would have to go way up to deal with it. It would be very hard to manage efficiently with such a big variance year to year - including and especially maintaining, operating, procuring, and storing all of the equipment necessary to do that. And thats just wildfires. Not any of the other things the feds manage.
Can you imagine our state resources against sierra club's lawyers if they were trying to award permits to log state forest land? I doubt that ends up better than status quo for management as well.
The attraction to sell it off simply wins at the state level politics over time as a rule from history, assuming you know that?
elkduds
Well-known member
Which mirrors the policy of the national GOP. Trump convinced them not to even publish a party platform in 2024, opening the door to Project 2025 worries. Rest assured, divesting federal public lands to states is still in there.
