Great American Outdoors Act

[Deleted member 20812]

Big difference between managing for multiple use vs maximum profit.

Big Fin saved me a lot of typing. I stand by my comments of naive and uninformed. Nothing personal, just factual observation.

 

[seeth07]

You are supporting transferring lands from a public Federal agency that grants us use to those lands at no charge, and advocating such currently accessible lands be given to a State Trust that has a defined beneficiary; the state schools.

No no no....idk where you guys got this from but this isn't at all what I'm saying.

I do not want Federal land turned into state trusts that in turn allow the state to make money....no no no. I never said that yet you all are attacking me and putting those words in my mouth.

I'm just pointing out that I strongly feel the states would do a better job managing the federal lands as their own. Not as a trust land but as state forests, wildlife management areas, etc.

Ignore the fact that it may not be financially possible. It may take a drastic state policy in order for that to be possible. Doubling license fees? Idk.

And there you go. If it’s not directly benefitting you, what value is it, right?

Sorry but I'm just generally in support of more power to the state and less to the Fed's. I just feel that we all have a choice to live in what state we want. Its free and easy to cross a state border unlike a county border. Each State clearly manages its lands differently and your welcome to move if you don't like it. Look at Nevada. Drawings for big game every year. Don't like that? Move to Montana where you get a boat load of big game tags OTC every year.

 

[rwc101]

Ignore the fact that it may not be financially possible.

We're supposed to ignore that when one of your premises is that federal lands aren't managed well due to lack of funds?

 

[seeth07]

We're supposed to ignore that when one of your premises is that federal lands aren't managed well due to lack of funds

Again twisting my words the way you want to see it. Ignore the argument that states can't afford to do it. Assume that it's possible thru a change in policy, whatever that may be just assume that it can be done.

 

[rwc101]

Again twisting my words the way you want to see it. Ignore the argument that states can't afford to do it. Assume that it's possible thru a change in policy, whatever that may be just assume that it can be done.

You gave an example of mismanagement due to lack of funds. No twisting has occurred.

 

[FI460]

Again twisting my words the way you want to see it. Ignore the argument that states can't afford to do it. Assume that it's possible thru a change in policy, whatever that may be just assume that it can be done.

I'd prefer we advocate for the change of policy on the other end and adequately fund them. I can cross the state border into California, Nevada, or Idaho and pick any thousands of sections of federal land and know I have a reasonable chance at finding deer.

If I pick state land there is no guarantee when I get to Idaho the whole mountain top wont be sloughed off in a massive timber cut and have a thousands new roads through it, or when I get to Nevada the property won't have changed hands.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Examples from Wisconsin Federal Lands:
1) Boat ramps closed due to lack of funds to repair them (closed to avoid injuries/damage)
2) Forest roads closed due to rain wash out
3) Not having funding to replant a pine forest after it was logged due to tornado

It's ironic every one of these aspects is a result of what many of us here have spoken to, chronic underfunding. What makes you think your state management would fund it any differently?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Again twisting my words the way you want to see it. Ignore the argument that states can't afford to do it. Assume that it's possible thru a change in policy, whatever that may be just assume that it can be done.

So, in other words we'll just work outside of reality?

 

[nontyp]

No no no....idk where you guys got this from but this isn't at all what I'm saying.

I do not want Federal land turned into state trusts that in turn allow the state to make money....no no no. I never said that yet you all are attacking me and putting those words in my mouth.

I'm just pointing out that I strongly feel the states would do a better job managing the federal lands as their own. Not as a trust land but as state forests, wildlife management areas, etc.

Ignore the fact that it may not be financially possible. It may take a drastic state policy in order for that to be possible. Doubling license fees? Idk.



Sorry but I'm just generally in support of more power to the state and less to the Fed's. I just feel that we all have a choice to live in what state we want. Its free and easy to cross a state border unlike a county border. Each State clearly manages its lands differently and your welcome to move if you don't like it. Look at Nevada. Drawings for big game every year. Don't like that? Move to Montana where you get a boat load of big game tags OTC every year.

States may do a better job of managing lands. I think a lot of folks would agree with that. Though I would point out that there is a lot of bureaucracy even at the state level. Unfortunately the situation you are dreaming of has no basis in reality anytime soon or ever. The folks pushing for state transfer have liquidation in mind. You seem like a smart educated person, but I would recommend learning a little bit about land management in the west. It is very different from what you are used to in the midwest. I live in the midwest and it took me a while to grasp all the ins and outs of western land management.

 

[Trial153]

If your stated end game is divesting public land and you have willing partners on the state level. Why would you expect future state management to not work toward that common goal.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

States may do a better job of managing lands. I think a lot of folks would agree with that.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. It largely depends on what the administering agency's goal is.

 

[seeth07]

I'd prefer we advocate for the change of policy on the other end and adequately fund them. I can cross the state border into California, Nevada, or Idaho and pick any thousands of sections of federal land and know I have a reasonable chance at finding deer.

If I pick state land there is no guarantee when I get to Idaho the whole mountain top wont be sloughed off in a massive timber cut and have a thousands new roads through it,

It's funny because here it's exactly the opposite. I prefer state lands over federal because the state lands are managed for wildlife while the federal lands are ignored

 

[seeth07]

It's ironic every one of these aspects is a result of what many of us here have spoken to, chronic underfunding. What makes you think your state management would fund it any differently?

Our state generally does fund the state lands keeping these things maintained. The maintenance backlog on the state lands is small.

One other thing that maybe is present here and not out west but a lot of state lands have projects funded by local hunting and fishing organizations and clubs. It's much harder for the clubs I'm involved in to do these projects on federal lands as it's not so easy to get a permit to do it. The state is very appreciative when we offer an improvement such as putting in a boat landing.

 

[FlatlanderAZ]

Again twisting my words the way you want to see it. Ignore the argument that states can't afford to do it. Assume that it's possible thru a change in policy, whatever that may be just assume that it can be done.

We can’t ignore the fact that states can’t afford it because that is reality. What we are discussing here is actual legislation, years in the making, that will resolve the funding issue that you yourself have illustrated. I understand the conservative view (I am a republican) point that in general states have the rights to govern themselves and are more able to meet the needs of their specific population. However, in this instance, the federal government is more equipped due to its budgeting capabilities. Nearly every state in the US is required by its state constitution to balance its budget every year. However the federal government is not, obviously. Therefore when fires occur the feds don’t have to quit fighting fires when they run out of budget. That’s a really good thing. Because of this every single hit shot crew in the US is backed by a federal agency, because they rely on the deep pockets of the federal government to support them for insurance and liability costs (firefighting is dangerous). The only non-federal hot shot crew in history were the Granite Mt Hot Shots who were affiliated with the town of Prescott AZ. All but one of that crew were killed in the Yarnell Hill fire and it has nearly bankrupted the town of Prescott. The feds are also better equipped to mobilize and manage resources across state lines for forest management. For instance when a fire occurs crews from across the country are mobilized to fight it. And the feds manage these resources throughout the country. If every state were required to have the resources necessary to fight large fires without help from other states it would necessitate a huge duplication of resources and be far more expensive to tax payers than the system currently in place. This same
principal applies to many other issues such as endangered species management, migratory birds (imagine if every state were allowed to set its own limits on waterfowl harvest based on surveys that were not coordinated with other states which could lead to gross over harvest or lack of opportunity), and a number of other issues.
Point being, this isn’t a philosophical debate about state vs federal government, this is a very real and practical request that people who value hunting and fishing opportunity reach out to their elected representatives and support this act. It’s taken years to get to this point and we must use the system in place if we want to ensure wild places for our children going forward.

 

[nontyp]

I wouldn't necessarily agree with this. It largely depends on what the administering agency's goal is.

I don’t agree with it either. I think a lot of people do though.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Our state generally does fund the state lands keeping these things maintained. The maintenance backlog on the state lands is small.

One other thing that maybe is present here and not out west but a lot of state lands have projects funded by local hunting and fishing organizations and clubs. It's much harder for the clubs I'm involved in to do these projects on federal lands as it's not so easy to get a permit to do it. The state is very appreciative when we offer an improvement such as putting in a boat landing.

This is a circular argument. You complain federal lands are mismanaged. You're encouraged to request better funding, you say you'd rather the state own it because they manage better because they fund maintenance. Good grief.

As an aside, it's ironic in that many of your small town clubs fund stuff through grant money, which is provided through the LWCF.

In my experience across the west, I've not used many public lands that I thought were lacking in facilities. Obviously your mileage varies.

 

[seeth07]

Point being, this isn’t a philosophical debate about state vs federal government, this is a very real and practical request that people who value hunting and fishing opportunity reach out to their elected representatives and support this act. It’s taken years to get to this point and we must use the system in place if we want to ensure wild places for our children going forward.

No you are right. I have turned this forum sideways with a completely separate topic. The forum is about the GAOA which I do fully support for what it is trying to accomplish. Not the way I would exactly do it and would love to argue a few details on the senate floor but still am in full support of it.

Have you called your Senator yet? GAOA

Everyone right now needs to get on the phone with their senators office and tell them you want them to pass this bill! Come on Mr. @Big Fin use your following and urge everyone to be pushing hard for this as it's likely to be heard this week on the Senate floor. This is a landmark piece of...

www.hunttalk.com

 

[huntid73]

Just a heads up...Jim Risch (ID) had a morning call-in to a SE Idaho radio program, and I was able to catch his comments on the act. He feels that there need to amendments to allow for state & county input when certain areas are looking at being sold Feds under this act, but conceded that there are certainly areas that need to be protected and under federal oversight that currently aren't. He also saw it flawed since funds can't be appropriated by Congress. He also saw fit that the backlog of NPS projects be taken care of first, before new Wilderness Areas, etc...are created. Overall, he felt that there needed to be more oversight allowed into the act from states along with Congress before he would vote yea, however, he did feel that it was a good act and something we need. Now, I will fully admit I haven't looked into the act like I should have, so some of this may be b.s., but figured I'd give those who are more in the know some ammo to contact their senators, especially Risch and Crapo from ID.

 

[Irrelevant]

I literally can't wrap my head around the contradictions being thrown about by Mike Lee I mean @seeth07

You support State management because the State has high enough taxes and fees to pay for management of State lands.
You don't support Federal management because they do not but refuse to pay more or lobby for higher fees.
I might as well be arguing with my wife over how to load the dishwasher, there is no logic involved.

 

[Ben Lamb]

And I would say yours is for looking through such a tight narrowed vision of what this could be.

I'm just saying the potential is there for something to result from this resulting in a much better product.

My opinion is based on my life experience in Wisconsin, decent exposure to Nebraska public lands and extremely limited exposure to Colorado, Wyoming, Alaska.

Fact: Federal lands are generally poorly maintened and often neglected.

Some national forests are gems but they are outliers. So are poorly managed state lands (here in Wisconsin).

Why can't the lands be transfered with a sticker "hey here you go, but by the way, you can't ever sell it"

Because that is unconstitutional. The Gov't can't transfer lands into a Trust system that has it's own state constitutional issues and dictate how the lands would be managed. State Trust lands in the west are managed for production, not conservation or multiple use that includes recreation. They're in existence to help fund schools and provide a source of land for agriculture and energy.

Here are some examples of how state trust lands are managed in the west:

You cannot camp on state trust lands in Wyoming. Access to those lands is not guaranteed either.

In Montana, you can only camp 100 yards from an approved access point, and there is no motorized access unless signed open, and that is at the discretion of the lessee. It wasn't until the 1990's that we were allowed to legally hunt on state trust lands, and now we have to pay a fee to utilize those lands on top of our state income taxes & fees for licenses, etc.

Colorado only recently (2019) started allowing hunting on state lands with the opening of roughly 300,000 acres out of the millions of state trust land acres they hold.

This list goes on and on (Randy has a lot of digestible information on his podcasts about this. They're a great listen).

I don't know how state lands are managed in Wisconsin, so I can't comment on that, but in the west, we're against transfer because we know that it means limited opportunities and increased conflict over who gets to use the resource. Yes, public lands have been historically underfunded and mis-managed by one political party in particular. It's the same party that is calling for divestment of those lands to the states. Those are the ones who hamstrung the agencies with budget cuts rather than smart-budgeting that prioritizes land management. They are the ones who spend their time tilting at windmills in congress, rather than working to make management better and more easily achieved. The same people who want to see grizzly bears and wolves continue to be listed also share a lot of blame here by not willing to change laws that need updating (like FLMPA, ESA, etc) because they are beholden to special interests that prefer the status quo since it helps their membership models. SO while both sides do it, one side in particular shares the lion's share of the blame for the last 40 years of mismanagement. The other side deserves scorn and disdain for refusing to find middle ground in some select instances, but overall, the funding declines since Reagan have been the largest factor in poor land management.

In the 20 years of working professionally in conservation, I have never seen a plan to advance conservation management of state trust lands similar to things like roadless areas, wilderness areas, etc that wasn't either summarily killed by livestock and energy interests, or that was ultimately abandoned because of a lack of political will.

In fact, the one protective designation that Wyoming had on state trust lands was legislatively eliminated because it got used one time in an area that the oil and gas industry wanted to drill.

Another example is Montana's Wildlife Management Area system - when Governor Schweitzer went on a fee title acquisition binge of new WMA's, we spent a decade pushing back against attempts to eliminate the funding source for purchasing more public lands.

So while some folks think it looks good on paper to transfer public lands, there is no plan to actually manage them other than as state trust lands. There is no will to change constitutions to allow for true multiple use of those lands, and there is no way to ensure that those lands would remain public, especially when we see states running into major deficit issues such as they are now.