shootbrownelk
Veteran member
Amen to your last sentence Bitterroot. That's what I'm worried about..the future generations. Sometimes I'm glad that I'm as old as I am. Federally owned lands should stay that way.
MT Federal Land Transfering to the State!!!
- Thread starter jjenness
- Start date
BHA, a sponsor of the forum has taken a pretty staunch stand on this. Click on one of their banners and sign the Sportsman's Pledge if you agree with not transferring federal lands.
Alabama
Veteran member
MM, whether lands stay federal or not judges will still have a say in controversial species management such as wolves, grizzlies, polar bears etc. If they are ever "threatened" or "endangered" they will still have a say. Alligators were the big battle for judges in the 80's and there were tons on private lands, just like wolves are in MT, WY, and ID. Wild animals don't respect property boundaries contrary to what idiots in Washington DC say.
okielite
Banned
I just love reading stuff like this. You really think Wyoming is meeting to discuss the transfer and is planning to sell all the land off if they can. Really?
People like to make all kinds of ridiculous statements about states getting control of the land and selling it all off. What exactly is this based on? Not based on reality, that is for sure.
Do you really think States like Wyoming are going to sell all the public hunting land off? Really? That makes no sense but you guys still run around repeating it but you never give any examples and quite frankly it makes no logical sense when you look at how hard states like Wyoming work to increase recreation tourism in the state.
The reality is Wyoming depends on tourism to support the state. It's a huge part of the states economy. They are not going to stop all dispersed camping and then sell all the land off if they get control. That would make no logical sense. none. Quite frankly it would be easy to incorporate the lands existing use into the transfer of management and keep the ownership in federal hands. So the "camping" myth and the "they will sell it all off" myth are not based on any truth or the reality of the situation. In reality Wyoming can probably do a better job of managing the land by increasing income (logging, fair market value for grazing) and do it for less $ to taxpayers than the feds currently do. But that is more of a reasonable and logical outlook instead of the crazy exaggerated half truths that are used by so many.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
okie,
You can laugh at me if you wish.
This thread is about MT, not WY. I am speaking about things I have experienced. Look into the history of Tim Blixeth and Big Sky Lumber. Areas I used to hunt as public land now have gates, guards, and huge Yellowstone Club mansions on them. This was the result of a "swap." While the public ended up with poor access clearcuts in a different mountain range. Blixeth didn't support the land exchange out of the goodness of his heart, he was in it to make billions, which he did. It is no different for those supporting the switch to the states. They get to sell it as a states' rights issue with the federal government as the boogey man. They know it is MUCH easier to transfer state land to private ownership than it is in the federal system.
I have spoken with politicians in MT about what would happen if states had to manage the huge amounts of currently federal land in MT. They say there isn't the money. The managment costs would go from being divided by the roughly 150 million US taxpayers to the roughly 300,000-400,000 taxpayers in MT. Wildfires would bankrupt the state. In order to balance the budget, something would have to be done, as the MT constitution requires a balanced budget. MT already has programs in place to sell public land, and there are parcels currently for sale, you can check it out on the MT.gov website. Selling lands would be the only reasonable way to mitigate the expense, because it would both provide income to offset the expense, and remove the expense of the sold lands.
Some of our politicians here think this would be a good thing, saying private people could manage the land better. I disagree.
This is not paranoia. I am not ignorant of the issues. It is something I take seriously as a MT resident that enjoys federal lands.
Luckily, the vast majority of Montanans support federal lands and can see through the smokescreen.
You can laugh at me if you wish.
This thread is about MT, not WY. I am speaking about things I have experienced. Look into the history of Tim Blixeth and Big Sky Lumber. Areas I used to hunt as public land now have gates, guards, and huge Yellowstone Club mansions on them. This was the result of a "swap." While the public ended up with poor access clearcuts in a different mountain range. Blixeth didn't support the land exchange out of the goodness of his heart, he was in it to make billions, which he did. It is no different for those supporting the switch to the states. They get to sell it as a states' rights issue with the federal government as the boogey man. They know it is MUCH easier to transfer state land to private ownership than it is in the federal system.
I have spoken with politicians in MT about what would happen if states had to manage the huge amounts of currently federal land in MT. They say there isn't the money. The managment costs would go from being divided by the roughly 150 million US taxpayers to the roughly 300,000-400,000 taxpayers in MT. Wildfires would bankrupt the state. In order to balance the budget, something would have to be done, as the MT constitution requires a balanced budget. MT already has programs in place to sell public land, and there are parcels currently for sale, you can check it out on the MT.gov website. Selling lands would be the only reasonable way to mitigate the expense, because it would both provide income to offset the expense, and remove the expense of the sold lands.
Some of our politicians here think this would be a good thing, saying private people could manage the land better. I disagree.
This is not paranoia. I am not ignorant of the issues. It is something I take seriously as a MT resident that enjoys federal lands.
Luckily, the vast majority of Montanans support federal lands and can see through the smokescreen.
stevevan
Active Member
RMEF just spent a bundle of $ for legal easement to a chunk of National Forest land that was previously landlocked. This was in Montana. The public can now enjoy this big piece of real estate. Good thing there are wise people with foresight. If any public lands, either federal or state, are privatized you can forever kiss them good bye as we'll all be on the outside looking in.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
As some of you may know, there is another thread on this subject under General Hunting. It is leaning more toward Wyoming, but the issues are very similar.
Today Wyoming SF0056 passed second reading in the senate. HB0209 is just getting started. The house bill is even more draconian than the senate bill. We, in Wyoming, need your help to stop this stupidity.
Please see the other thread under General Hunting for information about the bills and for contact information for Wyoming legislators.
Thanks.
Today Wyoming SF0056 passed second reading in the senate. HB0209 is just getting started. The house bill is even more draconian than the senate bill. We, in Wyoming, need your help to stop this stupidity.
Please see the other thread under General Hunting for information about the bills and for contact information for Wyoming legislators.
Thanks.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
I just clicked on the link to sign the petition and there was an error. Any idea what is wrong?
Eberle
Veteran member
The first time I tried it gave me an error. I retried the next day and it worked.
okielite
Banned
I'm not laughing at you. But I can't help but notice you avoided answering the question.
So please stop with the exaggerations. Nobody is suggesting a state like Montana would immediately pay for all the management. Common sense will tell you that there will still need to be federal money involved. Just less than what is currently spent.
So in the following scenario what would your complaint be?
Montana agrees to take over the full management of the federal land in the state and the current use (dispersed camping among others) is to remain the same. . Montana already sets the hunting regulations on mons federal land anyway. The feds agree to pay Montana 75% of the current budget used to manage that federal land including firefighting. Feds retain ownership so land cannot be sold. Then Montana does a better job of getting fair value for grazing. Instead of doing nothing and then spending a fortune putting fires out while the resource is wasted they sell off some timber and lessen the impact of fies. Then they actually get some income from the timber resource and don't spend a fortune putting out fires while the resource is wasted. This all makes a huge improvement in the costs associated with managing that land.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
I must have misintrepreted your tone:
I didn't think I avoided any questions, but I will answer them clearly for you now:
This is where I mentioned the thread was about MT, where I live.
These "ridiculous" statements come from politicians that sponsor the types of bills we are talking about, when asked where funding for management would come from.
It is not about what the states want, but what they will be FORCED to do. It is about what the development interests behind these pushes WANT. Again, this thread is about MT, and I did give an example in MT.
As far as your scenario, it is ridiculous, IMO. The federal government wouldn't foot 3/4 of the bill without a say in management. So only Montanans would get a say in management of lands that all US citizens pay for? Sounds like taxation without representation, with is pretty un-American, IMO.
Last edited:
jordanrw23
New Member
- Jan 30, 2015
- 1
- 0
What are you basing this management plan on? Do you have an example of a state that operates this way?
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Just signed it...impressed with the number of signatures...must be in the hundreds!!
BucksnBulls
Member
Wyoming Hart
Very Active Member
okielite
Banned
Common Sense.
But if you believe the federal government is doing a great job and there is no room for improvement you are entitled to your opinion. I personally don't think the feds are good or efficient at doing anything, land management included. That is why I'd like to explore other options that might make better use of the resources that land provides and do it will less burden to the taxpayer while keeping the current recreational uses.
okielite
Banned
If you are satisfied with the current system and feel there is not possible way to improve it you are entitled to your opinion. There is nothing ridiculous about the federal government paying a state to manage the land within it's borders. They do the same thing with things like highways. You simply have your mind made up the federal government is the only agency capable of managing the land and any scenario that would change that you are against. I'm interested in looking at options to improve the current system.
Do you have any suggestions on what might work better than the current system? Any areas you would like to see improvement?
25contender
Veteran member
- Mar 20, 2013
- 1,638
- 90
Common sense to one person might not be common sense to another. Your assumptions are based on what you think is common sense not on a model which you speak. The difference is those that oppose the states managing Federal Lands at least know that the federal lands are somewhat safe at the present time.
shootbrownelk
Veteran member
I try to keep up with any issues that affect my ability to hunt Federal Land. Without NF & BLM I'd pretty much be done hunting.
Wyoming senator Eli Bebout is doing a study to see how feasible it would be for Wyoming to join Montana in this backroom takeover.
You can bet that Governor Mead is on board as well.