MT Federal Land Transfering to the State!!!

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
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.
Not really. This is a perfect example of the Federal Government wasting the resource they are managing. The grazing resource is being completely mismanaged. I'd like to see options to improve this. Do you have any suggestions?


More press releases



For Immediate Release, February 2, 2015

Contact: Randi Spivak, (310) 779-4894, [email protected]

New Rate for Grazing on Public Land Furthers Huge Loss to Taxpayers

New Fees Follow Study Finding Grazing Program Cost Taxpayers $1 Billion Over Past Decade

WASHINGTON— The Obama administration just announced the 2015 fees it will charge livestock operators who graze cows and sheep on 229 million acres of land managed by the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service. While the new fee, $1.69 for a cow and her calf to forage on public land for one month, is an increase over the 2014 fee of $1.35, it’s a fraction of the rates that non-irrigated private land owners charge. The BLM and Forest Service grazing fee is limited by law and cannot go below $1.35 per animal unit month (AUM) or increase more than 25 percent in any given year.

“The Obama administration just guaranteed that taxpayers will continue taking a huge financial hit in the grazing program on public lands,” said Randi Spivak with the Center for Biological Diversity. “The federal fees benefit a very small percentage of livestock producers while taxpayers, wildlife and watersheds bear the full costs.”

A new analysis released last week found U.S. taxpayers have lost more than $1 billion over the past decade on a program that allows cows and sheep to graze on public land. Last year alone taxpayers lost $125 million in grazing subsidies on federal land. Had the federal government charged fees similar to grazing rates on non-irrigated private land, the program would have made $261 million a year on average rather than operate at a staggering loss, the analysis finds.

Economists on behalf of the Center prepared the study, Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Lands.

“Even under the new fee, livestock owners will pay less to graze their animals on publicly owned land in 2015 than they did in 1981. This damaging and expensive grazing program has been broken for years and needs to be fixed. Taxpayers, and the land we all own, deserve better,” said Spivak.

The gap between federal grazing fees and non-irrigated private land rates has widened considerably, according to the study. The 2015 fee is just 8 percent of what it would cost to graze livestock on private grazing lands. In 1981, when the federal fee first went into effect, it was 23.79 percent of non-irrigated private rates.

“The fees for grazing on U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands needs to be seriously reevaluated,” said Christine Glaser, an economist with GreenFire Consulting and author of the report. “Over the past three decades the fee formula has clearly decoupled public grazing fees from the development of private, state and other federal agencies grazing fees. Bottom line, this formula shields public lands ranchers from grazing rate increases that every other livestock operator has to live with.”

There are about 800,000 livestock operators and cattle producers in the United States. Of those, fewer than 21,000 — or 2.7 percent of the nation’s total livestock operators — benefit from the Forest Service and BLM grazing programs in the West.

“The Public Rangeland Improvement Act subsidizes a small segment of the livestock industry,” said the study’s co-author and former Interior Department economist Chuck Romaniello. “There needs to be a discussion as to what the appropriate level of that subsidy should be, including if there should be a subsidy at all.”

The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 800,000 members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
 

Bitterroot Bulls

Veteran member
Apr 25, 2011
2,326
0
Montana
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?
Friend,

Recently some members of the forum indicated they were concerned about a negative tone, so I genuinely hope we can find common ground on this important issue, respectfully. I think we may be able to do this with your highway analogy.

The U.S. Highway system roadways are owned and operated by the states and have always been. "Operated" and "managed" are not the same thing. In order to use Federal Funding, though, they have to work under a Federal Agency: The Federal Highway Administration. The FHA decides where funds go and what projects are funded, thus providing Federal management. In this way US taxpayers still have a say in management through their U.S. representatives govern the FHA and that on project approval. No approval, no money. There are other mandates the states have to follow as well, like drinking age, if they want highway funding.

This is not the same as the proposed public land takeover. The plan is to exclude Federal oversight completely, putting our lands at risk. Just as with highways, the Feds will not pay for public land if they (we) don't have a say in management.

To answer your questions, I think the current system is cumbersome and bureaucratic, but adequate, and provides the best protections for recreation uses on our public lands. I personally try to improve it by being a participant and going to public meetings, writing to representatives, contacting managers, etc.

Thanks for your time, okie, and I hope I answered your questions.
 
Last edited:

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Friend,

Recently some members of the forum indicated they were concerned about a negative tone, so I genuinely hope we can find common ground on this important issue, respectfully. I think we may be able to do this with your highway analogy.

The U.S. Highway system roadways are owned and operated by the states and have always been. "Operated" and "managed" are not the same thing. In order to use Federal Funding, though, they have to work under a Federal Agency: The Federal Highway Administration. The FHA decides where funds go and what projects are funded, thus providing Federal management. In this way US taxpayers still have a say in management through their U.S. representatives govern the FHA and that on project approval. No approval, no money. There are other mandates the states have to follow as well, like drinking age, if they want highway funding.

This is not the same as the proposed public land takeover. The plan is to exclude Federal oversight completely, putting our lands at risk. Just as with highways, the Feds will not pay for public land management if they don't have a say.

To answer your questions, I think the current system is cumbersome and bureaucratic, but adequate, and provides the best protections for recreation uses on our public lands. I personally try to improve it by being a participant and going to public meetings, writing to representatives, contacting managers, etc.

Thanks for your time, okie, and I hope I answered your questions.
I am not taking any negative tone and have said all along that you are entitled to your opinion just like me.

You claimed that if states took money for land management that would be "taxation without representation". I pointed out that states take federal money to maintain roads within their borders. Which is a fact. What level of involvement the feds have can be debated but ultimately the state DOR works with the feds to maintain the roads. So clearly it is not an impossible to imagine scenario with states being in charge of land management with federal oversight. The states already manage the wildlife to some degree and already set units, season, quotas, etc... on federal land.

As I said earlier NR's will always have a say since they are the customers in this business model and states are competing for those tourism dollars every year. The states that do a poor job will suffer and those who increase tourism will create jobs and support businesses in their state. it's a competitive business and when you see state like MT with leftover big game combo tags you can see that MT is losing that battle to other states.

Sounds like you are content with the current system and I OTOH would like to look at options to improve the current system with things like getting more for grazing rights and making better use of the timber resource. I'm not advocating any loss of recreational use unless you count landlocked federal land with no access a "recreational" property. I consider it public subsidized hunting for the adjacent landowners with no benefit to the public.

Thanks for your time as well.
 

Bitterroot Bulls

Veteran member
Apr 25, 2011
2,326
0
Montana
So clearly it is not an impossible to imagine scenario with states being in charge of land management with federal oversight.
See okie,

We have found common ground!

I COULD see a scenario like this. I could see a state agency managing public lands with federal oversight and funding. However, this is not what has been proposed in MT. What has been proposed is a straight takeover without oversight. Even better in this scenario, the ownership could stay Federal, so that the land would be more protected from the whims of local politics.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
See okie,

We have found common ground!

I COULD see a scenario like this. I could see a state agency managing public lands with federal oversight and funding. However, this is not what has been proposed in MT. What has been proposed is a straight takeover without oversight. Even better in this scenario, the ownership could stay Federal, so that the land would be more protected from the whims of local politics.
:D I knew it was possible!
 

25contender

Veteran member
Mar 20, 2013
1,638
90
Do you have any suggestions?You keep asking this but you have never really answered the question you keep asking. The people here are looking at the Hunting aspect of this. You can go on and on about hiking, grazing,camping ETC but those here are truly concerned about the states making it harder for residents and non residents to access the areas that are now protected by the federal government and not the states. I am not in favor of the feds control but what is worse is not having a plan by the states that will protect those rights that hunters have now. All tax payers past and present have paid dearly for the desire of federal land control not just those living in said states.

Not really. This is a perfect example of the Federal Government wasting the resource they are managing. The grazing resource is being completely mismanaged. I'd like to see options to improve this. Do you have any suggestions?
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Do you have any suggestions?You keep asking this but you have never really answered the question you keep asking. The people here are looking at the Hunting aspect of this. You can go on and on about hiking, grazing,camping ETC but those here are truly concerned about the states making it harder for residents and non residents to access the areas that are now protected by the federal government and not the states. I am not in favor of the feds control but what is worse is not having a plan by the states that will protect those rights that hunters have now. All tax payers past and present have paid dearly for the desire of federal land control not just those living in said states.
Well I'm not quite sure what to say to your post as all I have done is offer suggestions on what might be improved or work better. Not sure how you can't see that all of the things I have brought up are suggestions and compromises for how to improve things. I"M not exactly sure why you can't see that but I will try to be more clear.

As far as ownership most people on here want it to stay the same with Federal management and ownership. My suggestion is to consider state management and federal ownership. Seems like it might be a good compromise. I think the selling of the land issue could be addressed by this as well since the feds would still own the land. State management with federal oversight and ownership seems like a reasonable compromise.

My suggestions for improving the costs associated with managing the land are thing like getting fair value for grazing rights. Getting less than 10% of the actual value for the resource costs taxpayers a billion $ in the last decade according to the article I posted. That would be a good start. All we are doing right now is subsidizing a few ranchers which has no benefit to the rest of us. Then I would like to see more timber resources sold for logging instead of simply watching it burn every summer. That would help put less of a burden on taxpayers and help control costs for firefighting efforts moving forward. The current system of no logging, lawsuits, and blazing out of control fires that are really expensive to fight could be improved IMO. I dont really see a way for the feds to make those changes so I would like to consider letting the states manage the land to see if they could do a better job of managing the land and resources.

I think you will find you have a stronger voice if you align yourself with other recreational groups instead of just limiting yourself to Western hunters which is a pretty small group. We all use the land just in different ways so we should be able to work together toward a common goal of keeping the existing recreational opportunities available. Just because they dont carry a gun doesn't mean we can't work together toward a common goal.

So now it's your turn. Do you have any suggestions?
 

Bitterroot Bulls

Veteran member
Apr 25, 2011
2,326
0
Montana
As far as ownership most people on here want it to stay the same with Federal management and ownership. My suggestion is to consider state management and federal ownership.
Okie!

I am so glad to see you come around on this issue! More common ground! I am glad to see that reasonable conversation has made progress.

This thread is about the push to transfer ownership of federal lands in MT to the state of MT. Since you agree that federal land should stay federally owned, please consider signing the petition at the beginning of this thread.

Separately, you could start advocating for your model quoted above. You must agree though that the model being pushed be these development interests is not remotely similar to your model. Your highway-based model would make for a good debate on its own, though.
 

brushcreek

Active Member
Apr 4, 2013
160
4
Arkansas
So with the legislative session going on right now there is renewed effort to transfer Federal Land in Montana to the State of Montana. One of the problems with this is the fact that the State of MT's tax burden will go through the roof and it will not be able to properly manage the land,
not sure that taxes are at issue here, states generally don't pay taxes.
 

Bitterroot Bulls

Veteran member
Apr 25, 2011
2,326
0
Montana
The big rally is at the Capital on 02/16. Featured speakers are Governor Bullock (who is strongly opposed) and the president of the RMEF, David Allen.

I am spreading the word because I won't be able to make it, due to a family commitment, unfortunately.
 

TwoBear

New Member
holding off and reviewing

Montana has since proposed a bill forbidding the sale of any states lands acquired from federal government. So the selling is largely a non-issue as far as the state is concerned. However, the federal government has no such limitation and can sell federal land. Considering the feds have managed to get themselves into a 17 trillion dollar debt situation, and the majority of debt holders are foreign entities in the form of T-bonds, I feel it is much more likely that the fed would sell off of federal land to satisfy debt obligations if certain economics come into play.

Secondly, the USFS, BLM etc is not land managers of old. The last few decades has seen the influx of leftist environmentalist who are no fan of hunting and hunters in general. One of the manifestations of this infusion is the serious lack of logging that now occurs on this lands, and the loss of revenue from a renewable resource. Additionally, the USFS has adapted a policy of "non-consumptive" use. The feds are much more interested in photo trips, biking, hiking, etc, and much less interested in hunting, trapping, fishing etc. They have introduced the wolf to handle the animal population control on federal lands.

Under the Montana constitution hunting, trapping etc are protected under the state constitution, no such protections exist under the US constitution. I am convinced that local Montana residents can provide better direction, and stewardship of the land, than can the Washington D.C. bureaucrats. I wont be signing anything, as I feel it is a knee jerk reaction to a complex issue and I simply do not buy into the "your going to lose your land!" hype. I will follow this as it progresses and see what develops.
 

Bitterroot Bulls

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

That proposed bill from Jennifer Fielder sounds great ... no transferred land will be sold.

Except,

That ban is only as permanent as the MT legislature allows it to be. It can be just as easily reversed. So you would have to trust Fielder that she wouldn't just propose or support a bill allowing land sales when the "need" arose. I don't trust her, because she is in the pocket of the Extraction Industry dark money group: American Lands Council (ALC). She even has their propaganda films embedded in her official website.

This bill would also prevent sales used to provide access to sportsman. While some land swaps haven't worked out for hunters, others have, so taking that completely off the table could be as big of problem as leaving it in the hands of local government.

Plus this bill does nothing to address the immediate problem with transfer: funding. Who would pay the costs? Montana can't afford it, as the MT DNRC has already stated.

Now the Montana Wood Products Association has come out against transfer. You heard that right. The Timber Industry in MT thinks this is a bad idea:

http://missoulian.com/news/local/montana-wood-products-association-don-t-transfer-federal-lands-to/article_2f1b4fa2-bc3e-5d44-a746-a0e494976274.html