\
News alert. At one time all the land was public. The land you're house is sitting on was at one time public land. Are you ready to give it back? So what's your point?
Transfer of Public Lands
- Thread starter npaden
- Start date
News alert. At one time all the land was public. The land you're house is sitting on was at one time public land. Are you ready to give it back? So what's your point?
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
My apologies if I misrepresented your position. That is not my intention. I only referred to your last post as instructed.
As I have mentioned repeatedly, the USFS (mine and yours) is not perfect, but certainly is a better choice than states for maintaining public lands as public.
I fully agree with hpd's post 379 expresses my thoughts as well, and I also look forward to finding common ground on this issue.
Finally someone gets it!
Yes, I am opposed to the possible sale of the land and yes, I feel the feds manage to mismanage most of everything they do. Yes, I believe in small government, state control over federal control. Yes, I have written 4 politicians expressing my concerns. Unfortunately there are some on here who are so blinded by their own ideology they fail to read what I've written or comprehend what they've read. Instead they choose to argue and attack me about my supposed position of carte blanche pro-transfer of title to the states which I don't have. I've stated some simple truths playing the devils advocate and some are incapable of processing those thoughts. And yes I do think there are some Chicken Littles out there.
I'm glad you get. You get a gold star.
In God We Trust
Very Active Member
I can show you NF here in Colorado that is some of the best hunting in the state. I can also show you state land that only allows hunting on certain days of the week. It only allows scouting one day before the season opens and does not allow recreational shooting or fishing at all. I can also show Open Space land in Colorado that allows everything but hunting and shooting. You can tit for tat all you want but States have shown they are willing to cave to local ranching groups as well as outfitter groups regarding hunting and public land.
okielite
Banned
Actually it is. Only a small % of ranching operations receive the taxpayer funded grazing on federal land. I'd be stunned if it was more than a few % of all ranches. Here are the facts, 3%.
http://www.publiclandsranching.org/htmlres/fs_grazing_economics.htm
If you want to discuss the farm bill then start a thread. That is not what we are discussing.
We are discussing the management of federal land and the resources these people are in charge of managing like grazing and timber. The state already manages the wildlife and hunting regulations on federal land. I'd like to see what they could do with the grazing and timber resources but I dont' support the sale of this land.
Last edited:
okielite
Banned
AndI can show you state land that is some of the best hunting in Wyoming and federal land that is worthless as far as recreation. Doesn't prove anything.
The feds are the ones who have caved to ranching groups, that is why they charge so much less for grazing than states do. Remember when they tried to raise their fees to $4 per AUM? States are already charging $20+. Clearly the feds are the ones who cave to ranching groups. You guys can make all these ridiculous statements about states but the facts indicate otherwise.
Another thing to consider is not all ranchers support this subsidized grazing either. How would you like to compete with someone who was federally subsidized when you aren't?
What do you think is going to happen when states don't have money to manage the land? They will start selling it off piece by piece.
Then you would end up like Texas which has only about 2% public land.
To all you people who think everything the "feds" do is horrible you need to comeback to reality.
okielite
Banned
LOL. We have already established that federal funds would be necessary to do this. But less federal $ would be required and less burden put on taxpayers. Then factor in increasing the grazing fees from $1.35 to $20 and its' easy to see how much better this could work than the current broken system.
We also established that simply transferring the management, not the ownership would alleviate any concerns about the land being sold off.
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are a federal employee. AMIRITE?
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
Okie, if you're going to use data, use data that represents the Western States that this issue impacts. Out of the Western States of MT, NM, WY, AZ, CO, CA, OR, ID, UT, & NV, the average number of ALL stock producers in these states that hold Federal grazing leases is about 25-30%. If you take CA and OR out of that average, the percentage jumps to 30-35%. I don't have a link to this data since it was a study conducted by someone I know to obtain a Masters in Rangeland Management, but I'm sure if you dug around you could find similar statistics. These are just the prime lease holders mind you and doesn't take into account that there's another big chunk of these smaller producers that form "grazing associations" or sub-lease portions of the grazing rights that don't figure into the percentage. I can see the figure of 3% being accurate if the rest of the US is figured into the mix, as it is in your link, but keep in mind that the largest producers in the country reside in states with little to no Federal Land.
The point is, I don't thinks it's wise to further hamper a large portion of these states agricultural economy by raising grazing fees to the tune of 1000%. Let that number sink in a little bit. If a NR antelope tag rose by 1000%, it would go from $272 to $2,720 over night. The economics of such a drastic increase are bad for everyone involved. Could this program be more fiscally sound? You bet it could, but everything comes with a cost as well. Further, in WY at least, one of the organizations with the most pull when it comes to legislative action is the Wyoming Stock Growers Association, and you can bet your bottom dollar that absolutely no bills that pertain to agriculture will ever pass into law without this groups blessing.
okielite
Banned
Without a link to prove the data you are just throwing around numbers. The data I showed indicated about 3% of ranches get this basically free grazing. I have no doubt that is accurate.
It's really strange how people are acting like getting more than $1.35 per AUM is a bad thing. It's a good thing for everyone involved except the rancher who has been getting basically free grazing.
In God We Trust
Very Active Member
If you want to get the grazing contracts redone then start petitioning to have them raised. People that are against this are worried about the states selling off and limiting access to land in the future. Points brought up about overgrazing, low range fees, and mismanagement of logging/ wildfires by the Feds are valid. That doesn't change the fact that with the feds in control we have access to some great property to hunt. The states out west have limited access and sold off so much property that the citizens of those states do not trust them to hold onto more land as they obtain it. We all agree the Feds mismanage things. We don't agree that the states will do the right thing for conservation. Another thing to consider is what states like California will do with the land once they obtain it. California's state Govt. is dominated by far left liberal politicians that are against hunting and firearms. What is to stop them from limiting or even shutting down hunting on all of the land that is now controlled by the feds. You see the Fed Govt. is big an diverse with differing viewpoints. Govt's like California's that are dominated by one party would be dangerous to hunting as a whole if they took control of federally controlled land
Last edited:
okielite
Banned
So better to continue the mismanagement instead of looking at alternatives to improve the current system? That is not smart management by any measure.
That is honestly how you can tell when people are not looking at the situation realistically. They want a free place to hunt and don't really care if the grazing and timber resources are being squandered. They oppose anything that will change/improve the current system even if their concerns over the sale of the land or camping are addressed. You will find that being able to compromise on issues can be more productive than blindly opposing any change to the current system of mismanagement.
The part that I find ironic in this whole deal is that as far as hunting and fishing go the state is already in charge of managing that resource. So from a hunting standpoint there would likely be little if any change if the management of the land was transferred. So we end up with hunters who are supporting federal employees who are incompetent at managing things like grazing contracts which they are responsible for. Hunters who act like getting fair market value for grazing is a BAD thing. It's really bizarre to read some of the responses. The ones who are obviously government employees are the most entertaining. Gotta love government employees telling us how great they are at their job. We all know how wasteful and inefficient the federal government is at everything they do.
Heck most people dont' realize that the USFS operates a nationwide chain of trade schools called Job Corps. Do we really need the USFS to teach people to weld and do concrete work? Hell no. Just another example of how screwed up the feds are.
libidilatimmy
Veteran member
Yes, 3% of producers in the entire United States of America. Again, most of these producers don't have the opportunity to graze on Federal Land because most of the states that these producers reside in are mostly private land. I wonder how these states arrived to be majoraly privately held from their original land grants?
http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/8545/student/livestock/grazing.html
Here ya go. I googled "percentage of western states rancher who graze on federal lands". No. 2 on the list was the link you previously posted and No. 5 was this one. Looks like this study was done over 10 years ago, but nonetheless supports my data.
For what it's worth, I do think that grazing fees should see an increase, but nowhere close to the magnitude you suggest.
okielite
Banned
I't rather just find someone else to manage those contracts. It took these people decades to screw this up and no petition is going to fix it. I'd rather attempt to fix the problem than let it continue to get worse. But if you are content with the current system and want tot keep it in place you are entitled to your opinion.
I personally dont' think the e-mails and petitions hunters send really matter much to politicians. Hunters are so divided amongst themselves that they really dont' amount to much of a voice. The only letters the politicans are interested in have checks inside them. No check = No matter.
okielite
Banned
What??
Why shouldn't the feds charge far market value for grazing?
I look forward to a long and detailed response to this. I just love watching people justify incompetency and inefficiency that benefits only a few and is paid for by American taxpayers.
Those leases should be put out to bid and sold to whoever is willing to pay the most for the resource. Not simply given to the neighboring landowner for pennies on the dollar.
Just to clarify... there is a difference in managing funds from Western lands and managing the lands themselves. The feds could theoretically charge any amount for AMU, but be absolutely stellar at managing the lands themselves, or vice versa. I am not saying that is the case, just that the cost per AMU is not equal to the Feds ability to manage the lands.
Also, no amount charged by the Feds or State to graze cattle is even going to come close to the cost of a Land Transfer to the States. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure, employees, road equipment, vehicles, campgrounds, fire fighting, etc...
For proof of this, see Paul Ryan's budget proposal. He proposes the transfer of public lands to the States as a way to save Federal dollars. Obviously, the Feds spend more than they take in on the management of Western lands and his budget proposal, and the numbers therein, prove it. If this land suddenly becomes state-owned, the States now have to come up with that money from somewhere... they MUST sell the land to get a property-tax base. It is the only way.
Honestly, the States should be fighting the Feds trying to force them to KEEP the land. It is a financial liability and nothing more.
I think this discussion should stay on the big picture and not rancher welfare.
Also, no amount charged by the Feds or State to graze cattle is even going to come close to the cost of a Land Transfer to the States. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars in infrastructure, employees, road equipment, vehicles, campgrounds, fire fighting, etc...
For proof of this, see Paul Ryan's budget proposal. He proposes the transfer of public lands to the States as a way to save Federal dollars. Obviously, the Feds spend more than they take in on the management of Western lands and his budget proposal, and the numbers therein, prove it. If this land suddenly becomes state-owned, the States now have to come up with that money from somewhere... they MUST sell the land to get a property-tax base. It is the only way.
Honestly, the States should be fighting the Feds trying to force them to KEEP the land. It is a financial liability and nothing more.
I think this discussion should stay on the big picture and not rancher welfare.
micropterus79
Active Member
I have a question that I think is important to think about for proper context and it might well be a dumb one but is there a legal or philosophical reason that this can't be assessed on a case by case basis?
For example, the bill that HPD has kept us up on, if I understand correctly, is really about assessing potential impacts on a land transfer (I realize this is the first step and it can be a slippery slope) but does not identify particular tracts that might be involved (please correct me if I am wrong) . The point is, is it possible that some of the land that is transferred might actually be better managed but in some cases worse? Do we, as voters, even have access to enough information to assess this when the time comes?
The reason I ask is it finally dawned on me that AZ has a bunch of state trust land, about 12.5% total area (to be clear, this is not public land as you need a permit or a valid hunting license and actively in pursuit of game). This state trust land come to find out has some great hunting AND camping opportunities; functionally, it is just like being on FS or BLM. Vehicles must stick to designated trails, pack all crap out, and a 14 day camping limit. In AZ, it seems to have worked well because the permit revenues go largely to school and penal system plus AZ does not happen to sit on the mineral and grazing resources that we see in other states.
On the other hand, state recreation land in CO does not offer the kind of recreational opportunities; camping (if allowed) is in developed campgrounds only and they are generally crowded; not much different than camping in developed FS campgrounds. Point is, the meaning of state land in CO is different than state land in AZ. Then you add in the "open space" areas owned by counties in CO, etc... which, as mentioned before, can be very restrictive unless you're a hiker or mountain biker.
So, as we argue back and forth on the pros and cons of this, is it possible to add a little nuance to the discussion with respect to recreational expectations versus recreational potential state by state? I am not sure on this either way, just wanted to get thoughts.
On a side bar, it was mentioned in a previous post and I think it is worth repeating. We as DIY public land hunters cannot go this alone; we need to side with groups that might have traditionally been viewed as competitors. You can't believe the clout mountain biking groups have on Colorado's west slope. While I don't agree with all the regs that have subsequently been imposed on hunters and shooters in "their' areas, I respect the prowess they have shown in defending their recreational opportunities.
For example, the bill that HPD has kept us up on, if I understand correctly, is really about assessing potential impacts on a land transfer (I realize this is the first step and it can be a slippery slope) but does not identify particular tracts that might be involved (please correct me if I am wrong) . The point is, is it possible that some of the land that is transferred might actually be better managed but in some cases worse? Do we, as voters, even have access to enough information to assess this when the time comes?
The reason I ask is it finally dawned on me that AZ has a bunch of state trust land, about 12.5% total area (to be clear, this is not public land as you need a permit or a valid hunting license and actively in pursuit of game). This state trust land come to find out has some great hunting AND camping opportunities; functionally, it is just like being on FS or BLM. Vehicles must stick to designated trails, pack all crap out, and a 14 day camping limit. In AZ, it seems to have worked well because the permit revenues go largely to school and penal system plus AZ does not happen to sit on the mineral and grazing resources that we see in other states.
On the other hand, state recreation land in CO does not offer the kind of recreational opportunities; camping (if allowed) is in developed campgrounds only and they are generally crowded; not much different than camping in developed FS campgrounds. Point is, the meaning of state land in CO is different than state land in AZ. Then you add in the "open space" areas owned by counties in CO, etc... which, as mentioned before, can be very restrictive unless you're a hiker or mountain biker.
So, as we argue back and forth on the pros and cons of this, is it possible to add a little nuance to the discussion with respect to recreational expectations versus recreational potential state by state? I am not sure on this either way, just wanted to get thoughts.
On a side bar, it was mentioned in a previous post and I think it is worth repeating. We as DIY public land hunters cannot go this alone; we need to side with groups that might have traditionally been viewed as competitors. You can't believe the clout mountain biking groups have on Colorado's west slope. While I don't agree with all the regs that have subsequently been imposed on hunters and shooters in "their' areas, I respect the prowess they have shown in defending their recreational opportunities.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
okielite,
Please consider this:
Most posters on this thread understand your argument: You argue that because states typically get more revenue (per unit) from grazing leases than federal agencies do, they are therefore better land managers.
We see this as failing to see the forest for the trees.
Please attempt to see the other side of the argument:
That is, it doesn't matter what states charge for grazing if they lose the lands they lease rights on. If those public lands are sold, the managing agency will recieve no grazing fees, AND the public will be excluded from hunting (or other recreation activities). If the lands are developed for extraction, no grazing fees, and no public hunting.
Further, please understand that some have the position that they would rather have the deer and elk eating the browse on public lands and not cows or domestic sheep. To many, it is worth it to lose ALL of the grazing fees to keep the lands and improve the habitat.
IMO, generating government revenue shouldn't be the priority in public land management. Conservation and access should. I am sure land managers could make more money by charging access fees to hunters. That would be sound FINANCIAL policy, but is poor public land management IMO.
Does that clarify some of our positions?
Please consider this:
Most posters on this thread understand your argument: You argue that because states typically get more revenue (per unit) from grazing leases than federal agencies do, they are therefore better land managers.
We see this as failing to see the forest for the trees.
Please attempt to see the other side of the argument:
That is, it doesn't matter what states charge for grazing if they lose the lands they lease rights on. If those public lands are sold, the managing agency will recieve no grazing fees, AND the public will be excluded from hunting (or other recreation activities). If the lands are developed for extraction, no grazing fees, and no public hunting.
Further, please understand that some have the position that they would rather have the deer and elk eating the browse on public lands and not cows or domestic sheep. To many, it is worth it to lose ALL of the grazing fees to keep the lands and improve the habitat.
IMO, generating government revenue shouldn't be the priority in public land management. Conservation and access should. I am sure land managers could make more money by charging access fees to hunters. That would be sound FINANCIAL policy, but is poor public land management IMO.
Does that clarify some of our positions?
Last edited:
okielite
Banned
I do consider the opposing views, unlike most who already have their mind made up. I've asked many of you questions about your statements and rarely even get a response. And most of those responses skirt the issue.
I am not supporting the sale of this land. I'm not even supporting the transfer of ownership. I'm saying lets let states have the chance to manage the resources on that land such as grazing. There is no downside to getting fair value for that resource unless you are one of the few ranchers who benefits from the program.
And your point is that you would prefer to keep the current broken system in place because you fear that the land would be sold.
One of us is using common sense and being reasonable about looking to improve the current broken system and the other is operating under fear and making all sorts of exaggerated claims to get attention but are not based on reality.
Getting fair market value for grazing is not "anti conservation" or anti "public land management". It's common sense and a good business practice.
I get the feeling that few people on this site have owned their own business as nobody seems to care what this mess is costing taxpayers or tries to hold these people accountable for how they operate.
There is no reason that federal grazing should be basically given away to benefit a few ranchers. It should be put out to bid and the person willing to pay the most to graze that land should get to graze it. Stop giving these people a pass for squandering a resource.
I am not supporting the sale of this land. I'm not even supporting the transfer of ownership. I'm saying lets let states have the chance to manage the resources on that land such as grazing. There is no downside to getting fair value for that resource unless you are one of the few ranchers who benefits from the program.
And your point is that you would prefer to keep the current broken system in place because you fear that the land would be sold.
One of us is using common sense and being reasonable about looking to improve the current broken system and the other is operating under fear and making all sorts of exaggerated claims to get attention but are not based on reality.
Getting fair market value for grazing is not "anti conservation" or anti "public land management". It's common sense and a good business practice.
I get the feeling that few people on this site have owned their own business as nobody seems to care what this mess is costing taxpayers or tries to hold these people accountable for how they operate.
There is no reason that federal grazing should be basically given away to benefit a few ranchers. It should be put out to bid and the person willing to pay the most to graze that land should get to graze it. Stop giving these people a pass for squandering a resource.