Public Lands in Public Hands Live Chat!

trkytrack2

Active Member
Sep 13, 2011
270
0
Sterling, Colorado
Paul Ryan's House Budget calls for it.
So many people are fooled into thinking Paul Ryan as President would be the answer for the sportsmen of this country mainly because he's a bowhunter but if you really listen to what his plans are it will scare the crap out of you. His idea of selling off public land is just one of his looney ideas. If there was someway to pay off the national debt that would be great but do you honestly not think that within four years, the national debt would be right back to 17 plus trillion again. Politicians and a zero national debt equals a blank check for spending more and more and more.
 

ScottR

Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2014
6,170
764
www.eastmans.com
So many people are fooled into thinking Paul Ryan as President would be the answer for the sportsmen of this country mainly because he's a bowhunter but if you really listen to what his plans are it will scare the crap out of you. His idea of selling off public land is just one of his looney ideas. If there was someway to pay off the national debt that would be great but do you honestly not think that within four years, the national debt would be right back to 17 plus trillion again. Politicians and a zero national debt equals a blank check for spending more and more and more.
Agreed, the spending is the issue in the first place.
 

RockChucker30

Active Member
Feb 22, 2014
162
0
Tennessee
We have already established that some states already have rules and regulations to prevent public land form being sold so it would be quite easy to set similar guidelines for future use and ownership if the land was transferred. This whole doom and gloom outlook that all public land will be lost forever is not based on reality. Seriously we already know how states are spending lots of $ to open up private land for public hunting to keep hunters coming to their state so why would we believe that suddenly Wyoming is going to get all the federal land and sell it off ? It makes no rational sense when people say that.
This is actually harder to do than you may think. You can set permanent conservation easements into the deed, which will limit the development and use options of the property, but that greatly reduces the market value of the land, which would drastically reduce it's initial sales price. I don't anticipate cash hungry governmental agencies knowingly underselling public lands. It makes more sense that they would gain top dollar from it by reducing the deed restrictions in place.

After the transition to private ownership all bets are off. You can require public access, but if the property is clear cut, actively mined, and has oil and gas wells plus the necessary roads to support the same....what is the value to hunters? The game will be elsewhere.

This is a slippery slope above a cliff. Once started there is no going back.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
This is actually harder to do than you may think. You can set permanent conservation easements into the deed, which will limit the development and use options of the property, but that greatly reduces the market value of the land, which would drastically reduce it's initial sales price. I don't anticipate cash hungry governmental agencies knowingly underselling public lands. It makes more sense that they would gain top dollar from it by reducing the deed restrictions in place.

After the transition to private ownership all bets are off. You can require public access, but if the property is clear cut, actively mined, and has oil and gas wells plus the necessary roads to support the same....what is the value to hunters? The game will be elsewhere.

This is a slippery slope above a cliff. Once started there is no going back.
It happens all the time when people donate a ranch to a conservation group or state.
Even in Texas
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113217938/texas-powderhorn-ranch-conservation-land-purchase-082214/

Donations used for Landmark $37.7 Million Acquisition

A multi-partner coalition including the Texas Parks and Wildlife (TPW) Foundation today announced the purchase of the 17,351-acre Powderhorn Ranch along the Texas coast in Calhoun County. The acquisition will conserve a spectacular piece of property that is one of the largest remaining tracts of unspoiled coastal prairie in the state. At $37.7 million it is the largest dollar amount ever raised for a conservation land purchase in the state and represents a new partnership model of achieving conservation goals in an era of rapidly rising land prices. In years to come, Powderhorn Ranch is expected to become a state park and wildlife management area.

Read more at http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113217938/texas-powderhorn-ranch-conservation-land-purchase-082214/#1QFyPjEs7lE5oLsy.99

And Nebraska
http://www.outdoorcentral.com/mc/pr/03/09/11b3.asp
NEW CHADRON CREEK RANCH WMA
OPENS TO THE PUBLIC

Chadron, Neb . - The recently purchased Chadron Creek Ranch Wildlife Management Area, 11 miles south of Chadron in the Pine Ridge, is open for public use, according to Gary Schlichtemeier, district wildlife manager at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commissions district office in Alliance.

"The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission approved purchase of the new WMA at their May meeting," Schlichtemeier said, "and weve recently completed our initial boundary marking and access to a parking lot. Grants from the Nebraska Environmental Trust and federal Wildlife Restoration Program funds will pay for the $1.85 million purchase."

"Chadron Creek Ranch WMA is located in the Pine Ridge escarpment in Dawes County," he added. "The 2,449-acre area is characterized by the interspersion of ponderosa pine, mixed prairie, deciduous canyons, woodlands, and moderately rough topography. The tract is approximately two miles south of Chadron State Park and a good portion of the area borders U. S. Forest Service property. To maintain the native flora and fauna of the tract, the area will be managed as a "natural area" - this ecosystem approach to management will be the guiding principle."


"Wildlife management areas are open to the public for hunting, trapping, and other outdoor recreational uses unless otherwise posted," Schlichtemeier added. "While the boundary fences are marked and a basic parking area is available, we will be completing additional work in the future. We wanted to have the area open to the public by the beginning of the 2003 Nebraska archery deer season on September 15."


Even federal land has been transferred to states with no loss of public use.
http://www.nebraskahistory.org/sites/fortrob/history.htm
U.S.D.A. operations continued at the fort until the early 1970s. The demolition of post buildings in the mid-1950s led to efforts to preserve the fort as a historic site and recreational park. The Nebraska State Historical Society established a branch museum here in 1955. About the same time Fort Robinson State Park was created in a part of the old post area. After the beef research operation was phased out, the remaining post area and military reservation was transferred to the state of Nebraska for public use.



If you want to have a conversation lets get real and stop with all the ridiculous talk. All you comments about market value, sales price, and all the land being clear cut, mined, and roads built will ruin hunting forever are not based on any reality. In fact some of the best land to hunt in Wyoming is state land that has O&G exploration and roads as well as lots of game so there goes your theory about how terrible state land is for hunting. But the state does manage to turn a profit with the land as well. Amazing how land can be used to make $ and still have good hunting opportunities. Feds can't accomplish this, but states can and do every day.


So do you want to have an adult conversation or continue with ridiculous claims?
You keep telling us how terrible this will be when all the land is sold off to the highest bidder but all the examples I have given clearly show that states and conservation groups are spending $ to increase the amount of land we have access to not decrease that access like you are claiming.
 

RockChucker30

Active Member
Feb 22, 2014
162
0
Tennessee
okielite,

Your examples are great examples of why we should keep public lands in public hands. In those examples the states purchased property from private owners to conserve them and made them public.

What I am arguing for is keeping public lands in public ownership. I am arguing against the sale of public lands to private owners. The examples you posted strengthen this argument.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
okielite,

Your examples are great examples of why we should keep public lands in public hands. In those examples the states purchased property from private owners to conserve them and made them public.

What I am arguing for is keeping public lands in public ownership. I am arguing against the sale of public lands to private owners. The examples you posted strengthen this argument.
What?
Nobody is arguing that public land should be sold to private owners so I'm not sure who you are arguing with on that one. Who are you arguing with?

We are talking about transferring federal land to states and letting them manage it more efficiently. The examples I used demonstrated that states are spending money buying up land to increase public access. They also demonstrated that states can indeed manage large pieces of land. And my last example showed that federal land can be transferred to a state and still maintain public use including hunting. Glad we got that cleared up.

So the myths about states getting control of the land and blocking all hunting access and then selling it off to private interests are not based on any reality and make no sense when you look at what these states are doing, especially when you look at what they pay to open up all the walk in hunting access across the country. If the states were broke, and had no interest in increasing public access, and wanted to sell off any state owned land they would not be spending millions to open up private land for public hunting would they?
 

Topgun 30-06

Banned
Jun 12, 2013
1,359
0
Allegan, MI
What?
Nobody is arguing that public land should be sold to private owners so I'm not sure who you are arguing with on that one. Who are you arguing with?

We are talking about transferring federal land to states and letting them manage it more efficiently. The examples I used demonstrated that states are spending money buying up land to increase public access. They also demonstrated that states can indeed manage large pieces of land. And my last example showed that federal land can be transferred to a state and still maintain public use including hunting. Glad we got that cleared up.

So the myths about states getting control of the land and blocking all hunting access and then selling it off to private interests are not based on any reality and make no sense when you look at what these states are doing, especially when you look at what they pay to open up all the walk in hunting access across the country. If the states were broke, and had no interest in increasing public access, and wanted to sell off any state owned land they would not be spending millions to open up private land for public hunting would they?
You are doing lots of word twisting every time you make a post. The states are not spending tons of money buying land like you keep stating. Wyoming can't even afford to pay for public access to all the land they would like to have under their Access Yes Program and it will get worse with the continuing budget problems their G&F is having. The private lands you are talking about are being purchased or easements are being obtained by private money and by organizations like the RMEF through fund raising and donations. Things may be fine in a perfect world where the economy is doing well, but our worry is that if the economy would take a real dump the first thing any law maker would look at would be to sell off land, rather than raising their constituents taxes. FYI you are in the vast minority of hunters that would do as you purpose if you examine this issue in a lot more depth than it appears you have.
 

RockChucker30

Active Member
Feb 22, 2014
162
0
Tennessee
Simplified and in the big picture, I look at keeping public lands public as creating barriers to those lands becoming private. In this line of thinking, is it easier for the Federal Government or a State Government to sell publicly owned land? Answer that question and you answer whether transfer from Federal to State ownership is a good thing. Fewer barriers means that the land is closer to private ownership.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
FYI you are in the vast minority of hunters that would do as you purpose if you examine this issue in a lot more depth than it appears you have.
Because I think we should look at different options, including states, for managing public lands you claim I'm in the vast minority of hunters? That's funny TG. Do you have a link to that information? Anything?

Yes states are spending lots of money to open up private land for public hunting. I've already given numerous examples so there is no need to dispute what is fact. Go back and read the examples I have provided. Here is another one if you missed all the others.
South Dakota
Private Land Hunting Access (Walk-in) Walk-In Areas (General Hunting Access) South Dakota has a rich hunting heritage; one that includes lots of game and lots of places to hunt. For the past 25 years, GFP has been working hard to maintain that rich heritage by providing hunting access on privately owned lands. The department does this by contracting with landowners who have CRP or other valuable wildlife habitat. The landowner opens the land to unlimited, free public hunting, which is open to foot-traffic only hunting, in exchange for a small payment and immunity from non-negligent liability. It has been a great program and currently has more than 1.25 million acres enrolled. See the South Dakota Hunting Atlas for a list of these and other hunting areas. - See more at: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/private-land/walk-in.aspx#sthash.o2VZstfF.dpuf

So obviously South Dakota is spending big money to open up 1.25 million acres of land for public hunting but you want us to believe if they were given all the federal land in the state that they would sell it all off??? That does not make sense when obviously they are working hard to increase public hunting access. States what people to come hunt. It's a huge boost to the economy and they are not going to suddenly stop and kick all the NR hunters out of the state because there is no place to hunt. Just look at it logically.

All I am saying is that it is possible for land to be transferred and still maintain it public access. I have given numerous examples of this including pieces of property that are donated or purchased through conservation programs as well as federal land that has been transferred to a state all while keeping public recreational use. Obviously it is possible.

You guys keep trying to scare everyone into believing that if states get the land they will end up selling it off to private interests and all public land hunting will be lost forever. Except that what you claim has never happened and could easily be avoided by putting guidelines on the future use of the land if transferred. basically you are using a completely exaggerated and unrealistic outcome to scare people into believing that public land hunting is coming to an end. If it was coming to an end states would not be spending money to open up private land for hunting, but they do so obviously they are trying to increase public land access not decrease it like you would have us believe.

Heck you were just talking about how you kill most of your animals in Wyoming on a piece of state land and then you turn around and tell us that if states get the land they will sell it all off. Do you not see the irony in that? Are you heading back to that state land this year? Why didn't they already sell it off like you claim will happen? See how easy it is to look at what is actually going on and form an opinion off of that instead of a bunch of outrageous claims not based on reality. We have already gone over this, nobody could show examples of states selling off large pieces of recreational land.
 

Topgun 30-06

Banned
Jun 12, 2013
1,359
0
Allegan, MI
Because I think we should look at different options, including states, for managing public lands you claim I'm in the vast minority of hunters? That's funny TG. Do you have a link to that information? Anything?

Yes states are spending lots of money to open up private land for public hunting. I've already given numerous examples so there is no need to dispute what is fact. Go back and read the examples I have provided. Here is another one if you missed all the others.
South Dakota
Private Land Hunting Access (Walk-in) Walk-In Areas (General Hunting Access) South Dakota has a rich hunting heritage; one that includes lots of game and lots of places to hunt. For the past 25 years, GFP has been working hard to maintain that rich heritage by providing hunting access on privately owned lands. The department does this by contracting with landowners who have CRP or other valuable wildlife habitat. The landowner opens the land to unlimited, free public hunting, which is open to foot-traffic only hunting, in exchange for a small payment and immunity from non-negligent liability. It has been a great program and currently has more than 1.25 million acres enrolled. See the South Dakota Hunting Atlas for a list of these and other hunting areas. - See more at: http://gfp.sd.gov/wildlife/private-land/walk-in.aspx#sthash.o2VZstfF.dpuf

So obviously South Dakota is spending big money to open up 1.25 million acres of land for public hunting but you want us to believe if they were given all the federal land in the state that they would sell it all off??? That does not make sense when obviously they are working hard to increase public hunting access. States what people to come hunt. It's a huge boost to the economy and they are not going to suddenly stop and kick all the NR hunters out of the state because there is no place to hunt. Just look at it logically.

All I am saying is that it is possible for land to be transferred and still maintain it public access. I have given numerous examples of this including pieces of property that are donated or purchased through conservation programs as well as federal land that has been transferred to a state all while keeping public recreational use. Obviously it is possible.

You guys keep trying to scare everyone into believing that if states get the land they will end up selling it off to private interests and all public land hunting will be lost forever. Except that what you claim has never happened and could easily be avoided by putting guidelines on the future use of the land if transferred. basically you are using a completely exaggerated and unrealistic outcome to scare people into believing that public land hunting is coming to an end. If it was coming to an end states would not be spending money to open up private land for hunting, but they do so obviously they are trying to increase public land access not decrease it like you would have us believe.

Heck you were just talking about how you kill most of your animals in Wyoming on a piece of state land and then you turn around and tell us that if states get the land they will sell it all off. Do you not see the irony in that? Are you heading back to that state land this year? Why didn't they already sell it off like you claim will happen? See how easy it is to look at what is actually going on and form an opinion off of that instead of a bunch of outrageous claims not based on reality. We have already gone over this, nobody could show examples of states selling off large pieces of recreational land.
You sure have selective reading and keep twisting things to suit your agenda! Therefore, this will be my last post on this thread! I have stated a number of times that this is all conjecture on both sides of this debate. Look that word up in the dictionary if you can't figure out that means there are no real examples like you keep asking for, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't happen. Also, dig in and look to see where all that money you're talking about is coming from in these land deals you're discussing. You'll find that very little is coming from various state General Funds, but rather out of private pocket books, because most of the states are broke and don't have the money to even keep up the parks and places they now have responsibility for. It's very easy for states to use private sector money to do what you're talking about and that's where the bulk of the money being used to gain access is coming from. It's the same old thing in that people that hunt and fish carry their weight and that's what we're talking about here. One more thing. Would you please show me where all this Federal land you keep talking about in SD is located, as I can't seem to find much on the map between the vast private lands and Indian Reservations that cover the bulk of the state? Anyway, I'm done debating this, but if you went all over the internet and read as much on the various hunting websites like I have time to do, you'd see why I stated you're in the vast minority of hunters that want to transfer the Federal lands to the states.
 

Topgun 30-06

Banned
Jun 12, 2013
1,359
0
Allegan, MI
Seeing as I still can't edit my post on this Forum I'll have to add this short post. In my previous post I was talking about BLM lands in SD, as I'm well aware there is a bunch of NF in the Black Hills along the Wyoming border!
 

vince

Banned
Jul 10, 2012
107
0
Interesting. If I remember correctly you are not a fan of states managing land successfully but you do spend time successfully hunting state land even when you have the choice to hunt other private or federal lands. Do you see the irony in telling us how bad the state is at managing land and then telling us you are heading out to hunt state land. The real interesting thing is that much state land in Wyoming is not managed like the federal land is but in your example the state land has really good hunting as well. That has been my experience as well. The federal land that has biologist doing studies and spending manpower on all sorts of unnecessary crap has the same wildlife as the unmanaged state and private that it shares borders with.
I would have called it something else but I like the way you phrased it. [emoji4]
 

Topgun 30-06

Banned
Jun 12, 2013
1,359
0
Allegan, MI
I would have called it something else but I like the way you phrased it. [emoji4]
Maybe that's because you also didn't read what I actually stated in my posts. One last time just for you---I did not say the state isn't managing lands they now have properly. I have stated that if they had a lot more of it to manage they would need Federal money to do so because it's not available at the state level. That would probably lead to Federal intervention as to how that money would be used, so why change what is already being done and chance further mismanagement or risk sale of some of the land if the state gets in a pinch economically. It is all conjecture at this point on both sides and has been beaten to death. As another member has stated, we are a lot less likely to have Federal lands sold to private interests than state land and once it's gone it's gone forever, as witnessed by all the private land that is now unavailable to the average Joe to recreate on due to the high prices charged by landowners and/or outfitters. We are losing land at a record rate and the lack of it for public use is the biggest challenge we have and will have in the future.
 

vince

Banned
Jul 10, 2012
107
0
Maybe that's because you also didn't read what I actually stated in my posts. One last time just for you---I did not say the state isn't managing lands they now have properly. I have stated that if they had a lot more of it to manage they would need Federal money to do so because it's not available at the state level. That would probably lead to Federal intervention as to how that money would be used, so why change what is already being done and chance further mismanagement or risk sale of some of the land if the state gets in a pinch economically. It is all conjecture at this point on both sides and has been beaten to death. As another member has stated, we are a lot less likely to have Federal lands sold to private interests than state land and once it's gone it's gone forever, as witnessed by all the private land that is now unavailable to the average Joe to recreate on due to the high prices charged by landowners and/or outfitters. We are losing land at a record rate and the lack of it for public use is the biggest challenge we have and will have in the future.
We can thank the federal government for the loss of a lot of that land, or at least the access to.

I'm one that would like to see about 90% of the federal government abolished and a return to our original Constitutional Republic. Something that has been eroding since the creation of our nation. I believe that we are seeing the waning days of our country. I am realist enough to know that what I desire will not come to be however.

The word I was going to use is hypocrite. You want your access and more federalism when history has shown increased federalism to be the death knell for any democracy or republic. As long as you get your desire you don't care about anyone else.

You seem to have this great fear of states managing land when it is in fact the states that are working hardest to gain access to land for it's citizens. At the same time the federal government is, for all practical purposes, closing access to public lands by increased designation of wilderness areas and declaration of wetlands in places that previously had not been designated as such.

Our lands are multi use. The designation of wilderness or wetland effectively makes them "no use" for the majority of the public. I'm not saying there should be no wilderness or wetlands. I'm saying that because of population densities in this nation there should be fewer than what we have now. We would still have the land in public hands just state hands.

States are better equipped to manage the lands for the betterment of all based simply on the fact that they are more attuned to the needs of the population they serve. I understand where you're coming from and I'll boil it down real simple. I see your position as this, "I want increased federal lands so I can hunt and to Hell with what is best for the nation. "

I want to hunt too. I probably spend more time in wilderness areas hunting and scouting in three months than you do all year. I just just refuse to not look at the bigger picture as to what will ensure the viability of our Republic. The voting public has started us, the nation, on a downward spiral. Too much voting based on self interest instead of what is best based on our founding principles.

We no longer have logging, ranching, and mining. All are industries that are part of the multi use model. The states effectively use the multi use model and have wilderness as well as industry. The only folks that could lose money managing a whore house is the federal government yet you want them to manage our lands. Not too bright from where I sit but that's just me.

Vince
 

ScottR

Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2014
6,170
764
www.eastmans.com
Vince, just to give you some food for thought here. I do not support the Wyoming rule that Non-Residents can't hunt the wilderness areas without a guide. This is a state law put in place for perceived state needs. This is a prime example of people not being able to access public land based on one state making the decision.
 

vince

Banned
Jul 10, 2012
107
0
Vince, just to give you some food for thought here. I do not support the Wyoming rule that Non-Residents can't hunt the wilderness areas without a guide. This is a state law put in place for perceived state needs. This is a prime example of people not being able to access public land based on one state making the decision.
While I may not like it I will support Wyoming's decision.

It is another law based on local interest. While we may not agree with the law, and I don't, we don't live in Wyoming. The voters of Wyoming obviously feel it is in their best interest to have such a law. Therefore I will support the law no matter if I agree with it or not as I see it as a betterment of the nation, as a whole, because it is a law based on local interest and what the local voters want.
 

vince

Banned
Jul 10, 2012
107
0
Vince, just to give you some food for thought here. I do not support the Wyoming rule that Non-Residents can't hunt the wilderness areas without a guide. This is a state law put in place for perceived state needs. This is a prime example of people not being able to access public land based on one state making the decision.
If you want a prime example of people not being able to access land look at the increased amount of wilderness designation.

That effectively takes the land out of the hands of the public except for a select few.
 

libidilatimmy

Veteran member
Oct 22, 2013
1,140
0
Wyoming
While I may not like it I will support Wyoming's decision.

It is another law based on local interest. While we may not agree with the law, and I don't, we don't live in Wyoming. The voters of Wyoming obviously feel it is in their best interest to have such a law. Therefore I will support the law no matter if I agree with it or not as I see it as a betterment of the nation, as a whole, because it is a law based on local interest and what the local voters want.
I don't agree with the law myself. This law came to fruition through special interest groups and I don't think it was ever on a general election ballot by itself. I think saying this law is based on local interests as a whole is off base, a law based on the local interests of an organization would be more accurate. All in all, I don't think that the residents squawk about the law because it doesn't apply to them. One thing to keep in mind on this topic about wilderness is the only activity a non-resident can't legally access the wilderness without a guide is hunting. All others it's perfectly acceptable, which is why the law is so absurd to me.
 

Colorado Cowboy

Veteran member
Jun 8, 2011
6,467
966
78
Dolores, Colorado
I don't agree with the law myself. This law came to fruition through special interest groups and I don't think it was ever on a general election ballot by itself. I think saying this law is based on local interests as a whole is off base, a law based on the local interests of an organization would be more accurate. All in all, I don't think that the residents squawk about the law because it doesn't apply to them. One thing to keep in mind on this topic about wilderness is the only activity a non-resident can't legally access the wilderness without a guide is hunting. All others it's perfectly acceptable, which is why the law is so absurd to me.
You are 100% correct. Fly fishing a wilderness area for a non resident only with a guide next?
 

packmule

Veteran member
Jun 21, 2011
2,433
0
TX
I tend to look at things just a wee bit differently and would rather be totally independent when it comes to hunting. I'd rather not have to worry about accessing any form of public land or worry about who I may run into while hunting. Here, the private sector mgmt completely blows the public mgmt out of the water when it comes to wildlife.