Transfer of Public Lands
- Thread starter npaden
- Start date
Griz
If you've read some of my past posts you'll see that I am agreement with you in my fear of the states potential for land sales. And while many politicians are power hungry and greedy I won't make a blanket statement that they all are. You're right, entitlements are permanent. But to say fiscally there's no difference between the parties? Dems = tax + spend. GOP = small gov't. It's that simple. If you don't think the democrats like to spend money just spend some time in the east or a far left state. Wyoming may be the most conservative state out there but there's no clamor to start an income tax so they can spend more money. Rarely (only once) did I see a school section sold by the state and I can think of a few sections in Teton County that would bring in tens of millions of dollars. One chunk of land is worth 125 million dollars. The state (both parties) has been trying to sell it for years to Grand Teton National Park, not to private investors. The problem is the Feds don't have the cash. So I think some of the doom and gloom is overblown. This property could be sold in a heartbeat if the State of Wyoming Republicans were really as greedy as some make them out to be. A couple years ago WY was in a money crunch but our republican governor chose to reduce the budget rather than dump our state lands. Find a democrat controlled liberal state that behaves in that manner. As a result of their overspending California wanted the rest of us to bail them out a few years ago. Fiscally there is a big difference between the Dems and the GOP. So I guess I would disagree with you that the Republicans are fiscally superior. I've been in 49 states and most of the provinces either working, hunting or living and I will say there is definitely a difference between the very conservative Wyoming and the liberal state of ???.
If you've read some of my past posts you'll see that I am agreement with you in my fear of the states potential for land sales. And while many politicians are power hungry and greedy I won't make a blanket statement that they all are. You're right, entitlements are permanent. But to say fiscally there's no difference between the parties? Dems = tax + spend. GOP = small gov't. It's that simple. If you don't think the democrats like to spend money just spend some time in the east or a far left state. Wyoming may be the most conservative state out there but there's no clamor to start an income tax so they can spend more money. Rarely (only once) did I see a school section sold by the state and I can think of a few sections in Teton County that would bring in tens of millions of dollars. One chunk of land is worth 125 million dollars. The state (both parties) has been trying to sell it for years to Grand Teton National Park, not to private investors. The problem is the Feds don't have the cash. So I think some of the doom and gloom is overblown. This property could be sold in a heartbeat if the State of Wyoming Republicans were really as greedy as some make them out to be. A couple years ago WY was in a money crunch but our republican governor chose to reduce the budget rather than dump our state lands. Find a democrat controlled liberal state that behaves in that manner. As a result of their overspending California wanted the rest of us to bail them out a few years ago. Fiscally there is a big difference between the Dems and the GOP. So I guess I would disagree with you that the Republicans are fiscally superior. I've been in 49 states and most of the provinces either working, hunting or living and I will say there is definitely a difference between the very conservative Wyoming and the liberal state of ???.
Last edited:
In God We Trust
Very Active Member
Obama has tried to come after our guns on multiple occasions. He found out he couldn't get anything through so he gave up and did it through the U.N Small Arms Treaty instead. Anyone that thinks Obama is for pro 2nd Amendment is delusional. Both parties have been bad with money but under Obama we have gone from bad to a train wreck in 7 years. He has spent the most money period. If I have to choose between building 10 million dollar tanks and giving out 10 million dollars in welfare to undeserving and ungrateful welfare recipients then I will take the tanks. Tanks help protect our country while the welfare mentality burns our cities and calls the rioting "peaceful demonstrations". States that have been under Republican control are much better off fiscally then states run by Democrats. I.E Illinois, Michigan, California. If you want to look at what the liberal union political machine gets you go visit Detroit and Chicago. Oh my bad, they have the strictest gun laws along with sky rocketing crime rates. Great places to live. Both parties are garbage but one is just worse then the other. Stop the party politics madness and vote based on whom will serve the country better. The worse things get the more both parties disgust me. I gave up on the Republican party and have become an independent.
WY ME, it's been good talking with you. I don't disagree that conservative states are much better run than liberal states. But be careful what you wish for. Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada have all voted Democratic recently and Montana has voted blue for Congress and Governor as well. Wyoming, Idaho, and Utah might be okay, but what about the rest of the West? I for one am okay leaving it like it is, a lot can change in a generation and I'm not confident that the land will remain public forever. In fact, I am confident that some land will be sold (it says so in their own study) but nobody knows where or how many acres.
Are you willing to risk it just to give this same wasteful government more money? I'm not.
Are you willing to risk it just to give this same wasteful government more money? I'm not.
okielite
Banned
Step back and look at the job they have down with the grazing resource. How can you say they are doing a good job? If any other entity squandered the resource it was responsible for they would be considered an absolute failure. But for some reason people give them a pass. Makes no logical sense. Other things like logging are more complicated but not getting even half the fair value for grazing is absolutely ridiculous and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
We all get it. Most hunter are against this because they want a place to hunt/fish/camp for free. Take that personal interest out of the equation and assess the job the feds are doing managing the grazing resource and by any measure it is an absolute failure. No other way to slice it. If you prefer that mismanagement to continue just so you can have a place to hunt/huie/camp/fish for free then so be it but stop pretending the feds are doing a good job of managing the resources they are in charge of especially the grazing. Clearly they are not. The Bundy disaster is a perfect example. Would a state allow a guy to graze huge pieces of land free of charge over decades? Heck no.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
I am not saying the feds are perfect. They are not. The feds tend to error on the side of preservation (limited use). The states tend to error on the side of too much for-profit development. I, and many others, would rather go with the feds on this. But the biggest issue is the potential for sale. Once the land is sold, it will not be available for us to recreate on. That would be a disaster for hunters in the Rocky Mountains.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
By the way, what is wrong with wanting a free place to hunt? Most of the lands that we are talking about have been in public ownership for over 200 years. Many people have invested a lot in the belief they will remain so. That includes people like me who moved here specifically to be near those lands. It also includes outfitters, recreational businesses, etc. For many of us, these lands represent a way of life.
I have worked for most of my 66 years with very little assistance from the government. I did receive some student loans, which I paid back with interest. Other than that, I have gotten no benefits from the federal government. In the meantime, many others have gotten assistance with food stamps, housing and health care which I helped pay for. Now when I want something (the retention of my public lands) I am not about to apologize for it.
So no, I am not willing to take personal interest out of the equation.
Last edited:
Well said. I consider myself a independent conservative if there is such a thing. The last two presidential elections I felt like voting for Pat Paulson. (Only us older guys would remember him).
In God We Trust
Very Active Member
Hell yes a state would allow a guy to graze his cattle for free. Look at every landlocked piece of public ground in the Western states. The states have set it up so we can not access hundreds of thousands of acres of public land and kissed the ranchers and land owners ass along the way. You are right that we do want a place to fish and hunt for free. We pay taxes as well as license fees to hunt on your "free" land. It is called public land for a reason. If you think states do such a good job managing their land then stay away from the BLM and NF property. Just hunt state land and private when you hunt from now on. Let me know how that works out for you. But if you come out west to enjoy some of that free land then stop knocking it. It obviously works because hunters head west by the droves every fall to hunt the free land. Do the Feds mismanage it? Hell yes. Will the states sell it for profit and close it to the public? Hell yes, every special interest group that funded the campaigns of these idiots is salivating thinking of getting a hold of OUR land.
buckbull
Veteran member
- Jun 20, 2011
- 2,167
- 1,354
In the western states where the ranch lobby is the most powerful and influential; what makes you think the state legislature, many of whom are ranchers themselves, are going to raise the grazing rates? Kinda like having the fox guard the chicken coup don't you think?
As far as public land access for hunting, I would rather take my chances with the Feds than have those lands controlled by the state.
mrcowboy
Member
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
okielite,
I suppose we could just rehash earlier pages of this thread, but instead I will boil it down to the basics:
The biggest problem we have with the public lands issue, is that the debates devolves into a R vs. D partisan bickering contest.
The absolute truth is that people from both sides of the political spectrum support public lands and see the entirety of the US as the best stewards, collectively, because they are more insulated from the political swings of local and state governments.
States have, over and over throughout history, proven their willingness to cater to industry, manage for-profit, and outright sell public lands. Most public land hunters feel like this is a bad trend for not only public land hunters, but also all recreators on our public lands. So the federal system, even though it isn't perfect, certainly has a much better chance of maintaining and conserving those lands for future generations of recreators, including public land hunters.
I encourage all public land hunters to adamantly oppose this "transfer" idea and let their representation at the local, state, and federal levels know they strongly oppose, regardless of the party of the representative.
I suppose we could just rehash earlier pages of this thread, but instead I will boil it down to the basics:
The biggest problem we have with the public lands issue, is that the debates devolves into a R vs. D partisan bickering contest.
The absolute truth is that people from both sides of the political spectrum support public lands and see the entirety of the US as the best stewards, collectively, because they are more insulated from the political swings of local and state governments.
States have, over and over throughout history, proven their willingness to cater to industry, manage for-profit, and outright sell public lands. Most public land hunters feel like this is a bad trend for not only public land hunters, but also all recreators on our public lands. So the federal system, even though it isn't perfect, certainly has a much better chance of maintaining and conserving those lands for future generations of recreators, including public land hunters.
I encourage all public land hunters to adamantly oppose this "transfer" idea and let their representation at the local, state, and federal levels know they strongly oppose, regardless of the party of the representative.
okielite
Banned
Can you give us some examples of states allowing people to graze large pieces of land for long periods of time without paying for grazing?
I'm guessing you think that landlocked public ground is the fault of the state and is grazed for free??? The landlocked part is due to private property rights and the landlocked land is still charged for grazing rights as far as I know. How did you come to this conclusion?
The rest of your response is childish and deserves no response but I will address a few more parts . Would be like me telling you to stay away from State land when you hunt. LOL. I also never knocked any of the "free" land so I"m not sure what you are so emotional about. I enjoy state, BLM, USFS, and Walk in land often and live within a few miles of public land by choice. And as far as license fees those are primarily paid to the state who manages the wildlife including setting season dates, quotas, boundaries, etc... on that federal land. You seem to not respect private property rights or farmers/ranchers. I think if you put yourself in the shoes of those landowners you might feel differently.
I get the feeling I am one of the few in this room without a foil hat.
okielite
Banned
I think the states already charge more than the feds. But I could be wrong.
Well I"m sure the data exists. We can compare what states charge for grazing rights versus what feds charge. If states charge more I'm right and if the feds charge more you are right. I have no doubt there are people on this site who know.
Well looking at this data it is pretty obvious that prices do not even reflect inflation and seems to be stuck at an all time low for the last 6 years even thought cattle prices are through the roof. Doesn't take a business degree to spot this mismanagement.
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21232.pdf
More documentation to confirm my point.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/grazing/pdfs/CostsAndConsequences_01-2015.pdf
Actually it looks like it's even worse than I thought. Clearly states are getting much closer to fair market value and the feds are giving it away. No other way to slice it. Even other federal agencies do much better. Why keep these idiots in charge. This could bring in so much more revenue to teh state game and fish departments compared to what is now essentially a taxpayer grazing subsidy for a few lucky landowners.
http://www.kcet.org/news/redefine/rewild/commentary/2014-public-land-grazing-fee-the-same-as-2013-and-2012-and-2011.html
Within two years after Baca's ouster, the fee dropped to the minimum the Forest Service and BLM can legally charge: $1.35. Aside from a five-year blip during the George W. Bush administration where the fee rose a few cents, it's been at that legal minimum ever since.
A 2005 GAO study found private, state, and federal grazing fees running anywhere between $20 and $150 per AUM, with rancher-friendly Texas charging that higher fee for some of its state lands.
As far as hunting there is some great hunting on state land as well. Wyoming school sections have been good to me over the years.
okielite
Banned
So imagine what state wildlife departments do if they charged $20 per AUM instead of letting the feds collect a mere $1.35 per AUM on the federal land within the state?
Would you be opposed to allowing the states to manage the grazing resources on federal land? Why? From the taxpayers standpoint that is a no brainer.
Would you be opposed to allowing the states to manage the grazing resources on federal land? Why? From the taxpayers standpoint that is a no brainer.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
I don't know how many different ways to put it, okie ... Successful management of public land is not measured by the amount of money that can be made off the public land.
That is precisely the problem ... States would manage the lands for profit.
Grazing fees are not much of a concern to me. Conservation of public lands is.
Last edited:
laxwyo
Very Active Member
I think he's making the point that if the land is properly managed, there would be no need to sell it. But in Wyoming, I can see the ranchers getting a sweeter deal since those small counties somehow run our legislature. I can also see sweet land sales to ranchers/farmers. Who's going to miss this little slice and that little slice?
buckbull
Veteran member
- Jun 20, 2011
- 2,167
- 1,354
The Feds can raise the rates, too. And I believe they should at a minimum raise the rates to at least cover the cost of the grazing program. I don't see a need for the Feds to subsidize this program, it should be a self sustaining program. They should raise the rate to not only cover the program costs but collect enough for habitat improvements such as combating non native plant species, etc.
okielite
Banned
Why are you so afraid of someone doing better than the current group? The cows will be there regardless, might as well get paid a fair price instead of giving the grazing away.
You can call it whatever you want but it's squandering the resource they are in charge of. There is absolutely no reason to basically give that resource away to a few lucky ranchers at the expense of the taxpayers. None.
I would love to see states get the chance to manage the grazing resource on the federal land within their borders. Could be a huge boost to state wildlife departments.
Last edited:
okielite
Banned
They have had their chances and failed to do so.
Sounds great but at this point I see no way that the current management is going to get us to that point. The only way for things to improve is to give states the opportunity. I really dont' see why folks would be opposed to letting states handle the grazing rights within their borders on federal land. Unless you are afraid the states would do a better job and expose the feds for what they really are.