Why not sell some land ?

[PAGOAT]

First please don't attack me as I'm trying to learn more on the public land transfer to private but in Wyoming I found there is a #&%^ ton of "public" land that you or I can not get to without paying a trespass fee or an outfitter to access the land we pay for.. "landlocked" Why not sell that land off so the states get property tax paid on ground that really is not public and if outfitters want to use it they can pay the owner and not use it on our dime ? I'm not trying to stir up trouble just a question I've wondered for 2 years now... Thanks

 

[Addicting]

I asked that same type of question a year ago. Learned there are very smart people on here and some very opinionated people. So just expect that with any responses just remember that we are all for the most part after the same end state.

At the end of the day the private that is “land locked” may not always be land locked. Private changes hands and organizations like RMEF are brokering easements so just because we cannot access it now doesn’t mean we won’t be able to in the future. Also it may end up that it works towards a land swap with freeing up access somewhere else. Lots of reasons to keep it even though some may not be immediate.

 

[schmalts]

There is a lot of reasons.. too many to list. A few would be: Why would the owner that owns the land around landlocked land buy it? As you stated, he uses it for free anyway. Selling is not as good of an idea as trading it for land with less access problems. The better option is to change corner jumping rules. The property taxes that would be paid on land classified as such isn't worth much. I'm sure more will chime in with a lot more comments.

 

[teej89]

There is a lot of reasons.. too many to list. A few would be: Why would the owner that owns the land around landlocked land buy it?

My first thought exactly, the only people in the market to buy it would be the surrounding neighbors because they can access it and why would they need to buy it. If an outsider buys it, just as when it was public land, they still do not have access to their piece because it is landlocked.

 

[MTGomer]

Someday they may become accessible. Like an entire wilderness area in New Mexico just did.

I think land swaps should be considered. Selling, no.

 

[Eric Albus]

Whoa, a lot of dis-information going on here.

1. A landowner who has land-locked BLM, or State land does not "get to use it for free". They pay for their surface privilege to graze/farm ect..

2. Most of the landowners I know would be willing to purchase landlocked pieces of BLM, State, ect., and would have no problem w/ the State, Fed., purchasing a like number of acres somewhere to block up existing accessible lands....Just No Net Gain.

 

[joelweb]

The BLM has the authority to dispose of small and isolated tracts of land that are difficult and uneconomical to manage. Assuming that those lands are publicly inaccessible and that they are too small and isolated to ever make publicly accessible, targeted land disposals can make sense. For these targeted transactions to work, there must be a thorough public process and the proceeds must be used to acquire strategically important public lands with high-conservation or access values. The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act is a program designed to ensure that this happens the right way. Unfortunately, the program has expired and needs to be reauthorized. It was recently reintroduced by Senators Heinrich (D-NM) and Heller (R-NV). https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2185

 

[Big Fin]

Whoa, a lot of dis-information going on here.

1. A landowner who has land-locked BLM, or State land does not "get to use it for free". They pay for their surface privilege to graze/farm ect...

Correct. There are a lot of other factors that impact that, including the fees paid, preference in leasing, etc. But, for the most part, isolated parcels without perfected access have almost no value to anyone other than the adjacent landowner(s).

2. Most of the landowners I know would be willing to purchase landlocked pieces of BLM, State, ect., and would have no problem w/ the State, Fed., purchasing a like number of acres somewhere to block up existing accessible lands....Just No Net Gain.

I advocate No Net Loss, in both acreage and quality of land. Eric, you 'spose those you mention in #2 would agree to a "No Net Loss," if others were to support a "No Net Gain?"



To the original question, there is legislation out there, FLTFA, that does what the OP is talking about. It was enacted in 2000, with a 10 year sunset. Link here is a good FAQ about the bill that need reauthorization - http://www.conservationfund.org/images/partner/files/FAQ_FLTFA_reauth_2_23_2016.pdf [EDIT: I see joelweb posted the FLTFA info while I was typing this.]

As for raising revenues to the county for property taxes, the ag exemptions most of these lands qualify for, at least in states like Montana, allows for very, very low assessments and thus a very low tax revenue per acre. If Congress would get off their arse and fund PILT/SRS programs to the levels they were designed, the PILT/SRS funds to the counties would be more than the taxes would be on isolated parcels that have ag exemptions.

PILT, Payment in Lieu of Taxes, and SRS, Secure Rural Schools, are two Federal programs where the BLM and USFS pay local governments the equivalent of property taxes. Unfortunately, those payments are controlled by Congress. The same people in Congress who bitch about Federal lands not providing high enough local property taxes are the same people who vote to defund PILT/SRS, which reduces the amount that goes to counties. And the citizens who bitch about the lack of local property taxes on Federal lands are usually voting for and supporting the same politicians who are purposefully defunding these two programs.

Make no mistake, some of the wingnuts in Congress use PILT and SRS to create even more rancor about Federal lands. They know the more they defund PILT/SRS, the more pressure it puts on local governments, the more distaste those folks have for Federal land. If you want to gauge how a politician stands on public lands and rural issues, pin them down on funding of PILT and SRS. Most the counterfeits will start squirming and move on to a different question.

To the original post, this issue has been considered for years and in 2000 a solution was crafted. Unfortunately, Congress let it expire after the 10 year period, so it currently is not an option. Evidently it was too much of a good thing for Congress. The fight to reauthorize it has been stymied by Utah folks who hold the critical Committee Chairmanships in the House and the Senate.

 

[joelweb]

It should also be noted that the BLM is required to identify priority lands for acquisition and lands suitable for disposal through local land use plans. Because many of the BLM land use plans are 20-30 years old, their acquisition and disposal lists are grossly outdated. Some lands that were considered inaccessible in the 80s and 90s are now very accessible thanks to GPS mapping technologies from onXmaps and others. Before the agency starts looking to dispose of isolated parcels, they need to update their disposal lists to make sure they aren't proposing to part with publicly accessible lands. The sporting community needs to remain on our toes to make sure this is all done correctly, and this is something that TRCP and many of our partner groups are working on.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Hopefully, the new Montana Public Land Access Network plan recently promoted and strongly supported by RMEF and Gov Bullock's office will facilitate good land swaps to increase accessible state lands.
The land swap done sometime ago between Montana and Ted Turner's Flying D Ranch resulted in the state acquiring a ranch near Ulm, which had been purchased for the purpose of swapping out Turner's landlocked parcels. The land acquired by the state is now the Ulm Pishkun, the First Peoples Buffalo Jump State Park, also a national historic site. More of those kind of swaps to increase publicly accessible state lands would be highly desirable, in my opinion.

 

[Irrelevant]

I'll just add that until the LWCF is permanently reauthorized and fully funded we're missing out on a great tool to access landlocked public parcels.

 

[Eric Albus]

Randy,

The men I know and deal with would not have a problem with "no net loss, or net gain" in any swap/selling off of parcels. Those of us who I deal with that own land and live in Montana (and I realize I live in a micro-cosm) understand the importance of ppl having a place to recreate and hunt. We are all in this together, after all when there is no place and no things left to hunt where does that leave us? The arguement of owning firearms becomes less important to several million ppl.. A house divided can not stand.

 

[PAGOAT]

Thanks for every ones opinion. I do read in bugle about RMEF making some places public which is great. Also hopefully the states can come up with a good plan on land swaps as that sounds like a good idea for everyone involved also.

 

[plumber1969]

I wish that in the area if the country I live in more people would understand this. They are of the belief, that the Government should own no land and only fund the military, defense contractors R&D programs and farm subsidies. The want us to resemble Europe is the only thing I get from these keyboard not so civil discussions.

 

[Nameless Range]

It should also be noted that the BLM is required to identify priority lands for acquisition and lands suitable for disposal through local land use plans. Because many of the BLM land use plans are 20-30 years old, their acquisition and disposal lists are grossly outdated. Some lands that were considered inaccessible in the 80s and 90s are now very accessible thanks to GPS mapping technologies from onXmaps and others. Before the agency starts looking to dispose of isolated parcels, they need to update their disposal lists to make sure they aren't proposing to part with publicly accessible lands. The sporting community needs to remain on our toes to make sure this is all done correctly, and this is something that TRCP and many of our partner groups are working on.

This very much. When Chaffetz proposed his disposable lands bill a while back, it was pretty astonishing to look at the Butte BLM Field Office's RMP and see the parcels of BLM they considered "Disposable". Small parcels that gave access to larger parcels under different public ownership, as well as small parcels that gave access to streams were under consideration for the chopping block in that RMP. It was incredibly unacceptable. I can no longer find the field office RMPs on the internet which is somewhat irritating. The old hyperlinks no longer work.

Here's a screenshot of ownership in my neck of the woods. This is the resulting ownership that mining country often creates.



.

Some of those 1 acre slivers would be acceptable for sale to me because: 1. They are inaccessible and 2. Even if access were acquired, they would be useless for anything other than a picnic.

That said, if those public lands were sold, the money from the sales should go into a land banking fund that is then used to fund public land acquisitions that make sense. I'm perfectly fine with a Net Gain occurring.