Public Lands in Public Hands Live Chat!

[highplainsdrifter]

As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for 30 years (wife for 25 years), I have seen the usual amount of government mismanagement, probably no better or worse than the feds. But what scares me is the rather large political swings that have taken place with the change in governor over the years. I fear that if the state had control, that some of these lands could be sold if a budget crunch were to develop or if a future governor simply had a ax to grind with the feds. Therefore, state ownership would not provide the protection that federal ownership does. Transferring the land to the state would be a slippery slope. I value my access to my public lands way too much to take a chance on this.

 

[ScottR]

This is how Haynes intends to handle the issue.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for 30 years (wife for 25 years), I have seen the usual amount of government mismanagement, probably no better or worse than the feds. But what scares me is the rather large political swings that have taken place with the change in governor over the years. I fear that if the state had control, that some of these lands could be sold if a budget crunch were to develop or if a future governor simply had a ax to grind with the feds. Therefore, state ownership would not provide the protection that federal ownership does. Transferring the land to the state would be a slippery slope. I value my access to my public lands way too much to take a chance on this.

Good post and IMHO right on! MM must not have time to read much on this because there has been plenty on it that just make ne shudder. The ones that want to seel off Federal lands are as ScottR stated. They are Congressment and Senators in DC , as well as radical at the state levels that think the states can manage the lands better. There are many woho have come right out and espoused getting the federal lands and then selling it to private interest to ease their state budgets, etc. What they fail to realize is that no state, even if they kept and didnt sell the sizeable tracts of Federal lands in some of the western states, has enough money even for fire control measures in a bad year. How in the world they think they could do a better job with less money spent is beyond me even though the feds probably waste a lot of money. It would seem that's the case at all levels of government nowadays if you asked the average citizen about their thoguths on the matter. As sure as God made littler green apples, if the states took control and had a harder fiscal time in the future than they already do, the first thing on the board would be a sell of of the public land to the highest bidder. That would effectively close it off forever to hunting and many other uses just ike the biggest share of private property already is. Keep it where it is right now and work on doing a better job with it, rather than having a fire sale!

 

[Topgun 30-06]

ScottR---Are the techs working on putting an edit additon to this Forum like we talked about a day or two ago? I just read my last post and it has all kinds of spelling errors I can't correct after I posted it and it drives me nuts. I guess if it stays this way I'm going to have to really slow down and triple check what I post!

 

[ScottR]

Yeah, I am. I messed with the settings the other day but can't seem to find where that is set up. So yes, I am working on it, no it hasn't happened yet. But it will.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Thanks for your efforts!

 

[okielite]

As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for 30 years (wife for 25 years), I have seen the usual amount of government mismanagement, probably no better or worse than the feds. But what scares me is the rather large political swings that have taken place with the change in governor over the years. I fear that if the state had control, that some of these lands could be sold if a budget crunch were to develop or if a future governor simply had a ax to grind with the feds. Therefore, state ownership would not provide the protection that federal ownership does. Transferring the land to the state would be a slippery slope. I value my access to my public lands way too much to take a chance on this.

Good points.

To me I think it depends on the situation. In a state like Oklahoma with limited federal land I think the state could likely do a better job of managing that land and do it with less cost to the taxpayers. I also think states might be able to avoid some of the red tape/lawsuits that seem to be a part of managing this land. The states also have more incentive to operate in a more financially responsible manner and to control the tourism industry. I know South Dakota inquired about operating MT Rushmore during the gov shutdown. In that situation the state had a lot to lose if Rushmroe was closed so they wanted to open it back up for the benefit of the state.

Aside from cost savings I think the states could do a better job. Has anybody ever heard of someone using over 100k acres of state land for 20 years without paying a dime? Then turning it into a PC nightmare/disaster, cluster funk? Nope. But that did happen on federal land recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_Ranch_standoff
Has anybody ever heard of a state allowing a private individual to build a house on a road easement that blocked access to public land? It's happened on federal land recently.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/forest-proposes-new-trail-to-settle-encroachment-dispute/article_6e04f0b7-f161-5694-a20b-d760e5955b96.html

At the end of the day our federal government is inefficient and quite frankly not good at doing much of anything except wasting money.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Good points.

To me I think it depends on the situation. In a state like Oklahoma with limited federal land I think the state could likely do a better job of managing that land and do it with less cost to the taxpayers. I also think states might be able to avoid some of the red tape/lawsuits that seem to be a part of managing this land. The states also have more incentive to operate in a more financially responsible manner and to control the tourism industry. I know South Dakota inquired about operating MT Rushmore during the gov shutdown. In that situation the state had a lot to lose if Rushmroe was closed so they wanted to open it back up for the benefit of the state.

Aside from cost savings I think the states could do a better job. Has anybody ever heard of someone using over 100k acres of state land for 20 years without paying a dime? Then turning it into a PC nightmare/disaster, cluster funk? Nope. But that did happen on federal land recently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_Ranch_standoff
Has anybody ever heard of a state allowing a private individual to build a house on a road easement that blocked access to public land? It's happened on federal land recently.
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/forest-proposes-new-trail-to-settle-encroachment-dispute/article_6e04f0b7-f161-5694-a20b-d760e5955b96.html

At the end of the day our federal government is inefficient and quite frankly not good at doing much of anything except wasting money.

The Feds didn't turn that into a PC nightmare. Bundy lost several court case and was inviolation of courts orders to remove hisa cattle form federal lands. He didn't do it and the feds finally moved in to do the job. A bunch of extremists then created so much chaos that it was necessary to protect themselves and as it escolated when the wackos came in from other states with semi-automatic weapons the Feds stood down to avoid shootign. That case will be settled sooner or later and Bundy should be behind bars, which is where he should have been years ago. The other case is too sketchy, but it sounds a little more like PC grandstanding and something that was not unusual toher than who it is that the feds are into it with. Yes, the Feds spend way too much money with poor results in many instances. However, I don't believes the states are much better. They are just dealing with a lot smaller things in most instances and if things were increased by giving some of these states millions of acres to deal with IMHO they would go bankrupt in short order or want to sell the land to avoid it. If the latter happened and it fell into private hands everyone in the country would lose.

 

[Musket Man]

It doesnt seem to fit into the fed budget either by looking at how the Deficit is growing every day.

Would anyone want to do away with the state wildlife agencys and turn management over to the USFWS?

As for Bundy I feel that him and 50 other ranchers in Clark county NV were the victim of the misuse of the ESA which was used as a tool to get ranchers off the land they held leases on.

 

[packmule]

This is how Haynes intends to handle the issue.

First I'd read on the guy. I'm as conservative as they come, but he fell off the turnip truck.

 

[ScottR]

First I'd read on the guy. I'm as conservative as they come, but he fell off the turnip truck.

Yup, he is really out there.


Eastmans' Staff Digital Media Coordinator

 

[highplainsdrifter]

IMHO the people who insist that the state could better manage the land are missing the point. This issue is not about management, it is about access. An argument could be made on both sides for who could better manage the land. But if the state were to get control and sometime in the future sell some/all of the land, the resulting private land would be lost to access. Well managed private land could just as well be on the moon, if you can't get access to it. With federal ownership, we can be much more confident that the land won't be sold. I will be happy to trade less than idea federal management for continued access.

 

[okielite]

IMHO the people who insist that the state could better manage the land are missing the point. This issue is not about management, it is about access. An argument could be made on both sides for who could better manage the land. But if the state were to get control and sometime in the future sell some/all of the land, the resulting private land would be lost to access. Well managed private land could just as well be on the moon, if you can't get access to it. With federal ownership, we can be much more confident that the land won't be sold. I will be happy to trade less than idea federal management for continued access.

Can you give some examples of what you are referring to where states like Wyoming are selling off hunting land?

 

[highplainsdrifter]

As you can see in my earlier post, I fear this could happen in the future if a budget crunch was to develop. Currently, it takes an act of Congress to sell even a single parcel of federal land. This provides substantial protection that federal land won't be sold. I don't have that level of confidence that the state wouldn't sell it. I simply don't trust that the State of Wyoming wouldn't sell some of the land in the future.

 

[libidilatimmy]

As far as Wyoming goes, the Office of State Lands and Investments buys, sells, and trades land on a fairly regular basis albeit on a small scale for the most part. Back when the land in the state was originally surveyed and broken up, two sections per township, 16 & 36, were assigned to be under state control with the original thinking that this 1280 acres could produce revenue by various means for the school districts residing in these townships, hence the term "school sections". Over time, the State has sold some of these sections, but for the most part they've held control of these lands and used leases for the revenue generation. By enlarge, the State owns a very small portion of the public lands throughout the state, and the ones they actively manage, being the State Parks, are mis-managed and continuously have budget shortfalls. These State Parks have far, far more restrictions on them than they had even 10 years ago and, unfortunately, it's getting to the point where the Rangers borderline harass people looking to write tickets for revenue generation.

Given the sample of how the State currently manages it's very small piece of the pie as far as public lands go, I don't think they'd stand a chance in hell of properly managing lands on a large scale with the end result being the selling off of such land to get out from under it which is what we're trying to avoid.

 

[okielite]

As you can see in my earlier post, I fear this could happen in the future if a budget crunch was to develop. Currently, it takes an act of Congress to sell even a single parcel of federal land. This provides substantial protection that federal land won't be sold. I don't have that level of confidence that the state wouldn't sell it. I simply don't trust that the State of Wyoming wouldn't sell some of the land in the future.

So your scenario is purely hypothetical and is not based on any actual states selling off large pieces of public land used for hunting?

 

[okielite]

As far as Wyoming goes, the Office of State Lands and Investments buys, sells, and trades land on a fairly regular basis albeit on a small scale for the most part. Back when the land in the state was originally surveyed and broken up, two sections per township, 16 & 36, were assigned to be under state control with the original thinking that this 1280 acres could produce revenue by various means for the school districts residing in these townships, hence the term "school sections". Over time, the State has sold some of these sections, but for the most part they've held control of these lands and used leases for the revenue generation. By enlarge, the State owns a very small portion of the public lands throughout the state, and the ones they actively manage, being the State Parks, are mis-managed and continuously have budget shortfalls. These State Parks have far, far more restrictions on them than they had even 10 years ago and, unfortunately, it's getting to the point where the Rangers borderline harass people looking to write tickets for revenue generation.

Given the sample of how the State currently manages it's very small piece of the pie as far as public lands go, I don't think they'd stand a chance in hell of properly managing lands on a large scale with the end result being the selling off of such land to get out from under it which is what we're trying to avoid.

I don't 'understand how someone could look at our current system of managing federal land and think that there is no way to improve it.

 

[ScottR]

I don't 'understand how someone could look at our current system of managing federal land and think that there is no way to improve it.

No one is against improving it, but the proposed solutions are non-starters.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

So your scenario is purely hypothetical and is not based on any actual states selling off large pieces of public land used for hunting?

You've got the cart before the horse pardner! FIRST, the state would have to own it in order to sell it. As he stated, they don't own any large tracts, but rather just small tracts here and there and it's usually section 36 in a township, many of which are landlocked by private lands already. if they did own large tracts and had a budget problem, they would more than likely try to sell a bunch off just like some of the idiots in Congress are now proposing for the Federal lands under the GOP banner! If any of those lands are sold to private interests, they are gone for public use forever!

 

[ScottR]

You've got the cart before the horse pardner! FIRST, the state would have to own it in order to sell it. As he stated, they don't own any large tracts, but rather just small tracts here and there and it's usually section 36 in a township, many of which are landlocked by private lands already. if they did own large tracts and had a budget problem, they would more than likely try to sell a bunch off just like some of the idiots in Congress are now proposing for the Federal lands under the GOP banner! If any of those lands are sold to private interests, they are gone for public use forever!

Well stated.