Federal Land Transfer info

[Deleted member 20812]

Actually it does. Giving the grazing away to a few lucky ranchers is not "better management", getting fair value for the grazing that is going to take place regardless is "better management" IMO.

That money left on the table benefits those ranchers and the American taxpayers make up the difference. I believe the earlier data indicated the USFS required 70+ million in funding for grazing contracts in 2009 and brought in a measly 5 million. Doesn't take a MBA to see that there is a problem here. The ranchers get 65 million in taxpayer financed grazing resources given to them and the taxpayers gets to pay for it with no benefit to them whatsoever.

Now let the state manage those contracts and they will likely charge at least 10x more and in many cases even more than that. Suddenly managing the grazing resource doesn't cost taxpayers a dime and the states have millions in extra revenue to fund the wildlife department and conservation projects. It's not as complicated as the feds want you to believe. The states and even other government agencies are already doing a much better job of administering grazing contracts than the BLM and USFS, the data confirms this.

You're completely missing the point because you are fixated on dollars here. Yes, the feds don't do a good job of managing grazing from a fiscal standpoint. However, from a wildlife standpoint they do at times do a fantastic job.

I think Montana DNRC does a very poor job of regulating grazing, from what I have seen. The Beaverhead/Deer Lodge Forest does a phenomenal job.

 

[Big Fin]

Hey guys, if you want to start a debate about state versus federal management, start a new thread. This post is about information that is essential to understanding the issues relating to Transfer.

Back on track.

 

[Nemont]

Was looking through some stuff and ran across a Cato inst. document from 1997.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa276.pdf

While I disagree with much of what is written in regards to the analysis. I found it interesting the paper was published almost 18 years ago.

Some very interesting reading in that document

Nemont

 

[roadhunter]

You're completely missing the point because you are fixated on dollars here. Yes, the feds don't do a good job of managing grazing from a fiscal standpoint. However, from a wildlife standpoint they do at times do a fantastic job.

.

The state manages the wildlife on federal land already. Did you not realize this? Thanks for proving my point for me.

Who do you think sells tags, sets season dates, quotas, unit boundaries, etc..? It's not the USFS or BLM. Many people dont' realize this for some reason. The states are already in charge of Hunting on federal land.



10-4 Fin.

 

[jryoung]

This is another good document for reference when it comes to the constitutionality of Federal Land Ownership. It also has a good summary of the history of Federal Land ownership.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

 

[shoots-straight]

Was looking through some stuff and ran across a Cato inst. document from 1997.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa276.pdf

While I disagree with much of what is written in regards to the analysis. I found it interesting the paper was published almost 18 years ago.

Some very interesting reading in that document

Nemont

Care to toss us a bone?

 

[Ben Lamb]

The state manages the wildlife on federal land already. Did you not realize this? Thanks for proving my point for me.

Who do you think sells tags, sets season dates, quotas, unit boundaries, etc..? It's not the USFS or BLM. Many people dont' realize this for some reason. The states are already in charge of Hunting on federal land.



10-4 Fin.

Not all Fed land. Case in point - C. M. Russel Wildlife Refuge sets their own seasons, quotas, and which species can be hunted, and where.

Many agencies work in conjunction with Federal agencies on wildlife management, which is why BLM, FS, etc have biologists, as well as for endangered species management. Furthermore, the state manages the hunting aspect of wildlife management while the fed manages the habitat aspect. Those two things are intertwined and not easily separated.

So while, yes, the state manages wildlife from the aspect of season setting, allocation, hunting and angling, it doesn't manage access, habitat and in some instances, allocation on public land.

It's a complex situation, which is really ignored by proponents of transfer in favor of the quick sound byte.

 

[mtmiller]

The state manages the wildlife on federal land already. Did you not realize this? Thanks for proving my point for me.

.

Who manages the habitat?

 

[Nemont]

Care to toss us a bone?

Summary: States No More Efficient Than Feds

Reviewers of state trust operations have reported that trust agencies tend to be fiscally responsible. That has led many observers to conclude that the states would be better fiscal managers of natural resources than the federal government. This review has shown, however, that most state natural resource agencies cost state taxpayers far more than they return to state general funds. The key to the profitability of state trusts is not that they are state but that they are trusts.

In fact, even some trusts lose money; the key to state trust profitability is either incentives provided by the legislature--such as funding limited to a fixed portion of revenues--or monitoring by trust beneficiaries. Funding natural resource agencies out of net revenues would seem to be an ideal solution to the problem. In effect,that makes the resource agency one of the beneficiaries of its management, giving the agency an incentive to return a profit to the treasury or to other beneficiaries. But no state legislature seems to have figured that out. In fact, state legislatures seem to be as prone as is the U.S. Congress to using resources to benefit selected users or interest groups,
such as ranchers or park recreationists

 

[Nemont]

Care to toss us a bone?

To turn federal lands into an asset, rather than a liability, for taxpayers, as well as ensure that they will be managed with both commodity and environmental interests in mind, the lands must receive much better insulation from politicians than would be provided by merely transferring them from one political entity to another. Many people propose to achieve such insulation through privatization. Yet the huge subsidies provided to the nation's croplands that, acre per acre, are several times larger than the subsidies provided for federal land management, indicate that private lands are not immune to fiscal manipulation by politicians.

Some interesting reading IMO

 

[roadhunter]

So Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington have actually increased the amount of state trust land since becoming a state. LOL. Funny how facts differ from the statements people throw around about states selling off the land. Even MT has not sold much state trust land at all.

No surprise most of those other states sold out considering they had less than 2 sections to start with. No reason to form an agency to manage such small amounts of land.

Thanks for the info.

 

[HSi-ESi]

So Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington have actually increased the amount of state trust land since becoming a state. LOL. Funny how facts differ from the statements people throw around about states selling off the land. Even MT has not sold much state trust land at all.

No surprise most of those other states sold out considering they had less than 2 sections to start with. No reason to form an agency to manage such small amounts of land.

Thanks for the info.

The units of measure for the table Nemont posted is 'Acres in Thousands'.

 

[bmack]

Thanks for all the insight.

I think very few sportsman understand some of the restrictions listed when the states manage land. Good thread.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

So Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, and Washington have actually increased the amount of state trust land since becoming a state. LOL. Funny how facts differ from the statements people throw around about states selling off the land. Even MT has not sold much state trust land at all.

No surprise most of those other states sold out considering they had less than 2 sections to start with. No reason to form an agency to manage such small amounts of land.

Thanks for the info.

You can cherry pick several states out of there that have increased the amount of held state lands. However, the telling number is at the bottom, where the total amount held percentage is 59.

Also, it's not simply about whether or not the State Trusts would sell said lands. There is a huge disparity in land use policy that could have huge ramifications for sportsmen. Big Fin's first post really sums it up well.

If I took a myopic view of how this would affect me in Washington state, I'd say it's not really that big of a deal. However, when I look at it holistically across the west and understand how it would affect thousands of hunters in both the short and long term, I can quickly connect the dots and realize it's not a good thing in any way.

 

[jryoung]

You can cherry pick several states out of there that have increased the amount of held state lands. However, the telling number is at the bottom, where the total amount held percentage is 59.

Also, it's not simply about whether or not the State Trusts would sell said lands. There is a huge disparity in land use policy that could have huge ramifications for sportsmen. Big Fin's first post really sums it up well.

If I took a myopic view of how this would affect me in Washington state, I'd say it's not really that big of a deal. However, when I look at it holistically across the west and understand how it would affect thousands of hunters in both the short and long term, I can quickly connect the dots and realize it's not a good thing in any way.

Bingo, it's brutally complex. Washington for example has good opportunity on state lands, but that comes at the cost of additional permits (Discover Pass). But, other states are vastly different. Here in CA you can't hunt state land, and we've dispensed with the vast majority of State Trust Land.

All of these debates come back to management issues, we all want better management. So why don't we focus on that aspect as opposed to a rip and replace, mish mash of state by state rules that would be highly subject to the political whims of the day.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Bingo, it's brutally complex. Washington for example has good opportunity on state lands, but that comes at the cost of additional permits (Discover Pass). But, other states are vastly different. Here in CA you can't hunt state land, and we've dispensed with the vast majority of State Trust Land.

All of these debates come back to management issues, we all want better management. So why don't we focus on that aspect as opposed to a rip and replace, mish mash of state by state rules that would be highly subject to the political whims of the day.

Bingo.

If we want the simplest solution, it's staring us in the face: Force congress to fix it.

 

[Straight Arrow]

If we want the simplest solution, it's staring us in the face: Force congress to fix it.

There it is; the most viable and appropriate solution. It seems in this diverse political environment, the concept of the representative democracy is lost. Regardless of position on an issue, "it's the government's fault". We are the government through our elected bodies. A clear example this week is described by news coverage of Montana congressman Ryan Zinke's visit to Simms Fishing Gear facility where he met with business people representing outdoors sportsmen interests. They emphasized the importance of federal public lands for outdoor recreation and Montana's ever growing tourism industry. He responded appropriately by describing the transfer of these lands to the state as a "non-starter" and explained his recognition of the importance of those lands to Montana. That recognition should be expanded into congressional action to ensure improvement of land management and to ensure the appropriate amount of local (state) influence on management decisions.

It illustrates that we are government through our representative elected officials and their oversight over federal agencies (ie: USFS, BLM, NPS, and others). The federal government is not some alien enemy to be blamed for everything with which we disagree.

 

[sagebrush]

I guess Nemont helped me to understand why I have such a different perspective. In AZ we have 117% of state trust lands issued at statehood and we sold off a bunch to fund schools and public buildings. I would love to see AZ have control over federal lands and give the federal agencies the boot. Looks like it wouldn't work so well in other states.

Big Fin, way back up there you stated congress controls policy on federal lands. That would be nice if it were true. In reality, un-elected bureaucrats control federal policy and interject their personal agendas and the agendas of those that appoint them all the time. That's why we have a mountain of costly federal regulations in every area of American life that sucks the money out of the private sector and runs business out of the country. As far as that condition relates to land access and wildlife management, the numbnuts in Washington haven't a clue about what we need in AZ and we have to fight them every step of the way.

A great solution to this debate would be to have the feds turn over all the lands they control to the states and have the states cede those lands to AZ. Just think of what hunting would be like all over the west if the game managers and land managers that produce the elk and mule deer we have in our paltry habitat could get their hands on places like CO, MT, WY, ID and UT. I could see a day when guys would say "426, nice bull. Couldn't find a big one, huh?". Just sayin".

 

[shoots-straight]

Deleted because I wasn't sticking on topic. Couldn't help myself.

 

[James Riley]

*IF* the land were transferred and then put out to bid, I'd have the following concern.

I don't know much about Ag, oil, mineral, corporate or other subsidies but I hear they exist. I also here there are tax loopholes enjoyed by those who can afford to buy tax loophole legislation, and off-shore corporations and the like. To this extent, a given recipient of the subsidy/legislation has more money in it's pocket than it otherwise would have, thus placing it at a competitive advantage in any bidding war against a person or entity that did not receive such a subsidy/legislation. If they won the bid based on that handicap (my tax nickel) it would just fester in my craw something awful.

Imagine having to ask them permission or having to pay thousands of dollars to visit and hunt, guided, on their ranch.

Are any of these politicians that support privatization talking about ways to make sure their buddies don't get in on the action with unfair advantage? Will their buddies bids have to be adjusted to account for their advantage? Will the transfer legislation prevent sale? Rhetorical questions, of course. We know these politicians aren't pushing this for the people they represent; unless, of course, it's so they can get a job washing dishes and mowing lawns at the new resort. You know, "job creation" and "economic stimulation." Don't stand in the way of progress! The new progressives!

End rant.