MT Federal Land Transfering to the State!!!

newguy220

Member
Jul 12, 2012
104
0
Idaho
Wyoming SF56 passed last Thursday and they will study what means/how they would manage federal lands if they where to gain control. I don't like that they are exploring the options.
I think this is better than just jumping in like Montana seems to be doing.

I've been on the fence about this because I can see good and bad in both. I think if the states own the land, you could see more healthy forest's because they could log them, manage them better, and use the timber to help pay for the land itself.
I understand that each state will vary on how they will pay for the land, but as voter's couldn't we propose a bill that would not allow the sale of lands unless it was voted on by the people of the state?

newguy220
 

laxwyo

Very Active Member
If I'm not mistaken, the Feds can sell any land they like, correct? I think states are exploring this option because the Feds screw the states out of money they are due. In particular, I think it's the abandoned mine money (whatever it's called). In theory, the ownership of the land would be more accountable to their constituents under state control. State politicians would be less likely to upset their peoples whereas DC politicians could care less about joe Wyoming. Not saying I agree with it but saying this is Wyoming is looking into it. Local control
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
I think this is better than just jumping in like Montana seems to be doing.

I've been on the fence about this because I can see good and bad in both. I think if the states own the land, you could see more healthy forest's because they could log them, manage them better, and use the timber to help pay for the land itself.
I understand that each state will vary on how they will pay for the land, but as voter's couldn't we propose a bill that would not allow the sale of lands unless it was voted on by the people of the state?

newguy220
Seems like each state's situation is different. Some states with limited federal land could easily swallow up the management of that land and likely do a better job. I am of the opinion that the federal government is not good at doing much of anything. They are inefficient and a waste of our tax dollars not to mention being subject to all sorts of lawsuits that states seem to somehow avoid. They rarely manage to get fair market value for anything such as grazing rights or timber resources. Instead they give away grazing rights, waste the timer resources, and use money to put out forest the fires. Every year we watch the same thing happen. Airplanes and helicopters putting out fires, people risking their lives. All because they don't manage the timber in a way to reduce fires and increase income. The feds can't can't sell the timber because of all the lawsuits they are subject to if they try.

To give you an example I don't think a state would ever allow something like the Bundy situation to occur. That is an example of the mismanagement of federal land IMO. States would never let someone use that much land free of charge for that many years and then have a disaster PR stunt all over the news when they tried to fix the situation after years of mismanagement.

Wyoming for example does quite well with it's management of school trust land making an impressive income every year. Also seem to be some great hunting on that land from my experience. That is what land management should look like. Instead it costs us millions to manage the land that the federal government owns.

I can also give examples of countless examples of states doing a great job of managing for public recreation and wildlife. States like South Dakota do a fantastic job giving hunters opportunity in their state. Nebraska for example is getting ready to drop several million $ for a project on a federal NWR. They also work with organizations like ducks unlimited to complete conservation projects on state land. Kansas does a great job of managing its' land for wildlife as well.

One of the things I find humerous about the people who claim the world will end and all public lands will be sold off is how that makes no sense when you look at how hard states work to open up private land for public hunting. States like MT, WY, SD,NE, and KS spend millions opening up private land for public hunting. They want people to come hunt. Why they suddenly think the land will be sold is ridiculous.

I'll give you an example. Remember when the federal government shutdown? States like South Dakota asked if they could operate federal attractions because it meant that much to them. They were willing to have state employees operate Mt Rushmore because they knew how important it was to their state. Made me see why in some cases having states control the land inside their borders just makes sense. Should the federal government be operating a tourist attraction in South Dakota? Not really, it's just another example of the federal government trying to do something it has no business doing. I'll give you another example of that. Anybody familiar with Job Corps? Many people don't' know that the USDA and ultimately the USFS operate a nationwide network of trade schools. So the USFS is teaching people how to weld, do concrete work, paint, etc... I am of the opinion that the federal government and the USFS have no business operating a trade school.

Another reason that gets thrown around is "the states can't afford to do this". There is some truth to this but in reality it is very likely that the states would be more efficient at operating the land and at the very least would require less federal money to operate which saves taxpayers $. Lots of upside and no downside from a budget standpoint. Another way of saying I don't think States could do a worse job even if if they tried.

So to be clear.
1. States want you to come hunt, they spend millions just to give you a place to come hunt. So it makes no sense to say they would sell all the land and nobody would have a place to hunt.

2.If states manage the land it is likely they will do a better job and cost taxpayers less $. Not to mention avoid ridiculous lawsuits that states seem to be able to avoid.

3. Maybe it is best to let states manage the land within it's borders. Surely there is a way to allow states more control without all the land being sold as some seem to fear will happen.
 

tdcour

Veteran member
Feb 28, 2013
1,100
26
Central Kansas
I can see both sides of the argument. I have lived in Texas, South Dakota, and now kansas. None of these states have huge amounts of land to hunt. Basically, in kansas and SD the state leases private ground for the public to hunt on. Pretty much all of Texas is private. Managing these situations is completely different than actual state owned ground. I would speculate that if federal lands were turned over to the states that they would be taxed at the same rate as other land parcels. Some land just can't make the state any money. Not all land can/will be grazed, farmed, or any other use. These parcels I would guess might get sold; however, the states do realize how much money is brought in by recreation on state land. Everything from fuel and food bought to park passes and hunting and fishing licenses benefit the state. More land should mean more recreation days with more people and more income. I still would like to keep federal and state land simply to distribute risk.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska

tdcour

Veteran member
Feb 28, 2013
1,100
26
Central Kansas
Yes, I would agree that there is a lot of public around rapid city, but there isn't much anywhere else. All the public ground is leased and is in fairly small tracks for the most part. The area around rapid city gets hunted pretty hard as well, so I tried to stay away from there. The grasslands are no exception.
 

Musket Man

Veteran member
Jul 20, 2011
6,457
0
colfax, wa
To give you an example I don't think a state would ever allow something like the Bundy situation to occur. That is an example of the mismanagement of federal land IMO. States would never let someone use that much land free of charge for that many years and then have a disaster PR stunt all over the news when they tried to fix the situation after years of mismanagement.
I dont think you understand what happened with Bundy. Situations like Bundys are a big part of why states want to manage the public land in them. The BLM and FS has done everything they can in alot of areas to run ranchers out and take away leases and there are alot of people that have had enough of it. The state would have never allowed this to happen and they would not have cut his and 50+ other ranchers grazing allotments by 90% to try to put them out of business. At a state level you have some say in what happens in your state, at a federal level you have a bunch of people back east with alot of say in things that have no idea what is going on out here. I am all for the states managing the land in them. I believe at a state level elected officials can be held alot more accountable then someone in DC that really has no interest in what happens in the west. I also believe local decisions should be made by the locals that will be effected by it. If state management had come 20 years ago I dont think we would have had wolves introduced. If you look into it the groups that are pro wolf and anti hunting are all against state management and trying to stop it because they know the way it is that can find some judge in DC to stop wolf hunting like they just did in Wyoming.
 

tdcour

Veteran member
Feb 28, 2013
1,100
26
Central Kansas
So, I know this is a crazy idea, but why can't state and Federal work together to manage the same land? This could effectively split costs which is good for everyone, make it where no one person had the authority to just, for lack of better terms, change directions for that piece of ground (i.e. selling, grazing, camping, usage types...). This would also allow local individuals that are informed about the local economics, and whom are accountable to the people they live with, to influence the way the federal portion of the group handles their end. The federal side could also act as an unbiased group that is not nearly as accountable to the locals as the state officials.

Oh yeah, I forgot that is how our government is supposed to function, but egos and politics get in the way... nevermind :)
 

newguy220

Member
Jul 12, 2012
104
0
Idaho
So, I know this is a crazy idea, but why can't state and Federal work together to manage the same land? This could effectively split costs which is good for everyone, make it where no one person had the authority to just, for lack of better terms, change directions for that piece of ground (i.e. selling, grazing, camping, usage types...). This would also allow local individuals that are informed about the local economics, and whom are accountable to the people they live with, to influence the way the federal portion of the group handles their end. The federal side could also act as an unbiased group that is not nearly as accountable to the locals as the state officials.

Oh yeah, I forgot that is how our government is supposed to function, but egos and politics get in the way... nevermind :)
Awesome example.
 

jjenness

Very Active Member
Sep 30, 2011
666
62
Lewistown, MT
Because the feds are controlled by a bunch of wolf loving bunny huggers that our taxes are paying to keep suing them......
MM you do make some good points and I sure as heck can't argue with your last post. But I feel it would just be too easy to see our public land, certain parcels not the high use areas, be auctioned off to the highest bidder if the State had the decision making power.
 

Musket Man

Veteran member
Jul 20, 2011
6,457
0
colfax, wa
MM you do make some good points and I sure as heck can't argue with your last post. But I feel it would just be too easy to see our public land, certain parcels not the high use areas, be auctioned off to the highest bidder if the State had the decision making power.
I think some of it should be sold or traded. I dont see any reason to keep all this landlocked land. If their is no access what good is it? Its just dead weight. It seems alot better to trade it for land that can be used by the public or sell it and use the money to buy more or improve other public land. Land sales and exchanges are nothing new.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
I think some of it should be sold or traded. I dont see any reason to keep all this landlocked land. If their is no access what good is it? Its just dead weight. It seems alot better to trade it for land that can be used by the public or sell it and use the money to buy more or improve other public land. Land sales and exchanges are nothing new.
This. Excellent point.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
So, I know this is a crazy idea, but why can't state and Federal work together to manage the same land? This could effectively split costs which is good for everyone, make it where no one person had the authority to just, for lack of better terms, change directions for that piece of ground (i.e. selling, grazing, camping, usage types...). This would also allow local individuals that are informed about the local economics, and whom are accountable to the people they live with, to influence the way the federal portion of the group handles their end. The federal side could also act as an unbiased group that is not nearly as accountable to the locals as the state officials.

Oh yeah, I forgot that is how our government is supposed to function, but egos and politics get in the way... nevermind :)
Excellent point.
 

newguy220

Member
Jul 12, 2012
104
0
Idaho
I thought of something today when thinking about this situation. Where is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, and all the other conservation groups at? I'd like to know where they stand on this issue and if they are doing anything about it?

newguy220
 

ssliger

Very Active Member
Mar 9, 2011
900
0
Laramie WY
I thought of something today when thinking about this situation. Where is the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, and all the other conservation groups at? I'd like to know where they stand on this issue and if they are doing anything about it?

newguy220
The RMEF already came out with a statement that they are against the sale or transfer of any federal lands. I haven't heard anything from any other group.
 

Bitterroot Bulls

Veteran member
Apr 25, 2011
2,326
0
Montana
jjenness,

I am with you 100%. I think this is a terrible idea, with political action funded by special interest developers, and the sole purpose of acquiring public lands for private uses.

I certainly enjoy hunting on our Federal lands, and hope that they are available in the same way for my grandkids far into the future.