seeth07
Well-known member
I think @Treeshark does make a pretty valid point that it really is different from state to state
Public Lands - The Congressional Football
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
I don’t have the exact who and when at my fingertips, but I do recall seeing a quote from an Idaho politician of yesteryear (maybe a governor in the 80’s?) that was something along the lines of “I used to be pro land transfer until I saw the cost of the annual federal firefighting bill.”
A bad fire year in any state out west would result in a massive liquidation to cover costs. A few bad fire years and there’d be little public land left.
My state is anything but in the red. State budgets have been insanely flush for a couple years and yet we still fund schools like crap, pay state employees like crap, have all sorts of property tax problems and complaints and have been sending money back to taxpayers every year
It’s a red herring to think states manage stuff better IMO
Yes, as of now they are; thankfully. Previously, MT rules were a mirror of California until a group of hunters forced the legislature to change the laws and allow recreation access via the purchase of a recreation permit.
what about wind and solar?
44hunter45
Well-known member
In the last two years we have seen corporate timber (now land) companies using cut-out developers to try to exchange logged over remote acreage in Idaho for state owned lakefront properties. "In perpetuity" means squat when hard up against the mandates of state land boards to profit from acreages. Then there are balanced budget requirements in State constitutions which would mandate liquidation of liability lands. One wildfire can move land from the revenue column to the expense column.
If you think the land grabbers have US Congressmen in their pocket, don't imagine that State Legislators can't be bought for less.
The past is prologue. It is important to know the history of this fight. It is older than any of us. The loss of public land use and access effects us all directly, but the issue is deeper than that. This is just the next battle in a very old war. The ghost of Senator Pat McCarran drives these folks. He was the master of "Defund and Decry". The original gangster, literally.
There are those who cannot stand to see real estate or resource wealth "wasted" when they could be be lining their pockets with money out of the public trust.
Whether it was Lord Woodhouselee or Alexis de Tocqueville who said it, it is true, the ability to influence legislation (or policy) to line ones own pockets is a threat to democracy everywhere. Our Republic is not immune.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I can't speak to that having never worked on those permits.
I understand your point 44hunter45. But if federal land is instead held in trust by residents of the states and they decide (via their elected officials) to sell, who are any of us from other states to tell them that is wrong?
elkduds
Well-known member
It is vital to remember that though federal lands are located in a state, they belong to the people of America. Not UT, NJ, MT, NM . . .
Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Missouri Breaks, Bear's Ears, legacies for all Americans, not just state residents nearby. Remember Malhuer, Recapture, the Bundys' grazing standoff.
Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Missouri Breaks, Bear's Ears, legacies for all Americans, not just state residents nearby. Remember Malhuer, Recapture, the Bundys' grazing standoff.
Bambistew
Well-known member
ID actually has pretty stringent mining regulations. Just because they are state lands does not mean they can side-step NEPA or federal regulations for air/water quality. Also minerals are where you find them, changing hands doesn't mean they will suddenly appear and mining will go rampant. To be honest mining on BLM isn't really that much more challenging than on State Lands, NEPA has all the teeth..
44hunter45
Well-known member
All the more reason not to see the land moved to the states.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Let's say you have 3 siblings and your folks own a 5000 acre ranch in MT. When they die do you want that ranch passed down to you as a co-owner with your siblings or just to your older brother? I assume if it all goes to your brother you feel like he should have to pay you for your share?
I own 1/331,000,000 of the public lands in WY. If they are transferred to WY I own 0% of the public lands in Wyoming. How am I made whole?
UT wants the lands, seems like they should have to buy the rest of us out at the very least.
Last edited by a moderator:
elkduds
Well-known member
My share is not for sale, at any price.
You aren’t. However, you do get to feel a little less screwed when states like WY go to 90/10 for animals living largely on your public federal land or have bans on you hunting your federal wilderness lands without an outfitter. So the rewards are basically priceless.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You continue to ignore the laws regarding wildlife management and hunting. Wyoming's regulations are based on wildlife management of wildlife held in trust for the citizens of WYOMING, not you as public land "owner" from another state. Potentially the hunting privilege "rewards" would remain unchanged.
You have apparently missed the extensively long discussion about federal public lands ownership / management versus state management of STATE wildlife living wherever within that state.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
National Parks and Wilderness Areas have been excluded from previous bills.
Also it's just a sub unit, like a Type 2 tag, it has nothing to do with wilderness, day 1 WY would just pass a reg that said you need to have a guide in the areas "formerly wilderness" or make all those spots new units which required a guide.
Dudes from Wisconsin basically just get hosed out of millions of acres of land. Have fun with your elk leases in CO... and yeah leasing state lands for exclusive hunting in CO is actually a thing.
I’m very aware. My point is that perhaps it would be best if we let them own and manage the federal land within their borders as well.
It always fascinates me how quickly the issue of federal land ownership can make a Federalist out of the staunchest ‘States’ Rights’ guys.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
And if the state owned significantly more lands, then that leasing / privatizing hunting lands would likely really ramp up. (for funding if nothing more)
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Agreed. Here in NY, the state does a pretty decent job managing state land and we have a lot of it (more than 3 million acres).
But it's an apples to oranges comparison, in terms of scale and the intentions of the state (not to mention the resources available to manage). Large scale transfer of federal lands in the west would be, quite possibly, the dumbest decision in American history.
And not get a dime from federal aid when SHTF.
Similar threads
