Utah continues push to eliminate public land

[ibehuntin]

So you guys think people who don’t live in the affected state should have the same impactful voice as those who do? I don’t. I believe the good people of Utah should enjoy more benefits and management opportunities of these federal lands imposed upon them. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do that? Modernize and update the cg’s and related facilities. I’d like to have hot showers and WiFi in the cg. Not necessarily all mind you but the heavily used ones sure. Paved roads a level tent site and a concessionaire. Why not? It’s easy to be dismissive of that when you live in Scranton but not Monticello, UT.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

these federal lands imposed upon them.

You haven’t read the state enabling acts, have you? It was a condition of their statehood.

 

[Elkmagnet]

So you guys think people who don’t live in the affected state should have the same impactful voice as those who do? I don’t. I believe the good people of Utah should enjoy more benefits and management opportunities of these federal lands imposed upon them. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do that? Modernize and update the cg’s and related facilities. I’d like to have hot showers and WiFi in the cg. Not necessarily all mind you but the heavily used ones sure. Paved roads a level tent site and a concessionaire. Why not? It’s easy to be dismissive of that when you live in Scranton but not Monticello, UT.

I f-ing told you guys it was a burner account to start crap up.
Wifi and pavement haha thats hilarious .
I know thats the top complaint I hear about the Frank Church
"yeah its the largest wilderness in the lower 48 but I can't get any Wifi!"
To bad the Feds won't let us put wifi towers on the peaks! Hahah

Good one greenhorn!

 

[ibehuntin]

You haven’t read the state enabling acts, have you? It was a condition of their statehood.

Gosh no I haven’t read that ancient history. Is it written into the stone of Mt. Timpanogos or was it put on paper and thus subject to change?

 

[ibehuntin]

I f-ing told you guys it was a burner account to start crap up.
Wifi and pavement haha thats hilarious .
I know thats the top complaint I hear about the Frank Church
"yeah its the largest wilderness in the lower 48 but I can't get any Wifi!"
To bad the Feds won't let us put wifi towers on the peaks! Hahah

Good one greenhorn!

Visitors to our FS lands are demanding they be brought into the 21st. century. They want modern amenities and conveniences and why not? I believe NFS CG’s should be turned over to concessionaires or even leased/sold to be managed privately under NFS oversight of course. I go to a lot of NF cg’s and they’re dated and crappy. As an example Lynx Pass cg in Colorado out of 11-13 available sites only 2 had decent level tent spots; I looked. Everyone had to level out their RV’s. Good crappers tho but hot showers would be awesome. Oregon State parks should be the model for NF cg’s.

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Gosh no I haven’t read that ancient history. Is it written into the stone of Mt. Timpanogos or was it put on paper and thus subject to change?

Peace out. I don’t want to impose the cancel culture upon you.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Visitors to our FS lands are demanding they be brought into the 21st. century. They want modern amenities and conveniences and why not? I believe NFS CG’s should be turned over to concessionaires or even leased/sold to be managed privately under NFS oversight of course. I go to a lot of NF cg’s and they’re dated and crappy. As an example Lynx Pass cg in Colorado out of 11-13 available sites only 2 had decent level tent spots; I looked. Everyone had to level out their RV’s. Good crappers tho but hot showers would be awesome. Oregon State parks should be the model for NF cg’s.

Classic!

 

[Big Fin]

Good one greenhorn!

Nope, he is the former pot stirring dude known as azelkhntr who has been banned under two other aliases.

Bye, Tom.

 

[Elkmagnet]

Nope, he is the former pot stirring dude known as azelkhntr who has been banned under two other aliases.

Bye, Tom.

Do I still have to eat my hat?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

Guess he found the cancel culture he was hearing about.

 

[44hunter45]

So you guys think people who don’t live in the affected state should have the same impactful voice as those who do? I don’t. I believe the good people of Utah should enjoy more benefits and management opportunities of these federal lands imposed upon them. Why shouldn’t they be allowed to do that? Modernize and update the cg’s and related facilities. I’d like to have hot showers and WiFi in the cg. Not necessarily all mind you but the heavily used ones sure. Paved roads a level tent site and a concessionaire. Why not? It’s easy to be dismissive of that when you live in Scranton but not Monticello, UT.

Edward Abbey just threw up in his grave.

 

[hnt4life]

I'm far from being as knowledgeable on this transfer issue as a lot of other folks on here, but I hunt, and recreate on both federal and state lands. If the main issue here is a state not being able to financially manage the large area of lands that were previously federal thus requiring the state to sell, lease, or otherwise exploit said lands to the detriment of us sportsmen, could this transfer be managed in an incremental way? This could allow states the ability to manage their land without the sudden overwhelming impact of a huge transfer. Maybe avoid that tree chopping analogy and be more of a manageable thing.
I'm only thinking funding of federal lands compared to state lands by way of timber sales to keep it simple. (For myself) Do individual states do better in terms of profitability on timber sales compared to the FS? Can this be done with some middle ground where we can get better management of our lands, increase jobs in the state, and maintain what we as hunters love about federal land?

 

[Irrelevant]

[

I'm far from being as knowledgeable on this transfer issue as a lot of other folks on here, but I hunt, and recreate on both federal and state lands. If the main issue here is a state not being able to financially manage the large area of lands that were previously federal thus requiring the state to sell, lease, or otherwise exploit said lands to the detriment of us sportsmen, could this transfer be managed in an incremental way? This could allow states the ability to manage their land without the sudden overwhelming impact of a huge transfer. Maybe avoid that tree chopping analogy and be more of a manageable thing.
I'm only thinking funding of federal lands compared to state lands by way of timber sales to keep it simple. (For myself) Do individual states do better in terms of profitability on timber sales compared to the FS? Can this be done with some middle ground where we can get better management of our lands, increase jobs in the state, and maintain what we as hunters love about federal land?

Sell a little or sell a lot. If a State wants to sell the land it's doesn't matter the size of the transfer.

 

[FI460]

I'm far from being as knowledgeable on this transfer issue as a lot of other folks on here, but I hunt, and recreate on both federal and state lands. If the main issue here is a state not being able to financially manage the large area of lands that were previously federal thus requiring the state to sell, lease, or otherwise exploit said lands to the detriment of us sportsmen, could this transfer be managed in an incremental way? This could allow states the ability to manage their land without the sudden overwhelming impact of a huge transfer. Maybe avoid that tree chopping analogy and be more of a manageable thing.
I'm only thinking funding of federal lands compared to state lands by way of timber sales to keep it simple. (For myself) Do individual states do better in terms of profitability on timber sales compared to the FS? Can this be done with some middle ground where we can get better management of our lands, increase jobs in the state, and maintain what we as hunters love about federal land?

We don't believe that it's a good faith argument. These states have a propensity to liquidate their land. They've shown us that time and time again. Most states also have a clause in their constitution that requires state land to be profitable, and requires it to be sold if it isn't. It's just a backdoor argument to privatize public land. The politicians who push it have been vocally anti-public land, they've just been a little more clever recently with the state transfer talking points.

There's also a headache of varied regulation on various states "public land". Some states don't allow you to access it at all, some states don't allow you to camp on it, and some states require their DNR or department of fish and wildlife to lease the land before we can hunt on it.

With federal public land you can generally figure out what state management unit it's in, drive to a big parcel of green on the map, and hike, hunt, and camp to your hearts desire.

 

[Elkmagnet]

I'm far from being as knowledgeable on this transfer issue as a lot of other folks on here, but I hunt, and recreate on both federal and state lands. If the main issue here is a state not being able to financially manage the large area of lands that were previously federal thus requiring the state to sell, lease, or otherwise exploit said lands to the detriment of us sportsmen, could this transfer be managed in an incremental way? This could allow states the ability to manage their land without the sudden overwhelming impact of a huge transfer. Maybe avoid that tree chopping analogy and be more of a manageable thing.
I'm only thinking funding of federal lands compared to state lands by way of timber sales to keep it simple. (For myself) Do individual states do better in terms of profitability on timber sales compared to the FS? Can this be done with some middle ground where we can get better management of our lands, increase jobs in the state, and maintain what we as hunters love about federal land?

The problem is that even during the best of financial times most rual counties do no have anywhere close to the funds to manage the lands.
One example is here we have a total budget of less than 1mill annual thats
Police, fire, paramedics, courts, land, parks, museum, ect.
They are dead broke.
No way are they going to be able to take over 4,300 square miles of public lands roads, trails, camp sites, ect
With no real timber to harvest, no oil/gas interest and the only real income is cattle grazing that is currently about $2 an animal unit per month.
We just had a 90,000 acre fire go through that the cost to fight was around 6.5 mill
The last time I saw a figure but the restoration might cost double that.

The county is currently getting a large % of their budget from the government as payment in lieu of taxes.
Which is the way the government tries to make counties like mine whole. That would go away with a transfer.
Without that payment the county will be forced to sell. Every study that has been done has said that. It makes zero financial sense to do anything but immediately sale and all of these politicians know that.

 

[hnt4life]

Thank you for the replies. You have really piqued my interest in this transfer business. I'll do some research and educate my core group of like minded hunters. Is anyone aware of a current push in Montana to transfer or sell public land?

 

[Deleted member 20812]

I smell something funny.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Thank you for the replies. You have really piqued my interest in this transfer business. I'll do some research and educate my core group of like minded hunters. Is anyone aware of a current push in Montana to transfer or sell public land?

Since I'm stuck at homee this weekend cleaning before wee list our house, I'll take the bait.

There is a continued push to transfer & sell public lands in MT from a certain subset of Republican legislators like Theresa Manzella, Kerry White & Jennifer Fielder and their followers, but since 2015, it has been met with fierce resistance from hunters, hikers, anglers and a host of others, culminating in a rally in 2017 with over 3,000 opponents of the transfer & sale of public lands showing up at the legislature to shut it down. Since then, the conservation lobby team has been able to work with moderate republicans and the entire democratic caucus to create a better dynamic related to the conservation of state and public lands, access to those lands and stopping the transfer agenda. Having the backstop of Governor Bullock also has been instrumental in keeping the transfer & sale movement from advancing in MT.

Candidates running for federal office like Matt Rosendale have supported the transfer and sale of public lands in the past, but have pulled that support back conditionally but still make extremely poor decisions relative to access & conservation, giving us a reasonable expectation of what their vision of management looks like. Rosendale's attack on the Stenson family is a prime example here: following the behest of oil lobbyists, Matt tried to kill a conservation easement that opened up over 20,000 acres of private land to public hunting while also putting the ranch in jeopardy of being lost due to the commitments that were made relative to the easement purchase & other land deals.

Senator Daines, for example, ignored the will of the vast majority of Montanans when he introduced the second largest elimination of protections for critical wildlife habitat inside of Wilderness Study Areas, and his votes to eliminate BLLM 2.0, which put more local input on the books for BLM decision making, and in his support for William Perry Pendley, the illegally installed head of the BLM whose decisions relative to land us planning put wildlife on the back burner in favor of expedited resource extraction.

Gianforte has publicly stated that if elected governor, he would end the purchase of land altogether, which means no more Habitat Montana land purchases that open up the over 3 million acres of landlocked state and federal land, as well as no new management areas devoted to wildlife. Greg Gianforte also introduced the largest elimination of protections for wildlife habitat in his bill to erase conservation management of over 700,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas in favor of expedited extraction, and his running mate is one of the people who, along with William Perry Pendley, have sued to eliminate Montana's stream access rule.

So, the TLDR of all of that is, yes the move to transfer is still alive in MT, if the tactics may alternate based on which party is in power. If the presidency goes to Biden, you will see increased calls to transfer & sell public land. If Trump remains POTUS, then we will continue to see the same management scenarios, just under federal mgt. The end result isn't so much outcomes for land as it is retaining power to make the decisions on how that land is managed.

 

[hnt4life]

I smell something funny.

Are you referring to my post, or did you pass gas?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Are you referring to my post, or did you pass gas?

His dog has wicked bad farts.