Rep Russ Fulcher Public Land open letter.

[Straight Arrow]

What would happen in the event that this occurs then? States just financially implode? Let fires burn themselves out?

If it’s an actually possibility that a large-scale transfer could actually occur, what does this dystopian future look like?

"Ridiculous" questions reflecting now an obsession with fire suppression costs as provided by Buzz.
'Suggest more research on the history and large volume of information regarding PLT and related issues. Obsession with fire suppression costs and hunting license revenues is barely tangential to the larger issue.

 

[Wildabeest]

What would happen in the event that this occurs then? States just financially implode? Let fires burn themselves out?

They go crying to the federal govt to come bail them out like they do with any other natural disaster. TBD on fed’s willingness or ability to do this under a recently decimated FEMA.

 

[Treeshark]

They go crying to the federal govt to come bail them out like they do with any other natural disaster. TBD on fed’s willingness or ability to do this under a recently decimated FEMA.

I agree that would probably be the most likely outcome @Wildabeest.

 

[SAJ-99]

What would happen in the event that this occurs then? States just financially implode? Let fires burn themselves out?

If it’s an actually possibility that a large-scale transfer could actually occur, what does this dystopian future look like?

Your previous question was answered by TheTone. The publicly stated plan is a "giveaway" of the land...Fed to State. Some states probably would make a feeble attempt to allow citizens to use the land- change laws to allow camping in WY for example- but there is no way they could manage it in a cost effective way without some "unpleasantries", as you like to refer to it. And citizens don't vote in favor of unpleasantries. Some states like WA, might try to keep as much public as possible and institute more fees to help pay for the cost. But the WA budget has the same problem as ID, we just have more people and higher incomes. ID would definitely try to sell the high-value stuff while taking a let-it-burn approach to the vast majority of it. Largely, there would be no single approach in any state or to all parcels other than maybe MAXIMIZE ECONOMIC VALUE.

"If they can't afford it is it a real possibility?" seems to be your question. It probably isn't if people keep speaking out against it every time a bill is submitted. But if we stop speaking out, I would say yes, definitely possible at least on a small scale. I think Lee's proposal would have gone through without the backlash.

The real purpose of Fulcher's letter is to reinforce the narrative of "mismanagement". That is why it is repeated by people like Zinke. There are plenty of voters, particularly in the west, that think the US Fed government is a problem. This kind of stuff just keeps pounding that message home. They don't want these voters to realize they need the US government to create stable markets for their products or assist when there is a disaster or anything else because that might cause them to be a little more open-minded. Both sides have their "messages" to keep "their" voters from wandering too far and thinking objectively. Dems seem to use healthcare. The real purpose is getting and keeping political power. Still waiting for that third party to step up and present someone a little better than stupid or bat-shit crazy.

 

[Jnasa]

No, because as has been pointed out to you half a million times state transfer is almost certainly just a ploy to eventually get it into private hands. State lands here are getting by sold all the time. A few years ago Idaho department of lands had a big pot of money ear marked for land purchases. It basically went no where because after they made a couple purchases as farmers, ranchers and timber companies complained to the legislature that they couldn’t compete with IDL to buy land

How would the state pay for things like fire mitigation in this scenario though? As @Buzz pointed out, they wouldn’t even scratch the surface of being able to foot the bill.

that’s the point Tree Shark. They won’t be able to pay for it. They will have to sell off some of the land to help balance budget. I’m not saying all but I cannot see a scenario where federal land transfer to the date doesn’t result in significant portions of that being sold to private individuals.

I’m not sure where you are trying to go with some of this. I respect you have different opinions. However, when I see you do this on multiple threads it gets annoying. Are you just trying to trigger reactions? You don’t have to agree. Just don’t be ridiculous either.

 

[rogerthat]

Literally no one is saying that selling off all or most of the lands under state ownership wouldn’t make it financially possible. This country has been privatizing gains and socializing losses since I was born to the point now where the private sector is rich as hell and the public debt is immense. There is no doubt in my mind this wouldn’t be the case again to pay for the natural disasters surely to occur on these lands in private ownership. What we are all saying is that if we want to keep all these lands and still be able to access them there is no scenario this plays out with a state transfer. It was studied by experts in the field

 

[Treeshark]

Literally no one is saying that selling off all or most of the lands under state ownership wouldn’t make it financially possible.

Yes, they literally are. Literally on this thread. You literally liked one of the posts, so I am literally certain you saw it

 

[rogerthat]

Yes, they literally are. Literally on this thread. You literally liked one of the posts, so I literally certain you saw it

Neither post refuted an outright sale of the public lands as financially not possible. What am I missing?

 

[Treeshark]

Neither post refuted an outright sale of the public lands as financially not possible. What am I missing?

It took a while, but we got there: we have collectively dispelled the myth that western states would not be able to financially handle a transfer scenario.

I will bow out now before I cause poor @Jnasa any more heartache

 

[rogerthat]

It took a while, but we got there: we have collectively dispelled the myth that western states would not be able to financially handle a transfer scenario.

I will bow out now before I cause poor @Jnasa any more heartache

I stand by that no one has implied selling the lands as not financially viable for a state. A scenario where we keep our lands and access and these lands are state is not financially viable. It’s been studied.

I think you’re being vague as a defense mechanism. Let’s get some clarity. Here’s your scenario. The feds transfer all fed lands to the state for free. The states sell all these lands to private billionaires. They have immense state budgets. All lands are private now so we implement a landowner voucher system they can sell for all wildlife. The lands are chopped into 20 acre parcels to avoid major subdivision rules and sold for even more profit. Giant wildfires resemble the ones in California and the feds come in to disburse even more disaster monies to make the poor private residents of the state whole again. Anyone think that’s not financially viable for a state? @Treeshark wants to know

 

[44hunter45]

Skewed logic again in response to TheTone, as those who advocate for the "ploy" don't care about fire mitigation costs or any other costs to the state. It doesn't even cross their "privatization" minds. They just know from history that the states which all seek increased revenues for a vast array of reasons, many not even touched upon in this thread, and most states which have already sold off public lands would do so again. It's a historically demonstrated dynamic.
Nevada is one of the first western examples of a state quickly selling off public land given by the federal government at statehood. It's a dynamic only stifled by increased opposition by those who value public lands and desire to keep it in public hands.

@Big Fin - You need to get Nate Schweber in front of a microphone. Hal's podcast with him after the DeVoto book was so eye opening. His research was bullet proof. I have given away many copies of this book. This book and Reisner's "Cadillac Desert" will change your thinking about how western land and water politics works. There are crooks behind every bush. Every one of them eyeing the public resources and jonesing how to get their hands on it. Hell, get him and Hal both.

History matters. I honestly think that anyone who has not read those two books and seen "Public Trust" (free on YouTube) has done the required homework to enter into this discussion. It is important to understand how and why McCarran usurped The Grazing Service and his role in the creation of the BLM

Nevada privatized their endowment lands not once but twice. Both times the land went to McCarran's patrons and cronies. Funny how so many of Nevada's school sections ended up where their was surface water. They went back for a third dip into the well, but Congress finally said no more.

I also found this site to be very educational. The 37 page slide deck was well worth reading for it's history.

FLPMA Turns 40 (October 21) | 2016 | University of Colorado Law School

scholar.law.colorado.edu

 

[Irrelevant]

Man, nothing is a bigger turn off than people who can't handle an ideologic discussion, it undermines you and your position.

While I like federal lands the way they are. There is zero reason why this can't be actually discussed.

The idea that the state of Idaho cannot "afford the suppresssion costs" is patently false. And anyone who disagrees by pointing to some study, is deliberately ignoring the fact that you can pay for science to say whatever you want. And either hasn't looked at the math, or choses to ignore the math.

Per Buzz link a couple pages ago, the five year avg for wildlife suppression is just under $3 billion, and the max is under $4.5 billion.

This appears to be the national costs, but let's pretend is the just for the state of Idaho.

There are 2 million people in idaho. Simple math says that the per captia costs are on par with the typical household property tax, based on a tax rate that ~ 1/2 the national average (also 1/2 the WA level).
Idaho also has a 6% sales tax. They are forecasted to bring in $3.4 billion at that rate.

You would have be truly terrible at math to not be able to easily come up with a way to pay for suppression. Now would ID residents support that, probably not. But it's 100% possible, and honestly, not even that financially difficult in the grand scheme of thing.

And that's without even discussion income tax.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

Man, nothing is a bigger turn off than people who can't handle an ideologic discussion, it undermines you and your position.

While I like federal lands the way they are. There is zero reason why this can't be actually discussed.

The idea that the state of Idaho cannot "afford the suppresssion costs" is patently false. And anyone who disagrees by pointing to some study, is deliberately ignoring the fact that you can pay for science to say whatever you want. And either hasn't looked at the math, or choses to ignore the math.

Per Buzz link a couple pages ago, the five year avg for wildlife suppression is just under $3 billion, and the max is under $4.5 billion.
View attachment 395663
This appears to be the national costs, but let's pretend is the just for the state of Idaho.
View attachment 395664
There are 2 million people in idaho. Simple math says that the per captia costs are on par with the typical household property tax, based on a tax rate that ~ 1/2 the national average (also 1/2 the WA level).
Idaho also has a 6% sales tax. They are forecasted to bring in $3.4 billion at that rate.

You would have be truly terrible at math to not be able to easily come up with a way to pay for suppression. Now would ID residents support that, probably not. But it's 100% possible, and honestly, not even that financially difficult in the grand scheme of thing.

And that's without even discussion income tax.

Most westerners hate taxes more than they love almost anything. While perhaps not impossible, it's unlikely that the citizenry would be willing to absorb the costs of public land management.

 

[TOGIE]

what could happen and what most likely will happen are in such different universes of probability it becomes kinda silly to discuss the "could"

 

[Irrelevant]

what could happen and what most likely will happen are in such different universes of probability it becomes kinda silly to discuss the "could"

I would bet a kidney that it's only a matter of time before ID has funding levels that "could" pay for those costs, they're just be used for other things.

 

[Treeshark]

what could happen and what most likely will happen are in such different universes of probability it becomes kinda silly to discuss the "could"

Did you accidentally put that here vs one of the several Montana mule deer threads currently active on HT?

 

[TOGIE]

I would bet a kidney that it's only a matter of time before ID has funding levels that "could" pay for those costs, they're just be used for other things.

i.e.

"could not"

and we come full circle back to "most likely"

 

[Irrelevant]

i.e.

"could not"

and we come full circle back to "most likely"

Most likely, ID would not choose to pay those types of costs for those types of serves.

But I could also dredge up a thread where the Fed's are receiving way less in fees for use (grazing and O&G) than the states are. So that means there is also increased revenue.

Again, I like it the way it is, but if you can't acknowledge the other side's points or views, then it really speaks more to your own argument than the opposition's.

 

[TOGIE]

Most likely, ID would not choose to pay those types of costs for those types of serves.

But I could also dredge up a thread where the Fed's are receiving way less in fees for use (grazing and O&G) than the states are. So that means there is also increased revenue.

Again, I like it the way it is, but if you can't acknowledge the other side's points or views, then it really speaks more to your own argument than the opposition's.

"anything is possible" ain't much of an argument.

nonetheless, i very much acknowledge many of the opposing points to this discussion.

 

[Irrelevant]

"anything is possible" ain't much of an argument.

nonetheless, i very much acknowledge many of the opposing points to this discussion.

Neither is you/they/us can't afford it.