Rep Russ Fulcher Public Land open letter.

[SAJ-99]

States with more traffic tend to pay a lot more of the balance of federal highways via gas and wheel tax though, right? So it’s basically the opposite scenario to what is being discussed here.

I think this missed the point. It is not productive to determine if the citizens of one state pay more of a certain thing than another. We are all Americans. If you start applying numbers to these argument you see pretty quick that no matter how you cut it, some states are payers and some are takers, even if for different reasons. Leasing BLM grazing rights at below market rates and cutting O&G royalty rates are all negatively affecting the math in this situation.

The article certainly rings like it wants to create a culture war between states, but its main point was to reinforce the impression of "mismanagement". As I pointed out, politicians, like those in Montana, will create the same impression to voters while espousing a negative view of outright transfer. It works and keeps them in office. Voters are lazy, while reasoning and applying math are hard, so the emotional impression tends to stick.

Regardless of who owns it, a person needs to ask if the point is to have wild places stay wild or to cut, drill, and mine it for the $.

 

[Big Fin]

And yes, I was serious. This was one part that stood out:

Members of Congress from states without vast levels of federal land don’t want to subsidize us anymore. It’s important to note that, due in part to the large federal footprint in Idaho, more than a third of our state budget comes through federal sources.

I agree with that statement.

Yet, he is part of the problem that cuts revenue from Federal lands that are to be split with his state. He gives his pals and donors huge cuts on the fair market value that should be paid for resources taken from Federal lands.

If the Federal lands received fair market returns for the resources extracted, the share of state revenues (under the laws related to split revenue with local governments) would increase significantly and reduce the "subsidy" the Congressman is complaining about.

Just a few of the many examples where his coalition deprives local governments of their share of revenues, all for the purpose of subsidizing resource industries under the premise that if fair market rates were charged on Federal lands Americans would pay more for energy, minerals, resources, etc., causing one to ask - Who benefits from the subsidy of not charging market rates for resources on Federal lands.

- Hard rock mining royalties on Federal lands are 0%. Yup, a family paying the daily entrance fee to Yellowstone pays more to the US Government than the entire hard rock mining industry pays in a decade. If that royalty was raised to the equivalent private/state royalty rate, bilions would be split with state/local government.

- Grazing fees are less than 10% of market rates. They should be 10-20x higher, resulting in 10-20x increase in revenue splits to state/local government.

- Royalty rates for Oil and Gas were dropped under the Big Beautiful Bill, even though they were below private/state rates prior to that drop. That is a huge kick in the crotch to state and local governments.

- Oil & Gas does not have to operate with competitive leasing. No other values are considered, so they get leases for far below market rates. Imagine if conservation leasing was allowed for critical habitats on public land. Groups would pay far beyond what many O&G leases go for. These groups could also be charged the NPV of the royalty streams O & G would have paid, a number already calculate by Colorado State University. That would result in closer to "FMV" for these leases and would allow the market to determine what is the highest/best us of these Federal lands. It would increase revenues to be split with state/local governments.

One could make a list a few pages long of similar examples. All of which would have a split with state/local governments, reducing the subsidy he mentions as his excuse for getting rid of Federal land management.

Yet, he's one of contributors to the subsidy the problem. Every bill ever introduced to increase revenues on Federal lands to a rate closer to private or state lands gets defeated by the coalition he proudly claims to be a part of. And somehow voters fall for his excuse making, scapegoating, and dereliction of his duties to voters in his state.

Such is the Congress has perfected - Fail to manage Federal lands, then blame others for the problem you've created/ignored.

 

[Treeshark]

It is not productive to determine if the citizens of one state pay more of a certain thing than another. We are all Americans.

I couldn’t disagree more, especially as it relates to big game tag anllocation and price discrepancies between Rs and NRs.

 

[44hunter45]

The article certainly rings like it wants to create a culture war between states, but its main point was to reinforce the impression of "mismanagement". As I pointed out, politicians, like those in Montana, will create the same impression to voters while espousing a negative view of outright transfer. It works and keeps them in office. Voters are lazy, while reasoning and applying math are hard, so the emotional impression tends to stick.

I'm gonna venture a guess that voting records of Representatives from states with vasts levels of public lands would show they don't want to fund themselves either....but easier to blame others when you're talking tiny fraction of the Federal Budget.

This is exactly it. Rep Fulcher and others like him are doing the Pat McCarran dance, and they do it very well.

They have no problem taking a free meal at the Farm Bureau banquet on Friday night, and then the BHA banquet on Saturday night. They have a speech ready for each event.

 

[SAJ-99]

I couldn’t disagree more, especially as it relates to big game tag anllocation and price discrepancies between Rs and NRs.

We are all aware. I do appreciate your consistency, even if goes against 200 years of legal history. We still try to maintain state sovereignty in some ways while we move toward a federalist system in most others.

 

[Treeshark]

I do appreciate your consistency, even if goes against 200 years of legal history.

My opinion is formed with the utmost respect that history. Stated are the best and rightful stewards of wildlife- is it unreasonable to think they may also be the best and rightful stewards of the land?

 

[Forkyfinder]

I couldn’t disagree more, especially as it relates to big game tag anllocation and price discrepancies between Rs and NRs.

Man - i think you should take this to the courts.

Oh wait. Some folks already did.

Do it again anyway and pay a lawyer

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1055%26context%3Dmulr&ved=2ahUKEwjT4qiopLORAxVhEUQIHXCMJMkQFnoECDMQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0aQRYnNX5gOPVTAJFSjjPJ

 

[Treeshark]

Read above: I am not challenging the hunting/game part. I am questioning the inconsistency of the land management/ownership part.

 

[BuzzH]

States with more traffic tend to pay a lot more of the balance of federal highways via gas and wheel tax though, right? So it’s basically the opposite scenario to what is being discussed here.

So, you want to carry 4 spare tires, 2 axles, and spend 4 of your precious days driving shitty roads to your next western hunting vacation or trip to yellowstone?

 

[BuzzH]

Read above: I am not challenging the hunting/game part. I am questioning the inconsistency of the land management/ownership part.

The states dont own or have a right to the federal land. The wildlife in wyoming belongs to its 600k residents, the federal lands belong to 330 million United States citizens.

Simple as that.

Not sure why you struggle with something so basic.

 

[Treeshark]

The states dont own or have a right to the federal land. The wildlife in wyoming belongs to its 600k residents, the federal lands belong to 330 million United States citizens.

Simple as that.

Not sure why you struggle with something so basic.

You have correctly described the current state of things, no disagreement here.

 

[44hunter45]

Read above: I am not challenging the hunting/game part. I am questioning the inconsistency of the land management/ownership part.

I appreciate the @Treeshark perspective. I appreciate the @BuzzH perspective. They each make me examine my stances. I have serious doubts any of us are changing our world view based on these posts, but I am glad the players are able to have adult conversations about our positions. Treeshark is not being a dick here, just stating his (opposing) views. Carry on.

The problem with the hunting/game vs land management question is that the courts have decided more than once that the living things belong to the states, but the land belongs to the feds. To me this means that those demanding the state should manage the land are actually saying the states should own the land.

Fulcher's letter hangs a lantern on the criticism that states cannot afford to manage the land. He somehow thinks that Idaho could manage the land better with the same lack of funding Federal managers now face. This is two-faced at best. As a seasoned politician he knows this is an impossible ask. What he is doing is pandering to all his patrons at the same time.

 

[Treeshark]

So, you want to carry 4 spare tires, 2 axles, and spend 4 of your precious days driving shitty roads to your next western hunting vacation or trip to yellowstone?

No. That would be silly.

You have correctly described the flaw in the analogy (which is exactly what I did before you did).

 

[Treeshark]

Fulcher's letter hangs a lantern on the criticism that states cannot afford to manage the land.

Alaska aside, the western states in the lower 48 absolutely can afford to do so.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I couldn’t disagree more, especially as it relates to big game tag anllocation and price discrepancies between Rs and NRs.

Please don't continue to confuse differences between federal and state land ownership and management, as well as differences between federal and state wildlife management.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Alaska aside, the western states in the lower 48 absolutely can afford to do so.

can you elaborate on that unclear statement?

 

[Treeshark]

can you elaborate on that unclear statement?

Sure.

Western states can absolutely afford to manage all of the land within their boundaries.

 

[BuzzH]

Sure.

Western states can absolutely afford to manage all of the land within their boundaries.

You best let the people that study these things (experts) know just how wrong they are.

Hilarious.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Sure.

Western states can absolutely afford to manage all of the land within their boundaries.

Not Montana, since as a relatively sparsely populated state the tax base is low, resulting in Montana being a "welfare" state that relies heavily on federal money ... some of which comes from your Wisconsin tax payers. Some of our state roads are in tough shape due to lack of funding and bridges are not timely maintained, resulting in failures. Your statement does not ring true for Montana.

 

[44hunter45]

Alaska aside, the western states in the lower 48 absolutely can afford to do so.

It this scenario, who would be responsible to fight wildfires?