Federal Land Transfer info

[Nameless Range]

Only if they were transferred as state school trust land which is not what has been talked about. Could just as easily be transferred as state parks which allow all sorts of recreation.

No. Do your research. They could not easily be transferred as State Parks. Who would pay for that? State Parks pale in comparison to most current Federal lands in terms of hunting, fishing and recreation, and they are not nearly as profitable as Trust Lands. Monetary concerns would be the chief drivers of management under the states. They'd have to be.

.

It would not be hard to simply make keeping the current recreational use of the land if the management was transferred. But that is never mentioned on this site for some reason

It would be more than hard. It would be financially impossible. Currently all Americans are helping to fund our public lands. If transferred to the states, funding would fall on those living within the states. The difference in those tax bases is incredible. Therefore, management practices would have to be different. That's why it is never mentioned on this site.

Your understanding of the issue is shallow and oversimplified.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Texas charges $150 per AUM to graze state land. Even other federal agencies charge much more than $1.35 in many cases and over $100 per AUM in some cases. But here we are stuck with the current $1.35 for the last 5+ years at an all time low while cattle prices are through the roof and we have gone through terrible droughts from Texas to Montana. If that's not mismanagement then I dont' know what it. Forget about hunting for a moment and look at the reality of the situation.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0LE...1232.pdf/RK=0/RS=drPXkO0nH.03Fgz5vYG6DCHEFMY-

Grazing rate was raised to $1.69 recently.

http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/newsroom/2015/january/nr_01_30_2015.html

 

[roadhunter]

Actual numbers. Clearly if states just charged fair market value for the grazing they would need no federal assistance to manage the grazing resource and would likely put millions of $ back into their wildlife department for land management and conservation projects. Sounds like a good deal for everyone except the rancher who has to pay fair market value and the lazy government employees who would lose their job. But since they got us here in the first place I don't feel sorry for either.

Even just charging $13.50 would be a 10x increase and bring in all sorts of revenue. States are already getting more than that for their grazing leases. Keep that in mind. They have already proven they will do a better job managing grazing contracts.

For FY2009, BLM has estimated appropriations for grazing management at $49.3 million, while
receipts were $11.9 million. The FS has estimated FY2009 appropriations for grazing
management at $72.1 million, with receipts estimated at $5.2 million.

 

[James Riley]

I'd also have to ask if the absence of cattle is the real reason elk don't flourish in a given area. Yellowstone lacks cattle and the elk were going crazy until the wolf. Thus, if elk are low in a given area without cattle, I'd guess it might have something to do with predators (wolves, people, or whatever) or lack of fire.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy,

How do you access the Durfee Hills hunting ground if you can't land a plane on the federal land?

You can land a plane on BLM land. You can land a helicopter on BLM land. You cannot land a plane on leased State Trust Land without special permits.

I get the points you are making in your prior post and I will add some additional info, so this thread stays an informational thread and not a shouting match. Anyone who tries to make this thread a shouting match will get their posts deleted.

You mention of states managing parks, WMAs, etc. That is correct. A lot of states do that and they do a good job of it. These are way different than State Trust Lands managed for profits by schools.

What is being proposed by these "transfer" folks is to transfer these lands to the State Trust Land departments. Thus, all the good things you mention of how state wildlife/parks agencies operate, is not applicable. The changes in recreational access listed in prior posts is applicable, as these lands will no longer have the level of access we currently enjoy.

To your point of Federal mismanagement, no one is saying Congress does a great job. But, Congress is who decides how these lands will be managed. It is Congress who can change the management to be better.

Example: Two weeks ago when I was in DC, Congress was given a list of things to improve Federal Land Management. It was provided by the witness called to testify by the crew promoting transfer. Items suggested are increasing grazing rates, stop subsidizing oil/gas/coal with such low royalty rates, allow for grazing leases to be put out for competitive bid. All good ideas if you look at how any of us would manage these lands.

The following week, the Sec. of Interior proposed examining some of the ideas suggested above to better improve land management. Immediately, Rep Bishop from UT, the guy leading the charge on "Transfer" due to supposed mismanagement, sent out a press release hammering the Sec or Interior for trying to destroy rural economies of the west by increasing these rates.

Point being, this tirade by Rep. Bishop make it pretty clear that this issue has nothing to do with proper land management and everything to do with getting control of these lands by the states.

To all posting, keep this thread civil and informational. Anyone trolling or anyone making it a shouting match, will get their posts deleted.

 

[roadhunter]

So do you use state land to access the Durfee Hills area? For some reason I thought you did.

I don't agree with the proposed transfer or keeping things in the current state of mismanagement. I'm somewhere in the middle. I'd like to see improvement in the current management of things like grazing and timber. I think that keeping federal ownership and transferring the management of the resource similar to the current wildlife resource management the state already does on federal land would be an improvement. That seems to be a good compromise where no land is sold and the current recreational use is maintained and less burden is put on taxpayers.

 

[Big Fin]

So do you use state land to access the Durfee Hills area? For some reason I thought you did.

No. I use BLM. You cannot use the State Land that is out there for what I do. I would need permission from the lessee of those State Lands. We both know that the odds of that are.

 

[James Riley]

The following week, the Sec. of Interior proposed examining some of the ideas suggested above to better improve land management. Immediately, Rep Bishop from UT, the guy leading the charge on "Transfer" due to supposed mismanagement, sent out a press release hammering the Sec or Interior for trying to destroy rural economies of the west by increasing these rates.[/U][/B]

That goes to the point about "conservation easements" or other stipulations on transfer; I bet proponents won't have any of it.

I would think public land ranchers would be on "our" side of this if they saw an increase in rates under State management. If promises were made to them to keep rates down to get them on board, then one must ask: if everything was to stay the same, why do it?

Tweek the federal management. Baby, bathwater.

 

[Ben Long]

Look behind the curtain. The people that want to "transfer" public land just don't like the concept of public land ownership. Period. State or federal. They didn't like it in TR's day, and don't like it today. "Transfer" is a smokescreen for privatization. They hold up Texas as the model. That is their end game. They will tell you with a straight face that Yellowstone National Park is unconstitutional. National forests belong to all of us and shame on us if we get snookered.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Look behind the curtain. The people that want to "transfer" public land just don't like the concept of public land ownership. Period. State or federal. They didn't like it in TR's day, and don't like it today. "Transfer" is a smokescreen for privatization. They hold up Texas as the model. That is their end game. They will tell you with a straight face that Yellowstone National Park is unconstitutional. National forests belong to all of us and shame on us if we get snookered.

American Landsd Council also holds up the eastern 1/2 of the US as their prefered option.

I doubt many westerners want that kind of hunting when we can roam across unbroken lands now.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Seems many hunters often have a positive initial response to the idea of states taking ownership of Federal lands, so some have asked that I post this information I have on a few of the western states and what policy they have for hunting/camping/shooting on their State Trust Lands. Once you roll back the covers of what State transfer would mean to hunters, there's a skunk in the bed.


Nevada - Not really worth giving their website address, given they have disposed of almost all of it.
--> Nevada has sold off 99.9 percent of its original 2+million acres of public land they were allowed to hand-pick as part of their statehood settlement. Only a few thousand acres are left.
Feel free to add any information or links you have that might be helpful in making this a repository for information related to "State Transfer." Share with any folks you feel might benefit from this information.

First of all let me say that I am 100% against these land transfers to the states.
But this makes it look like there is virtually no public land left in Nevada. Almost all of these transfers were land surrounding Las Vegas and the Reno-Tahoe area sold to developers.
Nevada is still over 85% public land.

 

[jryoung]

First of all let me say that I am 100% against these land transfers to the states.
But this makes it look like there is virtually no public land left in Nevada. Almost all of these transfers were land surrounding Las Vegas and the Reno-Tahoe area sold to developers.
Nevada is still over 85% public land.

Not to go circular here, but I think everyone is aware that NV is mostly public, but your secondary point is a perfect illustration of the historical record of transfer in NV.

 

[JDH]

^^^This^^^^.

I've got friend down to Sullivan, IN, by the way. He's building points out here for a once in a life time elk hunt. I've tried to convince him of this and I think he agrees.

When I was a kid I lived in Sullivan and still have some family there. Also, don't forget that Indiana has a National Forest that could get lost.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I once read that every domestic beef cow displaces 2 1/2 elk. I suppose cattle may do some good but I doubt if it is anything that bison couldn't do. If there are no cattle on a given area and the elk are suffering for it, then . . .

At risk of derailing the thread, I think you are missing the point that Carnage was trying to make. It is well documented that proper rest-rotation grazing schemes on elk wintering range will increase the use by elk on that area. The Wall Creek Game Range in SW Montana is a prime example. At one point it held very few elk in the winter, they were all on neighboring ranches. A moderately aggressive grazing plan was implemented, and now it winters thousands of elk. It's an example of proper forage manipulation.

Of course, not all grazing is equal and competition between elk and cattle on summer range would not be desirable from a hunter's standpoint.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Even just charging $13.50 would be a 10x increase and bring in all sorts of revenue. States are already getting more than that for their grazing leases. Keep that in mind. They have already proven they will do a better job managing grazing contracts.

Bringing in more money does not necessarily equate to better management. I would say with a high degree of confidence that the grazing management in the Gravelly Range of Montana is some of the best I have ever seen. Elk numbers reflect the quality of the grazing management.

I have seen more than one DNRC section in Montana that was grazed down to the level of my laptop screen.

 

[roadhunter]

Not to go circular here, but I think everyone is aware that NV is mostly public, but your secondary point is a perfect illustration of the historical record of transfer in NV.

Wasn't the land where most of us live once federally owned? I'm glad they sold some to develop this country. The alternative of having the entire country federally owned would be terrible for all of us.

 

[The Hedgehog]

I'd rather live in MT than TX - just sayin.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

In the state of Washington you may not hunt or discharge a weapon in a state park. The state park system has been in dire need of funding for years, but due to economic conditions and a Supreme Court mandate to increase funding for education, the system continues to wallow in the red. One must buy a user pass now, but there is still talk every year of selling parks that are continually bleeding the budget.

Washington's DNR rules are much more user friendly than some other states. Dispersed camping is allowed, although campfires are allowed only in designated fire pits. A 10 day limit is imposed for camping in a single site in a 30 day period. As with state parks, a use pass ($30 per year/per vehicle) is required.

State owned WLA's allow dispersed camping, dispersed campfires during certain times, and a 14 day campsite limit. However, because of budget shortfalls the PILTs have been suspended, which as you can imagine does a wonderful job of creating animosity between county governments and WDFW.

 

[roadhunter]

Bringing in more money does not necessarily equate to better management. I would say with a high degree of confidence that the grazing management in the Gravelly Range of Montana is some of the best I have ever seen. Elk numbers reflect the quality of the grazing management.

I have seen more than one DNRC section in Montana that was grazed down to the level of my laptop screen.

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.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Wasn't the land where most of us live once federally owned? I'm glad they sold some to develop this country. The alternative of having the entire country federally owned would be terrible for all of us.

Sure it would. But don't tell me that having federal land that's accessible to all of the people isn't a huge benefit.

I get it you don't like cheap grazing, and neither do I. But don't kid yourself into thinking life would be all grand just because the states increased grazing fees.