Transfer of Public Lands

[highplainsdrifter]

For those interested in how Federal Mgmt. of lands can be abused, listen to this Rep. Walden, takes a while, but he tells a chilling story about BLM overreach in the Steens area of OR., and another case of Forest Service ignoring users in OR. Both fortunately worked out, but could have easily had serious advese consequences. It is Federal actions like this that fan the fires. He talks about the OR situation too, as well as a potential reclassification of millions of acres in OR by Feds that would likely impact hunters and other users.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bx4ocLdWE90

Not sure what the solution is, but more local control, while remaining under Federal ownership, with strict limits on Federal agencies ability to add rules seems a reasonable direction to head. It should not be a free for all to miners or ranchers to use and abuse nor a free for all for the latest Federal employee to come in and mold uses to suit their world view. Has to be some middle ground, I'd like to think anyway.

In my opinion the middle ground is to keep federal land under traditional Forest Service or BLM management. That allows for multiple use. Once it is designated as a Wilderness Area or a National Monument, too many restrictions apply.

On the other end of the extreme (compared to Wilderness or National Monument) is private ownership. That is a recipe for over development and reduced access.

Some would suggest that state ownership/management is the answer. Because states can't afford to manage large acreage, they will almost certainly over develop it and/or sell it. Listen to this 10 minute radio interview about the Elliot State Forest in Oregon. It shows exactly what can happen and probably will happen if the states get control of our federal lands. This is a very prophetic interview!

https://soundcloud.com/supertalk-guy/nwoutdoors4

Let's keep our Forest Service lands and our BLM lands under federal multiple use management.

 

[Tim McCoy]

HPD, I agree, but there has to be some way to prevent the Feds from doing what they are talking about in Mahleur County. A stroke of a pen in DC changing the use of 2.5MM acres, yikes! Possibly a law to require any change in use/classification must be introduced by the US Rep? Arguably the govt. official most in touch with what is good for the people? Not sure of the answer, but lack of local user input and control is the spark that leads to problems, often for hunters. Total local control, nope, state ownership - a very bad idea, full Federal control absent local limits - another bad idea in my view.

A vague multi-use term, to me, allows way too much Federal ability to define and change the uses, as we have seen on too many occasions. Unfortunately, it is not in the nature of govt. nor it minions (various agencies) to voluntarily reduce their ability to do what they please. Wish they could just leave it be...

 

[highplainsdrifter]

It takes an act of Congress to declare a Wilderness Area. However, some presidents have gotten around this by designating certain areas a National Monument which is almost the same thing in terms of restrictions. Bill Clinton designated thousands of acres of National Monument in Utah just before he left office. He did this without Congressional approval.

We currently have a president who has gone way overboard in utilizing his executive powers (i.e. gun control). I would not be surprised to see him designate a number of National Monuments to appease his liberal constituents as he comes to the end of his term.

So part of the problem is executive overreach. But the answer is not local control. That would be disastrous for sportsmen. Let's hope common sense prevails.

As I have said before on this forum: Let's support our federal lands even if we can't support our #%@& federal government!

 

[tim]

It takes an act of Congress to declare a Wilderness Area.!

true, but not 100% accurate. The forest service is broken into regions. I live in region 1 which includes, north Idaho, Montana and a lot of the Dakotas. Region 1 treats all proposed wilderness as wilderness. One of the forest services quotes was "if congress won't give us wilderness we will do it ourselves." I am bummed about this myself. I have lost a lot of damn good backcountry mountain biking and snowmobiling to this.

Sometimes local control is the best answer, sometimes federal control is the best. There is no blanket way of saying which way is better.

 

[Tim McCoy]

true, but not 100% accurate. The forest service is broken into regions. I live in region 1 which includes, north Idaho, Montana and a lot of the Dakotas. Region 1 treats all proposed wilderness as wilderness. One of the forest services quotes was "if congress won't give us wilderness we will do it ourselves." I am bummed about this myself. I have lost a lot of damn good backcountry mountain biking and snowmobiling to this.

Sometimes local control is the best answer, sometimes federal control is the best. There is no blanket way of saying which way is better.

This is exactly the crux of the problem, lack of Federal accountability. When the whim of a Federal bureaucrat can change things with the force of law, the pendulum needs to swing back some.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

true, but not 100% accurate. The forest service is broken into regions. I live in region 1 which includes, north Idaho, Montana and a lot of the Dakotas. Region 1 treats all proposed wilderness as wilderness. One of the forest services quotes was "if congress won't give us wilderness we will do it ourselves." I am bummed about this myself. I have lost a lot of damn good backcountry mountain biking and snowmobiling to this.

Sometimes local control is the best answer, sometimes federal control is the best. There is no blanket way of saying which way is better.

I think you are talking about wilderness study areas. I agree, study areas are lingering in no man's land. Many years ago Congress asked the Forest Service and BLM to identify potential wilderness areas and then failed to act on the resulting proposed areas. So those areas are now lingering as defacto wilderness. That is not the best way to do business, but that is our federal government. There is a movement afoot to either designate them or remove the study area status...which I agree they should do.

I absolutely am willing to make a blanket statement that federal landownership is better for sportsmen. Did you listen to the radio interview that I posted above? If locals get control, they will emphasize for-profit activities such as mineral extraction and recreation will not be able to compete. Some of the land will be sold. There goes our access. Profit and greed are strong motivators, and our federal lands must be protected from them while recognizing the national demand for minerals, timber, beef, etc.

 

[tim]

Highplains

No, what I am referring to is the usfs treating lands designated 1b as 1a. Wilderness study would fall in the 1c category.
The Clearwater national forest just went thru a forest revision plan. I went to many meetings. I used to ride mtn bikes and snowmobile there. You can not do anything that is not allowed in wilderness there now. It is treated as a 1a. Certain groups have sued the usfs and won, however the environmentalist(ICL) appleaded and the usfs is managing it under the new rules of treating all 1b lands as 1a.

 

[tim]

I absolutely am willing to make a blanket statement that federal landownership is better for sportsmen. Did you listen to the radio interview that I posted above? If locals get control, they will emphasize for-profit activities such as mineral extraction and recreation will not be able to compete. Some of the land will be sold. There goes our access. Profit and greed are strong motivators, and our federal lands must be protected from them while recognizing the national demand for minerals, timber, beef, etc.

I can't make a blanket statement like that. I try to look at the picture from more than just a hunter, but also a river runner, wood cutter, mtn biker, snowmobiler. Generally hunting is just a small part of what I do in the mountains of the west.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I can't make a blanket statement like that. I try to look at the picture from more than just a hunter, but also a river runner, wood cutter, mtn biker, snowmobiler. Generally hunting is just a small part of what I do in the mountains of the west.

I also use our federal lands for many purposes. In addition to hunting, I snowmobile, ATV, camp, fish, and hike. I want to be able to continue to do those things. If locals get control and extensively develop the land or sell it, then my access will suffer. While I often don't agree with federal management decisions, at least the land is usually protected from development or sale. There is no doubt in my mind that federal management is the lesser of several evils.

I worked for/with the State of Wyoming for 30 years, and it is pretty clear to me what management would be like if the State of Wyoming took control. I doubt it would be much better in other states. As you may have noted in the audio clip (above) the State of Oregon is proposing to sell nearly 90,000 acres because they can't afford to manage it. In another thread, a Utah resident (oneye), has complained about corruption in Utah. I don't know much about Utah, but I will take his word for it. Generally speaking, the more local the management the more emphasis on for-profit activities and the opportunity for greed to prevail. I hope human nature is different in Idaho. If so, I might move there

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Wyoming Public Radio is soliciting comments on the question "Should states take over management of public lands? Why or why not?"

Here is an opportunity to voice your opinion:

http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/should-states-take-over-management-public-lands-why-or-why-not

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Donald Trump appears to be against the transfer of federal land to the states. It has taken him a long time to take a stand on the issue, but it looks like he has finally waded in. In an interview with Field and Stream magazine, he was asked:

I’d like to talk about public land. Seventy percent of hunters in the West hunt on public lands managed by the federal government. Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about the federal government transferring those lands to states and the divesting of that land. Is that something you would support as President?

He Responded: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.

Here is the entire interview:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2016/01/qa-donald-trump-on-guns-hunting-and-conservation

 

[mallardsx2]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

As a single male in his 30's I hope he becomes president.

 

[Musket Man]

I do not read or post in this thread normally because I disagree with most of you and what is posted in it. I have been following the Hammond story closely.

The Hammonds are in prision because they own 6,000 acres in the middle of the Malheur wildlife refuge. The federal government wants their land and they wont sell it and so the BLM has done everything they can to force them off of it. This is not about 150 acres of BLM (which they put out themselves) the Hammonds accidentally burned when they were burning their own land, or the back fire they lit to stop a fire started by lightning. They are not domestic terrorists as the government labeled them and prosecuted them as at a very unfair trial to say the least. Ammon Bundy tried every legal avenue he could find before the Hammonds went back to prision and no one would listened to him. That is what lead to the occupation of the Malheur wildlife refuge headquarters. Even then no one would listen and his statement of grievances and everything else was ignored. They never threatened or intended to harm or disturb anyone. It has come out that people posing as militia and causing problems in Burns were under cover FBI. They were talking with FBI and trying to workout a peaceful ending but the FBI decided to move on them and now Lavoy Fimicum is dead. Like the Bundy ranch situation in Nevada the mainstream media is putting out a one sided story and not covering the facts of what is really happening.

 

[ceby7]

I do not read or post in this thread normally because I disagree with most of you and what is posted in it. I have been following the Hammond story closely.

The Hammonds are in prision because they own 6,000 acres in the middle of the Malheur wildlife refuge. The federal government wants their land and they wont sell it and so the BLM has done everything they can to force them off of it. This is not about 150 acres of BLM (which they put out themselves) the Hammonds accidentally burned when they were burning their own land, or the back fire they lit to stop a fire started by lightning. They are not domestic terrorists as the government labeled them and prosecuted them as at a very unfair trial to say the least. Ammon Bundy tried every legal avenue he could find before the Hammonds went back to prision and no one would listened to him. That is what lead to the occupation of the Malheur wildlife refuge headquarters. Even then no one would listen and his statement of grievances and everything else was ignored. They never threatened or intended to harm or disturb anyone. It has come out that people posing as militia and causing problems in Burns were under cover FBI. They were talking with FBI and trying to workout a peaceful ending but the FBI decided to move on them and now Lavoy Fimicum is dead. Like the Bundy ranch situation in Nevada the mainstream media is putting out a one sided story and not covering the facts of what is really happening.

I have to respectfully disagree with this. That "accidental" fire was an attempted coverup of family poaching. Furthermore, Ammon Bundy didn't go there to try and keep the Hammonds out of prison, he was there to get media attention to spout his rhetoric for federal handover of OUR public lands, plain and simple. The Hammonds' repeatedly said they wanted nothing to do with the Bundy wack-job clan. Yesterday, the FBI released a video of the shooting, looks like Lavoy got exactly what he deserved. I hope all those arrested are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[ivorytip]

didn't the bundies owe a crap ton in taxes that they never paid?

 

[highplainsdrifter]

didn't the bundies owe a crap ton in taxes that they never paid?

Approximately one millions dollars, and it still has not been paid. I suspect the bill will run higher when you add damage/cost for the refuge standoff.

 

[crzy_cntryby]

I have to respectfully disagree with this. That "accidental" fire was an attempted coverup of family poaching. Furthermore, Ammon Bundy didn't go there to try and keep the Hammonds out of prison, he was there to get media attention to spout his rhetoric for federal handover of OUR public lands, plain and simple. The Hammonds' repeatedly said they wanted nothing to do with the Bundy wack-job clan. Yesterday, the FBI released a video of the shooting, looks like Lavoy got exactly what he deserved. I hope all those arrested are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Fires bring people. Anyone with the slightest sense knows that. Still don't quite believe the poaching cover up story.

 

[ivorytip]

its to bad he had to die, its to bad he had to lead them on a high speed chase too, I feel if bundies never showed up to or that he would still be alive. federal government has way to much power and its scary, but there still has to be law and order, on both sides.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I have to respectfully disagree with this. That "accidental" fire was an attempted coverup of family poaching. Furthermore, Ammon Bundy didn't go there to try and keep the Hammonds out of prison, he was there to get media attention to spout his rhetoric for federal handover of OUR public lands, plain and simple. The Hammonds' repeatedly said they wanted nothing to do with the Bundy wack-job clan. Yesterday, the FBI released a video of the shooting, looks like Lavoy got exactly what he deserved. I hope all those arrested are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

100% agreed.

 

[Tim McCoy]

Fires bring people. Anyone with the slightest sense knows that. Still don't quite believe the poaching cover up story.

Speaking to the Hammonds issue only, it is not really related to the topic here, transfer of Public lands, it is actually the exact opposite. The Feds want to take away their private land to add to a Federal refuge. The way the Hammonds have been threatened and bullied by the govt, because the Fed. govt wants the land, is terrible. Based on what I know of the Bundy's, they created their own problem with a very narrow and likely wrong view of the Fed Govt.'s ability to own land. The Bundy's should have paid their below market cost grazing leases.

The Hammonds poaching cover-up does appear suspect. The govt. did get a disturbed family member to testify to that, he was a kid when it allegedly happened. The initial trial judge said the kids testimony was not credible. The next move the govt made is where many believe an overreach happened and an injustice occurred. That was the govt. seeking to overturn the first sentence of the Hammonds as too short under a terrorism law and make it 5 years.