Public Lands - The Congressional Football

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I understand, but is that necessarily a bad thing if that’s what the residents of said state choose for themselves?

I’m just trying to reconcile the whole “states rights” thing with respect to wildlife decisions vs land ownership.

That assumption precludes the current federal landowners from their input. We all currently have a stake in federal lands management.

Now if you want to imagine if states owned the land and could do what they please with it, then sure. I think you're looking at it from too much of an absolutist perspective though. Most of us here are advocates for states rights in wildlife management and we are simultaneously advocates for continued federal oversight of public lands. I don't think that's a hypocritical perspective. It's a perspective that's based on the failures and successes of our history. We don't advocate for state based wildlife management because we are staunch supporters of states rights. We advocate for it because it has worked.

 

[Treeshark]

Most of us here are advocates for states rights in wildlife management and we are simultaneously advocates for continued federal oversight of public lands.

This is my exact point. I feel this is a logically inconsistent viewpoint- I suspect most on here have those two conflicting viewpoints because they personally benefit the most from holding them.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@seeth07 I will try and find the table that shows granted at statehood...

But..

Utah 7.4 Million (47% sold)
Nevada 3.9 Million (95% sold)
Idaho 3.6 Million (22% sold)

 

[wyoelkfan15]

I understand, but is selling/otherwise monetizing that land necessarily a bad thing if that’s what the residents of said state choose for themselves?

I’m just trying to reconcile the whole “states rights” thing with respect to wildlife decisions vs land ownership.

State land boards are appointed, not voted into office. If you get a transfer happy govenor in office, it's much easier for that transfer to happen to line their own and partners pockets with the selling / buying of those lands, voter sentiments be damned. With the apparent zero accountability most our public officials have to answer to, I personally don't want appointees that need to manage for just dollar bills without other considerations. Certainly there are people that would be in favor of land transfers into private ownership, but wildlife, wild places, conservation would all suffer from it. The US has averaged 1 millions acres of land development per year in the last decade. If all federal lands were open for sale and development through state land boards I believe that number would jump higher, and the places we use to recreate, hunt, fish camp etc. would be turned over for subdivisions and strip malls or sold for private billionaires to own their big piece of the west and the public has fewer places to go.

 

[seeth07]

@seeth07 I will try and find the table that shows granted at statehood...

But..

Utah 7.4 Million (47% sold)
Nevada 3.9 Million (95% sold)
Idaho 3.6 Million (22% sold)

View attachment 260170

That table is what it currently is?

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

This is my exact point. I feel this is logically inconsistent.

But I'm not arguing that states should manage wildlife because I'm a states rights absolutist. I'm arguing that historical examples show us that states are capable stewards of wildlife management (in the period of the "American Wildlife Management Model"). I'm also arguing that states have demonstrated that they are poor stewards of their public lands due to the fact that they have primarily divested them. As well, the states that retain state lands have numerous goofy regulations that I am opposed to (IE: Colorado/ Wyoming camping on state land, access to leased areas, etc.)

I'll also argue that absolutist arguments are not realistic. There's is a great deal of nuance in our world. I hold no absolutist political principles and think it would be naive to do so.

 

[Treeshark]

I appreciate your reply and the discussion, it’s good to think of other sides of this.

I would argue that many states have demonstrated they are greedy pigs when it comes to wildlife management, which probably explains our differing viewpoints on this.

For the record: I am 100% against the sale or transfer of any federally owned land. It does however strike me as odd that people give state governments the benefit of the doubt with respect to wildlife management but they suddenly turn into the boogeyman as soon as they get control of land.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is my exact point. I feel this is a logically inconsistent viewpoint- I suspect most on here have those two conflicting viewpoints because they personally benefit the most from holding them.

Here's my perspective.... It's not the state's land to have.

I own that land because I'm an American the federal government is my trustee, if I move to MT I become an owner of the wildlife with MT as my trustee, I still own that federal land like everyone else.

If I move out of Montana I renounce my ownership to the wildlife.

If the states get these lands it's a "take".

Part of the deal when they became states and "we" pooled our wealth and resources.

States have their own land, they manage that how they want. I'm not sure why the residents of Utah should be gifted a couple billion dollars.

 

[seeth07]

This is my exact point. I feel this is a logically inconsistent viewpoint- I suspect most on here have those two conflicting viewpoints because they personally benefit the most from holding them.

I think I follow what you are trying to point out. Is it that its kind of awkward to think that wildlife can be managed by the state yet they can't manage the land within their borders?

If you remove from your mind how things actually have played out and try to imagine yourself back in the 1800s when states were being granted statehood, I think I can picture how maybe there could have been ways to handle the land differently where the states manage the land and the wildlife apart from the federal government.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I appreciate your reply and the discussion, it’s good to think of other sides of this.

I would argue that many states have demonstrated they are greedy pigs when it comes to wildlife management, which probably explains our differing viewpoints on this.

For the record: I am 100% against the sale or transfer of any federally owned land. It does however strike me as odd that people give state governments the benefit of the doubt with respect to wildlife management but they suddenly turn into the boogeyman as soon as they get control of land.

Really want to bake your noodle, I 100% do not want federal management of wildlife (not talking ESA whole other ball of wax). I'm talking Alaska, the fed does an absolute awful job at managing wildlife IMHO.

 

[SAJ-99]

This is my exact point. I feel this is a logically inconsistent viewpoint- I suspect most on here have those two conflicting viewpoints because they personally benefit the most from holding them.

There are a ton of inconsistencies. All I can say is in this case is arguing "States Rights" is a trojan horse for "Give us the federal land so I can sell it to commercial interests and my rich friends". This battle has been going on for more than 150yrs. This is just the latest iteration. http://npshistory.com/publications/usfs/region/6/history/chap8.htm

If you want public land to remain public, it needs to remain under Federal management. Corruption and stupidity increases as you move down the political hierarchy.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

There are a ton of inconsistencies. All I can say is in this case is arguing "States Rights" is a trojan horse for "Give us the federal land so I can sell it to commercial interests and my rich friends". This battle has been going on for more than 150yrs. This is just the latest iteration. http://npshistory.com/publications/usfs/region/6/history/chap8.htm

If you want public land to remain public, it needs to remain under Federal management. Corruption and stupidity increases as you move down the political hierarchy.

Or we just all get our 2 acres via a lottery

 

[TOGIE]

if non western residents hate the shitty slice of the allocation pie they get at the ridiculous prices they have to pay to get that shitty slice of said pie they would really, really, really hate seeing what happens when western states start charging humongous NR fees just to use all that former federal land as the states look for ways to help pay for it.

can you imagine?

here's is your OTC colorado elk tag in colorado for 700 bucks, oh and that'll be a $1k NR user fee permit with a required $2k add on that goes in to the fire fund, now with that you can access our state public lands in your unit because you don't pay taxes here to help manage them. that is if they even allow hunting on the state lands to begin with.

NR wanna go camping in colorado on our new transferred public lands? 3k user fee. probably could even be more given the costs associated with it and now how few people are paying taxes per acre of managed land.

new point schemes just for state land access permits? that might solve the funding issue.

 

[44hunter45]

I've seen this before and can find the total but its a little bit deceiving as a lot of the land sales happened awhile ago. I'd be curious to know what the actual current rate of land selling is for a given state.

There are also going to be some unknown drivers for a land sale that wouldn't be shown. I just watched a piece of landlocked state land go for sale near my home to an adjacent landowner. It was actually a great purchase because the funds they received from it was directly put towards a purchase they just finalized to preserve a critical area of wetlands. A very positive land swap. But the stats would show "state selling land" and not tell the story.

I’m not talking about swaps.

There are nuances. There are times when government land disposal or trades make sense. cf Randy's explanations of public trusts and the fiduciary duties of land managers.
If the disposal benefits the beneficiaries (I.E. us) then there may be good reasons to do it.

In the context of this thread --- If you are a proponent of state transfers, you really need to start by showing how mass transfers would benefit all US citizens. If your support is based on "Bad Management", the first step would be demonstrating how state management would be better. You would also need to show how the other US citizens benefit.

If the transfer benefits the residents of your state, well and good, but they benefit as members of a different trust. Your state land trust. The rest of the beneficiaries in the Federal land trust suffer. Seemingly without compensation.

Say the transfer happens - Now advocates will have to show whether the management costs incurred by the state trust as new owners actually return a benefit to their beneficiaries. Meaning the residents of that state. The cost/benefit analysis will cost the state land board a buttload of money that will go directly to the expense side of the ledger. The study may show, immediately or in the future, that there is no benefit to holding the land. The management costs may overrun the potential revenues. This makes the lands a liability to the state and they may be forced to liquidate them. There will not be a ballot initiative about this. The State Land Board will make it so under their mandate. The residents of the state will have no say, as this is already the law of the state.

So let's consider what it would look like making land management look like wildlife management. The states sell wildlife to the highest bidder all the time. They usually do it without the consent of the governed. They give it to private parties all the time, without the consent of the governed. If that is the definition of State's Right's, they seem to be for sale.

I admit that if I lived in an Eastern state and it is unlikely that I would ever get to see and enjoy the public lands in the west, I would feel very differently about this. It takes a certain level of affluence to enjoy this public trust. I will say that once upon a time I spent time and treasure enjoying the Revolutionary and Civil War battlefield parks. But my company had paid my fare to the East. You might deem me a Federalist, but think school kids should be funded to see the National Treasures.

 

[Treeshark]

can you imagine?

Yes, not that hard for a western nonresident to imagine your scenario at all- your figures basically line up with what a typical landowner tag costs.

My final thoughts: this illustrates why residents of western states should think twice before shafting nonresidents just for a slightly larger slice of the pie. We are stronger fighting things like this together than we are apart.

 

[Big Fin]

Is this the table being requested?

 

[Knight.54]

If you want public land to remain public, it needs to remain under Federal management. Corruption and stupidity increases as you move down the political hierarchy.

Judging from our latest iteration of The House of Representatives I would dispute that.

 

[Big Fin]

As for recent state land sales, Utah is the king. Rather than truly fund their schools with recurring revenue, they use "asset liquidation." Not that they are running out of their most prime inventory for sales, they want their hands on all those great Federal parcels that could really ramp up the cash.

I'm not inclined to see Federal lands in Utah sold because their politicians don't have the nads to propose bills to raise fees/taxes to the required level. The liquidation approach eventually runs out of assets to liquidate. If you wonder why Utah is such a big advocate of state transfer, their refusal to fund schools through other mechanisms is a big part of that.

This website, shows the frequency of state land sales, with each past auction listed on the left. Link here - https://trustlands.utah.gov/work-with-us/surface/land-sales/

 

[SAJ-99]

Judging from our latest iteration of The House of Representatives I would dispute that.

Montana Legislature says "Hold my beer..."

 

[TOGIE]

Yes, not that hard for a western nonresident to imagine your scenario at all- your figures basically line up with what a typical landowner tag costs.

My final thoughts: this illustrates why residents of western states should think twice before shafting nonresidents just for a slightly larger slice of the pie. We are stronger fighting things like this together than we are apart.

but whether or not you care about public lands and wild spaces shouldn't be wholly dependent on whether or not you're given ample opportunity with a tag to hunt them. ever floated the bob? ever rafted the grand canyon? ever perched on an alpine peak and watch the sun rise?

these things, these places, have an intrinsic, albeit somewhat intangible, value. i would just be as horrified to see them transferred and disposed if i wasn't a hunter as i would be as a hunter.

my user hours hunting federal public land are probably outnumbered by 20-30x the hours i've spent doing things not hunting on federal public land. doing things anyone anywhere on the globe can come here and do whenever they want.

let's just not make this about tag allocation.