Transfer of Public Lands

[okielite]

Last year the USFS added over 26000 acres of former timber land to federal public lands, with more planned.

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/federal-land-purchase-secures-recreation-and-wildlife-habitat-montanas-crown-continent

There are also several large ranches that were added to public ownership in Montana left as inheritance by there owners to the public for the public.

Meanwhile, as I noted earlier, the state of MT recently sold off 640 acres that wasn't economically profitable in my area.

Fundamentally different approaches to land management.

Nature conservancy purchasing land and USFS purchasing land are different situations and quite frankly we don't really need the USFS to be purchasing land. They already complain about not getting enough funding as it is.

As far as families donating ranches were they donated to the state? Most of those I am aware of were given to the state not the feds so it's actually increasing state land holdings which opposite of what you are trying to prove. I know of several in my area that were turned into State WMA's and state historical parks like this. Thanks for proving my point of the state adding land and managing it without selling it! LOL. Throw Ft Robinson in the mix and you have 3 perfect examples of the state getting land and turning it into state parks, wma's, and state historical parks. And this is the same state game and parks department that is paying for a 2 million $ project on Valentine NWR and who transferred 2 herds of BHS to the state from Canada recently. I like what these people do as a hunter and trust them more than I trust the feds.
http://www.nebraskagameandparksfoundation.org/?page_id=78
or this
http://www.nebwild.org/projects/chadron-creek.php


I have no problem with states selling off land that offers no income or recreational value so they can buy more useful land. I've read a few of the pieces that Wyoming has sold and quite frankly they look at both income and recreational value and a variety of other factors before doing anything.

I also have no problem with selling off small inaccessible pieces of federal land. If we can't access them and they provide a net loss on managing the grazing why exactly should we keep it? If we haven't' gotten access in the last 100 years it's' unlikely that we will moving forward. This is one of the issues that I have a hard time understanding. If there is a little 40 acre piece of land tucked inside a large ranch that offers no access for the last 100 years why should we essentially give the rancher almost free grazing and free hunting for anybody he lets access it? I just don't see the benefit to anyone but the rancher in that example. How do you benefit from that?

I get the feeling that you think the federal government should be actively purchasing land to manage which I absolutely do not agree with. We dont' need a bigger USFS to fix the problem. We need someone other than the USFS to manage the land they already can't handle managing in the first place.

 

[okielite]

I have always been a proponent of Stewardship and not transfer without stewardship only rights. There is a big difference between the two. When money and greed are thrown into the mix all parties involved get their hands dirty. Politicians landowners big business right on down the line. I can see land locked federal lands or lands with minimal access being sold off to nearby landowners who wont grant access to these lands. Tax payers should always have access to all public lands no matter who they are.

Really? You must not believe in private property rights. I think that shows just how extreme some of your views are when you think 300 million people should be able to access a private ranch just because there is a piece of federal somewhere inside it.

In reality all you are thinking about is your view and not taking into account the bigger picture beyond just hunting. Try looking with a telescope, not a microscope. Private property rights are extremely important IMO.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Okielite, Numerous conservation organizations, like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Nature Conservancy purchase property (or are bequeathed property). Because they are not in the business to manage the land, they typically transfer it to a government agency. Sometimes it is a state agency, but often it is a federal agency. Perhaps it depends on the location of the property. If the property is immediately adjacent to Forest Service land, it will probably be transferred to the Forest Service. This has been going on for decades under the assumption that once in federal hands it will have long term protection and provide public access.

I, for one, would like to see the federal government possess more land in some critical areas such as big game migration corridors, areas ripe for housing development, etc. If you don't agree with me on this, please take it up with some of the big conservation organizations. They have the same goal.

 

[okielite]

Anyone planning on making such a donation should consult with a lawyer. There are ways that a person can limit what is done with charitable donations (For example: put it in a trust, make the RMEF the beneficiary, if it ceases to be used by the RMEF, then it goes to someone else, which provides a strong motive to keep it in use for its intended purpose).

This ^^^

Do you guys have any examples of a piece of land donated to the state for conservation/recreation/etc that was then (against the wishes of the person who donated the land) sold off? Anyone?

You guys think of some spectacular scenarios but in the end I can' ever find any examples of this scenario happening but can find countless examples of the land being kept and managed by the state as state parks, WMA's, etc... I do appreciate the discussion as it has forced me to go read and learn about how this all works. It's easy to draw an "internet opinion" without doing any research but once you see the actual data sometimes it doesn't always correspond with the "internet opinions" you read.

 

[Tim McCoy]

This ^^^

Do you guys have any examples of a piece of land donated to the state for conservation/recreation/etc that was then (against the wishes of the person who donated the land) sold off? Anyone?

You guys think of some spectacular scenarios but in the end I can' ever find any examples of this scenario happening but can find
countless examples of the land being kept and managed by the state as state parks, WMA's, etc... I do appreciate the discussion as it has forced me to go read and learn about how this all works. It's easy to draw an "internet opinion" without doing any research but once you see the actual data sometimes it doesn't always correspond with the "internet opinions" you read.

Okielite, I think the exact reason conservation easements/trusts etc. are used when donating to the state is to prevent any future transfer, ergo the lack of examples from your search. Such legal measures are likely a big reason why you found countless examples of the land being kept and managed by the states. RMEF, as an example, promotes the use of conservation easements, among other vehicles, to make sure access is preserved forever.

It is much easier to have a large money interest sway a state, especially a red state in the west, to sell land, than to get the same deal past the Feds. I am not saying it can't happen federally, it can, but it is a much greater risk the smaller the Govt. entity is. That to me, and most, is simple common sense. Neither system is perfect, but one system does allow more light to shine on any sale, and a much larger constituency to react to any sale. Keep Federal land Federal 100% if you value your, your kids, grandkids, etc. ability to hunt public land.

 

[okielite]

Okielite, Numerous conservation organizations, like the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Nature Conservancy purchase property (or are bequeathed property). Because they are not in the business to manage the land, they typically transfer it to a government agency. Sometimes it is a state agency, but often it is a federal agency. Perhaps it depends on the location of the property. If the property is immediately adjacent to Forest Service land, it will probably be transferred to the Forest Service. This has been going on for decades under the assumption that once in federal hands it will have long term protection and provide public access.

I, for one, would like to see the federal government possess more land in some critical areas such as big game migration corridors, areas ripe for housing development, etc. If you don't agree with me on this, please take it up with some of the big conservation organizations. They have the same goal.

Correct. From what I have witnessed where I have lived much of this land goes to the state. Chadron WMA and Bowring ranch are a couple of examples. Where are you seeing this land turned over to the feds?

Actually you can take it up with them and pay them to buy the land if it is important to you. I think the feds have more than they can handle already and don't think that spending taxpayer money on more land is what the USFS or BLM need to be doing at this point. Few people are willing to pay more federal taxes so the feds can buy/manage more land, but you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[okielite]

Okielite, I think the exact reason conservation easements/trusts etc. are used when donating to the state is to prevent any future transfer, ergo the lack of examples from your search. Such legal measures are likely a big reason why you found countless examples of the land being kept and managed by the states. RMEF, as an example, promotes the use of conservation easements, among other vehicles, to make sure access is preserved forever.

It is much easier to have a large money interest sway a state, especially a red state in the west, to sell land, than to get the same deal past the Feds. I am not saying it can't happen federally, it can, but it is a much greater risk the smaller the Govt. entity is. That to me, and most, is simple common sense. Neither system is perfect, but one system does allow more light to shine on any sale, and a much larger constituency to react to any sale. Keep Federal land Federal 100% if you value your, your kids, grandkids, etc. ability to hunt public land.

Do you have an example of a piece of land donated to the state for conservation/recreation/etc that was then (against the wishes of the person who donated the land) sold off?

I can't find one.

Most of the public land I hunt in WY, NE, SD, KS, and OK is State owned or leased. Not a whole lot of federal land around Lusk but there is quite a bit of state for example. The state leases up the land between the federal in my area to make some really nice large pieces of land to hunt. I appreciate what they do opening up land with things like the walk in program.

 

[Tim McCoy]

Do you have an example of a piece of land donated to the state for conservation/recreation/etc that was then (against the wishes of the person who donated the land) sold off?

Most of the public land I hunt in WY, NE, SD, KS, and OK is State owned or leased. Not a whole lot of federal land around Lusk but there is quite a bit of state for example. The state leases up the land between the federal in my area to make some really nice large pieces of land to hunt. I appreciate what they do opening up land with things like the walk in program.

I was simply offering a possible reason you failed in your quest to find land donated to a state and later sold off. My apologies if I was not clear. The fact it is hard to find such examples does not eliminate the risk, the fact such protections are put on donated land by the donor should inform the dialogue around the topic as well as offer a plausible reason it is difficult to find an example. Further, there are a number of western states dominated by mining/ranching/timber interests where giving them Federal land to own is asking the fox to guard the hen house.

Donation of land to a state is not a common occurrence. Many, if not most any more, are legally protected from future sale/change in use. Looking for an example of one being later sold against the original donors intent would be right there with the needle in the haystack. It is the larger issue most of us are concerned about, not finding an example of one arcane aspect of the larger issue. I'd opine finding an example or not does not really inform the discussion at all. What most users of public land want is continued public access. The smaller the entity that controls access, the greater the risk there is that a small areas access can change. Just common sense to me.

 

[packmule]

There was 128ac donated to the state (university actually, but still technically has to go through the state as a state university) that was supposed to be used as research for its forestry program and provide land access to several thousand acres of public that sat behind it. The school was calling around looking for buyers before the survey was done on the place to gift deed it. If you look at my fuzz post in the Whitetail section you can see some of the deer on the place.

 

[okielite]

Okielite, I stand solidly behind my statement (above). Read it again if you find it confusing.

Really going out on a limb there, LOL.

I've got one for you.

The federal government has sold a lot of federal land.

LOL. Pretty straightforward eh?

Those state and federal sales were due to a variety of factors that may or may not be relevant to this specific situation or be an indicator of what might happen if federal land was transferred to the state, camping banned, state bankrupt, and land sold to those darn insert (farmer, rancher, developer, outfitter, Ted Turner, Logger, OIl/Gas man, tea party member, Koch brother, etc) and public hunting lost forever.

 

[25contender]

Really? You must not believe in private property rights. I think that shows just how extreme some of your views are when you think 300 million people should be able to access a private ranch just because there is a piece of federal somewhere inside it.

In reality all you are thinking about is your view and not taking into account the bigger picture beyond just hunting. Try looking with a telescope, not a microscope. Private property rights are extremely important IMO.

Sure I believe in property rights I never said I did not. I own acreage and I understand property rights very well. Once again you are making observations and making comments about people here that you know absolutely nothing about. You seem to think my view is narrow and maybe it is on this forum as it is a hunting forum not a cattle forum or a timber forum Etc. If I wanted to comment on those I would go to a appropriate forum to do so. There should be access to public land wherever it is. If there was a large block of public land behind my property I would see no reason not to have a reasonable access though my property as long as it was a well thought out access..

 

[okielite]

There was 128ac donated to the state (university actually, but still technically has to go through the state as a state university) that was supposed to be used as research for its forestry program and provide land access to several thousand acres of public that sat behind it. The school was calling around looking for buyers before the survey was done on the place to gift deed it. If you look at my fuzz post in the Whitetail section you can see some of the deer on the place.

Link?

The Texas state land trust is an interesting one to say the least. According to my understanding they were not granted any land grant acres. But the income they provide for education is astounding. In the big picture for their state having an extremely well funded education system is more important to them than providing public land hunting and recreational opportunities. Fisherman have a huge opportunity in TX plenty of publicly accessible water. But compare the public colleges in Texas with those state flagships in most Western states and it's ugly.

http://www.statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/texas.html

 

[okielite]

Sure I believe in property rights I never said I did not. I own acreage and I understand property rights very well. Once again you are making observations and making comments about people here that you know absolutely nothing about. You seem to think my view is narrow and maybe it is on this forum as it is a hunting forum not a cattle forum or a timber forum Etc. If I wanted to comment on those I would go to a appropriate forum to do so. There should be access to public land wherever it is. If there was a large block of public land behind my property I would see no reason not to have a reasonable access though my property as long as it was a well thought out access..

Actually you did. What you proposed is simply not legal nor likely to ever be for good reason.

Some people don't share your enthusiasm on having 300 million people able to access their private land. I personally would not allow that many people access across my private property. I think most people would feel the same way after the first year of granting access and dealing with trash, torn up roads, 4 wheelers off trails, poaching, beer cans, refrigerators cigarette butts, etc. that comes along with "public access".


Believing that every piece of public land be accessible to everyone is simply not reasonable and what I consider to be an extremist view as it has to do with losing private property rights in a way that is simply not legal to force upon people. Huge changes to the legal status of private property rights is much more scary than simply selling off the inaccessible land and using the money to buy land that can be accessed legally.

Discussing the grazing and timber resources is absolutely applicable to this discussion. Ultimately that is exactly what we are talking about being managed, the recreation/grazing/timber resources. They already manage the wildlife and enforce laws.

What other resources do you think would be more applicable to this discussion?

 

[packmule]

Link?

The Texas state land trust is an interesting one to say the least. According to my understanding they were not granted any land grant acres. But the income they provide for education is astounding. In the big picture for their state having an extremely well funded education system is more important to them than providing public land hunting and recreational opportunities. Fisherman have a huge opportunity in TX plenty of publicly accessible water. But compare the public colleges in Texas with those state flagships in most Western states and it's ugly.

http://www.statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/texas.html

They were supposed to get over 5,000,000 acres in land grant and it didn't get set aside so they've been reaping the benefits of the mineral estates of a whole lot of land. And you know how long ago that started and how old money accumulates since they're only allowed to use interest. Also a good point on fishing bc there are 2 dam projects in our area that are being deferred until absolutely necessary that will take up a huge portion of the federal lands. Luckily DFW is growing faster and the water issue is their problem currently, not ours down here.


Not a link for land sale, never made it to public auction. SFA is lucky to keep their blackboard operational.

 

[okielite]

I was simply offering a possible reason you failed in your quest to find land donated to a state and later sold off. My apologies if I was not clear. The fact it is hard to find such examples does not eliminate the risk, the fact such protections are put on donated land by the donor should inform the dialogue around the topic as well as offer a plausible reason it is difficult to find an example. Further, there are a number of western states dominated by mining/ranching/timber interests where giving them Federal land to own is asking the fox to guard the hen house.

Donation of land to a state is not a common occurrence. Many, if not most any more, are legally protected from future sale/change in use. Looking for an example of one being later sold against the original donors intent would be right there with the needle in the haystack. It is the larger issue most of us are concerned about, not finding an example of one arcane aspect of the larger issue. I'd opine finding an example or not does not really inform the discussion at all. What most users of public land want is continued public access. The smaller the entity that controls access, the greater the risk there is that a small areas access can change. Just common sense to me.

I guess after looking I just can't find many examples of states selling off prime hunting/recreation land like what you and others imply is likely to happen. In fact I can't think of any similar examples to that in this area, but plenty of examples of increasing walk in land and having land donated to the state to increase state recreational acreage.

I think that is a logical way to look at it but when I started looking at how states operate I quickly realized that although there are occasionally some pieces of land sold (that go through an extensive process to be sold in states like WY) there are also some acquisitions/donations (such as those you mentioned) as well as large amounts of state walk in land available for hunting/fishing in many states so clearly they do want hunters in their state.

I think much of this boils down to personal experience. Folks in Montana seem to distrust the state the most with CO and WY being close.

My hunting experience spans many Western states as well as contracting with all sorts of city, county, state, and federal entities in my career. The waste on federal projects is astounding compared to city/county/state projects. I have nothing but respect for the Nebraska Game and Parks department and what they do for hunters.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Nature conservancy purchasing land and USFS purchasing land are different situations and quite frankly we don't really need the USFS to be purchasing land. They already complain about not getting enough funding as it is.

It clearly states the land is now federal land. The area included a lot of checkerboard federal land. Those are those small, inaccessible pieces you don't mind selling. Now they are part of a large, accessible piece. Nice!

These are the solutions the Federal Management Model allows for. Instead of selling off "useless" public land, we have even more usefull land!

As far as families donating ranches were they donated to the state? Most of those I am aware of were given to the state not the feds so it's actually increasing state land holdings which opposite of what you are trying to prove. I know of several in my area that were turned into State WMA's and state historical parks like this. Thanks for proving my point of the state adding land and managing it without selling it! LOL.

Lots of family lands were donated to federal ownership. Ummm, like the Rockefellers did with Teton? Or the Kirkland Ranch in Hells Canyon. I have recreated on those. I even had a hunting camp on the Kirkland Ranch. I do understand that it happens with states and counties (even cities sometimes) as well.

I do like the idea of more public land to hunt. I like the idea of the large sections being managed federally as well.

Here is another ongoing acquisition:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/lcnf/home/?cid=stelprdb5437014&width=full

You can even find the map with the access points for hunters. Awesome!

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Correct. From what I have witnessed where I have lived much of this land goes to the state. Chadron WMA and Bowring ranch are a couple of examples. Where are you seeing this land turned over to the feds?

Actually you can take it up with them and pay them to buy the land if it is important to you. I think the feds have more than they can handle already and don't think that spending taxpayer money on more land is what the USFS or BLM need to be doing at this point. Few people are willing to pay more federal taxes so the feds can buy/manage more land, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Actually I do pay several conservation organizations to buy land...some of which is turned over to the feds. When I go to my grave, this will be one of my proudest accomplishments.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Here is a link to an outstanding article against federal land transfer written by Chris Madson, the retired editor of Wyoming Wildlife Magazine (the Wyoming Game and Fish Department magazine):

http://www.wyofile.com/column/selling-a-birthright-what-would-the-west-be-like-without-its-federal-lands/

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Here is a link to an outstanding article against federal land transfer written by Chris Madson, the retired editor of Wyoming Wildlife Magazine (the Wyoming Game and Fish Department magazine):

http://www.wyofile.com/column/selling-a-birthright-what-would-the-west-be-like-without-its-federal-lands/

This is an absolute must read for all of us. I respect Chris Madson and he is the reason I have subscribed to "Wyoming Wildlife" for over 30 years. He has done his homework and nailed it as far as I am concerned. In some respects I am glad I am as old as I am because I see this movement to give the land to the states as complete disaster as far as public access and recreation.

 

[25contender]

This is a good read. read it a few days ago. Thanks for posting here.

Here is a link to an outstanding article against federal land transfer written by Chris Madson, the retired editor of Wyoming Wildlife Magazine (the Wyoming Game and Fish Department magazine):

http://www.wyofile.com/column/selling-a-birthright-what-would-the-west-be-like-without-its-federal-lands/