Transfer of Public Lands

[npaden]

Okay, on another board we were having a discussion on what the average hunter might be able to do to increase the chances of future generations in hunting the great public lands across the Western United States. One thing I think we can all (or at least most of us) can agree on is keeping public lands public and accessible. If you would like to email your U.S. Representatives on the subject here's a way to do that.

Here's a place to look up your House of Representative's email address.

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

Here's a list of the Senators email addresses.

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

I don't have a slick professionally prepared email that you can copy and paste and send out, but I will share the one that I sent.

Dear Mr. Cruz,

I'm writing to you to let you know that I am strongly opposed to any transfer of public lands to state control or sale to private interests.

These public lands are one of the greatest treasures that our country has, and should be retained for the benefit of both present and future generations of Americans.

When this topic is discussed, please look to the long term consequences of any privatization of public lands and the potential of misuse or privatization once federal lands are transferred to state control. This is a very complex issue that might sound good off the cuff, but when you really look deeply into it would be devastating for future generations.

Please let me know that you will do everything in your power to oppose the transfer of public lands.

Thanks, Nathan Paden

One thing that is concerning is that the email form for Mr. Cruz had about 20 different topics that he would be expecting to hear from his constituents on. Animal Welfare, Environment, Monetary Policy, you name it. But Conservation was no where on the list so I selected Other for the topic. I would guess that's the case for the vast majority of elected officials except a few western states. Maybe we can change that if we all pitch in and start sending emails.

If anyone has a better worded letter or any other information to add that would be great. If you can think of any other people that it would be worth contacting please let us know.

Thanks, Nathan

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I am in 100 percent agreement with you on this. I have already contacted several elected officials.

 

[Alabama]

Here is a link to an interesting article from Petersen's hunting magazine that discusses the issue.


http://www.petersenshunting.com/conservation-politics/uncle-sam-public-land/

Thanks for bringing this up Nathan, I will definitely be contacting my Senators and Representatives.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Wyoming Senate File 0056 just passed out of committee and now goes to the Appropriations Committee. The bill calls for the "study" of the transfer federal lands to the state (or state management thereof if not outright transfer). For those who don't take the anti-federal land movement in several western states seriously, you might want to start paying attention.

I encourage you to contact Wyoming's elected officials if you have an interest in keeping Wyoming's federal lands federal.

 

[Eberle]

This is a very serious issue! Please contact elected officials and let our voice be heard. I've got cousins that live 8 hours South of me in Texas. They purchased property up here in OK, close to where I live & drive up and hunt. They can not even find a lease in Texas, where they live. We need to fight for our public land. Every taxpayer no matter what State you live in, has an interest in Federal Land! Lets not let hunting turn in to a rich man's game!

 

[Musket Man]

I have yet to see any proof that any state intends to sell off the public land if they were to take over management. From what I have seen the states intend to keep it public like it is and they want to be able to manage it better.

 

[Alabama]

I have yet to see any proof that any state intends to sell off the public land if they were to take over management. From what I have seen the states intend to keep it public like it is and they want to be able to manage it better.

Do you think they are going to spell it out for you??? The states can't afford to manage it properly without raising taxes significantly. How do you think that will go over? The only alternative is sell off portions until they have enough money to manage what's left. They will sell the parcels that are of the highest value and keep what's left. It then won't be "our" public land but "their" public land if you don't live there. This is a very bad deal for all of us and future generations of Americans.

 

[go_deep]

I have yet to see any proof that any state intends to sell off the public land if they were to take over management. From what I have seen the states intend to keep it public like it is and they want to be able to manage it better.

If the states can afford to keep it. In Wisconsin almost 15 years ago now they sold off a bunch of state land some land locked, some they just didn't feel was worth much. My dad bought 180 acres logged it and payed for the land and figured he had enough leftover for about 35 years of taxes, plus if he invested that money it would be much longer and he'd be able to log it again in 30 years, did the state make out in those deals? The land that sold went for pennies on the dollar and most was great hunting land. It happens, I've seen it first hand. I hope that I never see it happen again. Please contact your local reps and voice your option.

 

[jjenness]

Look at these articles and tell me if it is not spelled out plain and simple. Senator Tester states it himself in the one article that the only option to keep the state budget whole would be to sell the public land.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/tester-others-say-transferring-federal-lands-would-burden-montana/article_95943b70-1d09-11e4-9538-0019bb2963f4.html


http://billingsgazette.com/news/local/government-and-politics/transferring-federal-lands-to-montana-political-theater-or-a-viable/article_e003cc95-fe51-501e-9725-653d436ed8f8.html

 

[Don K]

A quick google search shows many states looking to sell off public land.

Here is one closer to you MM.....

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/12/elliott_state_forest_sale_woul.html

 

[highplainsdrifter]

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) came out against the transfer of federal lands last October:

http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFOpposesSaleorTransferofFederalPublicLands.aspx

For more than 20 years that organization has worked to purchase and enhance elk habitat. When they purchase land, they often turn it over to a federal agency to manage. It then becomes Forest Service or BLM property. Imagine if the state took control of these lands and decided to sell them to private individuals. The hard work of the RMEF and millions of sportsman's dollars would be erased. Imagine a situation where somebody dies and bequeaths a chunk of land to the RMEF thinking the land will be protected for elk forever. Then the state takes control of it and sells it or uses it in a manner not in keeping with the wishes of the person who willed it to the RMEF.

The above are only a couple of examples why this movement is a very bad idea.

 

[Musket Man]

Whats to say the federal gov couldnt sell it? They have a much bigger budget problem. I am not for turning it over to the states to do as they please with it or sell it off. It needs to stay public and it needs to be managed better and its easier to hold people accountable at a state level then federal level. Current management has made alot of public land unproductive and where we used to have ranching and logging we now have huge forest fires, wolves, and wild horses. All things that cost money and the resources they consume could just as well be used for productive things. Much of the problem is all the lawsuits like the Oregon article talks about.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

At the federal level it takes an act of congress to sell federal land.

At the state level, in Wyoming, all it takes is the majority vote of the state's five highest elected officials that comprise the Board of Land Commissioners. Three people can decide a sale.

Since congress can't agree on much of anything, I feel that federal land is a lot more secure.

 

[SouthernWyo]

State trust lands are not public lands, they are lands held by the respective states in order to generate income for the states' schools. There is no law which guarantees any public access to state trust lands. It's about managing the land for profit, period. Free public access does not generate a profit. Public BLM and forest service lands are mandated by law to be managed for multiple use, sustained yeild, whether or not there is a profit involved (i.e. public access for recreation.)

Wolves and wild horses are protected by law, whether we agree with it or not, regardless of land ownership. Last I knew, wildfires don't differentiate between public, state trust, or private lands...

 

[Againstthewind]

I think the point about the wildfires was that on there has been a beetle kill epidemic that has led to bigger and hotter fires because of all the dead fuel. I think the argument is that if logging was easier to get permits on Federal lands, some of the fire risk could have been mitigated by clearing out some of this ready fuel. The sage grouse might be a good example for federal management. They shut down a lot of ranching and other activity to help protect the sage grouse, but I just saw one study that showed that grazing actually improved the habitat kindof like the huge herds of buffalo used to do. I don't remember where I saw that, probably a ranching magazine, lol. Anyway I my biggest concern with the states is the possible sale when they figure out they can't pay for everything that the BLM and Forest Service does now, and Wyoming could possibly lose a ton of reclamation money from the feds. If they could figure out a way for the lands to stay public and do babysteps to the states building up an infrastruction to manage the lands, I might be lean more towards state control, until the next person sways me the other way, lol. I am not sure how to get the states to have more to say in the wild horses and wolves issue plus the bison coming out of yellowstone into Montana. Way above my pay grade.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Do you think they are going to spell it out for you??? The states can't afford to manage it properly without raising taxes significantly. How do you think that will go over? The only alternative is sell off portions until they have enough money to manage what's left. They will sell the parcels that are of the highest value and keep what's left. It then won't be "our" public land but "their" public land if you don't live there. This is a very bad deal for all of us and future generations of Americans.

I know a more than a few Wyoming ranchers that would gobble up every acre of BLM/National Forest they could. Federal land should stay federal. IMO anyway.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I have yet to see any proof that any state intends to sell off the public land if they were to take over management. From what I have seen the states intend to keep it public like it is and they want to be able to manage it better.

That's what they tell you NOW. If you're talking about Wyoming, If the State got deed to all the BLM & NF lands, it'd go right to the Ranchers & Outfitters. Who do you think nominates land parcels for sale. Our land board that OK's sales is top heavy with Ranching interests. Governor Mead himself is a rancher.

 

[Againstthewind]

I don't know the ins and outs of it, but it seems like a pretty sweet deal if your ranch borders BLM and National Forest to keep it that way. Good grazing, good fences, no land taxes. The only up side is the feds aren't telling you what to do and you wouldn't pay lease fees, but they are butting into private land as much as they can with the EPA anyway.

You are right shootbrownelk, that Wyoming has a lot of ranchers in positions of power, but as someone with a family with ranching ties, I feel it is pretty representative of the populous in many areas. Like Big Horn, Goshen, and Niobrara Counties, I would be surprised if a ranchers (or lawyer, doctor, retiree who ranches on the side) wasn't in the government. Some of them are crazy, for sure. I am with you, though, I don't fully trust the state, especially Wyoming to keep public lands public when they see the dollars broken out. Its just some of the ways the federal government manages stuff makes very little sense to me also.

 

[laxwyo]

Why hasn't Wyoming sold all the state land already then?

 

[Againstthewind]

http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-trust-lands-today.html

http://www.statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/wyoming.html

That's a good point laxwyo. Wyoming hasn't sold very much of its state lands. I think a lot of it has to do with mineral leases and that a lot of the school sections are productive leases. We are more fortunate than Nevada which has sold a lot of their original land. If they become unproductive, I don't think there is much to stop them from selling it or using them for other commercial uses which would basically make them private. Some of the trust lands in this area are leased out to the mines making them not publicly accessible. I am sure it is the same down there with Black Butte and everything. The BLM works it pretty similar. I guess I was looking and the BLM does land sales that don't need a congressional approval. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/lands/selling_public_land.print.htmlhttp://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-trust-lands-today.html


The forest service spends like $2.2 billion on fire fighting and roads. I am not sure what Wyoming's share is.
http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wo/Communications_Directorate/public_affairs/news_release_attachments.Par.87017.File.dat/2015BudgetBroFinal061614.pdf
I guess the BLM made money on the leases and everything, so maybe all the math would all work out. I guess that is what the study is for. The reclamation money from the feds is huge in this area.