Will Coogin's back...

[Straight Arrow]

roadhunter, following your logic in that it's the feds fault that Bundy doesn't pay his bills (grazing fees), then it must be State of Montana's fault that Blixeth (former Yellowstone millionaires' Club owner) doesn't pay his bills (state taxes).

There's plenty of ugly bureaucratic blame-game anecdotes to go on infinitum about the feds and the states and problems. It's just a good thing that you and I are perfect.

 

[katqanna]

Roadhunter, I just got into documenting encroachment and access in the last couple years, the more involved in conservation and public trust I became. So I dont have years of this and examples I could site to you under my belt to be able to address that yet. But one thing I can tell you, from the invitations that i have recently been receiving to document other access/encroachment situations in Central to southwestern MT, is that there are numerous cases, often that go overlooked, not even questioned.

One case I am working on right now in the Little Snowies is a huge case of encroachment of a house and garage, as well as roads, clearly on FS land. The road is a bloody poster child case of private corner crossing. The previous owners did not receive any special use permits. Then the land was sold recently the the present owners never got a survey or looked into any legalities as to what was taking place with the land. According to FS laws it doesnt matter if the building were erected by the previous owner, encroachment is encroachment. This has been going on unreported for years.

Since so much of DNRC land resides within private property landholdings, I think that you will see even less reporting of issues going on as there is less public access, less eyes on the issue and even less understanding of what the state laws and requirements with our public lands are. After a meeting of these now 9 county commissioners meeting that I go to once a month, one of the presentations was from DNRC on a particular project and some issues were mentioned, maps shown, that I thought needed looking into, but with the lack of short term memory forgot until just now.

Just speculation at this point, but I highly doubt that DNRC land is exempt from some of the encroachment/access issues that are occurring on Fed public lands. Maybe not to the degree of Schluters house, that was pretty ballsy, but Id be willing to bet that it does occur.

 

[roadhunter]

You can't hunt State Lands in CA unless owned by CA DFW....and you all know CA and it's "politics" are dispersing into your state.

You can't hunt or camp on all federal land either. A reasonable explanation is that there are reasons why states/feds don't allow camping or hunting on all of their land. But dont' let that stop you from making these exaggerations.

Would be like saying that since you can't hunt in Yellowstone we should never transfer land to the feds as they wont allow hunting.
In reality there are reasons why we can't hunt in Yellowstone and they are perfectly reasonable. Just like there are reasons you can't camp on every piece of land the state owns. The spin some folks put on this topic is mindboggling but most reasonable people can see right through it.

 

[roadhunter]

Roadhunter, I just got into documenting encroachment and access in the last couple years, the more involved in conservation and public trust I became. So I dont have years of this and examples I could site to you under my belt to be able to address that yet. But one thing I can tell you, from the invitations that i have recently been receiving to document other access/encroachment situations in Central to southwestern MT, is that there are numerous cases, often that go overlooked, not even questioned.

One case I am working on right now in the Little Snowies is a huge case of encroachment of a house and garage, as well as roads, clearly on FS land. The road is a bloody poster child case of private corner crossing. The previous owners did not receive any special use permits. Then the land was sold recently the the present owners never got a survey or looked into any legalities as to what was taking place with the land. According to FS laws it doesnt matter if the building were erected by the previous owner, encroachment is encroachment. This has been going on unreported for years.

Since so much of DNRC land resides within private property landholdings, I think that you will see even less reporting of issues going on as there is less public access, less eyes on the issue and even less understanding of what the state laws and requirements with our public lands are. After a meeting of these now 9 county commissioners meeting that I go to once a month, one of the presentations was from DNRC on a particular project and some issues were mentioned, maps shown, that I thought needed looking into, but with the lack of short term memory forgot until just now.

Just speculation at this point, but I highly doubt that DNRC land is exempt from some of the encroachment/access issues that are occurring on Fed public lands. Maybe not to the degree of Schluters house, that was pretty ballsy, but Id be willing to bet that it does occur.

Thanks for pointing out yet another issue of mismanagement on FS lands.

I have no doubt that there are situations where stuff like this takes place on state land but I doubt it is anything on the scale of the Bundy issue or the mansion on the right of way. I simply don't think states allow themselves to be taken advantage of like the feds do in these situations.

 

[BuzzH]

Wow, over 3 million acres of state lands out there in Wyoming that are off limits to camping, but you can camp at Boysen, Glendo, and a handful of other State Parks (if you can find a spot).

Federal lands are about 180 degrees opposite...dispersed camping allowed on 100's of millions of acres, with a handful where its not allowed.

The spin some folks put on this topic is mindboggling but most reasonable people can see right through it.

 

[roadhunter]

roadhunter, following your logic in that it's the feds fault that Bundy doesn't pay his bills (grazing fees), then it must be State of Montana's fault that Blixeth (former Yellowstone millionaires' Club owner) doesn't pay his bills (state taxes).

There's plenty of ugly bureaucratic blame-game anecdotes to go on infinitum about the feds and the states and problems. It's just a good thing that you and I are perfect.

Yes it is the feds fault that they did not collect grazing fees from Bundy. They are in charge of the land and grazing contracts. Any related issue is their responsibility. Who do you think is responsible for collecting grazing fees in that situation?

No idea how you can compare the Bundy not paying for grazing his cattle on federal land to a resort community not paying state taxes. Not even remotely close.

I am far from perfect. Just ask my wife.

 

[roadhunter]

Wow, over 3 million acres of state lands out there in Wyoming that are off limits to camping, but you can camp at Boysen, Glendo, and a handful of other State Parks (if you can find a spot).

Federal lands are about 180 degrees opposite...dispersed camping allowed on 100's of millions of acres, with a handful where its not allowed.

The spin some folks put on this topic is mindboggling but most reasonable people can see right through it.

Laffin!!!

Keep spinning Buzz.

 

[Nameless Range]

No idea how you can compare the Bundy not paying for grazing his cattle on federal land to a resort community not paying state taxes. Not even remotely close.

They're simply using your flawed logic Roadhunter.

No idea how you can compare 11 State Parks that allow camping to 3.5 million state owned acres where you can't.

You're cherry picking a couple issues while ignoring the fact that Federally owned lands offer recreational opportunities more varied and of a much greater magnitude than do state lands across the west.

But sure, campgrounds are nice.

 

[roadhunter]

They're simply using your flawed logic Roadhunter.

No idea how you can compare 11 State Parks that allow camping to 3.5 million state owned acres where you can't.

You're cherry picking a couple issues while ignoring the fact that Federally owned lands offer recreational opportunities more varied and of a much greater magnitude than do state lands across the west.

But sure, campgrounds are nice.

I can hunt at some state parks but not at national parks. So does that mean the feds are anti hunting?

See how easy it is to be unreasonable and spin the truth.

BTW plenty of animals are harvested on state owned land in this country. State owned lands offer some great recreational opportunities IMO. In fact I bet many members of this site have hunted state land and state walk in land.

 

[Straight Arrow]

No idea how you can compare the Bundy not paying for grazing his cattle on federal land to a resort community not paying state taxes. Not even remotely close.

... in your opinion. Agree to disagree is seemingly a valid position for you on this forum.
You do provide good information much worthy of consideration, however, our logic sets are very different ... we are wired with distinctly different chips. Carry on and I will try to keep up.

 

[jryoung]

You can't hunt or camp on all federal land either. A reasonable explanation is that there are reasons why states/feds don't allow camping or hunting on all of their land. But dont' let that stop you from making these exaggerations.

Aside from being a tongue and cheek post, there is truth to it. In CA you can only hunt DFW lands which is less than 1% of public land. In CO it is similar though they lease a larger portion but in both cases the state portion pales in comparison to Federal Lands.

The point it, states can be far more fickle when making decisions, and there is already a framework in place in some state to limit your hunting to a fraction of the existing and potential proposed lands should a transfer take place.

Nevermind the statutes in a variety of states that say states must manage for profit above all.

 

[Nameless Range]

I can hunt at some state parks but not at national parks. So does that mean the feds are anti hunting?

See how easy it is to be unreasonable and spin the truth.

Yeah, but that's not the argument you're making. You are implying that state ownership of what is now federal would be better as a whole.

Garbage.

Your National Parks analogy, while an example of spin, is easy to debunk.


National Park System - 84 million acres(where I can't hunt for the most part)

National Forest System - 190 Million acres (pretty much open to hunting)

BLM - 247 Million acres (pretty much open to hunting)

We could parse it down further (Fish and Wildlife lands, military bases(some of which can be hunted),some National Monuments on varied agency lands where you can or can't hunt) etc.

But, high-level view, you can hunt, fish and recreate on 400+ million acres of federal lands, and you can't on 100 million acres(give or take) of federal land.

That's 4 to 1, and with better quality and opportunity.

That is simply not the case in any western state when it comes to state ownership juxtaposed against federal lands in that state.

The only way the states could even have a hope of staying in the black would be to put all of their lands into production agriculture and resource extraction, and really, numerous studies again and again have shown it would be a case of hope in one hand and .....in the other.

Then in the name of the budget, lands would be developed and sold, and Americans would be robbed of their public trust.

 

[BuzzH]

I can hunt at some state parks but not at national parks. So does that mean the feds are anti hunting?

See how easy it is to be unreasonable and spin the truth.

BTW plenty of animals are harvested on state owned land in this country. State owned lands offer some great recreational opportunities IMO. In fact I bet many members of this site have hunted state land and state walk in land.

Wrong, you can hunt in some National Parks...do your research.

 

[roadhunter]

... in your opinion. Agree to disagree is seemingly a valid position for you on this forum.
You do provide good information much worthy of consideration, however, our logic sets are very different ... we are wired with distinctly different chips. Carry on and I will try to keep up.

I think you will find that the opinion of this forum is but a spec in the big picture and that many of the people who post here have bias from thinks like being involved in politics or working for the federal government that influence their opinions.

Obviously you and I dont' agree on everything but my guess is that we have similar core beliefs. We both want public land available to us for recreational purposes. You simply believe the feds are doing a great job and there is no reason to try and change things and I see an agency that is mismanaged and would like to figure out a way to improve the current system with things like getting fair value for grazing rights and increased logging/decreased firefighting.

The part that I find hard to understand is how people will view topics such as the Wilkes fencing issue thousands of times making page after page of comments about how the fences are illegal and on public land and yet nobody holds the BLM office responsible. I prefer to hold people accountable for what they are in charge of. IMO the people in charge of that land have not done their job. Kat has pointed this out over and over while sharing the details of the story.

 

[roadhunter]

Yeah, but that's not the argument you're making. You are implying that state ownership of what is now federal would be better as a whole.

Garbage.

Your National Parks analogy, while an example of spin, is easy to debunk.


National Park System - 84 million acres(where I can't hunt for the most part)

National Forest System - 190 Million acres (pretty much open to hunting)

BLM - 247 Million acres (pretty much open to hunting)

We could parse it down further (Fish and Wildlife lands, military bases(some of which can be hunted),some National Monuments on varied agency lands where you can or can't hunt) etc.

But, high-level view, you can hunt, fish and recreate on 400+ million acres of federal lands, and you can't on 100 million acres(give or take) of federal land.

That's 4 to 1, and with better quality and opportunity.

That is simply not the case in any western state when it comes to state ownership juxtaposed against federal lands in that state.

The only way the states could even have a hope of staying in the black would be to put all of their lands into production agriculture and resource extraction, and really, numerous studies again and again have shown it would be a case of hope in one hand and .....in the other.

Then in the name of the budget, lands would be developed and sold, and Americans would be robbed of their public trust.

If that is what you believe will happen you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Have a great day.

 

[roadhunter]

Aside from being a tongue and cheek post, there is truth to it. In CA you can only hunt DFW lands which is less than 1% of public land. In CO it is similar though they lease a larger portion but in both cases the state portion pales in comparison to Federal Lands.

The point it, states can be far more fickle when making decisions, and there is already a framework in place in some state to limit your hunting to a fraction of the existing and potential proposed lands should a transfer take place.

Nevermind the statutes in a variety of states that say states must manage for profit above all.

I guess it really boils down to who you think will do the best job of managing the land. Some people like big government and think the feds are doing great and nobody else could do any better. Others believe that like most federal agencies there is a tremendous amount of waste and inefficiencies and that the state might be able to do a better job.

Quite frankly I don't see why simply transferring management and keeping the land in federal hands isn't the best solution for the concerns that sportsmen have voiced. The state already manages the wildlife, sets season dates, quotas, etc.. on federal land anyway.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You simply believe the feds are doing a great job and there is no reason to try and change things

No, there you go again ... way off in left field. Feds and states have problems. Both have processes in play to mitigate problems, as designed by policies, laws, and constitutions. Our difference is in the reality of the flawed logic and lack of plausibility of states having the money, personnel, and management systems to take over millions and millions of acres of diverse landscape.

 

[shoots-straight]

Road, State lands (DNRC type where the transferred lands will go) are not managed for multiple use. You know, the type of managment that allows all forms of recreational use, and extraction commercially. These uses are for the most part paid for by tax dollars from all US citizens. 324 million of us share the costs, so we all can get use from those lands.

State lands (DNRC types) are managed for the highest returns possible. Many times these lands are not good places for wildlife because they are grazed, logged, roaded, mined, farmed, etc. to an extreme.

In 1988, or there abouts, a rancher in the French Basin of the Bitterroot Valley was grazing cattle on the lands he leased from the state of Montana. He decided that he could make more money with domestic sheep grazing those lands, so he switched up and poured thousands of sheep on those leases, without so much as one ounce of paperwork, or notification to the DNRC officials. No oversight!

Now you might like the lack of regulation being the anti fed and tea party dude you are, but the problem with this lack of regulation was the fact that these lands encompassed range that our Big Horn Sheep population uses regularly.

The sportsman's group that I belong to notified the state DNRC about the change in lease use and the dangers this change posed to our BHS herd. They said tough sh**^ and move on.

So we had to sue the State to stop the grazing of domestic animals that threatened our wildlife. We won our case but was too late to keep the wild sheep from having a die off.

Is that the type of management your hoping for? You and others like you that support this transfer, don't know, what you don't know.

 

[Straight Arrow]

You and others like you that support this transfer, don't know, what you don't know.

'A huge "BAZINGA!" for shoots.

 

[tjones]

road, say Montana was set to take over- where do you think Montana would get money to fight a forest fire? How about the trucks, computers, chain saws, out houses, ranger stations basically the infrastructure it would take to start up managing the land. Do you think the Feds will just leave this behind?