MT GOP: Transfer Federal Lands to the State

[Straight Arrow]

Good points, spook12. That illustrates the fact that public lands are supported by all states' taxpayers.
The millions of taxpayers in a highly populated state such as New York are amenable to fiscally supporting America's public lands. I doubt they would be so willing to support those lands if they suddenly became Montana's public lands.

 

[spook12]

I regret that NRs have been treated the way they have, such that it will be difficult to convince them that they have a lot to lose. NRs don't like it when they are told that the states can do whatever they want with wildlife, whether it lives on public or private ground, but that is how the US Constitution allows for states' rights to manage wildlife opportunity.

That said, just because states have that right, doesn't mean it is good practice to lay the pipe to NRs. States do that both in pricing and in allocation of opportunity. For residents of western states to now ask the NR to come to their aid is going to be a tought ask, though I hope the NR can see through the first cloudy layer and see what is really at risk for all hunters, resident and non-resident alike.

The way that some of these states have treated the NR hunter would not only make it a ''Tough ask'', it should be down right embarrassing. It generally doesn't work out real well to treat your neighbor like crap and then expect him to come rushing to your aid in your moment of need.


If the NRs sit idly by and the residents of the western states are able to defeat the fringe operators promoting this idea, which I think will be the case, I suspect residents of those western states will look around and see that the NRs sat silently by, or worse yet, joined the "sell the land crowd" and once the smoke clears, getting residents to treat NRs in a manner that is better than it is today, will have vaporized. If that is how it unfolds, I would expect NRs to get treated even worse as a result. I hope that is not the case. Regardless of the outcome of this issue, I hope that residents of the abusive states reconsider the manner in which they treat NRs.

So it falls to the NR to be the Grownup in the room,? Here's an idea for a few of these States. How about being a good neighbor ? How about throwing a wave our way for no other reason then it builds relationships. I'm generally more apt to help those who have treated me decently then I am those who always just need something from me all the time.

 

[quackaddict]

So if you add fishing and hiking then that would be it? What about grazing, wildlife viewing, trapping, mushroom picking, firewood cutting, etc. Isn't there far more coming from public lands than just hunting/fishing/hiking?

I started a several threads on the bowsite community forum to see the response to the take over, and most of those responders supported the idea. Usually with a few insults added to go along with the responses.

Nope. I just said that they should be on top of the list since there are probably more user days for those three activities than anything else.

It would be best if the USFS(NOT USFWS/special interest groups) could manage for a healthy forest, which includes logging and burning... Everything else would fall into place.

 

[Big Fin]

So it falls to the NR to be the Grownup in the room,? ............

Hmmm. If that is what you got from what I wrote, then my writing ability sucks.

 

[spook12]

If the NRs sit idly by and the residents of the western states are able to defeat the fringe operators promoting this idea, which I think will be the case, I suspect residents of those western states will look around and see that the NRs sat silently by, or worse yet, joined the "sell the land crowd" and once the smoke clears, getting residents to treat NRs in a manner that is better than it is today, will have vaporized. If that is how it unfolds, I would expect NRs to get treated even worse as a result. I hope that is not the case. Regardless of the outcome of this issue, I hope that residents of the abusive states reconsider the manner in which they treat NRs.

Peace Brother.

I'm sure that your writing abilities far surpass my ability to comprehend . I think I was just fixated on the first part of this thought of yours.

I think we have the proverbial ''Chicken or the Egg''.
On one hand there are some that say that the NR sits this one out at their own peril,that they will find dwindling support from the R's if we aren't there shoulder to shoulder on the frontlines. Others(Myself included)would suggest that NR's have already been feeling that dwindling support from many of these states for quite some time. It has somehow come to the point where the NR are expected to ''Turn the other cheek'' gear up and jump into the soup.

Like I said I'm not sure which came first. The Chicken or the Egg?

 

[have gun will travel]

Can some one tell me what would convince the federal govt to just hand over all that land to the state? Your talking about a lot of resources that won't be given up with out one hell of a fight at the federal level.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Can some one tell me what would convince the federal govt to just hand over all that land to the state? Your talking about a lot of resources that won't be given up with out one hell of a fight at the federal level.

I asked Secretary Jewell that question. Her response was: Never gonna happen.

The only way it could happen is if congress passed a bill that would transfer the land or sell it and a President signed it.

 

[MattK]

Ben- Is there any validity to a state lawsuit forcing the transfer of Federal to state ownership? I have heard that a federal law has been used in a couple of states to force the issue and they have suceeded. I can't remember the law or which states were involved but a politician from Utah was on a local radio station claiming the transfer had happened.

 

[spook12]

Never is an awful long time Ben. I'm betting that given enough time she will be proven wrong.

Will it happen in the next few generations? Probably not, but our history is full of powerful interest that played the system to their own benefit. I know that if I had the means and the desire to control the resources that are now owned by all citizens of this Country my first move would be to remove about 95% of those people from the equation.

 

[Nameless Range]

I asked Secretary Jewell that question. Her response was: Never gonna happen.

The only way it could happen is if congress passed a bill that would transfer the land or sell it and a President signed it.

A scenario of a congress with a conservative majority and a president willing to sign such a bill does not seem far-fetched.

Whether or not the Government would be giving up resources would probably not even be a thought in their minds. Congress supports things all the time that are not in their best interest, or their constituent's.

This is not a problem in the distant future. This problem is here. People with power, and potentially a lot of power, support it.

Unfortunately, there are two dominant parties in this country. They pretty much have equal power, and the country sways between the two.

"It calls upon the federal government to honor to all willing western states the same statehood promise to transfer title to the public lands that it honored with all states east of Colorado; and …calls upon all national and state leaders and representatives to exert their utmost power and influence to urge the imminent transfer of public lands to all willing western states for the benefit of these western states and for the nation as a whole." Republican National Committee Resolution,2014

 

[BigRack]

Technically, land transferred to a State is still "public" land.

You need to articulate to the general public why it is better for "all" why it should stay under Federal control.

The BLM isn't helping our cause when they do stuff like this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/24/BLM-Doubles-Down-on-Texas-Land

 

[Ben Lamb]

Technically, land transferred to a State is still "public" land.

You need to articulate to the general public why it is better for "all" why it should stay under Federal control.

The BLM isn't helping our cause when they do stuff like this.

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/06/24/BLM-Doubles-Down-on-Texas-Land

Technically it's not public land. It becomes state trust land. In states like Wyoming, that means no camping at all. State Trust lands are easier to sell, easier to develop and easier to kick people off of than actual Public Land.

Public Land is land owned by all Americans. State Trust Land is owned by the state for the benefit of schools. Those lands have a constitutional duty to maximize economic yield for the state. Most states do not have the kind of public input in management of state trust lands that Public Land does.

And Breitbart should be considered paper for the bottom of the bird cage.

 

[noharleyyet]

Does this source bile your delicate sensibilities Ben?

http://www.texastribune.org/2014/04/28/brief/

 

[quackaddict]

Technically it's not public land. It becomes state trust land. In states like Wyoming, that means no camping at all. State Trust lands are easier to sell, easier to develop and easier to kick people off of than actual Public Land.

Public Land is land owned by all Americans. State Trust Land is owned by the state for the benefit of schools. Those lands have a constitutional duty to maximize economic yield for the state. Most states do not have the kind of public input in management of state trust lands that Public Land does.

And Breitbart should be considered paper for the bottom of the bird cage.

As another example, on State Lands here in NM, you can't hunt coyotes or rabbits. And most WMAs here in NM are more refuges than anything. You can't hunt on a good portion of them.

 

[katqanna]

This isnt just about the what if scenario. HR 1526 passed the Fed House this fall that would transfer authority of Fed lands to States, with the Fed retaining title and fiscal responsibility (like if a fire broke out). 227 Repubs voted for it and 17 Dems. It is on to the Senate now. This bill allows the states to do as they please as administrators, even includes the ever popular categorical exclusion (no NEPA) and mandatory resource extraction bits.

Currently the Senate holds 53 seats and the Republicans 45 seats. There are 2 Independent seats which generally caucus with the Dems. Of those 17 Dems that voted for this in the House they are from the states of AL, AZ, CA, GA, MN, NC, OR, UT and WV. Of the Senators currently serving in the same states are AL, CA, MN, NC, WV and OR. All it would take is for 11 Dems to vote yes and they would have the majority on this HR 1526 - a value step towards transfer.

As to Never gonna happen, this doesnt just affect fed transfer, this value also affects local and state elections. The majority of those supporting this transfer agenda were also those that sponsored the majority of the bills against wildlife, habitat, access in this last legislature. This is already costing us money while they continue to advance this privatization agenda.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So the BLM & the courts said 30 years ago it's the BLM's land, but some folks don't like it. Got it.

Now, politicians are running around with their hair on fire screaming about the Fed.

Huh, must be an election year.

And thanks for a reputable source.

 

[Ben Lamb]

As another example, on State Lands here in NM, you can't hunt coyotes or rabbits. And most WMAs here in NM are more refuges than anything. You can't hunt on a good portion of them.

In AZ, you can camp for 14 days a year on state land. That's it. No more.

In MT you can camp 200 feet from the access point for no longer than 48 hours (in one spot). Motorized use is almost non-existent on State Trust Land as well.

In Utah - They just want to sell it. Even if it is a Wildlife Management Area: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57981174-78/amp-lake-canyon-county.html.csp

 

[noharleyyet]

I'll take that as a yes.

....shocked.

 

[Nemont]

This isnt just about the what if scenario. HR 1526 passed the Fed House this fall that would transfer authority of Fed lands to States, with the Fed retaining title and fiscal responsibility (like if a fire broke out). 227 Repubs voted for it and 17 Dems. It is on to the Senate now. This bill allows the states to do as they please as administrators, even includes the ever popular categorical exclusion (no NEPA) and mandatory resource extraction bits.

Currently the Senate holds 53 seats and the Republicans 45 seats. There are 2 Independent seats which generally caucus with the Dems. Of those 17 Dems that voted for this in the House they are from the states of AL, AZ, CA, GA, MN, NC, OR, UT and WV. Of the Senators currently serving in the same states are AL, CA, MN, NC, WV and OR. All it would take is for 11 Dems to vote yes and they would have the majority on this HR 1526 - a value step towards transfer.

As to Never gonna happen, this doesnt just affect fed transfer, this value also affects local and state elections. The majority of those supporting this transfer agenda were also those that sponsored the majority of the bills against wildlife, habitat, access in this last legislature. This is already costing us money while they continue to advance this privatization agenda.

So would Harry Reid bring it up in this session? The answer is no and as long as he doesn't assign it to committee it dies right there.

Now assume that the R's take the Senate in Nov. and the 114th Congress convenes in January of 2015, who is still president? Do you really believe a Republican congress is going to send to President Obama a bill he will veto and they don't have the votes to over ride it? In fact the R's won't have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate so they could even get a cloture vote if this scenario played out.

While some in their core believe that states taking over Federal lands is best, the rest of the GOP is using this to appease the right wing of their party and know that it won't pass muster in any serious form.

It is a dog whistle issue, like gun control, abortion, etc etc. Those issues are designed to keep the low hanging fruit of the idiot class on both sides in line.

Not saying you can't oppose it but to say that it is an almost done deal is inaccurate as well

Nemont

 

[roadhunter]

Is the federal government really good at managing anything?

Is it crazy to think that the state might be able to do a better job at managing these lands as opposed to the federal government?

Does it really matter who technically owns the property as long as it is still available for public use for things like camping, hiking, hunting, fishing?

My answers are No, No, No.

Quite frankly I dont' see how the USFS could do a worse job of managing the lands they are in charge of. They basically give away the grazing rights which should provide some nice income for whoever is managing the land. They rarely create any income from the resource they are in charge of from thing like logging. Instead they let the forest get overgrown, then it starts on fire, then they throw piles of money (airplanes, helicopters, government firefighting crews) at the fires to put them out. Then they pay a bunch of government employees and contractors to go clean up the mess that the fires left behind such as damaged roads, culverts, fences, dangerous trees near trails and roads, etc.. Not sure how one could look at what they do and think it is a good system. Especially after you see what is costs, at that point it is pretty easy to see how the USFS is mismanaging the resources they are in charge of. Between all the resources the land offers there should be a way to manage this land without costing this country a fortune in the process.

Much better to get paid for the resource (trees in this example) by a logging company who will replant after logging. Repeat in 10-15 years and deposit the check from the logging company.
As opposed to doing nothing, watching a valuable resource go up in flames, then spending a fortune to put out fires and even more money to clean up the mess left behind. Then paying government employees or contractors replant trees just so the USFS can mismanage them again in 10-15 years and cost taxpayers even more $.

I'm not sure what is so impressive about how the USFS manages public lands. Feel free to point out what it is that they are good at as I can't seem to find anything that would indicate they are doing a good job at it.