Transfer of Public Lands

Bitterroot Bulls

Bitterroot Bulls

Veteran member
Apr 25, 2011
2,326
0
Montana
I support local input, but not local control. In my area, some county commissioners tried to go down this route, pushing for extraction, development, and privatization of public lands. They said it would be good for the local economy and a good way to stick it to the Fed.

They ended up getting voted out before they could do any real damage, but I shudder at the thought of them having control over those decisions.

The Federal system manages land balancing competing interests, and errors on the side of conservation. I feel like this is the lesser of all evils in this situation, as there certainly is no perfect solution for public land management.

"Tyranny of the majority" is usually mentioned when talking about "rights." I don't think private grazing of public lands is a right. I am biased as a hunter, but I think game has a right to that grass.

In a Democracy not everybody's interests are going to win. Like Churchill said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

I have joined organizations to make my voice heard in public lands management decisions. These include the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Mule Deer Foundation, and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. This route has been successful in influencing public land policy and is a hell of a lot better path than threats from the end of a gun, as we have seen from Bundy and his crew.
 
S

SunnyInCO

Member
Oct 20, 2015
101
2
Highlands Ranch, Colorado
To start off I am probably the least familiar on this forum with the history and issues of public lands, grazing leases, recreational vs restricted uses, national forest vs BLM, etc. I do use the public lands here in Colorado for a variety of recreational uses such as hunting, family hikes, biking and skiing and have no experience using these lands for economic purposes.

It seems to my (not knowledgeable as explained above) mind that the ranchers have a pretty good deal with grazing leases on public lands. I read somewhere they are paying an estimated 90% less than than a lease on private land would cost. Is there an independent site that explains what the ranchers issues are with public leases/Federal Govt as I would like to understand these issues with more facts behind them.

For example, is the issue more with federal control vs state control, public vs selling lands to private individuals, just overall restrictions (wasn't a protected frog an issue at some point). Thanks in advance.
 
Bitterroot Bulls

Bitterroot Bulls

Veteran member
Apr 25, 2011
2,326
0
Montana
Musket Man said:
This is not a false cause. The Hammonds should not be in prison.
Click to expand...
MM,

To be clear, the false cause is the "land transfer" cause, not the Hammonds sentence. I don't think the sentencing beef is a lost cause, and have no issue with people pursuing that cause through peaceful means.

The Hammonds did not ask for Bundy to do what he did, and spoke through their attorney saying he did not speak for them or represent their interests.

The Bundy crew hijacked the Hammonds' cause as a springboard for their own anti-government cause, which is that the Federal Government doesn't have constitutional authority to own or manage public lands. This of course ignores Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution and 200 years of settled law on the matter. That is the lost cause and it pains my heart to think that Finicum died for it.

There is a big difference between how the Hammonds have handled themselves and how Bundy and his crew have handled themselves.
 
Colorado Cowboy

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,350
4,742
83
Dolores, Colorado
Bitterroot Bulls said:
MM,

The Bundy crew hijacked the Hammonds' cause as a springboard for their own anti-government cause, which is that the Federal Government doesn't have constitutional authority to own or manage public lands. This of course ignores Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the US Constitution and 200 years of settled law on the matter. That is the lost cause and it pains my heart to think that Finicum died for it.

There is a big difference between how the Hammonds have handled themselves and how Bundy and his crew have handled themselves.
Click to expand...
Amen to that!
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
We need your help!!

I just received this email (below) from the Wyoming Outdoor Council. The Wyoming Legislature began its budget session last Monday. Because it is a budget session, I was not expecting federal land transfer legislation to come up this session. I was wrong. Two transfer related bills are being considered for introduction. Apparently the initial vote on these bills will be soon...perhaps as soon as tomorrow. We need you to contact ALL legislators in Wyoming and express strong opposition to these bills. You can bet they are going to get an ear full from me. Please find their contact information here: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/LSOWEB/LegInfo.aspx


Here is the email from the Wyoming Outdoor Council:

We need your help as soon as possible to stop attempted land grab efforts in Wyoming. Now is the time to stop the land grab and make your voice heard!

Two bills at the 2016 Wyoming State Legislature aim to seize and privatize our national forests and other public lands.

HB 142 - Transfer of federal lands proposes to seize our public lands in Wyoming and sets up a process regarding sale of these lands.
HB 126 - Public land access clearly sets Wyoming on a path toward taking over and privatizing public lands within the state's borders.
We need you to voice your support for our treasured public lands by sending a message to your legislative representative by 10 a.m. tomorrow. Contact your legislators and tell them that you strongly oppose House Bills 126 and 142. E-mail them directly or call (307) 777-7852 and leave them a message.

Let your legislators know that you care deeply about our national forests and public lands in Wyoming, that they are an essential part of Wyoming's quality of life, and that you want them to remain public. To read more about this issue, head over to our blog or read our latest Frontline.

Thank you for standing tall for our public lands and our hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation heritage!

Stephanie Kessler, director of external relations
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
I just received this email from Wyoming Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. It is similar to the ones I received earlier today from the Wyoming Outdoor Council, the Wyoming Wildlife Federation and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. The major outdoor organizations in Wyoming are lining up to rally support to defeat these bills.

If you hunt in Wyoming or aspire to hunt in Wyoming, please contact ALL members of the Wyoming House of Representatives tonight. Because this a budget session, they will need a two thirds majority to get these bills introduced tomorrow. That is a high threshold, and we can stop these bills from seeing the light of day if we inundate them with calls and emails. Let's not just kill these bills tomorrow, let's send such a strong message they will be reluctant to ever bring it up again. Please see my post above for a list of email addresses. You can copy all representative's email addresses from the Excel file into the address line in your email program. It is very easy to do...will only take a couple of minutes. One click will send the same message to all of them.

Wyoming BHA Members -

We need your help ASAP to help stop two public land seizure bills from being introduced in the Wyoming legislature tomorrow. Please take a minute to call your legislator at (307) 777-7852 and urge them to vote "no" on HB 126 and HB 142.

House Bill 126 would waste $100,000 taxpayer dollars on yet another state study of the management of your public lands. Rather than creating real solutions, this bill would unconstitutionally assert state land commission authority over federal land management decisions, all under the guise of improving public access.

House Bill 142 blatantly opens the door for a large-scale public land sell-off and/or transfer, leading to a loss of public hunting, fishing and recreation opportunity for all. This bill is unconstitutional and would be devastating for the American sportsman.

Please call your elected officials today at (307) 777-7852.

Thank you for taking action on this important issue.

Tim

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the sportsmen's voice
for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
Another attempt to grab our federal lands:

Two nearly identical bills have been introduced in the US House and US Senate to dispose of "Excess Federal Land" in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming. The House bill was introduced by Representative Chaffetz of Utah. The Senate bill was introduced by Senator Lee of Utah and Senator McCain of Arizona.

Land chosen for "disposal" is based on a Clinton administration report from 1997 (nearly 20 years old I might point out). In that report surplus acreage was identified as follows:

Arizona, 453,950 acres
Colorado, 93,741
Idaho, 110,022
Montana, 94,520
Nebraska, 6,615
Nevada, 898,460
New Mexico, 813,531
Oregon, 70,308
Utah, 132,931
Wyoming, 694,200
Total = 3,368,278

To put this acreage into perspective, Yellowstone Park is about 2.5 million acres. So they are proposing to sell acreage equal to about 1 and 1/2 times the size of Yellowstone Park. This apparently would be sold to the highest bidder and would become private land.

Both bills were introduced about a year ago and assigned to committee where not much has happened. Nevertheless, these bills are worth watching carefully. Here are links to the two bills and to the 1997 Clinton report:

https://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/BILLS-114hr435ih.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s361is/pdf/BILLS-114s361is.pdf

https://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/Land%20Disposal%20Report.pdf
 
Last edited:
Colorado Cowboy

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,350
4,742
83
Dolores, Colorado
Interesting reading. The report (bottom referenced doc) on description of the public lands by state is an eye opener. First thing that you must keep in mind is that this report is from 1997, almost 20 years ago. Lots of things could (and probably) have changed. I looked at Colorado's & Wyoming's reports in total. If you look at the description listed in each county you will find a list of "Impediments to Disposal' which are categorized as: No Legal Access, Mineral Leases, Mining Claims, Endangered Species, Wetlands/Flood plains, Historical/Cultural Resources, Contamination, Title Issues. It also lists current uses like Farming, Grazing, Recreation, etc.

A lot of the acreage was small and had Access as an issue & Grazing as use. This to me indicates a piece of BLM ground that is landlocked and leased to a surrounding land owner for grazing. Probably no public access now. All of Wyoming was listed as grazing as use and had the notation "Almost without exception all public land is leased for oil & gas. I am pretty sure most of that would be BLM land. I would bet that a lot of counties would be in favor of it just for the fact that it puts these lands on the tax rolls.

If this is sold to private interests there will surely be no public access, although there might be none now. My judgement is that it will most likely not have a huge impact on public access, but surely will set a precedent for future public land sell offs. I intend to write (not email or call) my 2 State Senators and my Representative stating my views on these bills.
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
If indeed most of these acres have limited access because they are surrounded by private land, I would like to see some sort of trade or consolidation plan instead of sale to private parties. IMHO the goal should be to retain approximately the same number of public acres or approximately the same value of public acres. In any case, I am skeptical of a 20 year old assessment...which would certainly need to be updated.

Best to leave it alone. This would be the camel's nose under the tent.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom