Transfer of Public Lands

[ScottR]

USA Today had an ARTICLE published on this.

 

[Colorado Cowboy]

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!
NO !

This is part of what I said in an earlier post. If this language or something similar to it, was added to any legislation that transfers federal land to states, then I would say give the states a try and see what they can do.

 

[libidilatimmy]

The problem with charging "fair market value" for anything that is considered multi-use public land is that the person or entity paying this fair market value would also want to control and manage this land's use to benefit whatever trade or recreation they represent effectively squandering any other opportunities this land may hold. In charging cheaper rates for it's use, the Fed's keep control over the use and practices taking place on such land by having "improvements" and "shall not keep any person from accessing" clauses in most lease agreement language. I, nor any other public land hunter I'd guess, wants to pay the "fair market value" per acre to hunt property which I, along with every other taxpayer, already own.

 

[grizzly]

I get the feeling that few people on this site have owned their own business as nobody seems to care what this mess is costing taxpayers or tries to hold these people accountable for how they operate.

That may be, but I would not be one of those people. I own a small business (currently: 51 employees). I, like many others, know how to balance budgets and look at cost/benefit calculations. You and I just disagree on what the priority is and what the definition of "management" is.

My thought is... To give up hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars of Federal money to make a relatively few millions in increased grazing fees does not jive... which is exactly why the States will be forced to sell the land in short order. There simply are not enough cows to make up the difference... regardless of the AMU cost.

(To clarify, I am not pro-rancher. If conservation groups starting buying grazing rights and retiring them, it would be great with me.)

 

[okielite]

The problem with charging "fair market value" for anything that is considered multi-use public land is that the person or entity paying this fair market value would also want to control and manage this land's use to benefit whatever trade or recreation they represent effectively squandering any other opportunities this land may hold. In charging cheaper rates for it's use, the Fed's keep control over the use and practices taking place on such land by having "improvements" and "shall not keep any person from accessing" clauses in most lease agreement language. I, nor any other public land hunter I'd guess, wants to pay the "fair market value" per acre to hunt property which I, along with every other taxpayer, already own.

OMG, it just keep getting better, LOL. More justification of giving away grazing resources. Why are you so afraid to make ranchers pay a fair price for the grazing they receive? You are sitting here trying to justify an agency who essentially gives away the resource it is in charge of while pretending they are doing a good job.

The rest of your point about the ranchers wanting control over the land is nothing but ridiculous. Ranchers lease grazing rights all the time. They know they don't own the land and only control the grazing rights, nothing else. No idea where you came up with that but it is not based on reality.

For example people lease grazing rights on public land in Wyoming. The ones who lease from the state pay $20+ per AUM and the ones who lease from the feds pay $1.35.

The cows will be there grazing regardless of who manages the land. The only question is will the rancher pay $1.35 or $20 per AUM to graze which will have a dramatic effect in the money available for managing that land. If you think that only getting $1.35 is good enough then so be it. Some of us believe we can do better than $1.35 per AUM and would like to see states get that opportunity.

Your last sentence nailed it. Nobody wants to pay for this land but everybody wants to be able to use it for free. The money has to come from somewhere. Getting fair value for the resources on that land would be a good start.

Do you have any suggestions to improve the current system?

 

[okielite]

That may be, but I would not be one of those people. I own a small business (currently with 51 employees). I, like many others, know how to balance budgets and look at cost/benefit calculations. You and I just disagree on what the priority is and what the definition of "management" is.

My thought is... To give up hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars of Federal money to make a relatively few millions in increased grazing fees does not jive... which is exactly why the States will be forced to sell the land in short order. There simply are not enough cows to make up the difference... regardless of the AMU.

(To clarify, I am not pro-rancher. If conservation groups starting buying grazing rights and retiring them, it would be great with me.)

No doubt. some people think that "management" is giving away resources and costing taxpayers millions. Other people think of management as being fiscally responsible for that resource and accountable for the income it generates. Clearly you have the management skills to run a business so you understand. If you had an employee who sold everything for 1/10 the fair price you would either allow him to financially kill the business or you would find someone to do a better job. I'm ready to find someone to do a better job of managing this resource.

I'm not following your logic on losing billions. My guess is you are one of the folks who run around claiming the "states will be forced to sell". A reasonable expectation would be for the state management to require less $ than the current system and be less of a burden on taxpayers. Getting fair value for grazing would be a good start.

The reality is that this land will require federal money to manage. There is no doubt in my mind that states can operate more efficiently and with less burden on taxpayers. I'm sure with your business experience you can see that as well. Cutting overhead, excess facilities, and getting fair value for the resources are all steps in the right direction IMO.

I think you will find that not doing any grazing on land can be as bad or worse than overgrazing. It's just not that simple.

What would you do if you were in charge?

 

[Gr8bawana]

Okielite it seem that no matter how many people show you the facts you will just keep your head buried in the sand.
What makes you think it will cost the states less money to manage the land? Ranchers are already crying fowl over what it already costs them for grazing. Raise it as much as you say and many ranchers would just throw in the towel. Then you would have even less money for land management. Another reason for the states to start selling off the land.
A lot of you guys keep saying it is all the liberals doing all the bad things but it sure seems like most if not all the bills pushing for land transfers to the states are pushed by Republicans, and we all know all they care about is how to get more money no matter how many people get screwed doing it.

Okielite, you hail from a state that has only about 2.8 percent public land so any of these changes you propose would have little if any effect on you.

 

[MOHunter]

Not all government activity should have to be bring in funds to offset the cost of the activity. That's what taxes are for in the first place. Take national defense as an example. Should we do away with the military simply because it costs the government money? I would prefer to see the government correct their budget problems by limiting other areas, like entitlement spending.
Teddy Roosevelt realized that there was money to be made off these lands and wanted to protect them from those endeavors. Simply saying more money can be made doesn't mean it should.

 

[Kevin Root]

I've sat back and read the thread from the start over these many weeks. I totally agree with what Matt writes. I think there is much more at stake than money or using public lands as some sort of bailout plan for the government or making money for any private enterprise.

Public land and its availability people, is something that once it is gone it is not ever coming back. Never again and never for our future generations will this land be available to step into and enjoy the way we have done so in the past. It's really about the future generations that won’t have the opportunity to hunt and enjoy public land in the future as we do today if we lose this battle.

That is, it doesn't matter what states charge for grazing if they lose the lands they lease rights on. If those public lands are sold, the managing agency will recieve no grazing fees, AND the public will be excluded from hunting (or other recreation activities). If the lands are developed for extraction, no grazing fees, and no public hunting.

Further, please understand that some have the position that they would rather have the deer and elk eating the browse on public lands and not cows or domestic sheep. To many, it is worth it to lose ALL of the grazing fees to keep the lands and improve the habitat.

IMO, generating government revenue shouldn't be the priority in public land management. Conservation and access should. I am sure land managers could make more money by charging access fees to hunters. That would be sound FINANCIAL policy, but is poor public land management IMO.

Does that clarify some of our positions?

 

[laxwyo]

I think arguing facts is getting pointless when the argument is a philosophical one.

I agree with a lot okie says. I think it could be managed a lot better. I think local control would be better but on the flip side, local influence can go both ways.

 

[In God We Trust]

Okielite it sounds like you have been burned at some point by the grazing policy and lost out to another guy. If not you know someone that has. You have called my post childish and accused others of working for the Feds that have disagreed with you. It is you my friend that wears the foil hat and is unreasonable. Good luck with that. If anyone knows how to create a poll on the forum it would be cool to put one up and see which side everyone lands.

 

[grizzly]

Okielite, first of all I want to say I appreciate the discussion. Secondly, to respond to your question about an employee selling an item for 1/10 fair market value, that is obviously poor business. But what if the employee came to me and said we can make $1000 by selling Widget A and he estimates we will sell 200 units next year. He points out that we are selling Widget B at only a $5 profit, so clearly we should sell Widget A instead. Now there is only one question to ask, "How many Widget B units are sold per year?" If I sell 100,000 Widget B units per year, it is still a much better deal for my business.

That is the crux of the matter. We fear we would give up billions in Federal dollars chasing millions of State dollars. That is a terrible strategy.

Now to your guess that I believe the states will be forced to sell the land. You are 100% correct. I believe that will happen.

Here are some numbers from the Utah study that must happen for the State to simply stay revenue positive:

(A quick Google search will verify these numbers. I am using Utah since it is my home state, the leader of this transfer idea, and the only state to complete a comprehensive study on the idea.)

--The Federal government must agree to give up $100,000,000 in annual gas/oil lease royalties on contracts it has already signed so those royalties can go to the State.

--Oil must sell at over $62/barrel, if Feds give up royalties, or $92/barrel if Feds keep royalties. (Oil currently sits at $58/barrel, below the threshold allowed by the study.)

--Feds must pay for all wildfire costs (which account for 35% of their budget over last 10 years)

--Profitability assumes increases of drilling in Utah of at least 15%. (This is unlikely since the average cost of oil production for most Western US is $90/barrel, well above the current price. www.oil-price.net)

--Estimates removing 38% of all standing/viable trees on public lands in the State. (publiclands.Utah.gov 11/28/14)

--Utah has already sold 3,800,000 acres of state-owned land to private individuals. A full 33% of all private land in Utah was once owned by the state and was public property, but is now locked up forever. (Utah has a verifiable history of selling its land to the highest bidder.)

--The study says that land used primarily for hunting and outdoor recreation will have to be "reallocated" (is this better than sold?) to be utilized for more profitable industries. (Otherwise, hunting/hiking/camping don't make money. And the whole point of this idea is to make money.)

 

[libidilatimmy]

OMG, it just keep getting better, LOL. More justification of giving away grazing resources. Why are you so afraid to make ranchers pay a fair price for the grazing they receive? You are sitting here trying to justify an agency who essentially gives away the resource it is in charge of while pretending they are doing a good job.

There you go again, spinning words around saying I'm "afraid", "pretending", and "justifying an agency". What I am justifying is I'd like to see this land continue to be multi-use without having just one facet of it's users float the bill. This same land get's used by ranchers, hunters, campers, photographers, ATV'ers, hikers, and exploration companies. I stated earlier I thought the grazing price was a little low and could be raised some, as should mineral royalties for that matter.

The rest of your point about the ranchers wanting control over the land is nothing but ridiculous. Ranchers lease grazing rights all the time. They know they don't own the land and only control the grazing rights, nothing else. No idea where you came up with that but it is not based on reality.

"Riduculous"....Read where I wrote "the person or entity paying fair market value". Mining and exploration companies already control access and recreational opportunity to very large tracts of land within their lease boundaries on the premise of "safety of the public". "Reality" is that when one private party leases a piece of ground for grazing from another private party, the lessor essentially relinquishes control of the access to the ground to the lessee, based on the terms of the agreement of course, as to not inadvertently disrupt the operations of the lessee. Every time I've hunted or accessed such parcels, I've had to get permission from both parties involved.

The cows will be there grazing regardless of who manages the land. The only question is will the rancher pay $1.35 or $20 per AUM to graze which will have a dramatic effect in the money available for managing that land. If you think that only getting $1.35 is good enough then so be it. Some of us believe we can do better than $1.35 per AUM and would like to see states get that opportunity.

The answer is no, the ranchers will not pay $20 per AUM because most can't afford that rate and still make profits driving roughly 30% of the producers in these states that rely on this resource out of business.

Your last sentence nailed it. Nobody wants to pay for this land but everybody wants to be able to use it for free. The money has to come from somewhere. Getting fair value for the resources on that land would be a good start.

Everybody who pay/paid taxes already does pay for this land. Your're right in that the money for it's oversight has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is what gets pulled out of my paycheck every week. Doesn't necessarily mean that every aspect of it's use has to turn a profit though. Turning control, management, or title over from one form of government to another is simply trading the evil you do know for an evil you also know, but not as well.

 

[laxwyo]

I read that the state land in Colorado is pretty much private property of whoever is leasing it

 

[In God We Trust]

I read that the state land in Colorado is pretty much private property of whoever is leasing it

That is true. We have lost out on a lot of good duck hunting out east because of that. One farmer I talked to that has a lease on state land along the river said we couldn't hunt the land because he had allowed an outfitter to exclusive hunting rights on state land he was leasing.

 

[okielite]

Okielite it seem that no matter how many people show you the facts you will just keep your head buried in the sand.
What makes you think it will cost the states less money to manage the land? Ranchers are already crying fowl over what it already costs them for grazing. Raise it as much as you say and many ranchers would just throw in the towel. Then you would have even less money for land management. Another reason for the states to start selling off the land.
A lot of you guys keep saying it is all the liberals doing all the bad things but it sure seems like most if not all the bills pushing for land transfers to the states are pushed by Republicans, and we all know all they care about is how to get more money no matter how many people get screwed doing it.

What facts are you referring to?

Just because someone has a different opinion does not mean they are dumb or their head is buried in the sand. Its just means they see things differently. I've noticed hunters struggle with this on these forums. They almost always end up in some personal insults about intelligence. Completely unnecessary IMO. It's ok to have different opinions.

LOL. My head is not buried in any sand. I simply have the ability to step back and look at the situation with an unbiased view from a business standpoint. Most people let their personal interest cloud their view to a point they find themselves on a forum trying to justify an agency charging pennies on the dollar for the resource they are in charge of while pretending they are doing a good job which makes no logical sense. Basically they blindly support the USFS because they like hunting on federal land and can't seem to give an unbiased view of their performance managing these resources.

I believe the federal government is extremely inefficient and not good at doing much of anything. Years of contracting with the government has taught me this and quite frankly you dont' have to look very hard to find waste in federal government operations.

I believe states will be more efficient and be able to manage the land with less burden to taxpayers. Less people, less resources, less equipment, less paperwork, less facilities, less benefits, etc... I also think they can improve revenues on things like grazing rights which will also help ease the burden on taxpayers. Keep in mind that each states situation is different. some states could take over the management of the federal land within their borders with little costs.

As far as the ranchers throwing in the towel just stop with your ridiculous exaggerations. Plenty of ranchers do just fine without federal grazing subsidies. If they can't make it without grazing subsidies they should find something else to do like the rest of us.

But if you are a believer in the federal government and believe that they are doing a great job you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

I am not supporting the sale of this land. I'm not even supporting the transfer of ownership.

I am really glad to hear this, and appreciate your support in opposing transfer.

One of us is using common sense and being reasonable about looking to improve the current broken system

Many of us consider the federal system imperfect but not broken. Please don't read this as "doing a great job." Many of us are active in trying to improve it through organizations like the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. We see victories at the federal level like the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act.

It's common sense and a good business practice.
I get the feeling that few people on this site have owned their own business as nobody seems to care what this mess is costing taxpayers or tries to hold these people accountable for how they operate.

I think this is the fundamental difference in our opinions, okielite. Many of us don't think public lands are a business. Many of us don't think they should be managed like a business or their success measured by the bottom line.

Many of us think of public lands like we do our children. They are treasured sources of joy that can't be assigned any monetary value of worth, or valued based on their financial productivity. They should be managed for protection, conservation, and judged by the amount of enjoyment they provide the public.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I just returned from checking my bear baits. I see I have missed a lot today!

Okielite, You say you are not in favor of the transfer of federal lands and you do not favor their sale. So if I understand you correct, you want the states to manage lands that would remain in federal ownership. You have also stated that the states could not afford to manage these lands without federal assistance. So you not only want the feds to turn over management, you want the feds to pay the states to manage them? Do you honestly think this is a realistic scenario?? I don't think this would have a snowballs chance in hell of ever making it through congress.

 

[okielite]

I just returned from checking my bear baits. I see I have missed a lot today!

Okielite, You say you are not in favor of the transfer of federal lands and you do not favor their sale. So if I understand you correct, you want the states to manage lands that would remain in federal ownership. You have also stated that the states could not afford to manage these lands without federal assistance. So you not only want the feds to turn over management, you want the feds to pay the states to manage them? Do you honestly think this is a realistic scenario?? I don't think this would have a snowballs chance in hell of ever making it through congress.

I don't know what has a good chance of making it through congress but this might be a better alternative for hunters than what some politicians are proposing. The feds give states money to do all sorts of stuff so giving them money to manage land is not out of the question. Federal funding and oversight for state management is not as crazy as you are making it out to be. Look at how our highways are managed.

If you oppose giving states the opportunity to manage grazing resources on federal land you are entitled to your opinion. The states already manage much of the wildlife resources on federal land so it would have little if any effect on hunters. I'd like to see them get a chance as there is a lot of room for improvement IMO.

Why are you opposed to letting states manage more than just the wildlife resource on federal land? Specifically grazing?

 

[roknHS]

Grazing on private ground runs about $18 - $20 dollars per month for a cow and calf (pair/AUM) in this area of Idaho. It probably takes about 10 acres per pair for summer pasture (June - October). So that would be about $2 dollars per acre. I'm guessing the same pair may need about 100 acres to pasture for the same time frame in Wyoming or Utah or Nevada or Montana. I think the difference in grazing fees on a per acre basis is based on the amount of ground it takes to summer a pair. I suppose you could contact a BLM field office in a particular area to get the formula they use to set grazing fees for their areas. In some places, $1.35 per acre could be a huge amount. I assume the $1.35 per acre number is a monthly fee. If it takes 100 acres/AUM for the summer,
that's $135/month. It would be tough for the rancher to justify that much for grazing one cow and one calf.
Just Sayin..............