Public Lands in Public Hands Live Chat!

[packmule]

One question concerning the Feds lessened involvement with the states, what are the states going to do if 30-50% of their annual budgets get taken away bc it comes from the Fed? The amt of money most folks will donate to the state in the form of state income tax to make that up would have bought some mighty nice vouchers somewhere.

 

[vince]

Topgun,
Yes, I live in the west and because of federal intrusion I have seen an economic downfall of many western communities. That causes me to have no love, or trust, for our federal government. I used to work for them, the Feds, as well.
One can limit access by motorized traffic, authorized roads excepted, by enforcement of laws and regulations sans the wilderness designation.
From your post one can only conclude that you want more federal intrusion. Not being of the west yourself I don't think you should have a day in how the west is managed. I wouldn't tell you how to manage the land in the middle west so what gives you the right to tell us how to live?
I liken you to the railroad barrons of old that came to the west to get rich. You come to hunt.
Stay in your midwestern state and hunt the game animals you have there. Don't like the opportunities where you are? Then work, by campaigning and voting to change things where you are and quit telling us what to do.
The same goes for the,now feral, government.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Topgun,
Yes, I live in the west and because of federal intrusion I have seen an economic downfall of many western communities. That causes me to have no love, or trust, for our federal government. I used to work for them, the Feds, as well.
One can limit access by motorized traffic, authorized roads excepted, by enforcement of laws and regulations sans the wilderness designation.
From your post one can only conclude that you want more federal intrusion. Not being of the west yourself I don't think you should have a day in how the west is managed. I wouldn't tell you how to manage the land in the middle west so what gives you the right to tell us how to live?
I liken you to the railroad barrons of old that came to the west to get rich. You come to hunt.
Stay in your midwestern state and hunt the game animals you have there. Don't like the opportunities where you are? Then work, by campaigning and voting to change things where you are and quit telling us what to do.
The same goes for the,now feral, government.

You need to take a break and calm down before a Mod bans you because IMHO you are going way overboard in this last post! I've tried to limit this discussion to the facts and your last two posts have taken the thread down to a personal vendetta and it sucks. I have no love for the Federal Government either and again you're making false statements about me wanting more intrusion from the feds or anyone else as far as that goes. As long as there are Federal lands, I have as much say as you or any other citizen, regardless of what you think or feel. Too bad you have such a bad attitude towards the NRs that are holding up most of the G&F Departments out west and it's you that is exhibiting the "me me me" attitude, not me, as was really evidenced in you rlast two paragraphs.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

One question concerning the Feds lessened involvement with the states, what are the states going to do if 30-50% of their annual budgets get taken away bc it comes from the Fed? The amt of money most folks will donate to the state in the form of state income tax to make that up would have bought some mighty nice vouchers somewhere.

That's exactly why moving Federal lands to state control would bankrupt a state in short order unless the Federal money continued to pour in. Why would the feds continue to pour money into the state if they had no say in how it was spent? In case, you're not aware of it, we have been singling out Wyoming since this website is based there and Wyoming doesn't even have a state income tax and relies on the energy industries to stay afloat!

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

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.

I have a slightly different take. I am not going to say what Texas does (or has for that matter) is wrong, they just do it different. I lived there for several years while I was serving Uncle Sam and have hunted there numerous times. Texas has very little public land (state or federal) and is mostly private. Being private they do pretty much as they please. High fences, exotic game and mostly pay for you hunting, that's their right as it stands now.

But my view is that if the feds or states starts selling off public land, we will turn into something akin to the situation is Texas. As it stands now in most of our western states we still have lots of unfettered access. There are a few areas that the feds are charging an access fee, but it is limited near large population areas. I sure would hate to see that happen everywhere. My problem with the feds turning the land over to the states is that the lots of states are so cash strapped, I fear them seeing the land as a cash cow and selling it. Try hunting then without a trespass fee.

The system we have now is not perfect and can be made better, but surely not by removing public lands from federal control.

 

[Ikeepitcold]

Keep this down to not belittling and personal attacks

 

[okielite]

Amazing how scared people are of trying to be more efficient than the federal government. I'd guess that states could easily operate with 25% less $ and do a better job. Obviously some federal money would be needed to manage the land, I dont think anybody is suggesting the land be transferred and states would be 100% responsible for the cost of managing.

I can't think of one thing that I believe the federal government is really good at except wasting $. But any alternatives we have discussed all get shot down because "the land will be sold and hunting public land will be lost forever". Except there are not examples of this ever happening and plenty of examples of land purchased by conservation organizations or donations where the state is managing the land and even examples of federal land being transferred to the state while keeping public access. I was at one of these pieces of property yesterday looking at a job we are bidding.

The state operates the land as a WMA but it is owned by conservation groups and funded by these groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and even the state lottery. Yes it can work and this is yet another example that proves this.


So would you be opposed if the states managed the land but still retained federal ownership? Seems like that would prevent the sale of the land like you seem to think will happen. Give the states a % of the current budget used to manage those lands and it would seem like everyone wins except the lazy government employees that the state wont' hire because they don't really want to work. Sounds like a good deal to me. Save taxpayers money, better management for the land, and get rid of the dead weight. All while not risking the scenario you have described where all public land will be sold to private interests and end public land hunting forever.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

I have a slightly different take. I am not going to say what Texas does (or has for that matter) is wrong, they just do it different. I lived there for several years while I was serving Uncle Sam and have hunted there numerous times. Texas has very little public land (state or federal) and is mostly private. Being private they do pretty much as they please. High fences, exotic game and mostly pay for you hunting, that's their right as it stands now.

But my view is that if the feds or states starts selling off public land, we will turn into something akin to the situation is Texas. As it stands now in most of our western states we still have lots of unfettered access. There are a few areas that the feds are charging an access fee, but it is limited near large population areas. I sure would hate to see that happen everywhere. My problem with the feds turning the land over to the states is that the lots of states are so cash strapped, I fear them seeing the land as a cash cow and selling it. Try hunting then without a trespass fee.

The system we have now is not perfect and can be made better, but surely not by removing public lands from federal control.

Exactly CC! I hunted several different Texas ranches that my Dad leased until not too long ago when he died. We would have stayed on just one, but every few years someone with lots of money would come in and offer the rancher a lot more money and Dad would be out looking for another lease. Many average people can't afford to hunt in Texas because it's almost all private land and costs 4 or 5 digits to even have a chance to deer hunt a place. It would be a shame if that happens out west and there is no reason it has to.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

I can't think of one thing that I believe the federal government is really good at except wasting $. But any alternatives we have discussed all get shot down because "the land will be sold and hunting public land will be lost forever". Except there are not examples of this ever happening and plenty of examples of land purchased by conservation organizations or donations where the state is managing the land and even examples of federal land being transferred to the state while keeping public access. I was at one of these pieces of property yesterday looking at a job we are bidding. View attachment 10530

The state operates the land as a WMA but it is owned by conservation groups and funded by these groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and even the state lottery. Yes it can work and this is yet another example that proves this.
View attachment 10531
.

Not true. I DO know of several instances where National Forest lands were "traded" to private parties and were then private property. It happens more than we know when the feds want a piece of private property to add to a National Park or Monument and cannot buy it, they trade for it. I know of a section of prime NF land in Az that was traded away to private. Others in californis too.

 

[Drhorsepower]

Easy boys....

 

[Ikeepitcold]

I've removed some posts that are getting off topic and that are getting personal. Keep this debate going but no personal attacks or belittling. If there any more personal attacks then you will be banned. Please keep on topic

 

[vince]

Hunters are but a very small minority.
Where this will be decided is by the non hunting voters. I'm in hopes that the overall population can be made to see the inherent evil and unconstitutionality of the federal government we now have.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Amazing how scared people are of trying to be more efficient than the federal government. I'd guess that states could easily operate with 25% less $ and do a better job. Obviously some federal money would be needed to manage the land, I dont think anybody is suggesting the land be transferred and states would be 100% responsible for the cost of managing.

I can't think of one thing that I believe the federal government is really good at except wasting $. But any alternatives we have discussed all get shot down because "the land will be sold and hunting public land will be lost forever". Except there are not examples of this ever happening and plenty of examples of land purchased by conservation organizations or donations where the state is managing the land and even examples of federal land being transferred to the state while keeping public access. I was at one of these pieces of property yesterday looking at a job we are bidding. View attachment 10530

The state operates the land as a WMA but it is owned by conservation groups and funded by these groups such as Ducks Unlimited, Pheasants Forever, and even the state lottery. Yes it can work and this is yet another example that proves this.
View attachment 10531

So would you be opposed if the states managed the land but still retained federal ownership? Seems like that would prevent the sale of the land like you seem to think will happen. Give the states a % of the current budget used to manage those lands and it would seem like everyone wins except the lazy government employees that the state wont' hire because they don't really want to work. Sounds like a good deal to me. Save taxpayers money, better management for the land, and get rid of the dead weight. All while not risking the scenario you have described where all public land will be sold to private interests and end public land hunting forever.

First off, we are all "guessing" at what may or may not happen if the states gained control and it would definitely take a lot of Federal money because the states don't have it. With that being the case, I'd again like to know why you think the Feds would give up control if they had to keep funneling a ton of money to the states. This really can't be a guessing game like the statement you just made about saving 25% and doing it better. In case you haven't noticed, the local and state governments aren't much better at cost saving and management in their jurisdictions than the Feds. IMHO the main reason everyone is on the Feds like you are is because it covers the entire country and, therefore, the budget is huge and easier to look at that state or local jurisdictions. You keep bringing up all these properties that are being purchased with private monies and are being run by the states and I believe that's a contradiction if you think that is benefitting your argument. If the state had the money available, why wouldn't they have purchased these lands instead of doing what they are? It's pretty easy to work with other's money. The simple answer again is because they're broke and made agreements they had to meet before the properties were even turned over to their control. The same thing would have to be done in the case of the Federal lands and it's doubtful that would be hashed out if the feds had to continue to bankroll a big part of the money involved. To answer you last question, I wouldn't have a problem with the states running/controlling the Federal lands if they stayed as Federal land as long as certain parameters were met. However, I think you're fooling yourself if you think they'll do such a great job with a lot less manpower, but I guess the only way you would be convinced of that would be if it happens and then it passes or fails the litmus test. Then one of us could sit back after a while and say "I told you so!".

 

[okielite]

TG. I work with the federal government all the time. I know exactly how inefficiently they operate. I've been doing contracts with the feds for over 15 years. I could manage the federal land in this area with half the staff they currently have and do a better job. Most of those people do little to nothing all day every day.

We are not guessing how the state would manage land as we already know how they mange land. They have been doing it for a long time. I've given many examples including private organizations buying land for the state to manage, the state buying land for the state to manage, private individuals donating land to the state for them to manage, and even the federal government transferring ownership of land to the states to manage. All of which resulted in a nice opportunity for hunters. Even you already said that most of the animals you and your party kills in Wyoming is on State land that has better game than the federal or private in the area. I have had similar experiences on state land in Wyoming.

You keep saying that I am wrong but you have not provided any examples of why. All of my examples prove otherwise. You just say it won't work.

Fooling myself that someone else could do the same thing the federal government can but with less manpower? That is funny. You have waaay to much faith in the federal government my friend. The federal government is terrible and inefficient at just about everything they do.

Do you think the USFS does a good job of managing the land they are in charge of? Do you have any ideas of what could be improved? What would you change if you had the power?

 

[Topgun 30-06]

You're twisting again when you start saying what I said and then tacking on statements to make it into your line of thinking. I said I kill more game on the state land, but that doesn't mean it's managed any better than the BLM. It just happens that it's an out of the way piece of state land that most don't know about and animals go there because of hunting pressure on the BLM properties that are easy for everyone to access. It could just as easily be the other way around if it was BLM and has nothing to do with how either is managed. As more people get these GPS chips it will probably go down the tubes just like other places, although most probably won't want to go that far from their vehicles even if they do find it on their maps!

There are many inefficiencies at all levels of the various government agencies right down to the local levels, as well as many private businesses, and I have never said there wasn't. Hells bells, I worked for the State of Michigan for over 30 years before I retired in 2002 and I saw plenty of money wasted in the various departments just like the Feds do, so please don't tell me how great any state would be over the Feds! If the money is to be had, it will be spent one way or the other regardless of which level we're talking about! I can't say turning it over won't work, but instead keep stating it is conjecture on both sides as to whether it would or wouldn't. Please try to understand that neither side of this debate knows what would happen if the exchange took place and that is the scary part when we know how it is now and are relatively safe the way it is at the present time. Just because there are instances of things that are working that you mention doesn't mean that it could be extended out across the board like you seem to feel without possibly some huge negative ramifications.

You are asking questions now in your last paragraph that neither of us can give definite answers to when neither of us work for the USFS or BLM to know what is going on in any kind of detail. That is also why I can't go along with your 25% cut statement you made unless you're on the inside and know what all is involved in the every day activites of an organization and you're not. You are guessing and said so! This involves way too much at stake to be a guessing game on our part. It's very easy to sit back and be an armchair quarterback without knowing all the intricacies of what is involved. I'm sure some fat can be cut in any organization, but 25% or more like you mentioned would seem to be a stretch, but maybe you're right since I have no idea what is going on where you're talking about. You did say that was a guess on your part and that's really all it is without an in depth analysis. How much and where is the question. IMHO that should be what is studied thoroughly before we go rushing over a cliff to do things on a wholesale basis when just possibly things could be tweaked here and there to correct the problems we're discussing without doing a fire sale of the Federal lands throughout the entire country. I think we have discussed about everything that can be discussed and I prefer to pretty much bow out now and move on because it's very obvious that neither side is going to budge on this topic. Have a good one!!!

 

[okielite]

Fair enough TG but I would like to hear what you would propose as you have told everyone else that their ideas wont work (even though the examples provided obviously prove otherwise) but have not provided any alternatives. It's easy to tell people their ideas won't work and then walk away.

To be clear nobody is proposing a fire sale of all federal lands. That is yet another exaggeration meant to scare people into thinking there is no alternative to letting the federal government run things like they currently do.

 

[Againstthewind]

Well, a Wyoming update on this issue: Taylor Haynes didn't make it through the primary, but there was enough talk about it that there is going to be a govt. study on the state taking on some of the federal lands.

 

[LaHunter]

There is a very good article on this topic in the latest edition of Western Hunter Magazine. The article is written by Ben Lamb from Montana. It's only a 1 page article, but he brings up some very good points.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

There is a very good article on this topic in the latest edition of Western Hunter Magazine. The article is written by Ben Lamb from Montana. It's only a 1 page article, but he brings up some very good points.

Ben is always up on everything involving conservation and is quite actively involved with DIY hunting on public lands.

 

[WY ME]

I'm kind of on the fence with this issue and see the arguments both sides have. First of all I think about the only thing that the feds do very well is pissing away and wasting our hard earned tax dollars. The big argument the pro-feds groups is saying is that the states can't afford to properly manage the lands. This is probably true due to the simple fact that the states are required to balance their budgets, whereas our federal gov't isn't...and doesn't! Obama and the liberal democrats put the exclamation point on that.

Our federal gov't does a lousy job with our Nat'l forests. Long before this issue came up on eastmans.com I showed my wife and kids the difference between state owned/managed inholdings (in WY and Idaho) within our national forests and the federal property. You don't need a gps or be an overpaid federal bureaucratic expert to see where the state property line ends and the federal junk show begins. The feds answer to management of our forests is essentially to make more rules, close more roads and put out fires. As to the management of the properties, I don't see how the states could do any worse than the feds are already doing.

With that said and while I do believe that the states would better manage these lands, I also fear that the states will most likely sell off (or "dispose of" as they prefer to say), at least some of the dirt. If there were iron clad assurances that the states would not sell off their new found real estate I would definitely be in favor of the transfers but I fear this won't happen. Without those assurances in place it really, really pains me to say I would have to favor the lands remain under federal control.