KingOfTagSoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 296
And you are absolutely right about that too lol. As a resident of a communist kingdom myself I am all too aware
119th house rules - transferring federal land
- Thread starter Hydrophilic
- Start date
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I think we (the US of A) has already discussed this. Most of it is not the states’ land, per the agreement they signed to become a state. I think the philosophical question you are looking to ponder is “What is a precedent”.
Fair point. We will be pondering that right along with the USSC fairly soon from the looks of it.
Deckerp
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2020
- Messages
- 190
Most western states already have a mandate to generate revenue with state lands and it’s very likely if they were to get BLM or other public lands they would ultimately be sold off - especially when you consider states don’t do deficit spending and nobody likes taxes.
There’s a lawsuit filed by the State of Utah right now seeking to get BLM lands handed over to the state - but since their argument is that it’s unconstitutional for the Fed to hold lands into perpetuity (other than a few exceptions) the consequences could be much bigger than just BLM in Utah. This lawsuit was discussed on a recent meat eater podcast and is pretty scary.
Last edited:
seeth07
Well-known member
Since everyone else is laughing at this, I'd like to try to point out an example of what he means.
Wisconsin residents (and those they elected to serve them) have a long history of placing high value in the states land and water. The state public lands we have are without a doubt one of the most valuable assets we have. The state parks and state forest programs all have management plans with recreation as an important consideration. This means that although state forests are logged to provide profit to the state, they are carefully select cut under the management program.
We also have a few large national forests. Their management plans when it comes to timber harvest is night and day different. Bulldozed clear cuts that turn into a temporary wasteland seems to be the best approach.
Could the state do better? I think so.
Roads, trails, campgrounds, boat launches, etc are some more examples where the state seems to have it down well on our public lands here compared to the national forests we have.
Now with that said, I understand that the real purpose of this legislation at the national level isn't about federal lands back east, it's all about mostly BLM land in the western states. But if this really did mean that Chequamegon NF would become a WI state forest, I'd actually be wanting my reps to vote yes. Maybe that some perspective to consider on this topic as there are a lot of votes in the east with perhaps a similar mindset?
Sytes
Well-known member
I agree to some extent. I am opposed to opening a can of giving our American lands to individual States. If we were able to graduate to a form of State stewardship while not giving America's lands away, I believe it would be a win for States as well as our flora and fauna.
Use The Nature Conservancy as a beacon of successful land management.
We have a hard enough time playing politics over one setting of land transfer or no land transfer. Scares the bejesus to have 50 separate States play political football games over what was once our American lands.
Beyond my control other than to continue pressing hell on my representatives - no to federal land transfer.
Last edited:
Hydrophilic
Well-known member
Here’s an example of a state forest that was almost sold, and it would have been a heartbreaker. Ended up with a university and then turned into a state research forest with public access…a bumpy ride. This is in a solid blue state. Stuff happens, even if you think it won’t…wacky local politics, economies, budgets can and do change.
ecotrust.org
Ecotrust - 10 things to know about the Elliott State Forest sale
STAFF VOICES | We believe the Elliott State Forest is an invaluable cultural and conservation resource that should be in public or tribal ownership
ecotrust.org
seeth07
Well-known member
I don't see this as a blue vs red thing from my experience in a state that is constantly switching how we vote between the two for all offices. Yet the focus of the people we vote into office all carry the ideal that our public lands and waters are a high priority. Why is that? Don't you think it is because it's what the residents of this state strongly want the people we vote in to do?Here’s an example of a state forest that was almost sold, and it would have been a heartbreaker. Ended up with a university and then turned into a state research forest with public access…a bumpy ride. This is in a solid blue state. Stuff happens, even if you think it won’t…wacky local politics, economies, budgets can and do change.
Ecotrust - 10 things to know about the Elliott State Forest sale
STAFF VOICES | We believe the Elliott State Forest is an invaluable cultural and conservation resource that should be in public or tribal ownership
The fact that your western politicians get voted in and don't want to serve this purpose by selling the land off is what scares me because that means the either the residents of those states don't care about public lands and waters or they are so uninformed by twisted policies to make them believe otherwise.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
This is likely what the NYT is getting worked up about.
www.carolinajournal.com
"The report suggests either bringing employees back into the office or consolidating office space to reduce costs and auctioning off unneeded properties to generate revenues.
“There is a simple answer: Use it or lose it!” the report added. “If departments and agencies are not utilizing at least 60 percent of their office space, coworking arrangements should be made for consolidating and sharing space with other agencies.”"
Waste Watch: Federal government spends billions on empty office space
With the federal workforce still largely working from home, not one major government agency or department headquarters in DC is even half full. Nearly one-third of the federal workforce is entirely remote, according to a report from Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.
www.carolinajournal.com
"The report suggests either bringing employees back into the office or consolidating office space to reduce costs and auctioning off unneeded properties to generate revenues.
“There is a simple answer: Use it or lose it!” the report added. “If departments and agencies are not utilizing at least 60 percent of their office space, coworking arrangements should be made for consolidating and sharing space with other agencies.”"
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
The misconception of state stewardship being so much better than federal management of public lands is oft cited. However, the distinctions reveal that opinion as a fallacy.
First and most critical is that state stewardship of most lands (other than fishing access, campgrounds, other purely recreational lands) is primarily aimed at realizing financial gains to be earmarked for public education. Secondly, the size and scope of the state stewardship does not come anywhere close to the size and scope of federal stewardship of immense acreages and diversity of landscapes of federal lands. Thirdly, state public lands are open for public access and recreation but often with limitations and sometimes closures due to certain circumstances. Federal lands are generally open for "multiple use" of which public access and recreation is merely one component of many. Funding required for state stewardship obviously is a state financial burden ... a burden which a state such as Montana could not encumber if fiscally responsible for exponentially more funding for stewardship of vast tracts of adopted federal lands and management costs.
State stewardship versus federal stewardship is not even as close as comparison of apples to watermelons.
I respectfully, but adamantly, disagree with the notion that it would be "a win for States as well as our flora and fauna.' I think to the contrary!
44hunter45
Well-known member
It may be time for some refresher education on this. @Big Fin has spent countless hour explaining this in word, video, and print.
Here are some other materials that taught me a ton about the issue.
This America of Ours - by Nate Schweber.
Before you read it, listen to this podcast:
www.backcountryhunters.org
Here are some other materials that taught me a ton about the issue.
This America of Ours - by Nate Schweber.
Before you read it, listen to this podcast:
BHA Podcast & Blast, Ep. 141: Public Lands Journalist Nate Schweber
BHA Podcast & Blast, Ep. 141: Public Lands Journalist Nate Schweber
www.backcountryhunters.org
We actually only get to pick from candidates that have been hand selected by the billionaire oligarchy class to protect their positions.
B&CTom
Well-known member
An interesting coincidence: a quick internet search shows there are 27.1 million acres of Federal land in Montana, and another 6.7 million of State land, for a sum total of 34.1 million acres of public land. According to the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands of Wisconsin, there are 34.8 million total acres of land in Wisconsin (public and private). Would you be willing to hand the authority to manage, including for sale, the entire state of Wisconsin to elected officials and essentially say, “I trust you with this?” Owning and accessing our federal lands, regardless of which State we pay taxes/reside in are some of the greatest privileges we have, and it concerns me legislation could threaten that. I'm not posting this to challenge the abilities or intent of the State of Wisconsin; it appears they do a wonderful job. I'm posting to provide some perspective of the scale of impact such decisions could have in my home state, which I appreciate immensely for its wild lands and opportunities for those who enjoy them.
Last edited:
seeth07
Well-known member
No because you are talking about private now all being lost which isn't related to this discussion. I get your point to give a sense of the scale of lands.
I wish the residents in your state felt their politicians represented them better. Maybe you residents need to do a better job voting them in. Or maybe you just aren't the majority in your state anymore and those politicians are doing exactly what most of the state wants?
44hunter45
Well-known member
Yes, I am exhausted by this.
It is like fighting hydra with a thousand heads. Just as we will never have the personal wealth to buy these lands, we do not have the PR and lobbying budget of those who target them. To borrow from an old campaign which I hated, we are the 99% in this case.
I also feel that this is the most important fight of our generation. If we fail this, our children or grandchildren will be left with the only federal lands being Superfund sites.
I do not want the last years of my life to be spent telling my descendants stories the good old days where we could hunt, fish, prospect, and shoot on millions of acres of public lands. Our lands.
Emails sent to my US Reps.
Last edited:
B&CTom
Well-known member
You're right, my example was just to provide scale. For out western states, it is a lot of real estate we're talking about.
Flynarrow
Well-known member
Remember that originally states were given sections 6 and 36 of every township as trust lands. Some states retained most/some of theirs but states like Texas sold virtually all of theirs. Some State lands can generate some revenue from logging or grazing but doing it on the cheap maximizes revenue but is more commonly NOT the best land management practices.
Overgrazing is common on State lands I am familiar with. Fire suppression costs can be a huge financial drain which fosters sale of State lands.
I think it is largely a ruse by some politicians to use transfer of lands to states for lower cost housing as current housing issues are the in vogue catalyst for getting public support. Inside deals will eventually privatize lands transferred. Once privatized you or I will never set foot on them again.
Overgrazing is common on State lands I am familiar with. Fire suppression costs can be a huge financial drain which fosters sale of State lands.
I think it is largely a ruse by some politicians to use transfer of lands to states for lower cost housing as current housing issues are the in vogue catalyst for getting public support. Inside deals will eventually privatize lands transferred. Once privatized you or I will never set foot on them again.
You make an interesting point. There is some historical differences. Wisconsin has far more productive lands from a homesteading and agricultural standpoint than most of the arid west. Those lands were sold to private parties and invested in the school trust funds.
And before we get too far waving the Wisconsin flag about their altruistic feelings for the public having access to state land, let's look at the history of state lands in Wisconsin.
Wisconsin was granted 10 million acres at statehood. Your state land board (BCPL) was put in charge of managing those lands, and has retained 78,000 of those acres. So, the elected officials of Wisconsin sold 99.22% of the lands granted at statehood. Fortunately, the Feds stepped in a reserved 1.5 million acres of National Forests and your DNR has been purchasing fee title lands.
Here's a good reference for Wisconsin from your legislature - https://bcpl.wisconsin.gov/bcpl.wisconsin.gov Shared Documents/Press/LRBPublicLands-June_2010.pdf
That's not much different than the other states with great agricultural lands. The productive lands were sold to settlers with the proceeds retained by the state land/education boards. That's what Congress had in mind when they established the Northwest Ordinance in 1787.
The Northwest Ordinance was remarkable and problematic at the same time. The remarkable part was that it gave priority to the state responsibility and funding of education. At that time, when grated statehood, Ohio got 1 section of land in each township (36 total sections). That continued for all states, eventually increasing from 1 of 36 sections to 4 of 36 sections as the more arid lands were admitted to the Union.
I'm not disagreeing that Wisconsin voters like public lands and waters, but how different would the discussion be if Wisconsin hadn't sold 99% of its state lands? That horse is already out of the barn and a moot topic. It shows how comparisons of this issue as it plays out today in the west is much different than how it played out in the midwest/southeast 170 years ago.
I do agree with your earlier comment that many folks look at the management of their state forests and conclude that the states could do a better job. I grew up next to the Pine Island and Koochiching State Forests in Minnesota. Most would say they are managed pretty well. And, they provided the public land that allowed me to be a hunter.
Yet, when was the last time that a state timber sale in the midwest got delayed for 10 years because of lawsuits under the ESA, as happens weekly in the west? I'm not aware of any at the state level, though a couple related to USFS lands in the midwest.
The western states, via Federal Forest reservations in the late 1800s and early 1900s, have retained habitat that covers over 200 million acres of land deemed to be critical habitat for one of many species under the ESA. That's not going away if the western states get control of these state lands. The lawsuits under the ESA will prevent these western states from managing forests the way the midwest states manage theirs.
And when these western forests are under state control and litigated to the point the Feds are currently litigated, they will be a liability; all costs and no revenue. And when that happens, those former Federal lands are required to be sold by the state land boards, per statute.
Sum of all of this, it is hard to compare a midwest state to the western states in terms of the application of these efforts to privatize Federal lands. One can blame/claim it's due to who we vote for at the state level.
That blame/claim sounds good, but not reality. Until Federal laws like the ESA/NEPA/Wild Horse & Burro Act/Taylor Grazing Act/Hard Rock Mining Act of 1872 all get reformed at the Federal level, the management of these lands in question will be litigated and inefficient. The low population states in the Rocky Mountain Region can't change the consequences of these Federal laws, even with state ownership of the lands that are currently owned by the Feds.
I might be reading wrong that you are implying this is a state-level issue that we can fix by who we vote for at the state level. Yeah, we need to vote for the best people at the state level, yet the crux of the frustrations are rooted in Federal level legislation/laws, something the 4 electoral votes of Montana (insert Rocky Mountain state here) can't change.
BrentD
Well-known member
As an American Citizen, I'm really not amused about turning over my stake in federal lands in ANY state to citizens of that state. It would seem I should have my 1/3.3*10*8th say in this sort of give away. Clearly, states cannot and will not handle but regardless, those are MY acres too. And, I'm not selling.
44hunter45
Well-known member
I joined HT in 2019.
It is an old fight. SSDD
www.hunttalk.com
It is an old fight. SSDD
Congress Changes Rules To Ease Sales of Lands
According to a just published article in Wapo. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/01/03/house-gop-rules-change-would-make-it-easier-to-sell-off-federal-land/?utm_term=.9ed8645626e8 I think the practical significance is it makes it easier to sell off land. Land sales...
www.hunttalk.com
