Public Lands - The Congressional Football

No but in Wisconsin a vast majority of camping occurs on the state land with very little on the federal land. So you just made my point. You need to open your mind and consider how someone from here actually views the federal lands close to their home
I would not equate any western state to Wisconsin. Comparing apples to potatoes there. The hundreds of ‘Sconies I see are not coming to recreate on state land.
 
@brushcreek I think the problem here is that folks that want transfer have done their hardest to paint public lands as this giant liability. Given the Mineral value, timber value, agg value, realestate value, and last but not least recreational value, ie hunting it's pretty clear that these lands are a huge national asset. We joke about Alaska being called Stewards folly because we got such a crazy good deal, it's mostly fed lands... should we just give them back to Russia because they are too expensive to manage?

As citizens of the the US these lands are our assets, if you transfer these lands to the state for free you are giving folks a huge hand out. The whole idea is a massive wealth redistribution scheme that gives a pile of money to the folks in a handful of states. You're taking money out of the pocket of folks in Iowa and putting it into the pocket of folks in Utah.

Look all lands aren't valued the same, a acre of urban federal land is worth a lot more than an acre of prairie. Here an economist attempted to determine the relative value of land across the country. I'm not saying this analysis is accurate but it basically says there are 1.89 Billion Acres of land in lower 48 and these are worth about 23 Trillion Dollars, so your personal state in our public federal lands is valued at $5,547. If you take those numbers as an informed WAG and say, whatever sure, then look at how much federal land is in each state and how many people live in those states you can see each how much wealth is being transferred.

Essentially this is a giant bank account and the Fed liquidating it and is cutting checks of different amounts to folks depending on where you live, if it were equal you'd get $5,547 but what the transfer crowd wants is for every WY resident to get a check for $90,000 while every person in Iowa gets $367.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the government handing out free money from my pocket but YMMV.

1673444929783.png
 
Last edited:
I would not equate any western state to Wisconsin. Comparing apples to potatoes there. The hundreds of ‘Sconies I see are not coming to recreate on state land.
You still don't get it and again you exactly prove my point. This is legislation in the house of reps. Let's say this makes it to a vote. Montana has ONE rep and Wisconsin has 8. Don't you think it's important to understand how the reps from Wisconsin are going to vote? Wisconsin doesn't have a land board. Wisconsin doesn't make a lot of money from its state lands. I tried researching it last night and I haven't found the break down yet in the fiscal budget but I did find that it's in the "program venue" which makes up 16% of Wisconsins annual revenue (http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/budget-toolkit/revenue). I'll get the breakdown found hopefully but my guess is it's at most 1%.

State lands in Wisconsin are absolutely nothing like the state lands out west. They are well maintained. They have nice designated parking areas with maps. They have handicap accessibility at some. They are cleaned of garbage from the select few that don't respect them. The federal properties I've visited (Nicolet and Chequamegon) are far from maintained. They don't have nice hiking trails. They don't have nice fishing piers. The campgrounds suck and lack utilities (not that i neccesarily need them but lots like it) and clean bathrooms.

So basically what I'm trying to point out is that if I was elected house rep of my district and my job was to represent what my constituents wanted, not what the people of Montana want me to do, I would likely have to vote yes for this bill. Most people here are going to view this from their local impact and unless we educate and inform the people from my district what this could mean if passed (go back to @Big Fin 's post that starting naming off some fantastic examples) this could really happen and pass.
 
You still don't get it and again you exactly prove my point. This is legislation in the house of reps. Let's say this makes it to a vote. Montana has ONE rep and Wisconsin has 8. Don't you think it's important to understand how the reps from Wisconsin are going to vote? Wisconsin doesn't have a land board. Wisconsin doesn't make a lot of money from its state lands. I tried researching it last night and I haven't found the break down yet in the fiscal budget but I did find that it's in the "program venue" which makes up 16% of Wisconsins annual revenue (http://www.wisconsinbudgetproject.org/budget-toolkit/revenue). I'll get the breakdown found hopefully but my guess is it's at most 1%.

State lands in Wisconsin are absolutely nothing like the state lands out west. They are well maintained. They have nice designated parking areas with maps. They have handicap accessibility at some. They are cleaned of garbage from the select few that don't respect them. The federal properties I've visited (Nicolet and Chequamegon) are far from maintained. They don't have nice hiking trails. They don't have nice fishing piers. The campgrounds suck and lack utilities (not that i neccesarily need them but lots like it) and clean bathrooms.

So basically what I'm trying to point out is that if I was elected house rep of my district and my job was to represent what my constituents wanted, not what the people of Montana want me to do, I would likely have to vote yes for this bill. Most people here are going to view this from their local impact and unless we educate and inform the people from my district what this could mean if passed (go back to @Big Fin 's post that starting naming off some fantastic examples) this could really happen and pass.
I guess you and your Wisconsin politicians would like it better if Wyoming controlled the current federal estate and excluded all NR recreation?

Or charge huge trespass fees to NRs? Maybe even lease those lands for exclusive use to various recreationists?

Unbelievable...
 
@brushcreek I think the problem here is that folks that want transfer have done their hardest to paint public lands as this giant liability. Given the Mineral value, timber value, agg value, realestate value, and last but not least recreational value, ie hunting it's pretty clear that these lands are a huge national asset. We joke about Alaska being called Stewards folly because we got such a crazy good deal, it's mostly fed lands... should we just give them back to Russia because they are too expensive to manage?

As citizens of the the US these lands are our assets, if you transfer these lands to the state for free you are giving folks a huge hand out. The whole idea is a massive wealth redistribution scheme that gives a pile of money to the folks in a handful of states. You're taking money out of the pocket of folks in Iowa and putting it into the pocket of folks in Utah.

Look all lands aren't valued the same, a acre of urban federal land is worth a lot more than an acre of prairie. Here an economist attempted to determine the relative value of land across the country. I'm not saying this analysis but it basic says there are 1.89 Billion Acres of land in lower 48 and these are worth about 23 Trillion Dollars, or your personal state in our public federal lands is valued at $5,547. If you take that value and say, whatever sure, then look at how much federal land is in each state and how many people live in those states you can see each how much wealth is being transferred.

Essentially this is a giant bank account and the Fed liquidating it and is cutting checks of different amounts to folks depending on where you live, if it were equal you'd get $5,547 but what the transfer crowd wants is for ever WY resident to get a check for $90,000 while every person in Iowa gets $367.

Personally I'm not a huge fan of the government handing out free money from my pocket but YMMV.

View attachment 260245

losing all my public land privelages in colorado and potentially everywhere else for $23k?

you'd have to pay me probably 100-200 times that to even consider it. which even sounds awful that maybe there is a price where i'd consider it.

that's a good table.

everyone should look at their per capita value number and ask themselves is potentially giving up my right and opportunity to hunt, fish, hike, climb, backpack, run, mountain bike, raft, mushroom pick, hang glide, snowmobile, ATV, fourwheel, wildlife watch, bird watch, christmas tree hunt, backcountry ski/snowboard, take nature photography, etc. on federal public land across the nation for the rest of your life worth that dollar value?

it's priceless. i could probably only get 4 landowner mule deer tags in colorado for 20k if we didn't use it for somethign responsible like college savings or ROTH accounts. after that i'm mostly hosed on doing much hunting ever again. funny thing is even if this transfer thing happened you wouldn't see that dollar value. private interests and senator lee are the ones that will be lining their pockets more than anyone.

it's just priceless.
 
losing all my public land privelages in colorado and potentially everywhere else for $23k?

you'd have to pay me probably 100-200 times that to even consider it.

I am 100% with you on this, it is indeed priceless to me just like it is to you. But we aren’t the average US citizen.

For many (possibly most, which is scary), they would take that deal in a heart beat. That’s the crux of my point that residents and nonresidents would be wise to stick together.
 
I am 100% with you on this, it is indeed priceless to me just like it is to you. But we aren’t the average US citizen.

For many (possibly most, which is scary), they would take that deal in a heart beat. That’s the crux of my point that residents and nonresidents would be wise to stick together.

we do need to stick together. but still the tag allocation should be neither here nor there with this IMO. fwiw i don't want NRs to be so skimped on western opportunity that they lose interest and care in the public lands they love. but i think it would behoove them to look beyond that when it come to federal public lands.

i agree, when you consider the average income of the average american citizen and the average spending habits of the average citizen, they'd take their number on the right of that column in a heartbeat. they would likely spend it immediately on something that quickly loses value and luster and be in the same financial position they were in before. which is a scary thought and reality. but i also think much of the nation does indeed see the value in these lands. i'd be interested in the numbers but i'd bet the number of non resident non hunting visitors to public lands in colorado greatly outnumbers the number of non resident hunters visiting public lands in colorado.

all that said unlimited OTC and units that contain >70% NR hunters does need to be reigned in ;)
 
For those curious, like I was, here's the relevant text from the newly adopted House rules, which can be found here: https://rules.house.gov/bill/118/h-res-5

(g) SCORING CONVEYANCES OF FEDERAL LAND.— 14 (1) IN GENERAL.—In the One Hundred Eighteenth Congress, for all purposes in the House, a provision in a bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, requiring or authorizing a conveyance of Federal land to a State, local government, or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending, or increasing outlays.

I understand this, but only in broad strokes. Can anyone explain the specific differences of how a relevant piece of legislation would be handled with and without this rule?
 
I guess you and your Wisconsin politicians would like it better if Wyoming controlled the current federal estate and excluded all NR recreation?

Or charge huge trespass fees to NRs? Maybe even lease those lands for exclusive use to various recreationists?

Unbelievable...
What percentage of people from Wisconsin would you guess leave the state and visit a federal BLM or NF land (I'm excluding national monuments and national refuges on purpose as I'm thinking regardless of what happens, these would need to remain in place as is)? Is it 1% of its citizens? 5%? 10%? I wish I could google and find that number for you because I think it would drastically open up your eyes because I'd bet its much closer to 1% than it is to 10%. Just based on my immediate family alone (looking at a whooping sample of 9 people) I know not a single one has ever visited a NF or BLM land ever unless they were with me. I'm the odd ball in the bunch as I annually utilize those lands multiple times in other states.

So don't tell me its unbelievable that I am thinking this way. Go ahead and tell your WY legislator to do exactly as you propose. Maybe 1% of us in WI will probably even know its happening and even less will actually care. FYI, 1% would be 58,960 people in WI.
 
we do need to stick together. but still the tag allocation should be neither here nor there with this IMO. fwiw i don't want NRs to be so skimped on western opportunity that they lose interest and care in the public lands they love. but i think it would behoove them to look beyond that when it come to federal public lands.
Easterners who frame this as a hunting issue cutting off their nose to spite their face.

There are billion of dollars worth of minerals on public lands not to mention the real-estate value, and other recreation opportunities.

Well said, this is my fear as well- I feel we are at risk of that in many areas.
If some rich uncle gave you 1000 acres in CO would you just give it away if you couldn't get a deer tag?

Even as a resident of CO owning land doesn't guarantee hunting, you absolutely don't have a right to the animals on your property. Lots of residents with 40 acres in a unit never get a tag for that unit to hunt their land because it takes 10+ points to draw.

Sure you're frustrated and are like well I'm never going to visit CO if I can't hunt... but you'd sell the land for market value correct? Or would you just hand the deed to your neighbor and walk away?
 
No “I” would not do any of those things. However, plenty of people would- my fear is that number is growing and perhaps it would be wise to consider how we impact that. As this is a hunting website, that is where I focused my discussion.
 
Last edited:
No “I” would not do any of those things. However, plenty of people would- my fear is that number is growing and perhaps it would be wise to consider how we impact that. As this is a hunting website, that is where I focused my discussion.

this is a hunting website and that's the focus of discussion.

but, potentially holding public lands hostage for better NR allocation is both shortsighted and not going to work IMO. i'm not necessarily accusing you of that, but it does seem somewhat what you're hinting at.

there is wllm's economic argument. but further, hunters are a minority of public land recreationalists at the end of the day. and even hunters among their own hobbies on average probably spend less time hunting on federal property than other activities. NR hunters deciding they should hold public lands hostage for better allocation are still going to be outnumbered by all the other NR recreationalists that want to keep this land public, I'd suspect.

but most of all, i think most NR hunters would look at the two options and absolutely choose the lesser of the two evils: do they want 5% of the tags and all the land to hunt on that they could ever imagine? or 20-30% of the tags, or whatever generous allocation, and no land to hunt on?

one option gives you the possibility to hunt, the other likely eliminates it altogether save for those with deep pockets, but at least you got your desired allocation.
 
Straight from the Republican Party Platform, page 21 (2016 of course because it leaves open the ability to say "we changed on that a little" when they do something crazier that what was written). No one should be surprised. You have to like how they frame the current economic burden as being on local communities.

Screenshot 2023-01-11 at 7.37.41 AM.pngScreenshot 2023-01-11 at 7.41.02 AM.png
 
What percentage of people from Wisconsin would you guess leave the state and visit a federal BLM or NF land (I'm excluding national monuments and national refuges on purpose as I'm thinking regardless of what happens, these would need to remain in place as is)? Is it 1% of its citizens? 5%? 10%? I wish I could google and find that number for you because I think it would drastically open up your eyes because I'd bet its much closer to 1% than it is to 10%. Just based on my immediate family alone (looking at a whooping sample of 9 people) I know not a single one has ever visited a NF or BLM land ever unless they were with me. I'm the odd ball in the bunch as I annually utilize those lands multiple times in other states.

So don't tell me its unbelievable that I am thinking this way. Go ahead and tell your WY legislator to do exactly as you propose. Maybe 1% of us in WI will probably even know its happening and even less will actually care. FYI, 1% would be 58,960 people in WI.
I would venture to say based on the Wisconsin plates I see in Montana hunting and/or recreating on federal land, versus the number of Montana plates I have seen in Wisconsin during 20 years of visiting family twice per year (0 besides my own vehicle), that the percentage of Wisconsin residents who visit and benefit from Federal land in Montana is echelons higher than the inverse.

And our two representatives in Montana represent an average of 552,000 residents each, where as your 8 representatives in Wisconsin represent an average of 737,000 residents each, meaning the votes of the people of Montana, at an individual level, carry roughly 25% more weight.
 
I would venture to say based on the Wisconsin plates I see in Montana hunting and/or recreating on federal land, versus the number of Montana plates I have seen in Wisconsin during 20 years of visiting family twice per year (0 besides my own vehicle), that the percentage of Wisconsin residents who visit and benefit from Federal land in Montana is echelons higher than the inverse.

And our two representatives in Montana represent an average of 552,000 residents each, where as your 8 representatives in Wisconsin represent an average of 737,000 residents each, meaning the votes of the people of Montana, at an individual level, carry roughly 25% more weight.
sorry, my source was from 2019. Montana does indeed have 2 reps.

What does the ratio of reps to residents have to do with the end result of a vote in the house? The allocation of votes is all that matters and in the end, the 2 votes have the same value as 8 votes. So while the 2 Montana votes will vote "nay" for this bill (or at least I would hope that your elected reps would do so), it only takes 2 "I" votes from WI to offset those. I can 100% guarantee there will be three "I" votes looking at my current elected officials which means the task is now to convince the remaining 5 to at least gather 4 "nay" votes which is going to be a very tough task to tackle.
 
I would venture to say based on the Wisconsin plates I see in Montana hunting and/or recreating on federal land, versus the number of Montana plates I have seen in Wisconsin during 20 years of visiting family twice per year (0 besides my own vehicle), that the percentage of Wisconsin residents who visit and benefit from Federal land in Montana is echelons higher than the inverse.
I don't disagree with you that a lot of non residents visit western states. Its certainly true. I also don't disagree with you that probably very few western state residents venture east to use public lands. Its probably a 1000 to 1 ratio, no doubt. But the reality is that the amount of WI plates you see at campgrounds and at trailheads is a very tiny, super small fraction of WI residents.
 
For those curious, like I was, here's the relevant text from the newly adopted House rules, which can be found here: https://rules.house.gov/bill/118/h-res-5



I understand this, but only in broad strokes. Can anyone explain the specific differences of how a relevant piece of legislation would be handled with and without this rule?
It means any legislation has to be revenue neutral. Since "figures lie and liars figure" (old CPA motto), they will find a way to meet that threshold if they really want to get something passed.
 
Straight from the Republican Party Platform, page 21 (2016 of course because it leaves open the ability to say "we changed on that a little" when they do something crazier that what was written). No one should be surprised. You have to like how they frame the current economic burden as being on local communities.

View attachment 260251View attachment 260252
Lots of stuff in a Party Platform that just aint going to happen and they know it when they write it. From the 2020 Democratic Party Platform page 47-48,

Democrats will enact universal background checks, end online sales of guns and ammunition, close dangerous loopholes that currently allow stalkers, abusive partners, and some individuals convicted of assault or battery to buy and possess firearms, and adequately fund the federal 47 background check system. We will close the “Charleston loophole” and prevent individuals who have been convicted of hate crimes from possessing firearms. Democrats will ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high capacity magazines. We will incentivize states to enact licensing requirements for owning firearms and extreme risk protection order laws that allow courts to temporarily remove guns from the possession of those who are a danger to themselves or others. We will pass legislation requiring that guns be safely stored in homes

Much of what is in the PP is used by the other party to scare their members into voting for them.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
110,382
Messages
1,917,935
Members
34,727
Latest member
Clifford Radcliffe
Back
Top