Transfer of Public Lands

[highplainsdrifter]

If it is any consolation, residents of Wyoming, consider this:

There is a general consensus among contstitutional scholars that a state takeover of Federal Lands would be unconstitutional.

The good part about this is that it is highly unlikely that any takeover will occur, regardless of what the state legislature and governor do.

The bad part is that Wyoming will end up wasting a bunch of taxpayer money on "studying" and maybe even litigating the issue. Utah, of course, has already gone down that road.

The reference study for federal ownership is the University of Maryland's commisioned Report to Congress on the issue from 2007:

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

Bitterroot Bulls, Thank you for your support. However, I don't find a great deal of comfort in the 2007 report. I think the report confirms that the states would be on shaky legal ground trying to force congress to turn over federal lands.

But consider this: What would prevent congress from giving the federal lands to the states? You think that won't happen? Take a look at this resolution passed by the Republican National Committee: https://cdn.gop.com/docs/RESOLUTION-IN-SUPPORT-OF-WESTERN-STATES-TAKING-BACK-PUBLIC-LANDS.pdf The resolution states: RESOLVED, That the Republican National Committee calls upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the imminent transfer of public lands to all willing western states for the benefit of these western states and for the nation as a whole. As a long-time republican, I feel very betrayed by this resolution.

As you may have noticed, as of this month, the republicans have control of both the house and the senate. Many believe they are poised to win the presidency in 2016. After 2016, a republican senate, house and president could potentially give federal lands to the states. Surely it would be controversial but a scary possibility nonetheless.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

HPD,

I am with you 100%. I was referring to any actions by the state government only. You are, of course, correct the U.S. Government could indeed give the lands to the states. That scenario would in fact be the single greatest disaster to public recreation generally, and hunting specifically, ever, IMO.

Like you, I am incredibly disappointed in the Republican Committee infiltration by these interest groups, especially given that the idea is unpopular even among Republicans.

Personally, I have a general distaste for party politics and "platforms" in general, as I like to decide for myself on issues individually, and reject being bullied into thinking any certain way to be part of the "team."

It is encouraging, however, to know that many Republicans are standing up to this push by some members of their own party.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Anyone that thinks this proposal is about revenues generated from surface uses, whether the state retains title or not, is either uninformed, or very naive.

Subsurface mineral rights and royalties are all that the legislature and the bill's/file's sponsors are interested. The government's cut on the $$ generated by minerals and oil and gas extraction make the surface revenues, whatever they may be, look like less than a drop in the bucket. Annual revenues in Wyoming alone are in the multi-millions (sometimes billions, dependent on the market), and long term revenues are in the multi billions. If/when the states were to ever gain title to federal lands, they could and would sell the surface rights off in a heartbeat and not blink an eye, whether the state gets 5% of the sale or 5000% of the sale it pales in comparison to the value of the mineral rights, which the state would keep and exploit.

The individual states, whether its Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, or any other, are in the business of making money for the benefit of their citizens, as they well should be, that's what the respective state constitutions call for. Their definition of multiple use is different than the definition on federal lands, and it does not include free use for recreation. Look on the state land board's web site, it is clearly spelled out. The public has been offered the privilege of accessing state lands, not a right. If your interest is generating profit, and if your definition of multiple use only applies to those uses that generate profit, that's fine, but please don't blow smoke up our a***s and try and tell people that this is about managing surface uses (grazing, forest management, etc.) "better" than the federal government. Truth be told, the only reason that the citizens of the United States can access federal public lands is because it is managed under a true multiple use concept (defined by law) not bound by making a profit from every use. There is nothing in the constitution which says anything about public access to public lands.

As an aside, the above post is right, there is no way the United States government will cede interest in public lands. The state of Wyoming already gave up that right in the Articles of Admission to the Union. That is clearly spelled out in black and white. This is a waste of tax dollars to the tune of $100K, which I guess is alright, since the lion's share of Wyoming's tax revenue comes from the extractive minerals industries, which are behind passage of the bills/files.

SouthernWyo, I think you are absolutely correct about the focus on minerals. This morning, the Cheyenne newspaper had this quote from Representative David Miller regarding his support for HB0209 "Permitting in Wyoming is atrocious on federal lands. If you look at those states that don't operate on federal lands, they get their permits in a week or two. Here it takes much longer." He is referring to mineral extraction permits.

It is clear to me that the supporters of this bill are interested in accessing public land resources (minerals, grazing, timber, etc.). They are only paying lip-service to recreational use.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Paul Ryan said something about selling off Federal Lands to reduce the deficit. If the Republicans win the Presidency....look out.
I'm sure that our 2 Wyoming senators, Enzi & Barrasso would be the first in line to hand over Federal lands to Governor Mead for quick disposal to his ranching cohorts. JMO. And I've been wrong before.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Paul Ryan said something about selling off Federal Lands to reduce the deficit. If the Republicans win the Presidency....look out.
I'm sure that our 2 Wyoming senators, Enzi & Barrasso would be the first in line to hand over Federal lands to Governor Mead for quick disposal to his ranching cohorts. JMO. And I've been wrong before.

I recently sent an email to Senators Enzi and Barrasso on this very subject. Just within the past couple of days, I received responses from each of them that suggest that those of us who want to keep federal lands federal cannot count on their support. I hope their positions will evolve on this, but that is what I am reading in their recent responses.

 

[Againstthewind]

Its sure looking that way. The wording of the house bill pretty much showed what direction they were heading. They would leave the big tourist money makers federal, Yellowstone, Grand Teton, etc. The forests sound like fair game for anything they want, blm for sure.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865616735/Study-Federal-lands-transfer-for-Utah-could-be-profitable.html?pg=all

The Utah study showed that if oil and gas prices stayed high, the the transfer of federal land would generate revenue with some assumptions. Fire control would be one of the biggest expenses.

 

[ssliger]

Another tidbit, language in the bill says that only 51% of the land would have to be retained for recreation and public access. Federal land could be sold for multi-use purposes, which means industrial and agricultural developments would be allowed. And, state lands could be sold for permanent developments. This is a HORRIBLE idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

This isn't a political issue. It is simply a for-profit land and resource grab by development special interest.

The genius of these special interests is they managed to make it look like a political issue. Now they get to pressure support by labeling conservatives that don't support it as RINOs or government lovers or un-American or whatever.

I actually think it will be unsuccessful though and quite unfortunately cause irreparable harm to the Republican Party as former staunch Republican supporters look elsewhere over this issue.

 

[SouthernWyo]

"quote from Representative David Miller regarding his support for HB0209 "Permitting in Wyoming is atrocious on federal lands. If you look at those states that don't operate on federal lands, they get their permits in a week or two. Here it takes much longer." He is referring to mineral extraction permits."

High Plains, you're pretty much correct. The reason permitting for industry on federal public lands is more time consuming and expensive, is that other, non-extractive uses and the impacts to them are considered in the process (i.e. wildlife, recreation, etc.)

A good example is a recent gas well that was drilled north of Baggs on state trust land, right at 5 mile point which is a terrific bottleneck for migrating mule deer moving from summer range in the Sierra Madres and foothills, west to crucial winter range along Powder Rim. Since the site was on state trust, the drilling activity occurred right through the migration period (late November through January) and through the winter months, impacting a supposedly critical resource (the Baggs mule deer herd) during the crucial winter period. This probably would not have happened this way on BLM, the drilling activity would most likely been allowed, but would have been permitted outside of the winter months and especially during the migration period. The well would still be there, operating and producing oil and gas, it would have been done differently (I believe the well is actually shut-in now, but I could be wrong.)

So there it is, one difference in managing and permitting between state trust surface and minerals and federal public surface and minerals. I get it that oil, gas, coal, etc. pay the bills here in Wyoming, anyone that doesn't get it is blind. But this is the difference in developing these resources in a responsible manner rather than going hell-for-leather in response to industry demands. If the focus is to make money, generate jobs, build infrastructure, whatever, well that's great if that's what the public wants. To pretend that we can develop resources this way and continue to enjoy our wildlife like we have in the past is at best ignorant, and at worst, an outright lie.

I guess we need to decide where our values lie. Personally, I want to see multiple use of our public lands, and I want it done in a responsible manner. I'm not sure I trust our locally elected representatives in Cheyenne to do that.

 

[libidilatimmy]

Everything is a business weather you like it or not. $$$$$$$$$$$$ margin. ....... I don't like it either.

 

[okielite]

Oh boy. So the state is kicking out all the campers. Then they will sell off land to be clear cut, mined, and developed in this so called "land grab". That way Wyoming can keep those darn tourist out of the state which is the true intent of all this. Wyoming is sick and tired of those tourist, campers, hunters, etc. showing up spending money at all the gas stations, resorts, hotels, and restaurants while the recreate in the state.

I can assure you that when reasonable people read some of the posts in this thread they shake their head. You guys are worse than the wolf crazies. We understand that you want all the taxpayers in the country to subsidize your hunting spot but to act like Wyoming is against tourism is simply ridiculous. If you want people to take you seriously try being at least somewhat realistic with what you say. Some of the stuff being said is just plain stupid.

The reality of the situation is that tourism is a huge industry for Wyoming and they would never do what you guys are claiming as it would hurt the states economy. They work hard to get people to the state and even giving people a place to hunt with programs like access yes. To pretend otherwise is simply ridiculous.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

okielite,


Despite your backhanded name-calling, our position seems reasonable to me. What sounds unreasonable is your position as a resident of Nebraska (according to your location field), contending that out-of-state interests should have no say in MT/WY matters, yet you continue to weigh in on these threads. It seems incongruous.

Yet, I disagree with you on the point. I believe your opinion, as an American, DOES matter in these public land issues. Your representatives should have some say in what happens on federal lands, which is precisely why public lands should stay in public hands, so everybody has a say.

The hang up in your logic is that you believe that this transfer to state control is what the state (Wyoming in your example) WANTS. This is the critical error. Polls show this idea is incredibly unpopular among voters (the state). Without exception the state budget offices say it is a poor financial decision. The people that WANT this transfer are the development special interests, and they could give a rat's behind about tourism. They are simply selling the idea to state beaurocrats that the state could make more money on the development than the tourism dollars.

The funny thing is these special interests aren't even sticking to their guns on the "state's rights" issue. They are saying that they will keep the National Parks under Federal control and funding because they are "TOO IMPORTANT" to the tourism industry. So in one fell swoop, they have conceded that the Federal Government has the authority to manage public lands, AND that tourism is dependant on public lands, WHILE implying that BLM and Forest Service lands are LESS IMPORTANT to tourism, and so , by extension can be sacrificed for development/sale.

As far as taxpayers subsidizing my hunting spot: You are right. I am absolutely OK with that, and I am OK with my tax dollars going to help subsidize their hunting spot ... or fishing spot ... or birdwatching spot ... or hiking spot ... or backpacking spot ... and those spots for their children to enjoy.

 

[RICMIC]

Not to get too much off track on this thread, but before anyone gets too upset at one political party, please keep in mind that we were only ONE vote in the supreme court from losing the second amendment. Without that, you can kiss all of your other rights goodby, and hunting was never a "right" in the first place. The next president will likely get two or three appointments, and those nine on the big bench can easily turn us into France.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Not to get too much off track on this thread, but before anyone gets too upset at one political party, please keep in mind that we were only ONE vote in the supreme court from losing the second amendment. Without that, you can kiss all of your other rights goodby, and hunting was never a "right" in the first place. The next president will likely get two or three appointments, and those nine on the big bench can easily turn us into France.

This is precisely the argument these interests want to see, RICMIC. They want it to morph from this public land use discussion to one about the second amendment. It is taking the thread off track, which is the "genius" move they made I referenced earlier.

To get it back on track, rest assured, RICMIC the DOC v. Heller decision (2008) was a HUGE, precedent-setting, victorious decision for gun rights where the second amendment, for the first time in our country's history, was affirmed as an individual right for the purpose of self defense.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

When I first became involved on this forum with the discussion of this subject last August, I was appalled that hunters were not more united against this movement. I fear that if we can't even get hunters united we may be doomed. Who will stand up for public lands? The single mom fighting to survive? I think not. The illegal immigrant keeping a low profile so as not to be deported? I think not. The people protesting police brutality. I think not. The oil and gas companies that want to expand production? I think not. The rancher who wants to graze more cattle? I think not.

We and fellow recreationists such as fishermen, hikers, ATVers, snowmobilers, and RVers must stand united to fight this movement. If we do not, those people who want to get our federal lands for personal profit will prevail.

So what if they do prevail? According to okielite, the state has so much interest in tourism that they won't sell our public lands. While I doubt they would sell ALL of it, there is no doubt in my mind they would sell SOME of it. How much sold would be too much sold? In my opinion even 20 percent sold would not be acceptable. That combined with extensive extra development on the remaining public land would be a disaster for recreational interests. Do you want to show up at your favorite hunting spot and find that it has been sold or if not sold, it has been heavily grazed or has an oil well on it. I cringe at the thought!

Make no mistake about it, this is a movement that pits consumptive users against non-consumptive users.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I recently sent an email to Senators Enzi and Barrasso on this very subject. Just within the past couple of days, I received responses from each of them that suggest that those of us who want to keep federal lands federal cannot count on their support. I hope their positions will evolve on this, but that is what I am reading in their recent responses.

That's what I said since day one. Enzi and Barrasso go along to get along. If they could transfer that federal land tomorrow, they sure as hell would. I've sent e-mails to them as well. No response...however, I was a bit snippy!

 

[shootbrownelk]

"11 (b) If the state subsequently transfers title to any
12 public lands received under subsection (a) of this section,
13 the state shall:
14
15 (i) Retain five percent (5%) of the net proceeds
16 the state receives from the transfer of title; and
17
18 (ii) Transfer ninety-five percent (95%) of the
19 net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title
20 to the United States."

I dont think the state would be trying to get the land so they could sell it and only keep 5% of the sales.

In the early days of this country the federal government did not want to own land and made a point of getting rid of any land they owned as fast as they could. This is why there is no federal land in the eastern states. Years later when the western states came to be the federal government decided to keep ownership of alot of land. Now the western states are saying they want the land transferred to them like it was in the eastern states long ago.

It's NOT about what the state would get from land sales, it's WHO they would sell it to. And as long as Wyoming kept the subsurface mineral rights...they could give a tinker's damn about what the Feds got from the sale of the surface. All the best ground for hunting would be all locked-up with no access. A whole hell of a lot worse than it is now. You can't win...the Republicans want to take away our public hunting and the Democrats want the guns. oops, almost forgot about PETA.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Outdoor Life Magazine just came out with a second article against transferring federal land to the states.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/sign-petition-stop-public-land-firesale-it-starts?cmpid=enews02022015&spPodID=020&spMailingID=7470626&spUserID=ODc2NTU1OTM5NTYS1&spJobID=620203404&spReportId=NjIwMjAzNDA0S0

There is also a petition you can sign: http://sportsmensaccess.org/

 

[shootbrownelk]

Outdoor Life Magazine just came out with a second article against transferring federal land to the states.

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/sign-petition-stop-public-land-firesale-it-starts?cmpid=enews02022015&spPodID=020&spMailingID=7470626&spUserID=ODc2NTU1OTM5NTYS1&spJobID=620203404&spReportId=NjIwMjAzNDA0S0

There is also a petition you can sign: http://sportsmensaccess.org/

Thanks for the info and link HPD. DONE!

 

[ssliger]

Oh boy. So the state is kicking out all the campers. Then they will sell off land to be clear cut, mined, and developed in this so called "land grab". That way Wyoming can keep those darn tourist out of the state which is the true intent of all this. Wyoming is sick and tired of those tourist, campers, hunters, etc. showing up spending money at all the gas stations, resorts, hotels, and restaurants while the recreate in the state.

I can assure you that when reasonable people read some of the posts in this thread they shake their head. You guys are worse than the wolf crazies. We understand that you want all the taxpayers in the country to subsidize your hunting spot but to act like Wyoming is against tourism is simply ridiculous. If you want people to take you seriously try being at least somewhat realistic with what you say. Some of the stuff being said is just plain stupid.

The reality of the situation is that tourism is a huge industry for Wyoming and they would never do what you guys are claiming as it would hurt the states economy. They work hard to get people to the state and even giving people a place to hunt with programs like access yes. To pretend otherwise is simply ridiculous.

I'll ask again. How much money does Wyoming make on tourism, it's the second biggest money generator for the state? How much money does Wyoming make on mineral extraction?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk