Eastern States Own Most of Their Land?

[TheDudeAbides]

Federal lands are owned by every citizen of this country. The only reason a state would want to take on the finacial burden is to sell them off. I'm sure the oil and gas industry will manage them for multi use of the people

Oil and Gas is not doing well as an industry.

Lots of people looking for jobs in this area, because they have been layed off from Oil & Gas.

New Development sites cost a lot of capital.

I don't see companies spending capital when they are reducing their workforce.

If there was a O&G boom, there may be a different tune played by the organizations.

 

[Matt/VT]

Living in northern New England, we are quite lucky that while the majority of land is privately owned, there is access to that private land unless otherwise posted. This plays the biggest role on timber company land. I fear someday this will come to an end, but for now it allows me to not worry about where a buck track takes me in northern VT, NH or ME.
In general, the state manages things well for recreational use, including hunting, but the Wildlife Management Areas that I hunt are relatively small (each is in the thousands of acres at most) compared to Federal and timber company lands.

 

[mplane72]

99% of Iowa is privately owned.

The farther East you go the higher property taxes go. I'm sure that many of those that propose the land transfer have language in there that still funnels money from the fed to pay for everything. If the states were to actually keep the land I wonder what would happen to taxes in those states. Especially property taxes.

 

[2ski]

Last Friday I wrote my state representative, Rep. Michael Kennedy (Utah Legislative District 27), to express my disappointment that he voted to support HB0276. This bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Noel, outlines how Utah will manage public lands if federal public land in Utah is transferred to the state. Tonight I received a response from Rep. Kennedy. Unfortunately, the response is more disappointing than the vote. See below.



How would you respond? I want to ask him for a list of eastern states that own "most of their land," but I already know that would be a very short list, i.e. none. I have a draft response ready, but I wanted some additional ideas before I send it off.

He did the verbal equivalent of patting you on your head and sending you away with a cookie.

 

[authentichunter]

I replied to Rep. Kennedy and received another response.

Thanks Craig. Good point, I was not clear. The "most states own their land statement" was in fact meant to suggest that the Feds gave the State their land, and the State sold their land as they wished to private owners. I understand your perspective better now in that you wish the land to remain in the hands of the Feds so you can use it as you currently use it. I respect that position. I don't presume all the land would be sold to developers, but some of it assuredly would be. Once our State owns our land, we can begin the public conversation of how we want to use that land. I, like you, would advocate for much of it to remain as it is. I also would like some of it appropriately to be developed. Considering we are talking about over sixty percent of our land, I presume those goals can co-exist.

As to who may benefit by the use of the land, assuredly our underfunded public schools would benefit by the land being used rather than lying fallow.

Thanks for your response and dedication to our lands.
Mike

They are doing it for the kids. This is a common fall back position in Utah because we spend less money per student than any other state.

Obviously, nothing I say will sway Mr. Kennedy, but it is frustrating to only received rote response that reveal how uninformed Mr. Kennedy is on the issue.

 

[authentichunter]

I decided to forgo any further emails with Rep. Kennedy about this issue. Instead, I requested an in person meeting with him to discuss the issue.

 

[authentichunter]

I am meeting with Rep. Kennedy at the state capitol tomorrow. Should be fun. I really want to understand his position and how he arrived at this position. I will let y'all know how it goes.

 

[Curvebow]

I live in NYS and we have the Adirondack Park, commonly abbreviated as ADK. This is "State" regulated through the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The park is larger in size than Yellowstone, Glacier, Yosemite, and 2 other parks I can't remember all TOGETHER! However, the Park is unique in that it is a mix of both State lands and private lands. Some of the land is listed as "Forever Wild" and nothing can be done on that land. No logging (even when storms create massive blowdown), no roads, no snowmobile trails, etc. Only access is to hike or canoe/kayak. Of course, I have heard of suits on behalf of disables folks not being able to enjoy the lands...

Timber companies are the largest of the landowners in the Park. As an aside, International Paper a few years back sold their holdings, the largest single owner in the park, to another timber company. I believe it to have been 150,000 acres.

The APA, according to residents of the park, is a villan agency. Whenever a big project comes up, that will create jobs, the APA needs to review it. There are enviro organizations like Protect the Adirondacks that are always filing lawsuits, just like with the Federal lands. The locals complain that the APA is smothering them.

Meanwhile, big $$ folks buy camps and drive up property values on the thousands of lakes to the point where local children have little choice but to leave. There are few jobs and the property costs are so high as to be unaffordable.

There is also the Catskill Park, however, I have not as much knowledge about that park. I do know that New York City gets a lot of their drinking water - part of 2,000 million gallons per day (2 BILLION gallons/day!)- from the Catskills. They have formed the NYC Watershed agency. They have upgraded wastewater plants to protect ambient water and to avoid having to construct filtration plants. They have even worked with farmers to fence off creeks, streams, etc to control agricultural runoff and keep animals away from direct contact with the water as well as perform needed building repairs to channel water away from cow yards while also repairing the rotted barn foundation in the process. They also have their own Watershed Police force, which can, and do help local agencies when needed.

I have no dog in the ADK fight as I live 10 miles from the Adirondack Park "Blue Line" and am Club President on a hunting lease property 35 miles away. But, I try to pay attention to the issues as they come up, although it is very difficult to get any unbiased information and always need to ponder who was the provider of the information and which side of the agenda they are on!

There are other state lands as well, although not as widely known (except to more local populations) or as large as the others I have mentioned and all can be hunted & fished as far as I know.

 

[WestT]

Authentichunter, I admire your determination. Keep it up. Hopefully some good will come out of your efforts.

 

[Adamm88]

I would assume he is referring to Pa there is about 3 million acres of state owned public land between game lands and state forest. I know there is about 1/2 million acres of national forest(that I know of).

Listening on randy and reading topics in this forum I'm against the transfer of public lands, for the fact that even though Iv never been west of the missippi I have a 5 year goal to head west to Hopfully bug game hunt.

Edited to add that it's up each opinions that if my state manages the state land right, the lands I use a lot to hunt I don't have issues but that's not the case for the rest of the state.

 

[authentichunter]

Thank you to everyone who responded and provided insight and information, especially to the "easterners." I am meeting with Rep. Kennedy today and hope to have a good conversation about public land in Utah.

 

[TimeOnTarget]

Thank you to everyone who responded and provided insight and information, especially to the "easterners." I am meeting with Rep. Kennedy today and hope to have a good conversation about public land in Utah.

Awesome on your for having the determination and knowledge for an actual sit down.

I never know enough to have that kind of infraction with them.

 

[authentichunter]

I had an informative and productive meeting with Rep. Kennedy yesterday afternoon. We spent forty-five minutes discussing public land issues. Rep. Kennedy seemed entirely forthright and genuine, and I was impressed with how much time he spent with me. I left the meeting feeling much better than I felt before the meeting, but I also left with the understanding that this will be a long process that will require many additional conversations.

We covered a lot of ground during our meeting. Here are a few of the key takeaways from the meeting.

1. If Utah obtains control of public lands some of those lands will be sold. Rep. Kennedy was very clear on this point. The only specific areas that Rep. Kennedy mentioned are the oil and gas fields of eastern Utah. Although Rep. Kennedy expressed his enjoyment the outdoors, Rep. Kennedy believes there needs to be more balance between private and public lands in Utah.

2. Rep. Kennedy's only stated reason for supporting the sale of public land was to fund public schools. He said the legislators get beat up over public education funding more than any other issue that comes before the legislature (Utah spends less per student than any other state). This led to a conversation of SITLA (Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration) and its history, including its history of mismanagement.

3. We discussed Utah's potential lawsuit to force the transfer of federal public lands to the state. Although it seemed we both agreed that a court, or the Court, will not require Congress to transfer public lands to Utah, we disagreed about the other possible outcome. Rep. Kennedy is under the impression that a court may require Congress to dispose of the federal lands in Utah and that "dispose of" means Congress would give the lands to Utah. I disagreed with Rep. Kennedy on this point. I disagreed that a court was likely to require Congress to dispose of the land in Utah, and I disagreed that "dispose of" means that Utah would receive the lands. Instead, I argued that "dispose of" would mean that Congress would be able to divest itself of the land, e.g. sell the land, in any manner Congress decides. This was a critical issue for Rep. Kennedy and we both agreed to do some additional research on this issue.

4. Rep. Kennedy is very concerned that if Utah does not act to gain control of public lands in Utah the future of these lands will be determined by future presidents and Congresses. On several occasions, Rep. Kennedy expressed concern that one or two new national monuments will be created in Utah this year.

5. Rep. Kennedy grew up in Michigan and does not hunt. Therefore, he is not familiar with the relationship between public lands and hunting in Utah. Rep. Kennedy said that when it comes to hunting issues he relies on other legislators for information. However, he expressed a desire to find constituents who can provide information instead of relying on other legislators.

6. Rep. Kennedy said that, based on his experiences in Michigan, he believed that hunting in Michigan is very popular and that a lot of the hunting takes place on public lands in upper Michigan. He asked why something similar would not work in Utah?

7. Rep. Kennedy also said that a lot of hunting in Michigan takes place on private lands and asked why this would not work in Utah? Items six and seven led to discussions about private land (parcel size), hunting on private land, the different species of big game in Michigan and Utah, and the different behaviors of these big games species. I am not an expert on these issues, but I gave it my best shot.

8. We talked about the current private lands in Utah, who owns these lands, and their relationship to hunting. Rep. Kennedy asked if Utahns are allowed hunt on these private lands, which led to a conversation about Utah's Cooperative Wildlife Management Unit program.

9. We talked about the legislative process and the role of constituents and special interest groups in that process. Rep. Kennedy expressed a desire for more input and involvement from his constituents.

10. Finally, Rep. Kennedy asked me what I would like to see happen with public lands in Utah. He talked about thinking in terms of 100 years. What do we want Utah to look like in 100 years because it will not be the same as it is today? This was a surprisingly difficult question for me. I answered his question the best I could, but I felt my answer was lacking.

Overall, I was impressed with Rep. Kennedy and I am hopeful. I have worked in the legislature and understand the process. I am not naive, but Rep. Kennedy is willing to listen and that gives me hope.