There is nothing good about states owning land. NM being the perfect example. You can't camp on it. You can't even hunt on it if the game dept doesn't buy the rights to do so. Case in point, sheep transfered to state land leased to pvt party, private party gets new 30 year lease and the leasee determines if the public can hunt. They can't.
Can't even camp on state land in Wyoming. Talk about a jacked up system.
Colorado state landed is leased and is pretty much the property of the lease holder.
I've heard Wyoming's no over night camping and no hunting within 24 hrs of flying an area was due to some guys flying over private property and hunting some land locked state land. Land owners got that changed straight away.
Colorado has some pretty strict rules that govern their leased state land. I negotiated a lease extension on 400+ acres our local shooting club has on state land when I was President of the club. They really monitor the leaseholder and the conditions that the lease has. IMHO Colorado does a pretty good job administering their leased state land.
I can't speak for the western states, as I'm sure that there is a different dynamic going on there. In Minnesota, virtually all state and county owned land is openly accessible for all. Land is sold every year, but it is generally "tax forfeit land" that had reverted from private to public over the years. My county is over 80% public land already, and the sales only serve to keep that number from going higher.
A number of years ago I shot my rifles on state land outside Cheyenne. One day I arrived to shoot and found the land posted by the livestock company that leased the land for grazing. I decided to call the State Land Office to complain and discovered they knew nothing about the posting. Well I thought that is very interesting! I expected they would get after the livestock company for illegally posting the land. A couple weeks later I went to check the site and found the signs still there. I called the State Land Office again and found out they had "rubber stamped" the illegal posting. They did this without notifying the public or the person who had complained about it (me).
At least with the federal government there is an Administrative Procedures Act to follow...public notice, wait for comments, etc.
This is just another example of how recreational users will be left out if the state gets control of our federal land. The state is more interested in profit than recreation.
So now you claim the issue is that you can't camp on state land. That is not true. There are plenty of examples of state land where you can camp including state parks. There are also examples of federal land that you can't camp on. So to claim that if the state was to control the federal land within it's borders that nobody would ever be allowed to camp again is yet another exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts.
Would not be difficult to simply allow the same recreational opportunities on that land that currently exist if the state was to be in control of it.
I have also witnesses plenty of mismarked federal land so your example of land being mismarked falls on both the state and federal level. I have seen much more federal land mismarked from my experience but I know it goes both ways.
The states are not against people recreating. That seems to be a common theme of some but it's not true. States want you to come visit. They spend money trying to get you to come visit. So to claim otherwise is simply ridiculous. I laugh when I read people claim that the state will take control, stop all camping, and then sell the land off. That is simply not true.
The rules for camping on state land in Wyoming say you must camp in a designated campground. Dispersed camping is not allowed. On Forest Service or BLM property dispersed camping is allowed with some minor restrictions.
If you think about it, this is a big difference. If there are no campgrounds on the state land, you in essence can't camp there. On federal land, you can camp very near the spot you intend to hunt.
This is the fifth example that I have provided why state ownership of federal land would not be a good idea.
And you seem to think it is impossible to incorporate the current land use into the future land use if the management of the land was transferred. It's not as impossible as you make it out to be.
What are your 5 examples?
We already busted the camping myth. And have found that there are examples of both state and federal land being mismarked as private. So clearly that holds no water.
No camping on State land in NM.
No scouting of your hunting unit more than 7 days prior to your hunt on state land in NM, and make sure you have a valid hunting license.
If NM State land is leased, it essentially becomes private land as the lessee controls all access and use.
No hunting "contests" allowed on NM state land.
And the best of all, one guy makes the state land rules in NM. He can withdraw the easement at any time.
Those of us who hunt multiple states understand why transferring Federal land to the State is a bad idea.
I remember something about checks and balances from grade school (and something about not putting all your eggs in one basket from my Grandma). Most states (if not all) already have some land to manage. Transferring all federal land within a state to the state would effectively put all public land at the whim of whoever happened to control state government at any given time. Better to keep ownership split. That way if the feds or a state does something stupid with the land they control, it won't effect all land in the state.
And you seem to think it is impossible to incorporate the current land use into the future land use if the management of the land was transferred. It's not as impossible as you make it out to be.
What are your 5 examples?
We already busted the camping myth. And have found that there are examples of both state and federal land being mismarked as private. So clearly that holds no water.
We have not "busted" the camping myth. Since the vast majority of state land in Wyoming does not have established campgrounds, and you can't camp without a dedicated campground, then it follows that you can't camp on most state land in Wyoming.
We have not "busted" the camping myth. Since the vast majority of state land in Wyoming does not have established campgrounds, and you can't camp without a dedicated campground, then it follows that you can't camp on most state land in Wyoming.
Do you really think it would be difficult to keep the existing recreational opportunities intact if the management of the land was transferred? I dont'.
People transfer land to states and other organizations like RMEF with clear rules about how the land is to be used in the future including not selling it. It's not as difficult as you like to pretend it is.
In reality Wyoming wants you to come to the state and I have no doubt that they would be able to work out a way for people to camp if they were in charge of the land.
You guys act like the state in the enemy. They are not. They want you to come hunt and they spend millions on everything from advertising for tourism to paying private landowners to open up and for public hunting. Why you suddenly think that would change and Wyoming would tell everyone they can't camp or hunt and eventually would sell the land off is ridiculous and not based on any truth.
If you have some good reasons lets hear them but the whole "we won't be able to camp" or "the land will be sold off" is clearly not the intent of the state and not based on any truth.
Do you really think that Wyoming is meeting to plan how they will kick all campers and hunters out of the state and sell the land if the land is transferred to them? Get real. My guess is they are working to see how they can improve the management of the land and increase tourism which will in turn benefit the state. Much more logical.
Do you really think it would be difficult to keep the existing recreational opportunities intact if the management of the land was transferred? I dont'.
People transfer land to states and other organizations like RMEF with clear rules about how the land is to be used in the future including not selling it. It's not as difficult as you like to pretend it is.
In reality Wyoming wants you to come to the state and I have no doubt that they would be able to work out a way for people to camp if they were in charge of the land.
You guys act like the state in the enemy. They are not. They want you to come hunt and they spend millions on everything from advertising for tourism to paying private landowners to open up and for public hunting. Why you suddenly think that would change and Wyoming would tell everyone they can't camp or hunt and eventually would sell the land off is ridiculous and not based on any truth.
If you have some good reasons lets hear them but the whole "we won't be able to camp" or "the land will be sold off" is clearly not the intent of the state and not based on any truth.
Do you really think that Wyoming is meeting to plan how they will kick all campers and hunters out of the state and sell the land if the land is transferred to them? Get real. My guess is they are working to see how they can improve the management of the land and increase tourism which will in turn benefit the state. Much more logical.
You make it sound like things would be a perfect with the state in charge. I don't agree. I have provided five examples were state management would/could be problematic. I could go on and list many more.
As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for more than 30 years, I have direct experience with the decision making process in Wyoming state government. I consider our federal lands to be a national treasure, and I am not willing to trust their future to a relatively small group of decision makers that have profit as their primary goal.
You make it sound like things would be a perfect with the state in charge. I don't agree. I have provided five examples were state management would/could be problematic. I could go on and list many more.
As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for more than 30 years, I have direct experience with the decision making process in Wyoming state government. I consider our federal lands to be a national treasure, and I am not willing to trust their future to a relatively small group of decision makers that have profit as their primary goal.
I can provide plenty of examples of states doing a great job managing their land and even a case where the state is paying for a large conservation project on a NWR. States work with conservation groups such as DU to do conservation projects. States like Kansas do a great job of managing the land they are in charge of in places like Cedar Bluff St park. I have had a lot of fun hunting and fishing in places like Glendo St Park and Curt Gowdy State Park in Wyoming. I could go on and list many more.
I never said it would be perfect. But it is worth looking at. That is unless you believe the federal government is doing a good job of managing the land. Which I do not.
Do you really think it would be difficult to keep the current recreational use of the land if the management of the land was transferred to the state?
Do you think it would be a bad thing to get fair market value for things like grazing rights and timber instead of giving away the grazing rights and watching the timber burn every year while we put out the fire with money?
Do you think the state really want to prevent people from coming to the state to camp?
Do you really think the state wants to sell all the land off to prevent tourism?
Do you think the federal government does a good job managing the land they are in charge of when you see things like the Bundy case?
Do you think the USFS should be operating a nationwide network of trade schools on federal land?
If you want to be realistic about this then lets have a discussion but if you are just going to keep repeating the same old worn out half truths and exaggerations such as "they won't let us camp anymore" or "the land will be sold off" then there is nothing to discuss.
States like Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming that have over 50% of their land owned by the Feds, would be hard pressed to find the money to manage these lands if they were transferred to the respective states. Fees for usage to cover road maintenance, law enforcement and management would be necessary. There is also no doubt in my mind that the state legislatures would see nothing but dollar signs when they view the value of this land. The first recession that hits and cash flow gets tight at the state level, For Sale signs would amazingly appear. Almost all the states are having a problem balancing their budgets now.
States like Nevada, Utah, Colorado and Wyoming that have over 50% of their land owned by the Feds, would be hard pressed to find the money to manage these lands if they were transferred to the respective states. Fees for usage to cover road maintenance, law enforcement and management would be necessary. There is also no doubt in my mind that the state legislatures would see nothing but dollar signs when they view the value of this land. The first recession that hits and cash flow gets tight at the state level, For Sale signs would amazingly appear. Almost all the states are having a problem balancing their budgets now.
Do you have any examples of Wyoming selling off large pieces of heavily used recreational property for profit?
You are right, it will be tough to manage with no federal assistance. But if they could get fair market value for the grazing rights, sell some timber instead of watching it burn every year, and waste less money on fires and lawsuits it is pretty easy to see how they could save taxpayers some money. So even if they still required 50% of the federal assistance that is still a 50% savings for the taxpayer. How is that a bad thing?
Give land to O&G company and they will make money with it. Give land to a farmer and they will make money with it. Give land to a rancher and he will make money with it. Give school trust land to the state of Wyoming and they will make money with it. Give land the federal government and it will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to manage. Do you see the problem? The federal government is not good at managing land. They really are not good at doing much IMO. But you are entitled to your own opinion of them.
Do you have any examples of Wyoming selling off large pieces of heavily used recreational property for profit?
You are right, it will be tough to manage with no federal assistance. But if they could get fair market value for the grazing rights, sell some timber instead of watching it burn every year, and waste less money on fires and lawsuits it is pretty easy to see how they could save taxpayers some money. So even if they still required 50% of the federal assistance that is still a 50% savings for the taxpayer. How is that a bad thing?
Give land to O&G company and they will make money with it. Give land to a farmer and they will make money with it. Give land to a rancher and he will make money with it. Give school trust land to the state of Wyoming and they will make money with it. Give land the federal government and it will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to manage. Do you see the problem? The federal government is not good at managing land. They really are not good at doing much IMO. But you are entitled to your own opinion of them.
You say the state would be better at "for profit" management. That is exactly what I am afraid of. Recreational uses often can't compete with more profitable uses. I don't want someone deciding my favorite elk hunting area would be more profitable with condominiums on it, or with an oil well on it.
I have been waiting to weigh in on this. I normally do not defend the Federal Govt but this is one of the rare times. As an outdoors-man I believe recreational land that is public i.e BLM and National Forest land should not be managed solely on a profit basis. I personally do not want to see my favorite mule deer haunts overrun by drilling and mining projects. I understand we need to utilize some public land for oil and mineral extraction but it needs to be very limited. I work for a mining company but I do not think we should ruin all of the public land for industrial profit. As others have stated state agencies are already crying for money because they can not manage a game agency. I am not in favor of these same people managing all of our public lands. I am in favor of road less and wild places existing and I see more of that disappearing if the states take over the land. Plus if states gain control what is to stop liberal controlled states to severely limit hunting on public property. If you think that can not happen look into the Open Space Program here in Colorado. There is a lot of property that caters to everyone except sportsman. We have a good public land system now. Actually it is the best system in the world with millions of acres out west. Lets not destroy it for ourselves and future generations just to make money.
Do you have any examples of Wyoming selling off large pieces of heavily used recreational property for profit?
You are right, it will be tough to manage with no federal assistance. But if they could get fair market value for the grazing rights, sell some timber instead of watching it burn every year, and waste less money on fires and lawsuits it is pretty easy to see how they could save taxpayers some money. So even if they still required 50% of the federal assistance that is still a 50% savings for the taxpayer. How is that a bad thing?
Give land to O&G company and they will make money with it. Give land to a farmer and they will make money with it. Give land to a rancher and he will make money with it. Give school trust land to the state of Wyoming and they will make money with it. Give land the federal government and it will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to manage. Do you see the problem? The federal government is not good at managing land. They really are not good at doing much IMO. But you are entitled to your own opinion of them.
This is a very important topic. Want to jump on this one. I agree that way too much federal land isn't managed properly. In fact, in many cases it isn't managed at all and is instead "preserved." This is why forest fires in AZ tend to destroy the over grown ponderosa forests while the adjacent Apache lands aren't destroyed. The tribes can actually go into their forests and thin things out and even build a road God forbid, all the while making a profit on timber.
However, I have seen G&O boom and bust on Colorado's Western slope and while I am all about jobs, stronger economy and developing resources, we have to recognize the cost. Is it still legal to use the roads where G&O companies are leased? YES. Is is still legal to hunt those lands? YES. Is it somewhere you really want to hunt? Probably not. G&O requires a lot of equipment, a lot of roads and hunting those areas never feels very comfortable or peaceful.
In my mind, this is somewhat related to the earlier camping debate. Can you camp on state lands? Sure, in many cases but is it somewhere you really want to camp? Not me. I like to be able to drive or pack in somewhere and build me a fire ring and not see much in the way of development.
In my personal experience, it is at this point where things concerning public land get wierd. Being born and raised in Western Colorado, what is wild and fun to me might be impossibly dangerous to someone from Dallas (went fishing with a guy from Dallas once and while we were both outdoors oriented, we had TOTALLY different expectations of what being outdoors and camping mean).
I have no evidence or proof of this, just based on the comments and what little research I have done, it is hard to imagine any state, even Texas, being able to afford those types of real, adventurous outdoor recreation opportunities without having to at the same time develop those opportunities to make a profit and therefore ruining those original opportunities (hope that made sense).
