Transfer of Public Lands

[okielite]

The link I provided, which is much more current, shows not a single state anywhere in the western half of the US with more trust land now than at statehood.

Are there any states where there is more federal land in a state now than when it was started?

According to everything I have found both state and federal land holdings have decreased in the last 100+ years. Not sure either proves anything.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Actually if you look at the data in my link the state was originally given 3.473 million acres and now according to you have 3.5 million so if my math is correct that is more, not less as you claim. LOL.


I'm not sure where the discrepancies are in the data but it would almost seem like in Wyoming's case that there must have been a change in the last 15+ years where some land was sold off.

Here is a list of those pieces being looked at. Pretty clear that each property is looked at closely before any sale happens.
http://lands.wyo.gov/lands/transactions

Both of the links I provided agree the original amount of trust land in Wyoming was 4.2 million, not 3.473.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Interesting. So would looking at data on federal lands being decreased during that same time period indicate what we should expect with federal ownership? LOL!

There has been lots of federal land that has been sold, especially military bases that were shut down and declared surplus. Lots of trades too. Usually the trades involve private land that the feds wanted to consolidate NP's. I know of a small parcel of private within the Yosemite NP that was traded for a parcel of NF in AZ that was 4 or 5 times as large as what the feds got. Net loss there, but according to the NFS it was a gain for them because they got a landlocked parcel of private land out of the NP.

 

[laxwyo]

I'm still torn. When the BLM sells land, you can't really hold anyone responsible. Likely, you'll be told to file a comment at the regional office in Denver. Typically, I've heard a lot of grief stirred when the state sold land. It does seem that Wyoming has a good process and you have someone local to hold accountable. Currently, I believe that state land can only be sold for education

 

[highplainsdrifter]

The federal government has sold land in the past. But for the last 75 years or so most sales have been fairly small consisting mostly of efforts to consolidate scattered parcels or eliminate in-holdings in national parks. Of course if you go back more than 75 years, the federal government has a history of giving away vast acreage for homesteading and railroad development. That is what we need to guard against ...a return to the days of large scale federal land disposal. A transfer to the states would replicate the homesteading and railroad transfers.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I'm still torn. When the BLM sells land, you can't really hold anyone responsible. Likely, you'll be told to file a comment at the regional office in Denver. Typically, I've heard a lot of grief stirred when the state sold land. It does seem that Wyoming has a good process and you have someone local to hold accountable. Currently, I believe that state land can only be sold for education

In Wyoming the State land board reviews land parcels to be sold or traded. The Governor and others that are appointed to the board by the Governor. The Governor is a rancher,some board members are ranchers. Who's accountable? And what are you going to do before and especially after they agree to sell or trade? Nothing. You can write or e-mail your representatives or the Governor I guess, for all the good that'll do. I know, I did that. Wyoming State government is run by ranchers for ranchers. It's as simple as that.

 

[okielite]

There has been lots of federal land that has been sold, especially military bases that were shut down and declared surplus. Lots of trades too. Usually the trades involve private land that the feds wanted to consolidate NP's. I know of a small parcel of private within the Yosemite NP that was traded for a parcel of NF in AZ that was 4 or 5 times as large as what the feds got. Net loss there, but according to the NFS it was a gain for them because they got a landlocked parcel of private land out of the NP.

Both states and feds have sold land for various good reasons. The feds selling off military bases or homesteading is not necessarily an indicator of what will happen today anymore than a state turning a former military base into a state park is. Sometimes we forget that there is more to this than just hunting.

I actually would not mind if we could figure out a way to address small pieces of inaccessible federal land. They don't offer much recreational value if people can access them.

 

[okielite]

I'm still torn. When the BLM sells land, you can't really hold anyone responsible. Likely, you'll be told to file a comment at the regional office in Denver. Typically, I've heard a lot of grief stirred when the state sold land. It does seem that Wyoming has a good process and you have someone local to hold accountable. Currently, I believe that state land can only be sold for education

That is my issue with them as well. Who is responsible for the Bundy disaster? Who let the Texan build the McMansion on a USFS access rd in MT? What about grazing rates?

Would a state allow that to happen on state land? I doubt it.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Both states and feds have sold land for various good reasons. The feds selling off military bases or homesteading is not necessarily an indicator of what will happen today anymore than a state turning a former military base into a state park is. Sometimes we forget that there is more to this than just hunting.

I actually would not mind if we could figure out a way to address small pieces of inaccessible federal land. They don't offer much recreational value if people can access them.

Okielite, why do you keep posting an outdated table that has some obviously incorrect data in it? I showed you earlier where the Wyoming data is wrong.

 

[okielite]

Okielite, why do you keep posting an outdated table that has some obviously incorrect data in it? I showed you earlier where the Wyoming data is wrong.

How do you know it's incorrect/wrong? Did you even check the source?

I suspect it's a difference in accounting as the source seems legitimate as well. Here is the actual source.

http://www.ti.org/statetrusts.html

I think the article might just be the original allotment at statehood and not include later land given to the state which the numbers you are using include. The table clearly says given at statehood and lists the year. This line might be a an indicator of the difference. partly because Congress supplemented those grants with later grants for universities and other purposes.

Thought this was interesting.
Annual Returns to
Acres Revenues Treasuries
(millions) ($millions) ($millions)
Forest Service 192 1,000 465
BLM 270 187 142
Park Service 80 97 1
Fish & Wildlife Service 90 8 5
State Trusts 135 4,500 3,500

 

[okielite]

In Wyoming the State land board reviews land parcels to be sold or traded. The Governor and others that are appointed to the board by the Governor. The Governor is a rancher,some board members are ranchers. Who's accountable? And what are you going to do before and especially after they agree to sell or trade? Nothing. You can write or e-mail your representatives or the Governor I guess, for all the good that'll do. I know, I did that. Wyoming State government is run by ranchers for ranchers. It's as simple as that.

They why do they charge so much more for grazing rights than the feds? It's easy to villainize a group but when you look at the data they don't' give away the grazing for pennies on the dollar like the feds do. If there is a group afraid of ranchers it's the feds. They tried to raise grazing rights to $4 per AUM a while back and backed down. According to what I have read Wyoming charges cseveral times that per AUM on state land.

This article discusses "The Institutional Basis of Non-Market Pricing". Shows how out of what the current pricing is and how we got there (1985 Executive Order)
http://www.wallis.rochester.edu/PolsWP/PS_1.pdf

Another that compares private versus federal grazing. It's scary how much money these people have squandered over the years.
http://www.uwagec.org/farmmgt/PUBS/B767.pdf

 

[highplainsdrifter]

How do you know it's incorrect/wrong? Did you even check the source?

I suspect it's a difference in accounting as the source seems legitimate as well. Here is the actual source.

http://www.ti.org/statetrusts.html

I think the article might just be the original allotment at statehood and not include later land given to the state which the numbers you are using include. The table clearly says given at statehood and lists the year. This line might be a an indicator of the difference. partly because Congress supplemented those grants with later grants for universities and other purposes.

Thought this was interesting.
Annual Returns to
Acres Revenues Treasuries
(millions) ($millions) ($millions)
Forest Service 192 1,000 465
BLM 270 187 142
Park Service 80 97 1
Fish & Wildlife Service 90 8 5
State Trusts 135 4,500 3,500

You may be right that the difference between the sources has to do with Congress later supplemented the original grants. But you originally posted your table to show that some states have added state land, not sold state land. That is not correct. Almost all states have sold state land, some have sold a lot of state land. You can't give the states credit for adding state land if Congress provided that land. The states' tendency has clearly not been to add land but to sell it. That is my point, and your table is misleading in that regard.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Are there any states where there is more federal land in a state now than when it was started?

Last year the USFS added over 26000 acres of former timber land to federal public lands, with more planned.

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/federal-land-purchase-secures-recreation-and-wildlife-habitat-montanas-crown-continent

There are also several large ranches that were added to public ownership in Montana left as inheritance by there owners to the public for the public.

Meanwhile, as I noted earlier, the state of MT recently sold off 640 acres that wasn't economically profitable in my area.

Fundamentally different approaches to land management.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Last year the USFS added over 26000 acres of former timber land to federal public lands, with more planned.

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/releases/federal-land-purchase-secures-recreation-and-wildlife-habitat-montanas-crown-continent

There are also several large ranches that were added to public ownership in Montana left as inheritance by there owners to the public for the public.

Meanwhile, as I noted earlier, the state of MT recently sold off 640 acres that wasn't economically profitable in my area.

Fundamentally different approaches to land management.

The inheritance thing is something I have often thought about. If I was the one to bequeath a chunk of the land to the public, thinking it would remain forever public, and the state later got control and decided to sell that land I think I'd try to find a way to come back from the grave and set things right.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

The inheritance thing is something I have often thought about. If I was the one to bequeath a chunk of the land to the public, thinking it would remain forever public, and the state later got control and decided to sell that land I think I'd try to find a way to come back from the grave and set things right.

To take this point a little further...

There are numerous organizations, such as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, who inherit or purchase land and subsequently turn it over to either the Forest Service or BLM. If a federal to state land transfer were to take place, the states would gain control of these inherited/purchased parcels. Subsequently, the states could potentially sell them. Hopefully there would be a Conservation Easement attached to the properties, but Conservation Easements usually only prohibit development. They don't typically guarantee public access.

So potentially, the good intentions of dying landowner and the hard work of the RMEF (or similar organization) could be negated by a federal land transfer. Seems to me, we are getting into moral and ethical issues here in addition to political and legal issues.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Meanwhile, as I noted earlier, the state of MT recently sold off 640 acres that wasn't economically profitable in my area.

This is exactly why I am against state ownership. If it doesn't make $$$$, sell it!! We have a large parcel of state owned land within our local NF. It was a private ranch for over 75 years. The state bought it (16,000+ acres) with lottery money and turned it into a state park. They have no money to develop it and the legislature wanted to sell it after they found out it was worth 50% more than the state paid for it. But backed off when they found out all of the money had to return to GOCO (Greater Outdoors Colorado) which manages the lottery profits. Without these types of safeguards, the politicians see nothing but dollar signs and it vanishes into private hands.

 

[Murdy]

Anyone planning on making such a donation should consult with a lawyer. There are ways that a person can limit what is done with charitable donations (For example: put it in a trust, make the RMEF the beneficiary, if it ceases to be used by the RMEF, then it goes to someone else, which provides a strong motive to keep it in use for its intended purpose).

 

[25contender]

I have always been a proponent of Stewardship and not transfer without stewardship only rights. There is a big difference between the two. When money and greed are thrown into the mix all parties involved get their hands dirty. Politicians landowners big business right on down the line. I can see land locked federal lands or lands with minimal access being sold off to nearby landowners who wont grant access to these lands. Tax payers should always have access to all public lands no matter who they are.

 

[okielite]

You may be right that the difference between the sources has to do with Congress later supplemented the original grants. But you originally posted your table to show that some states have added state land, not sold state land. That is not correct. Almost all states have sold state land, some have sold a lot of state land. You can't give the states credit for adding state land if Congress provided that land. The states' tendency has clearly not been to add land but to sell it. That is my point, and your table is misleading in that regard.

The table clearly showed "acres grated at statehood" and "current acreage" at the time of the article. You simply did not do any checking before you claimed it was wrong and ended up proving yourself wrong in the process. The data is correct even though you claimed that it was not several times. I showed you the source and the reason for the difference. Not sure what else there is to say about it other than it is correct.

Both states and federal government have sold land over the years for various reasons, neither is an indicator of what would happen today because the circumstances are different IMO.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

You may be right that the difference between the sources has to do with Congress later supplemented the original grants. But you originally posted your table to show that some states have added state land, not sold state land. That is not correct. Almost all states have sold state land, some have sold a lot of state land. You can't give the states credit for adding state land if Congress provided that land. The states' tendency has clearly not been to add land but to sell it. That is my point, and your table is misleading in that regard.

Okielite, I stand solidly behind my statement (above). Read it again if you find it confusing.