Educate Me on BLM and USFS Management

[Reeder]

I live in the State of Utah, heart of the Public land transfer uproar. I know Utah is spending $14 million to sue the Federal Government for a public land transfer. My question is why does Utah think they should have this public land transferred to them? Is the USFS and BLM really corrupt as people say it is? What is the BLM and USFS doing wrong in Utah's eyes or in Nation's eyes? I am full support of public land and that is where i do all my hunting and fishing. I don't want to see our public access be taken away.

 

[hank4elk]

For me it's seeing Gov.agencies with cut or underfunded budgets,with triple the workload,1/3 the staff and no in the field working staff except fire fighters eating what budget they do have.
Throw in all the enviro-wacko lawsuits eating budgets and only PC buerocrats in lead and there you go.
This same system hit my job & was so happy they offered early retirement ..see ya.

If they close off BLM lands in my home unit there will be NO where to hunt except private lands & some heavily blocked state.
Randy would not be able to do a antelope hunt like he did last year as my unit would be worthless,only one unit of 2 would be huntable.Maybe.

 

[TheTone]

Sorry you live in Utah, dang that's gotta be rough

 

[quarterhorse]

Good questions. 1. Utah really doesn't want the land they just want to be able to sell it. Selling it means selling it to the wealthy people and organizations who are really behind the 14 million dollars. 2. No they are not corrupt as some people say. 3. The only thing they are doing wrong is that they are "big government" and that alone is enough to get most people's head nodding that they are bad. Also, the Nation for the most part, is unaware of the moves that is being made for thier property.

 

[Ben Lamb]

the primary argument for transfer is to increase production of minerals and increase stocking rates for cows. Basically, Utah's upset that public lands are being managed for multiple use rather than just economic production, which in and of itself is wrong. Public lands as an economic driver bring in about as much as mineral production and in many states, much more than livestock production.

Transfer is also held up by many in the real estate world (Ivory Homes ring a bell?) because they're looking at those lands and thinking they'll make lovely 10 acre plots for folks to purchase at an inflated price once they get them sold off at auction.

It's the same old argument that westerners have been having for years: Do you take the short-term gain or play the long game and have a sustainable economy?

 

[antlerradar]

I just don't see a lot of support for the transfer with most livestock producers. Many ranchers are on setting on the fence on this issue
This is why.
It is unlikely that stocking rates would be increased by the state much and even if numbers increase it is not a given that profits will increase.
The state grazing fee is much higher that that of BLM. I can think of several BLM parcels that are not worth the state rate. If Gov. land was transferred to the states there will be fewer cattle on public land.

Many non absentee ranch owners are not a in financial position to compete if the state were to sell the land to the highest bidder. They are worried that their leases will be sold out form under them.

Ranchers are on the fence mostly because they are tired of the endless pressure put on them by the environmentalists. The more the preservationists push the more landowners will get off on the transfer/ sell side of the fence.

In a nut shell. The current transfer/sell movement is the unwanted child of the preservation movement.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Antler,

That's what I'm seeing from the Ag community as well. That the ALC and others are trying to convince them that going to the state rate is good for business shows how morally bankrupt these snake oil salesmen really are.

But again, it's also where the sale of public land comes in. Ag land prices are high, and flooding the market with more land would bring that price down, making a lot of bankers pretty happy with all the new loans they'd be writing for gov't land.

 

[antlerradar]

Ben. Don't think that a big drop in land prices would be a great thing for bankers. They might make more new loans but many of the loans they have out now could go under water and those loans almost certainly carry a much higher interest rate then any new loans that the bankers are likely to make.

 

[Ben Lamb]

And the Gov't bails them out.

Circle of life.

 

[antlerradar]

More like the circle of crony capitalism and big Gov.
The small banks are likely to be holding an empty bag.

 

[Ben Lamb]

More like the circle of crony capitalism and big Gov.
The small banks are likely to be holding an empty bag.

Very true.

I should amend my statement about the banks to be sure to single out our dear friends of Dewy, Cheatem & Howe Bank, NYC

 

[Straight Arrow]

The current transfer/sell movement is the unwanted child of the preservation movement.

Antlerradar, I do see how you came to that conclusion, but don't necessarily see the reasoning and logical support.
Could you be more specific about the "pressure" being applied to ranchers by the "environmentalists" and the "preservationists". What is a preservationist, anyway?

 

[Bambistew]

Federal land, by and large will eventually be managed for the group with the least impact. I think a lot of states are concerned about what kind of economy that will mean for them. Development of state owned resources tends to be about 10x easier, and in the end basically the same impacts.

 

[vanish]

Only explaining how "The current transfer/sell movement is the unwanted child of the preservation movement."

Preservationists sue to block logging/mining/resource extraction.
Since no resource extraction, no $$ being generated.
Since no $$ being generated, land is operating at a loss.
Since land is operating at a loss, if you ONLY look at the financial aspect, it makes sense to sell it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Only explaining how "The current transfer/sell movement is the unwanted child of the preservation movement."

Preservationists sue to block logging/mining/resource extraction.
Since no resource extraction, no $$ being generated.
Since no $$ being generated, land is operating at a loss.
Since land is operating at a loss, if you ONLY look at the financial aspect, it makes sense to sell it.

This has been a big issue. Rather than look at the entirety of the economic activity spawned by Public Lands, the transfer/sell folks will only talk about that which can be extracted. The economic value of public lands is far beyond what you can cut, mine, drill or graze. Outdoor recreaton is a major economic driver now, while most other activities cost the tax payer in the long run.

 

[James Riley]

Only explaining how "The current transfer/sell movement is the unwanted child of the preservation movement."

Preservationists sue to block logging/mining/resource extraction.
Since no resource extraction, no $$ being generated.
Since no $$ being generated, land is operating at a loss.
Since land is operating at a loss, if you ONLY look at the financial aspect, it makes sense to sell it.

I understand the reasoning but I think it is wrong. Those who say they want to sell public land because it operates at a loss have a million other government programs that are run at a loss which they should go after. The reason they go after PLT is about them wanting to get their fingers in a profit pie. If the government ran the land at a profit but not *their* profit, they'd still be pushing for sale. They could give a rats patoot about government programs being run at a loss. Just like the preservationists don't like it when the land is operated at a profit: it's not their profit. It's some extraction industry profit.

I don't think government should be run for profit. The military operates at a gigantic loss, as do most government programs. But, just as the military and other programs have financial benefits down the road, so too do public lands that are left in tact. Long term thinking. And, all the resources left in place are still there for our children to exploit if that is there choice. I don't think everything has to operate at a wash or a gain for us, right NOW.

 

[hank4elk]

Most of the ranchers I know hate the BLM & FS & are pro sale or transfer,even tho they get a deal now.Hell, their kid might get a job in an oil field,logging/mill or mine....yeah right.For how long? What about ranching way of life?
Most would never be able to buy the same land and just believe the BS they see on Faux,PMSNBC & such.lol
Typical vote against your best interest folks.

 

[antlerradar]

Federal land, by and large will eventually be managed for the group with the least impact. I think a lot of states are concerned about what kind of economy that will mean for them. Development of state owned resources tends to be about 10x easier, and in the end basically the same impacts.

Management for the least impact will eventually result in a lot of public land on the auction block. The more people that are excluded from benefiting from public land the stronger the sell movement will become. We as sportsmen often refer to public and as "our land". We need to not lose sight that it is everyone's land. All 320 plus million of us. The vast majority of public land is used by a very small percentage of the owners. That is a good thing in my opinion as I like wild lonesome places. The down side is that people tend to sell things that they do not use. Management for the least impact is likely to protect the most used places like national parks, popular national forests and recreation areas but that section of sagebrush in SE MT that is only used by a half dozen antelope hunters will be sold.
I would also caution that there is a sizable percentage of that 320 million owners that consider hunting as high impact.

 

[quarterhorse]

"Management" is not what the state transfer is really about. It is about state land departments getting your federal public land given to them for free so that they can sell it to private interests appeasing their political supporters and funding the state school system at the same time. Management, inefficiency and profitability is the smokescreen to make it happen. State Land Departments in the west are a completely different animal than similar state land management agencies in the east.

 

[James Riley]

Management for the least impact will eventually result in a lot of public land on the auction block. The more people that are excluded from benefiting from public land the stronger the sell movement will become. We as sportsmen often refer to public and as "our land". We need to not lose sight that it is everyone's land. All 320 plus million of us. The vast majority of public land is used by a very small percentage of the owners. That is a good thing in my opinion as I like wild lonesome places. The down side is that people tend to sell things that they do not use. Management for the least impact is likely to protect the most used places like national parks, popular national forests and recreation areas but that section of sagebrush in SE MT that is only used by a half dozen antelope hunters will be sold.
I would also caution that there is a sizable percentage of that 320 million owners that consider hunting as high impact.

There's a lot of truth in what you say. However, I don't think the answer is trashing the land or selling it. IF those 320 million want their money's worth then THEY ought to actually get the money. It should not be bled through some ephemeral argument about trickle down, or how helping some mine helps reduce prices, employs people, boosts the economy, highest and best use, reduce national debt, and blah blah blah. If these PLT people really wanted to get the 320 million on board then all they would have to do is go to all those 320 million and say "It will be sold at or above fair market value in an open market to anyone with the highest bid above FMV, and you will get a check in the mail for your 320 millionth of it. And no, we won't skim some off the top for "services".

Fact is, these PLT folks aren't patriots looking out for the best interests of the 320 million and they don't give a rats ass about anyone but themselves and their own pocket book.

Hey, here's an idea: Let's do to us what we did to the Indians. Take the public land (reservation), divide it up and deed it to each American individually. Then they can sell their share or try to hold on to it, best they can. A Dawes Act for public lands and Americans. That's about two acres each.