Will Coogin's back...

katqanna

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
1,695
Location
Bozeman, MT
In the Fiarfield Sun Times, celebrating a century of service to North Central Montana, Coogin has submitted a story in the opinion section.

Public Lands Debate Marred by Camouflaged Activists

... Out-of-state radical environmentalists are dumping resources into opposing state land management. Environmentalists don’t want states to have control. Why? Because states tend to be friendlier to things like energy development than the Obama administration, and the groups ideologically oppose affordable energy and other development projects.

However, knowing their anti-gun or anti-energy agendas would not be well-received in many western states that are politically purple or red, they’re camouflaging their efforts by manipulating the more politically conservative sportsmen community through groups like Trout Unlimited, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

These groups claim to represent sportsmen when discussing land use, energy and other policy issues. But they really ought to be called “Green Decoys. ”

They have been active across the west, holding public lands demonstrations at several state capitol buildings – including one in Helena – in order to mobilize hunters and anglers to protest any changes to the management of public lands.

These environmentalist-funded sportsmen groups claim their goal is to protect access to these public lands for those who wish to hunt and fish, but a quick look at their “dark money” financial backers makes their true motive clear: To lock away land from being utilized for economic growth and jobs...

He's got the same article in the Desert News, tweaked to Utah, that just popped up.
 
Last edited:

Eric Albus

Well-known member
Joined
May 24, 2012
Messages
947
I for one am torn on the fed. turning over land to the states to control. Personally I think that the states would better manage those lands, but there would have to be a condition that the state would be unable to sell off any of the land, unless it was landlocked. The monies to be used only for purchase of a like number of acres that block up lands already accessible.
 

hank4elk

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
4,503
Location
SW NM
I am totally oppossed to the idea of selling off or giving any Fed lands to the states. Fund the dept.s.
I have yet to see a state system that works in any state decently. CA funds theirs better,but no hunting.
NM state parks and lands are a joke.

It appears some folks have forgotten how lucky we are in the US.
Some have really pissed off most of us that think like Teddy R. did.
It's a sell off for profit for the new robber barrons,IMHO! Eff the common man.
 

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,849
Location
Western Montana
I understand the appeal of having State Ownership of the land, but logistically and economically it would be a catastrophe. That, and it would amount to individual states stealing from the American Public.

I for one think this ALC/Will Coogin garbage could come to a head real quick if the Elk Foundation came out on the offensive. The RMEF came out against the land transfer too, but notice that Coogin isn't willing to pick a fight with the biggest guy in the room even though that guy is his enemy too.

I know organizations like the RMEF, TU, BCHA,TRCP are in somewhat of an indirect competition with one another for member monies, and I appreciate the Hatch Magazine article highlighting how slimy guys like Coogin are, but an article of the same realm in Bugle would devasate the ALC/Coogin movement. Right now they are chipping away at the smaller contingents out there, and based on the conversations I've had with sportsmen who don't read HuntTalk or Hatch Magazine, it's kind of working.
 
Last edited:

hank4elk

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2015
Messages
4,503
Location
SW NM
It's take from the American people for a short term gain for a handful.Pure and simple.
Simple thinking too it seems supporting this idea too this year ....
Murkowski just got her sack of $ and rammed another idea thru yesterday.
It isn't just UT and MT now. Or the states that have no public lands to speak of and are jealous.
They sold out long ago and those folks go west for the experience now..........
 

roadhunter

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
719
I for one am torn on the fed. turning over land to the states to control. Personally I think that the states would better manage those lands, but there would have to be a condition that the state would be unable to sell off any of the land, unless it was landlocked. The monies to be used only for purchase of a like number of acres that block up lands already accessible.

I agree. I simply can't look at how the feds manage our land and say they are doing a good job. Things like the Bundy disaster, Wilkes fencing, and the guy who built a mansion on a USFS right of way in MT are perfect examples of incompetence. Not to mention getting paid pennies on the dollar for grazing resources and broken system of forest management where we watch our timer resources burn out of control every summer. I would like to look at alternatives where some other entity gets the opportunity to improve upon what we have now.

I certainly dont' want to see the land sold to private individuals but I have no problem with getting rid of the small pieces of inaccessible land that offer no recreational value if an agreement for access can't be reached.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,948
Location
Laramie, WY
The opportunity to improve federal land management already exists.

It does require more than just whining on a computer though.
 

tjones

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2009
Messages
3,829
I for one am torn on the fed. turning over land to the states to control. Personally I think that the states would better manage those lands, but there would have to be a condition that the state would be unable to sell off any of the land, unless it was landlocked. The monies to be used only for purchase of a like number of acres that block up lands already accessible.

Eric, IIRC you supported the no net gain bill last legislative session. The bill was calling for no net gain by the state because the state was doing a poor job at managing lands. Remember? Many of the legislatures backing the transfer also favored this bill. Not sure what Montana did in two years to become such better land managers.
 

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
If you want to see what the states would do, look at what they have done.

And look east.

Are the feds perfect? No, but only to the extent they are doing what the states would do on steroids. There are professional scientists buried in the bureaucracies at both the state and the federal level, but the former don't have nearly the voice, they lack the protections afforded to the latter, and they are more beholden to their friends and neighbors at the local level. Precisely why the F.B.I. will not allow agents to work their home town.

Giving states control over federal land is like giving them control over the federal budget; or like turning teens loose in the mall with no adult supervision: The big and the strong will get in first, leaving the dregs for trickle-down in their august magnanimity.
 

Straight Arrow

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Messages
4,071
Location
Gallatin Gateway, MT
The opportunity to improve federal land management already exists.
... is nothing new and is ongoing presently, especially in western states.

As much information has been made available to you, Eric, you still seem to miss the significant distinction in land management goals. Feds manage for multiple use. State manages for economic benefit for schools in Montana as specifically mandated by the Constitution. Short term memory seems to block the recollection of a long and difficult fight (decades) merely to acquire access to State Lands in Montana for hunting, hiking, birdwatching and other outdoor activities. Camping, travel, and other restrictions not found on federal public lands still exist.

Easy to be torn on the issue...if you don't really think about it.
Buzz gets a big "bazinga"!
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,948
Location
Laramie, WY
Eric, IIRC you supported the no net gain bill last legislative session. The bill was calling for no net gain by the state because the state was doing a poor job at managing lands. Remember? Many of the legislatures backing the transfer also favored this bill. Not sure what Montana did in two years to become such better land managers.

You mean like this quote?

However, "no net gain" is how it should be. I can see where exceptions could be made, but that makes laws ambiguous.

Cite me more than one good instance of the Gov't running efficiently? County Gov'ts are broke, the state gov't is broke...and the fed, trillions in debt? If you want something to run efficiently do not turn it over to Gov't..
 

Gerald Martin

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Messages
5,605
One little tidbit most of those who support federal land being turned over to the states miss. One complaint is that there is too much bureaucracy and waste in Federal oversight.Who is going to manage those lands once the state receives control? The state with the current amount of employees and infrastructure it now has? Guess again. The states will be forced to hire more employees and expand their infrastructure to manage their new responsibilities. Add the cost of that to already strapped state budgets. Tell me again just how creating more bureaucracy is going to reduce the inefficiency of the current federal bureaucracy.

This really doesn't have to be a liberal vs. conservative argument. I'd much rather it was the Republicans who were on the right side of this issue. Unfortunately, that isn't the case here. If my local Senator had spent as much time and energy on crafting legislation designed to improve and streamline federal management and local jobs, as she has on pushing legislation that was destined to fail before it started, we might have seen some actual progress in our local economy.

Instead of acknowledging the reality that soft wood markets are the main cause of fewer jobs in the logging industry, it's easier to make Obama and anything Federal the big bad boogie man who is keeping the little man down.
 

roadhunter

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
719
If you want to see what the states would do, look at what they have done.
States do a lot of great things for hunters as well. States like WY, SD, NE, and KS spend millions for walk in hunting programs that open hundreds of thousands of acres for hunting. There is also lots of good hunting to be had on state owned property in many states. I've shot many antelope on state owned land and state sponsored walk in land in Wyoming. Shot many deer and quail on state owned land in Oklahoma. The best whitetail hunting I have ever experienced is on state owned land in KS. Best pheasant hunting land I have ever seen was state owned land in SD. Nebraska just added a large piece of walk in land adjacent to some BLM that I look forward to hunting this year. States rely on tourism dollars that hunters bring in to support local business and jobs. They are not anti hunting and anti tourism.

If you want a good example of federal land being transferred to the state look at Ft, Robinson St. Park in Nebraska. Instead of selling it off like many claim will happen the state actually turned the place into a state park open for all kinds of recreation including hunting and fishing. And it's all adjacent to other BLM, Wilderness, and state walk in land.

I'm not saying states are perfect but lets be realistic about what they do instead of making up all sorts of exaggerated claims that are all negative.
 

Ben Lamb

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
14,013
Location
Cedar, MI
You can't camp on state land in Wyoming. You can also be kicked off of state land in Wyoming at the request of the leesee.

Public land management isn't perfect, but it's by far better for hunters and anglers than state lands in many western states.

Regardless of all of that, economic study after economic study on the issue shows that this initiative leads to less access and more taxes. Utah's study shows that in detail in 8 out of 9 scenarios and Idaho's study is clear as a bell that the states can't afford to manage it.

Proponents continue to push for this, with no plan for management in place and a simple "it'll be fine" attitude.

if you were skeptical of the ACA and Pelosis' "we have to pass it to see what's in it" attitude, then you should be skeptical of this boondoggle.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,948
Location
Laramie, WY
States do a lot of great things for hunters as well. States like WY, SD, NE, and KS spend millions for walk in hunting programs that open hundreds of thousands of acres for hunting.

You might want to research who pays for the walk-in HMA program in Wyoming.

Its not the "state", the hma/walk-in program is 100% funded by hunters and fisherman in Wyoming via donations at point of sale. This has nothing to do with the issue of state land vs. federal land.

You ask others to stay on topic, you're clearly out in the weeds with that comment.
 
Last edited:

Nameless Range

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
3,849
Location
Western Montana
Those who decry federal land management are largely crying wolf in my eyes.

Perfect? No. But for the most part the positive aspects of federal land management are understated. In terms of hunting, just look at the deer and elk threads on this forum. Within an hour of anywhere in western Montana you can pretty much find a wilderness experience, great hunting and fishing, motorized recreation, and agriculture on our public lands. People brush aside the Recreational Opportunity Spectrum that Federal Lands provide as if it would be easy to meet the needs of an incredible array of users. It's not. In some cases it's impossible.

To parrot the ALC garbage that good timber is burning year after year simply because we are doing a poor job of employing forest treatment and harvest is a shallow understanding of forest ecology, and ignores the chief reason our public lands are filled with fuels - that being 120 years of fire suppression.

With the ever-increasing wildland-urban interface, that issue itself is incredibly complex. But hacks like Coogin are only interested in providing shallow and simple too-good-to-be-true answers to people who don't get the fact that public land management is anything but simple.
 

James Riley

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
1,821
States do a lot of great things for hunters as well. States like WY, SD, NE, and KS spend millions for walk in hunting programs that open hundreds of thousands of acres for hunting. There is also lots of good hunting to be had on state owned property in many states. I've shot many antelope on state owned land and state sponsored walk in land in Wyoming. Shot many deer and quail on state owned land in Oklahoma. The best whitetail hunting I have ever experienced is on state owned land in KS. Best pheasant hunting land I have ever seen was state owned land in SD. Nebraska just added a large piece of walk in land adjacent to some BLM that I look forward to hunting this year. States rely on tourism dollars that hunters bring in to support local business and jobs. They are not anti hunting and anti tourism.

If you want a good example of federal land being transferred to the state look at Ft, Robinson St. Park in Nebraska. Instead of selling it off like many claim will happen the state actually turned the place into a state park open for all kinds of recreation including hunting and fishing. And it's all adjacent to other BLM, Wilderness, and state walk in land.

First, I'm going to confess to some hyperbole. You are correct; I overstated my case and stand corrected.

With that said, regarding some of the large western public land states, I would argue that most of the good they do gets done on federal land because they aren't allowed to do much else on it; might as well make money off of sportsmen by providing them with wildlife and access. As to their own state land, they have obviously determined the best long term financial benefit (school trust fiduciary mandate) is, for the time being, leaving it in a savings account. Like the federal government, that could change, but so much easier. Thus, I don't think they should be trusted with my land.

Finally, with the other states, setting aside some state land for recreation is akin to NYC protecting Central Park: It's the exception that proves the rule. They want their citizens to have a place to go without having to travel to federal lands out west. Since they've plowed over 98% of it, it's understandable they might toss a bone here and there.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
94,547
Messages
1,409,323
Members
29,655
Latest member
Kuhndog
Top