Transfer of Public Lands

[highplainsdrifter]

I'm a big Ron/Rand Paul guy. I'd probably vote libertarian every time but their position is state control of land.

In a way, there's nothing stopping the fed government from selling the land so why would it be much different if the states owned it? The government would be more beholden to its constituents since they're technically closer to them. I'd prefer the lands to remain federal but I do get sick of Feds running the show when I think local people should have more say

The problem is the states would very likely accelerate development and sale of public land. To me there is little doubt about that.

 

[WY ME]

I agree with LAXWYO. I definitely have more faith in local gov'ts than I do in the feds. If it weren't for the fact that I'm afraid the states would sell the land I would be behind the transfer 100%. I'm not a Ron Paul guy but do think he's honest and committed to the views that he puts forth. I can respect someone's opinion if they're honest about the facts even if I disagree with them.

 

[laxwyo]

It's too bad that the transfer couldn't come with stipulations that it can't be sold. State management and state actually gets their fair share of royalties

 

[highplainsdrifter]

If you have read this entire thread from the beginning, you will see that most of us doubt the state could do a better job of managing the land because they couldn't afford to manage millions of acres. You will also see that many agree with you that some of the land would be sold if it were transferred to the state. This is not only the opinion of those of us on this thread, it is the opinion of more than 100 sportsmen's organizations that recently signed a letter to congress:

http://www.trcp.org/images/uploads/wygwam/Public_Land_Transfer_and_Sale_National_Sportsmen_Letter_4_14_2015.pdf

I want to vote republican, but I don't see how I can do that when they are promoting transfer. I hope you will join us in trying to convince the Republican Party to change their position on this. That is our best option.

 

[grizzly]

I have contacted numerous Utah legislatures about this and every one so far has said they support the transfer. None of them have denied that land would have to be sold. None of them could answer as to how wildlife and habitat could possibly remain while "creating 250,000 jobs and $20 Billion" on this land. Ultimately, they disputed it would hurt hunters and those that enjoyed the outdoors, but stated they'd sell it or mine/log/drill it as necessary? Do they think we're idiots? Curt Oda even stated that it would be like hunting back east and that hasn't suffered... like that would make me feel better.

I have voted Republican my whole life, except when I voted Libertarian when I thought John McCain was too liberal, but I'll vote for Hillary before I vote for a Republican under the current platform.

The land-grab naysayers might be wrong about the land-grab, but the proponents can't be sure that we are. And only one way has the possibility of closing hunting as we know it in the west. We can't risk it.

 

[okielite]

I agree with LAXWYO. I definitely have more faith in local gov'ts than I do in the feds. If it weren't for the fact that I'm afraid the states would sell the land I would be behind the transfer 100%. I'm not a Ron Paul guy but do think he's honest and committed to the views that he puts forth. I can respect someone's opinion if they're honest about the facts even if I disagree with them.

Exactly. Simply transferring the management of the land would give states the opportunity to do a better job without the risk of selling off the land. The states already manage the wildlife on federal land so managing the timber and grazing resources would just be an extension of what they are already doing.

 

[MOHunter]

Here's the response I received from the republican U.S. Senator from MO.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding the Antiquities Act.

As you may know, the Antiquities Act of 1906 gives the president authority to designate limited areas on federal lands as national monuments. This narrow authority relies on the president's discretion when identifying historic landmarks and structures for designation. Because national monument designations often bring with them land use restrictions, these designations should be made with this consideration in mind.

I agree that public lands have great historic and economic value. In Missouri, we are fortunate to have 6 national parks with nearly 4 million visitors annually. However, public lands should be managed in a way that takes into account a multiple-use philosophy, including an approach that encourages the environmentally responsible use of public lands for conservation, recreation, and economic purposes like energy exploration.

Should legislation regarding public land access and national monument designation come before the Senate for consideration, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind. "

 

[okielite]

If you have read this entire thread from the beginning, you will see that most of us doubt the state could do a better job of managing the land because they couldn't afford to manage millions of acres. .

Nobody is claiming the States could manage the land with no federal $. Nobody. Clearly federal $ would still be necessary. But if it took less $ for states to manage the land then it would put less of a burden on taxpayers.

Most people are smart enough to realize that the federal government is not good or efficient at doing much of anything. It is extremely likely IMO that the state would do a better job of managing the grazing and timber resources than the feds.

Another thing to keep in mind is that each states situation is different. Many states have such small amounts of federal land it would be easy for the management of that land to be incorporated into the states land management. Other sates like Nevada are almost entirely federal so clearly each state has differences that need to be addressed if something like this was to happen.

The reality of the situation is that the politicians dont' really care what sportsmen think as they are being influences by outside $. You can send all the angry e-mails you want but it likely wont' do any good. You can run around the internet making up all sorts of half truth claims and exaggerations but it won't change anything. The usual "we won't be allowed to camp anymore", "states dont' care about tourism", "they will sell it all off and our kids will have nowhere to hunt", etc are pretty easy to see through.
My guess is many of the hunters who are against the state getting the opportunity to manage the land are actually federal employees who are afraid the states might do a better job and make them look bad. Quite frankly it just makes sense to allow States to manage land within their borders IMO. In fact they are already managing the wildlife on federal land including setting harvest quotas, unit boundaries, etc..

Why is it so scary to think about the state managing the grazing resources? Afraid they might get more than the measly $1.35 the feds get for an AUM that is worth about $20 fair market value. Clearly they are not getting even remotely close to fair market value of the resource they are in charge of. That is piss poor management IMO.

What is so scary about allowing the state to manage the timber resource? Anything would be an improvement over the current do little logging, allow huge fires every summer, and put out fires with huge amounts of $. The current system is a joke. Every year we watch the timber burn out of control instead of doing something useful with it. I'd like to see someone else get the chance to manage the timber resource on federal land.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Nobody is claiming the States could manage the land with no federal $. Nobody. Clearly federal $ would still be necessary. But if it took less $ for states to manage the land then it would put less of a burden on taxpayers.

Most people are smart enough to realize that the federal government is not good or efficient at doing much of anything. It is extremely likely IMO that the state would do a better job of managing the grazing and timber resources than the feds.

Another thing to keep in mind is that each states situation is different. Many states have such small amounts of federal land it would be easy for the management of that land to be incorporated into the states land management. Other sates like Nevada are almost entirely federal so clearly each state has differences that need to be addressed if something like this was to happen.

The reality of the situation is that the politicians dont' really care what sportsmen think as they are being influences by outside $. You can send all the angry e-mails you want but it likely wont' do any good. You can run around the internet making up all sorts of half truth claims and exaggerations but it won't change anything. The usual "we won't be allowed to camp anymore", "states dont' care about tourism", "they will sell it all off and our kids will have nowhere to hunt", etc are pretty easy to see through.
My guess is many of the hunters who are against the state getting the opportunity to manage the land are actually federal employees who are afraid the states might do a better job and make them look bad. Quite frankly it just makes sense to allow States to manage land within their borders IMO. In fact they are already managing the wildlife on federal land including setting harvest quotas, unit boundaries, etc..

Why is it so scary to think about the state managing the grazing resources? Afraid they might get more than the measly $1.35 the feds get for an AUM that is worth about $20 fair market value. Clearly they are not getting even remotely close to fair market value of the resource they are in charge of. That is piss poor management IMO.

What is so scary about allowing the state to manage the timber resource? Anything would be an improvement over the current do little logging, allow huge fires every summer, and put out fires with huge amounts of $. The current system is a joke. Every year we watch the timber burn out of control instead of doing something useful with it. I'd like to see someone else get the chance to manage the timber resource on federal land.

I see a couple of problems with your argument: First, you say it is extremely likely the states could do a better job of managing the land than the feds. I have worked for/with the State of Wyoming for 30 years and that experience has convinced me otherwise. Second, you say most hunters who are against the transfer are probably federal employees. I don't think the tens of thousands of hunters represented by more than 100 sportsmen's organizations that recently sent a letter to congress are all federal employees. I also don't think that the people questioned in a recent public survey by Colorado College, who were against transfer, are all federal employees. People on this forum, who are against the transfer, are not all federal employees. It is a fact that the majority of the public is against the idea. The idea persists because our decision makers are not listening to us. However, I am reasonably confident that we can change their minds if we don't give up, which I don't intend to do.

Also, many of us are convinced the states would sell off some or most of the land. Grizzly said it best: "we can't risk it".

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

Nobody is claiming the States could manage the land with no federal $. Nobody. Clearly federal $ would still be necessary. But if it took less $ for states to manage the land then it would put less of a burden on taxpayers.

Most people are smart enough to realize that the federal government is not good or efficient at doing much of anything. It is extremely likely IMO that the state would do a better job of managing the grazing and timber resources than the feds.

Another thing to keep in mind is that each states situation is different. Many states have such small amounts of federal land it would be easy for the management of that land to be incorporated into the states land management. Other sates like Nevada are almost entirely federal so clearly each state has differences that need to be addressed if something like this was to happen.

The reality of the situation is that the politicians dont' really care what sportsmen think as they are being influences by outside $. You can send all the angry e-mails you want but it likely wont' do any good. You can run around the internet making up all sorts of half truth claims and exaggerations but it won't change anything. The usual "we won't be allowed to camp anymore", "states dont' care about tourism", "they will sell it all off and our kids will have nowhere to hunt", etc are pretty easy to see through.
My guess is many of the hunters who are against the state getting the opportunity to manage the land are actually federal employees who are afraid the states might do a better job and make them look bad. Quite frankly it just makes sense to allow States to manage land within their borders IMO. In fact they are already managing the wildlife on federal land including setting harvest quotas, unit boundaries, etc..

Why is it so scary to think about the state managing the grazing resources? Afraid they might get more than the measly $1.35 the feds get for an AUM that is worth about $20 fair market value. Clearly they are not getting even remotely close to fair market value of the resource they are in charge of. That is piss poor management IMO.

What is so scary about allowing the state to manage the timber resource? Anything would be an improvement over the current do little logging, allow huge fires every summer, and put out fires with huge amounts of $. The current system is a joke. Every year we watch the timber burn out of control instead of doing something useful with it. I'd like to see someone else get the chance to manage the timber resource on federal land.

I am definitely NOT a federal employee, never have been(except when I was drafted in 1963!). The only way I would support any transfer of public lands from the feds to states is with this statement added....States cannot sell this land as it belongs to the people...forever! If anyone thinks that the money not spent by the Dept of Interior would be given back to us via less taxes, they are nuts. The feds just don't lower taxes, they will find someplace else to spend it. The first time the economy takes a dump like it just did, the states would be looking to balance their budgets...first corporation or billionaire that gave campaign donation and wanted some state land, they would get it. I've seen too many land transfers via trades between private and public that give the private sector way more benefit on the trade.

No...emphatically NO !

 

[WY ME]

I want to vote republican, but I don't see how I can do that when they are promoting transfer. I hope you will join us in trying to convince the Republican Party to change their position on this. That is our best option.

I contacted my 2 senators and 1 congresswoman two months ago.

Your argument about about the states not being able to afford management of the land as it is, is probably true. But do the states really need to manage it in the same sloppy, wasteful, political and overly bureaucratic manner that the feds are so renown for. I think that is the whole point of the transfer. If the feds were doing a good job of it this topic would never have gained any traction. What ever happened to multiple use on our forests? When it comes to managing our money, you only need to look at our current situation to see why the feds led by the Obama administration are a complete failure at everything they do . Our gov't is 18 trillion (21 trillion by the next election) in debt. The feds aren't managing these lands within their budget. It's a false budget. It's borrowed money! Thank you China, for without your money we might need to tighten our belts and manage our public lands with a smaller budget.

After the past 6 1/2 years of the current administration I can't fathom why anyone would vote for another democrat unless they are on the receiving end of some gov't money. Obama has already spent more $ than all 43 previous presidents combined.

Voting democrat is our worst option.

 

[laxwyo]

You need to stop watching so much "Fox News". Other than the health care fiasco, I think Obama has done a decent job. He hasn't attacked our guns, got us through recession, gas is $2.30 a gallon. Couldn't be better

 

[grizzly]

I contacted my 2 senators and 1 congresswoman two months ago.

Your argument about about the states not being able to afford management of the land as it is, is probably true. But do the states really need to manage it in the same sloppy, wasteful, political and overly bureaucratic manner that the feds are so renown for. I think that is the whole point of the transfer. If the feds were doing a good job of it this topic would never have gained any traction. What ever happened to multiple use on our forests? When it comes to managing our money, you only need to look at our current situation to see why the feds led by the Obama administration are a complete failure at everything they do . Our gov't is 18 trillion (21 trillion by the next election) in debt. The feds aren't managing these lands within their budget. It's a false budget. It's borrowed money! Thank you China, for without your money we might need to tighten our belts and manage our public lands with a smaller budget.

After the past 6 1/2 years of the current administration I can't fathom why anyone would vote for another democrat unless they are on the receiving end of some gov't money. Obama has already spent more $ than all 43 previous presidents combined.

Voting democrat is our worst option.

The last balanced budget was under a Democrat. The out-of-control spending started under a Republican and continued through Republicans controlling either the House or both the House and Senate. No doubt that government spending is out of control. With that in mind, I will not allow them to use MY public lands as a budget item to be exploited to pay for their decades of overspending (They've been robbing Social Security far longer than the deficit was climbing.) Overspending is a cancer that should not be cured using public lands; which they could only accomplish by selling the land or dramatically increasing grazing/logging/drilling/mining, all of which are bad for hunters.

Many states have Balanced Budget requirements imposed on themselves that the Federal government doesn't have. If the states have a shortfall one year, they MUST sell land to make up the difference. Either that or increase taxes... do you think the Republicans will do that when in a pinch? I don't.

The best thing hunters have going about Federal management of public lands is the very bureaucracy that you dislike... it prevents major management changes that would harm wildlife and habitat. Sadly, the ridiculous government red tape may be the very thing that preserves hunting as we know it.

I have voted Republican or Libertarian my whole life. But I strongly believe that the Land Grab fraud is more dangerous to my way of life, and that of my posterity, than anything Hillary Clinton would do (especially with Republicans controlling either chamber of Congress).

If the Republicans don't change their platform, I'll have a Hillary sign in my front yard. :vomit:

 

[WY ME]

Ya the economy is just great! Gas at $2.30?...hmm...gas was at $1.85 when Obama started office but at $3.50 for most of his term. Our federal work force has shrank during his term but the upside is that it helps make the unemployment numbers look better. No he hasn't attacked our guns. In fact he allowed thousands of guns to be sold to the Mexican drug cartels, but he did try to take our ammunition away. Oh and don't forget to add the stellar job he's done on race relations to his list of accomplishments.

Well maybe he's not so good at home but thank God (or Allah) he's such a strong leader overseas. Putin, Iran and ISIS can nowfear the hell out of us. At least he's pushing hard for an Iranian nuke deal. It's important to be friends with Iran.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I contacted my 2 senators and 1 congresswoman two months ago.

Your argument about about the states not being able to afford management of the land as it is, is probably true. But do the states really need to manage it in the same sloppy, wasteful, political and overly bureaucratic manner that the feds are so renown for. I think that is the whole point of the transfer. If the feds were doing a good job of it this topic would never have gained any traction. What ever happened to multiple use on our forests? When it comes to managing our money, you only need to look at our current situation to see why the feds led by the Obama administration are a complete failure at everything they do . Our gov't is 18 trillion (21 trillion by the next election) in debt. The feds aren't managing these lands within their budget. It's a false budget. It's borrowed money! Thank you China, for without your money we might need to tighten our belts and manage our public lands with a smaller budget.

After the past 6 1/2 years of the current administration I can't fathom why anyone would vote for another democrat unless they are on the receiving end of some gov't money. Obama has already spent more $ than all 43 previous presidents combined.

Voting democrat is our worst option.

I agree with most of what you said. I have not decided who to vote for. It is a little early for that. One advantage of voting for a democrat would be split party control in Washington. The republicans will likely retain the House and the Senate. If we get a another democrat president, there would be more stalemate. A federal government at stalemate...that could be the lesser of several other possible evils.

Glad to hear you have written our senators and congresswoman. I know many others have as well. They must be getting lots of letters! I think many of us would really like to change the republican position on this issue.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I received the following email from the Montana Wilderness Association. They are asking sportsmen to contact the governor to veto the Montana transfer study bill:

Ask Gov. Bullock to Protect Our Public Lands and Veto HB 496

We are almost to the finish line, but we need your help.

More than a dozen bills have come forward this legislative session aimed at seizing our American public lands under the guise of transferring ownership to the state. Only one of these bills passed in Montana, and now Governor Bullock needs to hear from you that he should veto it.

Sponsored by Rep. Kerry White (R-Bozeman), HB 496 would create a new government task force charged with studying management of federal lands, lands that range from military bases to national forests. The intent of the bill is to create a platform for transfer proponents to continue pushing their misguided agenda. More so, it would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Our public lands are critical to Montana's outdoor heritage and way of life. These are lands where our working families spend summer vacations and where we chase bull elk and rising trout. These are lands that fuel a $5.8 billion annual outdoor recreation economy. We cannot risk all of this on a scheme that Montanans have clearly rejected.

Governor Bullock has been an outspoken advocate for protecting our public land legacy. Sending a message today that HB 496 needs to be vetoed will also send a clear message to the transfer proponents that we won't tolerate any proposal that puts our outdoor heritage at risk.

Contact Governor Bullock and ask him to veto HB 496:

By mail:
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 200801
Helena, MT 59620

By phone:
(406) 444-3111

By email:
https://governor.mt.gov/Home/Contact/shareopinion

Thank you for taking action today to protect our public lands and outdoor heritage.

Sincerely,

Clayton Elliott

MWA State Policy Director

 

[WY ME]

The last balanced budget was under a Democrat. The out-of-control spending started under a Republican and continued through Republicans controlling either the House or both the House and Senate. No doubt that government spending is out of control. With that in mind, I will not allow them to use MY public lands as a budget item to be exploited to pay for their decades of overspending (They've been robbing Social Security far longer than the deficit was climbing.) Overspending is a cancer that should not be cured using public lands; which they could only accomplish by selling the land or dramatically increasing grazing/logging/drilling/mining, all of which are bad for hunters.

Many states have Balanced Budget requirements imposed on themselves that the Federal government doesn't have. If the states have a shortfall one year, they MUST sell land to make up the difference. Either that or increase taxes... do you think the Republicans will do that when in a pinch? I don't.

The best thing hunters have going about Federal management of public lands is the very bureaucracy that you dislike... it prevents major management changes that would harm wildlife and habitat. Sadly, the ridiculous government red tape may be the very thing that preserves hunting as we know it.

I have voted Republican or Libertarian my whole life. But I strongly believe that the Land Grab fraud is more dangerous to my way of life, and that of my posterity, than anything Hillary Clinton would do (especially with Republicans controlling either chamber of Congress).

If the Republicans don't change their platform, I'll have a Hillary sign in my front yard. :vomit:

If you're gonna speak facts then let's hear all the facts. Yes, Clinton was the last president with a balanced budget...for 3 years! But don't forget, the house and senate were controlled by the republicans. Don't conveniently gloss over the fact that the senate has been under democratic rule for 6 years of high spending under Obama and that both houses were under a democrat veto-proof majority for 2 of those years. The democrats had their untouchable moment in the sun for two years and all they did was shove Obamacare down the throats of the US citizens.

 

[grizzly]

WY ME, don't get me wrong. I think Obama is maybe the worst President in history after Woodrow Wilson and James Buchanan. His foreign policy has put us on a path that could easily result in WWIII involving Iran or China in coming decades. He has shown no desire to win in Iraq or Afghanistan, but neither did either Bush... they all have played politics and tried to win "hearts and minds" instead of the WWII war-strategy of "surrender or die".

However, to claim that Republicans hold some sort of fiscal superiority is completely bogus. NONE OF THEM CAN BE TRUSTED! When have you seen an entitlement taken away? Never. Heck, the Republicans aren't even seriously talking about overturning Obamacare anymore because they don't dare tell low-income people they will be losing free healthcare.

All of Congress is full of crooks. Think back to the years of Clinton's Balanced Budget. It was right after the Republican Revolution in the 90s. Gingrich proposed a series of bills that he promised to pass, which led to the Republicans taking control of Congress. He succeeded in passing every single item on his Contract With America, except term-limits for Congress. Even those hallowed individuals were self-serving and unwilling to take lifetime appointments for themselves off the table.

highplainsdrifter is correct that the Electoral Map almost certainly leaves the Senate and House in Republican hands for the foreseeable future. I don't trust the Republicans to also control the Presidency with the current platform and hatred for public land.

I TRUST NONE OF THEM WITH MY LAND! I TRUST NONE OF THEM WITH MY MONEY! SO WHY WOULD I TRUST THEM TO NOT SELL MY LAND TO MAKE MORE MONEY?

 

[ScottR]

The two party system has been broken for a very long time.

 

[laxwyo]

Fox News couldn't have said it better.
War mongering in the Middle East created ISIS and destabilized the whole region. Keep dangling the threat of Iran to the people so we can keep building 10 million dollar tanks. They said the same thing about Pakistan getting a nuke as they do Iran. The negotiations with Iran is the best thing to happen in the Middle East in years.! Or would you prefer to be on the brink of war with that country as well?

Clinton left office with a balance budget. Bush took a surplus and gave tax cuts to people who couldn't count all their money in a life time resulting in deficit instead of the great economic boost he promised