Transfer of Public Lands

[shootbrownelk]

If you think for one minute that the State of Wyoming is going to raise grazing fees on the public land ranchers, you are sadly mistaken. Wyoming State legislature is top heavy with ranchers & Ag interests. Governor Mead himself is a public land rancher.
Same old, Same old. State land lease holders get to bargain with oil and gas companies for access and compensation for lost grazing.
And for this, they split the proceeds 50/50 with the State...sometimes these payments are well above the lease cost. I certainly hope this doesn't fly. As it is now, you can't camp, have a fire or even have access without the lease holders permission on State land that is farmed or irrigated. You have a lot more trust in Wyoming's elected officials than I have, that's for sure. Sportspeople are at the bottom of the favorites list.

 

[okielite]

If you think for one minute that the State of Wyoming is going to raise grazing fees on the public land ranchers, you are sadly mistaken. Wyoming State legislature is top heavy with ranchers & Ag interests. Governor Mead himself is a public land rancher.
Same old, Same old. State land lease holders get to bargain with oil and gas companies for access and compensation for lost grazing.
And for this, they split the proceeds 50/50 with the State...sometimes these payments are well above the lease cost. I certainly hope this doesn't fly. As it is now, you can't camp, have a fire or even have access without the lease holders permission on State land that is farmed or irrigated. You have a lot more trust in Wyoming's elected officials than I have, that's for sure. Sportspeople are at the bottom of the favorites list.

Wyoming already charges more for grazing on State land than the feds do. Take off the tin foil hats for a minute and look at facts instead of this crazy paranoia where you think everyone is anti hunting. I am not sadly mistaken, but you are.

I also love that you are still using the "we wont' be able to camp" line. That is nothing but a half truth and gross exaggeration and you guys know it. If you want credibility try a new tactic. States are not against camping and they do allow camping on some state land but not others, just like the feds to. You guys are as bad as the wolf crazies.

 

[WY ME]

Hell yes a state would allow a guy to graze his cattle for free. Look at every landlocked piece of public ground in the Western states. The states have set it up so we can not access hundreds of thousands of acres of public land and kissed the ranchers and land owners ass along the way. You are right that we do want a place to fish and hunt for free. We pay taxes as well as license fees to hunt on your "free" land. It is called public land for a reason. If you think states do such a good job managing their land then stay away from the BLM and NF property. Just hunt state land and private when you hunt from now on. Let me know how that works out for you. But if you come out west to enjoy some of that free land then stop knocking it. It obviously works because hunters head west by the droves every fall to hunt the free land. Do the Feds mismanage it? Hell yes. Will the states sell it for profit and close it to the public? Hell yes, every special interest group that funded the campaigns of these idiots is salivating thinking of getting a hold of OUR land.

In one sentence you say say there are hundreds of thousands of inaccessible landlocked pieces of public (state) land in the west. I think its a travesty that we can't access these properties. But in another sentence you say the states will sell it for profit. They haven't sold off the property they currently own yet so which way is it. Here in Wyoming I don't see any track record of massive land sales.

If you disagree with me and feel that the feds manage their land better than the states, I invite you to stop by and I will show you some state managed land parcels within 2 separate nat'l forests in 2 different states (ID & WY). A five year old can see the difference. In comparison the Nat'l forest is a junk show.

 

[libidilatimmy]

So imagine what state wildlife departments do if they charged $20 per AUM instead of letting the feds collect a mere $1.35 per AUM on the federal land within the state?

State wildlife departments have nothing to do with the management of grazing allotments, those are handled by a division that oversees State lands only. This is the same department that approves & denies Oil/Gas/Mineral Leases, Timber sales, & Land sales. Under the current set up, the WYGF currently only gets about 10% of their operating budget from the state general fund, while over 50% of that budget comes from license sales. Decrease range feed quantity & limit access, if even in a minor way, and watch that budget take a hit from drops in license sales.

The way I've had it explained, the cheaper AUM fee on federally administered lands is somewhat of a roundabout subsidy program using a formula to calculate this rate, which is evaluated on a year by year basis. I read that the feds did raise the AUM in 2015 by 30-40 cents per AUM based on the high cattle market in recent times. Part of the formula for coming to this rate is the cost incurred by the producer for doing business on Federal Land. This is an important factor in the formula since most of the grazing leases that are held by producers are not next to their base of operation, they are 50-100 miles away on FS or BLM land. I know personally a guy who has a decent sized cattle operation with grazing allotments on both BLM & FS lands with State school sections mixed in. As far as State grazing fees are concerned, he has complained several times about the higher prices and stated that he probably wouldn't be in business if he had to pay the higher AUM fee for all of his allotments.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Yesterday this thread received approximately 500 hits. That is amazing! Obviously there is tremendous interest in this subject. With a couple of notable exceptions, I feel like hunters (especially western hunters) are finally getting united on the issue. But we can't stop there. Hunters cannot win this battle alone. We need the help of the general public and especially other recreationists including fishermen, snowmobilers, ATVers, RVers, hikers, mountain bikers, etc. We need to expand our influence. Let's use our enthusiasm to make a difference beyond this forum. Here are some thoughts on how to do this:

Continue to write letters to elected officials (write them again if you have already written).

Write letters to the editor of your local newspaper.

Tell friends, relatives and business associates about the issue.

Speak at government meetings.

Join and become active in outdoor organizations (provide financial support if you can afford it).

Post comments on other recreational forums (snowmobilers, RVers, etc.).

Promote and attend rallies.

Sign petitions.

Anyone have any other ideas?

For many of us, doing some of these things is awkward. Most of us, including me, would rather mind our own business and wish others would do the same. Unfortunately, that is not where we are at with this.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

In one sentence you say say there are hundreds of thousands of inaccessible landlocked pieces of public (state) land in the west. I think its a travesty that we can't access these properties. But in another sentence you say the states will sell it for profit. They haven't sold off the property they currently own yet so which way is it. Here in Wyoming I don't see any track record of massive land sales.

If you disagree with me and feel that the feds manage their land better than the states, I invite you to stop by and I will show you some state managed land parcels within 2 separate nat'l forests in 2 different states (ID & WY). A five year old can see the difference. In comparison the Nat'l forest is a junk show.

Below is a link that shows the track record of state land sales in western states. Nevada has sold almost all state land. Utah has sold about 50%. Wyoming is at about 17% which is not as bad as some of the rest. But this is not just about Wyoming. It is about the entire Rocky Mountains.

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

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Why are you so afraid of someone doing better than the current group? The cows will be there regardless, might as well get paid a fair price instead of giving the grazing away.
.

You miss the point completely. They aren't doing better. They are making more money.

More money does NOT EQUAL better management.

I would like to see less grazing on public land for better habitat for more game and more hunting opportunities.

Montana approved the sale of a school section ( like those you enjoy hunting) here in the Bitterroot last month. That isn't good for hunters or other recreators.

 

[WY ME]

You miss the point completely. They aren't doing better. They are making more money.

More money does NOT EQUAL better management.

I would like to see less grazing on public land for better habitat for more game and more hunting opportunities.

Montana approved the sale of a school section ( like those you enjoy hunting) here in the Bitterroot last month. That isn't good for hunters or other recreators.

You're missing the point completely. Just read my last post.

 

[Againstthewind]

I am not sure this adds anything. I will probably delete it later on lol but I think a distinction should be made between family run ranches and corporate farms and ranches. Woodtick probably knows this stuff a lot better, but the corporate farms and ranches are the ones who can lobby alongside energy companies and benefit from any large sales. Also a lot of the corporate ranches are owned by big money out of staters or even out of country with totally different politics from the locals. Anyway I think it's unfair to group all ranchers together on this subject.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[okielite]

You miss the point completely. They aren't doing better. They are making more money.

More money does NOT EQUAL better management.

I would like to see less grazing on public land for better habitat for more game and more hunting opportunities.

Montana approved the sale of a school section ( like those you enjoy hunting) here in the Bitterroot last month. That isn't good for hunters or other recreators.

Lol. I am simply looking at the job they are doing managing the resource. Are they getting fair value for the resource they are selling? Nope. Then they are not doing a good job of managing that resource. I would prefer to charge fair rates for grazing as opposed to basically giving a few ranchers dirt cheap grazing at the expense of the taxpayers.

Getting fair value for the resource is better management than what is going on now. Why are you so afraid of getting more $ out of grazing? It's really bizarre to watch you guys justify giving grazing rights away for pennies on the dollar as if its' good for us. The only person its' good for is the rancher.

If the school section is not accessible and offers no recreational opportunities then I have no problem with selling it.

Have you ever worked for the federal government?

 

[WY ME]

Just look at the millions of acres of beetle kill rotting away in the nat'l forests. Is that good management of our resources. Can that even be called management? Except for woodpeckers does that kind of "management" benefit our wildlife?

 

[okielite]

I know personally a guy who has a decent sized cattle operation with grazing allotments on both BLM & FS lands with State school sections mixed in. As far as State grazing fees are concerned, he has complained several times about the higher prices and stated that he probably wouldn't be in business if he had to pay the higher AUM fee for all of his allotments.

If a rancher can't make it without taxpayer subsidized grazing for his personal gain he needs to find something else to do. It's not taxpayers job to give subsidized grazing to a few lucky ranchers while the rest pay fair market value for grazing.

 

[okielite]

Just look at the millions of acres of beetle kill rotting away in the nat'l forests. Is that good management of our resources. Can that even be called management? Except for woodpeckers does that kind of "management" benefit our wildlife?

Just wait. They are only half way through wasting the resource. In the next few weeks it will start burning out of control and we will throw money and resources at the fire to put it out. Effectively getting nothing for the timber and spending large amounts of money to put it out. I simply don't see how you can look at the job they are doing with the grazing and timber resources and pretend they are doing a good job. By any reasonable measure they are absolutely failing.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

You're missing the point completely. Just read my last post.

WY ME, my post was in reply to okielite. I did read your post, and I think I understand your arguments. You are saying that you know of areas where you feel the state does a better job, and you extrapolate that all states can do a better job. I disagree. Your other point is that states don't sell the lands. I have given you a current example of Montana selling school trust land in my area right now, and hpd has given you a link that documents the history of many states, including Wyoming, selling state lands.

Lol. I am simply looking at the job they are doing managing the resource. Are they getting fair value for the resource they are selling? Nope. Then they are not doing a good job of managing that resource. I would prefer to charge fair rates for grazing as opposed to basically giving a few ranchers dirt cheap grazing at the expense of the taxpayers.

I think better management would be reduction of public land grazing, which we have seen on federal lands, and not with state lands. That is better management in my opinion. I don't think getting more money is better management. I repeat this not for you, okie, but other readers, because it is clear that no change in wording is going to allow you to understand that point.

Why are you so afraid of getting more $ out of grazing? It's really bizarre to watch you guys justify giving grazing rights away for pennies on the dollar as if its' good for us. The only person its' good for is the rancher.

Again, for the benefit of readers: I am not afraid of grazing revenues. I don't really care about grazing. The end of sheep grazing in the Absorakas was a big victory for hunters, IMO. I AM AFRAID OF STATES SELLING PUBLIC LANDS OR ALLOWING RAMPANT DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS WHICH RUINS ACCESS, HABITAT, AND HUNTING. (caps for emphasis - sorry for shouting)

If the school section is not accessible and offers no recreational opportunities then I have no problem with selling it.

All school sections are accessible by air. Many are working in MT to clarify "corner-hopping" as legal access preserving ground access as well. Further, many so-called "land-locked" parcels are also accesible through easments or Montana's incredibly successful Block Management Program. My point is that we should be working at expanding access rather than giving up and selling off.

Have you ever worked for the federal government?

Although this is clearly a baited ad-hominem attack, and has nothing to do with the veracity of my arguments, I will indulge you: I did work for several summers as a seasonal USFS employee in trails and fire fighting many years ago while I attended college. I really enjoyed that work and felt like I provided a good service. Since then, I have worked for many years with local government, and have seen the wiley winds of local politics swirl erratically, and I would much prefer to insulate public lands from those issues.

 

[okielite]

You can keep repeating it but you will never convince me that selling grazing right worth $20-$150 per AUM for $1.35 per AUM is good management. It's mismanagement.

Essentially they are leaving a whole lot of money on the table and a few welfare ranchers are benefiting from it. From my perspective as a taxpayer that is unacceptable. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

 

[packmule]

BB, I see people are writing letters to reps and everyone else within states with their displeasure for the transfer, but might want to weigh in here as well. Feds need to increase revenue on it to make it not worth handing over.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2015/april/interior_department.html

I don't know what the norm prices are from state to state, but do know that the prices in that document are way low.

 

[libidilatimmy]

If a rancher can't make it without taxpayer subsidized grazing for his personal gain he needs to find something else to do. It's not taxpayers job to give subsidized grazing to a few lucky ranchers while the rest pay fair market value for grazing.

Hogwash....It's not a few lucky ranchers that pay this price, it's nearly every sustainable cattle or sheep operation. I challenge you to find a rancher or farmer that is receiving zero subsidies because you won't find one, fuel is one of the biggest. You'll either pay for it with your taxes or you'll pay for it at the store, either way it will get paid. This isn't even the topic being discussed, so have a nice day.

 

[WY ME]

Bitter

Please don't put words in my mouth! If you would have bothered to read several of my earlier posts you would understand my position more clearly on land sales. Since my example of the state land management isn't extrapolated enough for you, how about this. I'll extrapolate to your own state of Montana. Take a drive on the interstate north of Butte and take a look at the wonderful job your USFS has done with the forest up there. What do you see? Miles and miles and miles of dead standing timber. That makes no sense economically and neither does it benefit wildlife. It's a lose-lose situation.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

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.

WY ME, you have indicated that you are concerned that the states would sell the land. Many of us agree. I have provided a link to show this has happened in the past. You also think the states could do a better job of managing the land. Many of us disagree or have mixed feelings about it.

It seems to me that you would like the the feds to transfer the land to the states with some kind of iron clad guarantee that the land couldn't be sold. Subsequently, the states could pursue their management approach. I don't see how we could ever get that no sale guarantee. Once it was in state hands, they could do as they please.

So I encourage you to join us in opposing the transfer and accept the fact that federal management isn't ideal, but at least it provides more security that the land couldn't be sold.

 

[grizzly]

Bitter

Please don't put words in my mouth! If you would have bothered to read several of my earlier posts you would understand my position more clearly on land sales. Since my example of the state land management isn't extrapolated enough for you, how about this. I'll extrapolate to your own state of Montana. Take a drive on the interstate north of Butte and take a look at the wonderful job your USFS has done with the forest up there. What do you see? Miles and miles and miles of dead standing timber. That makes no sense economically and neither does it benefit wildlife. It's a lose-lose situation.

WY ME, lets further extrapolate this to Utah, since that seems to be the catalyst to this idea. A full 3.8 million acres of Utah was once state-owned land that has now been sold to private individuals. Utah consists of about 11.4 million acres of private land. That means that a full 1/3 of all private land in the state of Utah was once public property owned by the state itself. Utah has a history of selling its land to the highest bidder.

This isn't theory... this is historical fact. And the best way to predict the future is to look at the past. We can't risk it.