Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46
  1. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Dolores, Colorado
    Thanked 2,165 Times in 1,226 Posts
    Congratulated 409 Times in 105 Posts

    Here in Colorado there are at least 3 types of state owned and managed lands that I know of (could be more too). The state school trust land that (as you state ) are managed for the benefit of the public schools. Our local shooting club leases land for our range from the state. The lease states we control who has access to this leased land. Another type is the State Wildlife areas (SWA). SWA's are not always state owned land. They sometimes use private land as SWA's, especially private irrigation owned reserviours for fishing. Usuall the public has access to these, when you buy an access right when you buy a permit for a very small amount of $$$. A third are the state owned land by Parks & Wildlife, especially the parks. Several large state parks allow hunting. These areas are controlled by a lottery for the right to hunt on them.

    IMHO what we all are afraid of is IF the federal government was to turn over or sell it's holdings (National Forests and BLM) to the individual states, that the states would sell the land if and when it gets into a financial crunch like lots of states are in now. I look at the past history of the eastern states and that's it what lots of them did, yes most of this was done pre 1900. I don't trust the states to manage the public land for the benefit of the populace.
    Colorado Cowboy
    Cowboy Action Shooter; Endowment Life Member-NRA, NRA certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Rifle Instructor, RMEF, Boone & Crockett Club.
    The Original Rocket Scientist-Retired
    "My Father always considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church going."
    Aldous Huxley

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Colorado Cowboy For This Useful Post:

  3. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Thanked 49 Times in 35 Posts
    Congratulated 14 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by WapitiBob View Post
    That was for Rammont who evidently doesn't stray far from home to hunt.

    The Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) is the administrative arm of the State Land Board, Oregon’s longest-serving board. Established by the Oregon Constitution in 1859, the Land Board has been composed of the Governor (chair), Secretary of State and State Treasurer throughout its history.

    At statehood, the federal government granted Oregon 3.4 million acres – about 6 percent – of the new state’s land to finance public education. Though only about 1/5 of the original acreage remains, DSL continues to manage land and other resources dedicated to the Common School Fund for K-12 education. The Land Board is trustee of the fund.

    The Department of State Lands (DSL) has an active program for land sales and exchanges. The agency’s Real Estate Asset Management Plan directs DSL to evaluate and sell smaller or difficult-to-manage lands. These sales have priority over land sales requested by individuals through the application process, which are initiated by submitting a land sale or exchange application, along with a $750 non-refundable application processing fee.

    May of 2017 ....

    By Rob Davis

    The Oregonian/OregonLive

    The Elliott State Forest, the 82,500-acre Coast Range parcel the state nearly sold to a timber company, will stay in public ownership, bringing an end to Oregon's years-long flirtation with divesting the land.

    Oregon Gov. Kate Brown, Secretary of State Dennis Richardson and state Treasurer Tobias Read voted Tuesday in Salem to halt the sale, pulling the remote forest back from the brink of a plan that was wildly unpopular with hunters, anglers and environmental groups.
    What's your point? If you are trying to say that the land board sold off a lot of the original public lands then I agree but your post ignores the fact that the management ideals that guide how the board manages the land has changed drastically since the late 1800s. In fact, the last part of your post proves it because it supports my claim that it's easier to force change at a state level. the article you copied just proves that in modern times public action will force the state government to be more responsive to how the public wants the land managed.

    I found a good link to the history of your land board. That link takes you to a pdf copy of the history of the Oregon Department of State Lands. They explain that in the early years the state concentrated on selling and trading land,
    Early in Oregon’s statehood, state policy was to sell the
    school lands as quickly as possible. State officials felt
    that development of those lands by private citizens would
    yield more for schools through property taxes and other
    economic benefits than if left in public ownership.
    And then later they explain that in the 1960s they changed the whole direction and management of lands and later there were actually changes in the state constitution in regards to managing the lands. The current management plan has the following priorties;
    • Protect and retain a core base of lands for long-term
    revenue generation.
    • Acquire lands with a high probability for appreciation
    in value.
    • Divest of isolated, low-revenue-producing lands and
    reinvest sale proceeds in higher-value lands.
    • Ensure that land leases and other authorizations
    reflect market values.
    So it's obvious that public opinion is shaping how the land is being managed and that's the way it should be. It's never easy to tell those in authority that they need to change but it's a lot easier to do when they live and work in same state as you because you have a better chance of having common experiences and perceptions. I'd rather fight city hall than some ghost in the federal bureaucracy.
    Last edited by rammont; 12-26-2017 at 02:24 PM.

  4. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Bend, Orygun
    Thanked 402 Times in 298 Posts
    Congratulated 11 Times in 8 Posts
    "IMHO what we all are afraid of is IF the federal government was to turn over or sell it's holdings (National Forests and BLM) to the individual states, that the states would sell the land if and when it gets into a financial crunch like lots of states are in now."

    I'm not worried they'll sell it.
    You're not hunting state land in CO unless the CPW leases the hunting rights. You're not hunting state land in Utah unless the UDWR pays for the privilege. You're not hunting state land in NM unless the NM Game dept pays for it. You think tags/licenses are expensive now, add all the National Forest and BLM land to that state land inventory and what do you suppose the cost will be? It's pretty easy to restrict hunting by simply restricting access.

  5. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Thanked 249 Times in 174 Posts
    Congratulated 36 Times in 14 Posts
    I wonder what the amount of land open is , less the inaccessible acres .
    It's great to have all this land but you can't count land that can't be used.

  6. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Thanked 989 Times in 641 Posts
    Congratulated 99 Times in 35 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rammont View Post
    Who, what, when, where, and why?

    Give me specifics not generalized assumptions. What state is currently selling off public lands? Why are they selling it? If you can't answer those questions then you are just spreading false information. This is exactly why we can never get problems like this resolved, people just make emotional accusations without any proof.

    SB 1065: Selling State Lands—2017 - Idaho Conservation
    Last edited by kidoggy; 12-27-2017 at 05:31 PM.

  7. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Thanked 464 Times in 222 Posts
    Congratulated 177 Times in 32 Posts

    Quote Originally Posted by rammont View Post
    All state public land was transferred as part of the requirements of the enabling act that created each state west of the original 13 states. All of those western states are required by the federal government to use specified public lands as a state resource to fund the development of their educational systems. Your assumption that "Most state constitutions say that state school lands must be managed for profit" is just that, an assumption, without proof (showing a state by accounting for the law), I don't believe that you're correct. I assume that some say that it's possible that some state enabling acts say something about profit but I doubt if most do. Most use language similar to

    "the proceeds from the sale and other permanent disposition of any of the said lands and from every part thereof, shall constitute permanent funds for the support and maintenance of the public schools and the various State institutions for which the lands have been granted. Rentals on leased lands, interest on deferred payments on lands sold, interest on funds arising from these lands, and all other actual income, shall be available for the maintenance and support of such schools and institutions..."

    Notice that there is no mention of the lands being managed for profit, it says that all actual income shall be used for the support of the schools. So your premise that the lands sales are being managed for profit and that makes how the land is sold different isn't valid. Besides, your Colorado example doesn't say that Colorado is selling the lands off, your example says that the state is selling hunting access rights, so the state isn't getting rid of the land, it's managing the land use in a self-sustaining manner, that sounds like a good thing to me. In your Wyoming example it looks to me like their emphasis is on ensuring that the land use doesn't create a negative environmental impact due to an uncontrolled number of campsites in places where they might damage the environment - again, nothing here that sounds like a bad thing to me.

    I suspect that you are mistakenly thinking that the enabling acts require there to be a profit when in fact it's trust law that you are referring to. All trusts are required to benefit the beneficiaries of the trust and most trusts are setup to be a source of profit for the beneficiaries so it's easy to misconstrue the "for profit" issue. Regardless, in regards to the state public lands, their trusts designate the schools as the beneficiaries so that's who must benefit from any public land monies. If you think about the mechanics of school funding then you have to ask yourself; why, in light of the modern awareness of the benefits of renewable resource management, would a state sell off public lands that are the source of maintenance monies for their school system. If you sell the lands then the source of money for your schools goes away and you will have to increase taxes (which can end political careers) but if you lease the lands then those monies will always be available.

    So many people jump to conclusions when they discuss this land use issue that we rarely have any real debate on facts. One person recently answered a post I made by saying "and yet they still do" (referring to his claim that the states still sell off public land). Again, I doubt if he can prove it and even if he could find facts that prove some state is selling public lands irresponsibly I doubt if he'd find more than a couple of current instances. Yes, we always here about what some western state did in the 1800's but there have been a lot of changes in the world-view of state land management since then and laws have been enacted to help detect and stop abuse by the unscrupulous people that will always exist and there are just a many crooks per capita in federal government as there are in state government but in a state you have a better chance of seeing their crooked activities and stopping them sooner than in the federal government.
    You are wrong on so many counts, I hardly know where to start. Since I don't have time to address all your misconceptions, I'll pick a few:

    Whether the words "for profit" are actually used in the state constitutions is not the point. The point is that state school lands are supposed to make money for education. To make money, you need to be "profitable". That makes the state school land management model much different than the model used to manage federal lands which is more focused on conservation.

    Yes, some states have sold their school land. The State of Nevada has sold almost all of the school land it was granted at statehood. Utah has sold about half.

    And the sales are still going on. Here is a link from the Wyoming Office of State Lands and Investments showing lands currently up for sale:
    Don't fence me in!


Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts