Wants small and less government, also wants himself and other elected officials to be given more oversight. Ugh!
Great American Outdoors Act
- Thread starter FlatlanderAZ
- Start date
Wants small and less government, also wants himself and other elected officials to be given more oversight. Ugh!
seeth07
Well-known member
It looks good on paper when it isn't into "state trust lands". State forests, wildlife management areas, etc. are more or less what I envision to ensure public lands right now stay public. That doesn't mean the State though can't make a little money from it. For example, the state trust lands in Wisconsin are actually huge deer, turkey and grouse habitat areas due to careful forest management of well policed logging activities.
Jmnhunter
Active member
Here in MN, the state does sell of some lands and I know WI has a history or maybe currently too;
the GAOA will benefit ALL states
the GAOA will benefit ALL states
Ok, so you have a concept. Now put it into a proposal that includes management prescriptions and a budget along with the ways to pay for it. This proposal should include:
1.) How to get around the unconstitutionality of transfer since all states have ceded their claims to any federally owned lands upon admission into the Union.
2.) A new land ownership designation within the constitutional confines of each state in the nation.
3.) Obligatory constitutional referendums to allow for large swaths of land outside of the Trust management model.
4.) A realistic approach to the increase in gov't jobs that would be associated with the transfer of public lands to the state.
5.) How these new lands will have their management paid for either through increases in personal taxes or increased revenue from development, etc.
6.) How these lands will be managed in compliance with laws such as the migratory bird treaty act, endangered species act.
7.) How to make up the revenue shortfall counties will face when they lose programs like Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools (SRS)
8.) Grazing management and lease rates for livestock producers since most states charge a much higher rate for grazing leases.
We can go from there on the rest of the list of issues that need to be resolved, but those are the top 8 that sprang to mind.
For the record, no advocate for transfer at the state or national level has supplied answers to any of these questions other than "we're going to develop these lands for their maximum revenue potential."
FamilyMan
Active member
Looks like a Senate vote late tonight: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...late-night-vote-amid-standoff-over-lands-bill
seeth07
Well-known member
The one time when you tell your wife your leaving at midnight to go unexpectedly to work and it won't be lie...
Yep...forced by our good friend Mr Mike Lee from Utah
Another step forward.
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...advances-public-lands-bill-in-late-night-vote
The particulars of the vote:
https://www.cop.senate.gov/legislat...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00117
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-e...advances-public-lands-bill-in-late-night-vote
The particulars of the vote:
https://www.cop.senate.gov/legislat...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=116&session=2&vote=00117
Last edited:
FlatlanderAZ
Well-known member
Pretty sad, neither of my Senators even bothered to show up despite my contacts with them.
Interesting to see what each state’s delegation decided to do. ID both Nay, UT both Nay, NM both Yea, NV both Yea, MT both Yea, CO both Yea, AZ both not voting
It also struck me as a very good thing that they stuck with this bill as written and didn’t let any amendments get tacked on. Since Cruz and Lee were leading the charge on amendments that sounds like a big win to me.
Shangobango
Well-known member
I emailed both of my Senators to ask what there opposition to this legislation is.
FlatlanderAZ
Well-known member
Crapo’s nay vote was interesting. I don’t think he is opposed to public lands. Last year I hunted some of his property for moose and his family told me they didn’t believe in private lands.
Shangobango
Well-known member
I am reading some of the posts here and I just thought I would chime in on how it works in Louisiana.
What is called State Trust out west, we call School Board Sections. Almost without fail the sections are timber and the hunting rights are leased to the highest bidder. Those lease fees along with selective timber harvest make up the income derived from those land.
I am not a fan of this system. I think that if the federal government were to deed their public lands to the State this would be the system the States put in place if the land does not just get sold to the highest bidder.
We also have land that is owned by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. These lands are almost without fail WMA’s. I live right between two of these. One is 40,000 acres, one is 70,000. The State does timber harvest on these lands and residents pay 15 bucks to be able to access them. I love this system and a large percentage of my outdoor pursuits take place on lands owned by the LDWF.
Here close to home most of the School Borard Sections seem to fall in those two WMA’s but yet instead of being leased to the LDWF they are leased to the highest bidder which is not the LDWF.
That tells me all I need to know about how federal lands that get transferred to State control are likely to be administered.
What is called State Trust out west, we call School Board Sections. Almost without fail the sections are timber and the hunting rights are leased to the highest bidder. Those lease fees along with selective timber harvest make up the income derived from those land.
I am not a fan of this system. I think that if the federal government were to deed their public lands to the State this would be the system the States put in place if the land does not just get sold to the highest bidder.
We also have land that is owned by the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. These lands are almost without fail WMA’s. I live right between two of these. One is 40,000 acres, one is 70,000. The State does timber harvest on these lands and residents pay 15 bucks to be able to access them. I love this system and a large percentage of my outdoor pursuits take place on lands owned by the LDWF.
Here close to home most of the School Borard Sections seem to fall in those two WMA’s but yet instead of being leased to the LDWF they are leased to the highest bidder which is not the LDWF.
That tells me all I need to know about how federal lands that get transferred to State control are likely to be administered.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
Ive spent a ton of time fishing, hunting, and recreating on several federal lands/waters in IA. Equivalent state-administered areas are much better for these uses in my observation. However, if I wanted to try to compare the situation in IA to CO, where I’ve also lived, it’s like comparing apples to tennis balls. I’m libertarian-leaning, and in theory I’d like to see nearly all federal lands transferred to state management, because of the numerous glaring flaws of federal governance and management.
But the idealism ends there. In practice, the track record of transfer is abysmal. The motive to make these transfers is not what is stated by the GOP lawmakers and activists. It should win an award for the worst wolf in sheepskin costume.
The reality is these elected “representatives” have political debts and quid pro quo obligations to wealthy individuals, corporations, selected industries, and allied PACs. If you think you, the individual recreation participant, are considered in the transfers, you simply aren’t.
Not saying that there isn’t some way to make federal to state transfer work better. I’m all for exploring such an idea, and trying to make it happen. But there are a host of barriers like the ones @Ben Lamb identified. I think it’s short-sighted to permanently uphold a mantra of “no federal transfer.”
But the idealism ends there. In practice, the track record of transfer is abysmal. The motive to make these transfers is not what is stated by the GOP lawmakers and activists. It should win an award for the worst wolf in sheepskin costume.
The reality is these elected “representatives” have political debts and quid pro quo obligations to wealthy individuals, corporations, selected industries, and allied PACs. If you think you, the individual recreation participant, are considered in the transfers, you simply aren’t.
Not saying that there isn’t some way to make federal to state transfer work better. I’m all for exploring such an idea, and trying to make it happen. But there are a host of barriers like the ones @Ben Lamb identified. I think it’s short-sighted to permanently uphold a mantra of “no federal transfer.”
This is a critical piece of the whole puzzle. And one that's been covered under FLPMA: https://www.blm.gov/or/regulations/files/FLPMA.pdf
When the American Lands Council tried to run bills in MT thaqt said "we'd never sell the land," or when their planted questions were "Are you saying that we should never sell or transfer public lands in any circumstance," Conservation advocates were honest in their response: It depends.
It depends because there are a myriad of situations where change of ownership/management does make good sense from a governance perspective. Lands close to towns like Las Vegas that have low wildlife value, but have high value for affordable housing fall under this category, as do isolate tracts of public with no public access when the trade can be made that is beneficial for the public trust, and the person interested in consolidating land ownership of specific parcels.
The harsh reality of public lands management is that it is complicated and nuanced. There are a host of laws, programs and policies in place to actually manage our public lands, but our politicians are getting in the way. Between unfunded mandates, low budgets, lack of resolve to find bi-partisan solutions to issues like frivolous lawsuits, etc, we end up in a stalemate where only the lobbyists and their elected officials win.
It's a shame that we've let our employees (elected officials) do this to our birthright.
blazinsoles
Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2016
- Messages
- 46
Luckily just had to write thank you notes to Senator's Portman and Brown in Ohio
44hunter45
Well-known member
The number of Republican Yea Votes for cloture encourages me. I think we are making progress.
Risch should be paying attention. Paulette Jordan is a serious contender and old money or Utah money may not be enough for him in November
Risch should be paying attention. Paulette Jordan is a serious contender and old money or Utah money may not be enough for him in November
Similar threads
