Article: Federal vs. State Controlled Public Lands - Thoughts?

[bogeyboy555]

GOP Platform Supports Transferring Western Public Lands To States .

News

| OPB

What do you guys think of this?

 

[parshal]

As a hunter of public lands in most western states I don't know that I support the idea. I completely understand the reason for wanting it. If they are become State owned there's no telling how the rules would change. Every State would be different. The special interest groups would have the most say in the land use and that would be ranching in most of these states. I imagine a time when the rights are leased to ranches by the State and the ranchers charging trespass fees. That might be a long shot but definitely not out of the realm of possibilities. I suspect it would lead to a reduction in the land available for those of us who hunt public lands.

 

[tipsntails7]

I think it's a terrible idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[wapitibob]

Terrible idea known to anybody that has hunted State land in the past.

 

[Mtnboy]

It would be the end of hunting as we know it. Bottom line, the states can't afford the land and they'd sell it off.

Look at what they've all done with State Trust lands....sold them off.

In my opinion, it is sheer stupidity to support this movement...if that hurts your feelings...well, I don't care.

 

[PaulBunyan]

I think it would be hard to argue that transferring lands to the states is a good thing for public land hunters. Sounds like Trump's son is on board though.

 

[Davebuech]

If anyone thinks the states have more money than the Feds.... Ur crazy!

Most states have already sold or are selling much of the lands they own now. Why do they need more?

Federal lands have a LOT more red tape and crap to get through if you want at the natural resources or to lease the land. The reason so many political groups push for transfer is to break through those barriers and make it easier to sell off the resources and the land. Pretty simple really.

I can mention many state land areas that close at dusk and not open til dawn. Specific camping rules/permits and fees apply and even often times no camping or backcountry at all. Compare this to OUR national Forests and public lands.

Don't sell MY/OUR/YOUR federal Lands!!!!

 

[tipsntails7]

I think it would be hard to argue that transferring lands to the states is a good thing for public land hunters. Sounds like Trump's son is on board though.

Is that really that shocking though? It would not effect him in the slightest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dotman]

I'm completely against this. Any resident in state that is for this will be shocked when they have zero public lands and all the rich own them. Just wait the states cannot afford or manage this amount of land.

also all federal lands are owned by all of us, not so once transferred.

 

[tipsntails7]

I'm completely against this. Any resident in state that is for this will be shocked when they have zero public lands and all the rich own them. Just wait the states cannot afford or manage this amount of land.

also all federal lands are owned by all of us, not so once transferred.

Imagine if states started charging a "trespass" fee to out of state hunters who hunted on state lands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kicker338]

I agree with you guys about not turning fed. land to the states but the national forests are no cake walk anymore, they are
getting regulated to death.

 

[gelton]

One thing I have never understood, and this is a real question. People always compare what happened to the State trust lands given to the states upon statehood. Wouldn't all the land in the state not belonging to private individuals be owned by the State? And if so, why would the Feds have to bequeath something to them that would have already been theirs?

 

[slvrslngr]

Turning over federal land to the states is a terrible idea, as stated above, it will likely be the end of hunting as we know it. Just look at Texas. The republicans are just licking their chops with the prospect of their rich supporters getting ownership of OUR lands. I'd rather pay $50 a year for (or whatever it costs) for a Forest Pass than $5000 or more per year for a lease.

 

[gelton]

Turning over federal land to the states is a terrible idea, as stated above, it will likely be the end of hunting as we know it. Just look at Texas. The republicans are just licking their chops with the prospect of their rich supporters getting ownership of OUR lands. I'd rather pay $50 a year for (or whatever it costs) for a Forest Pass than $5000 or more per year for a lease.

First off you can get on a damn good lease with year round hunting and huge bag limits for about $2500. $3K tops. Second of all the private land owners in Texas have managed their land for wildlife in a way that is heads and shoulder above fed lands. Thirdly, when you add in the price of non resident licenses ($6-800), the gas that it takes to get there, hotel stays along the way, extremely short seasons, especially during rifle, and extremely limited bag limits, it all comes out to almost being a wash.

I am not suggesting that the Feds transfer the land to the states, and I am coming around to the whole Federal lands issue, mostly thanks to Randy Newberg, but I am tired of everyone referring to Texas as the poster child of whats wrong with hunting. If you really believe that check the numbers Texas generated $6.2 Billion for wildlife activities including resident and non resident hunters. Colorado claims to have generated $38.1 Million from non residents...so I would say from that comparison, more non residents are coming to Texas to hunt than Colorado, so we have to be doing something right.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Randy Newberg has a whole series of videos on YouTube about PLT and why it's a bad idea. Great videos.

Public Land Issues - This Land is Your Land!
- YouTube

 

[airlocksniffer]

First off you can get on a damn good lease with year round hunting and huge bag limits for about $2500. $3K tops. Second of all the private land owners in Texas have managed their land for wildlife in a way that is heads and shoulder above fed lands. Thirdly, when you add in the price of non resident licenses ($6-800), the gas that it takes to get there, hotel stays along the way, extremely short seasons, especially during rifle, and extremely limited bag limits, it all comes out to almost being a wash.

What is comes down to is PLT-->private sale will reduce access to public lands to those with means. Hunting and recreation in wild places shouldn't be available only to those with money.

 

[gelton]

What is comes down to is PLT-->private sale will reduce access to public lands to those with means. Hunting and recreation in wild places shouldn't be available only to those with money.

I don't disagree but what about non residents? It takes money for a non resident to hunt "our" federally controlled lands. Out of state licenses in Colorado are 1344% more expensive than for residents. Like I said, at the end of the day its almost a wash between hunting federal and private lands for out of staters.

I have seen Newbergs video series and I think he should combine them into a documentary but the one thing that I cant understand is the question I posed earlier. I would ask directly on his youtube videos but I have never commented on youtube and don't plan on starting.

Here is my earlier question:

One thing I have never understood, and this is a real question. People always compare what happened to the State trust lands given to the states upon statehood. Wouldn't all the land in the state not belonging to private individuals be owned by the State? And if so, why would the Feds have to bequeath something to them that would have already been theirs?

 

[ChrisS]

One thing I have never understood, and this is a real question. People always compare what happened to the State trust lands given to the states upon statehood. Wouldn't all the land in the state not belonging to private individuals be owned by the State? And if so, why would the Feds have to bequeath something to them that would have already been theirs?

It's not state land. It was, and has since been, federal land. As a condition of a territory being granted statehood, they were given a percentage of the federal land within the territory to do with as they wish to fund state government & schools. Mostly the states sold this. An additional condition in each state's constitution says they will now and forever disavow any claim on federal land within the new state.

Re: private landowners sometimes being better wildlife managers. It's always easier to do something as a dictator than a democracy. Federal land managers have a lot more people and varied interests to consider. Ted Turner (or the Mormon church, or the Wilks) ultimately only has one person's interests to consider.

Id like to see those numbers. Not saying they're wrong, but I think it might be an apples to oranges comparison.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trial153]

Horrible idea for anyone that values open spaces, public access and the North American model of wildlife conservation.

 

[trom2k]

PLT is a terrible idea but gaining traction here in UT. They have a hard enough time managing the game populations with ~31% influx of federal funds. It would be a disaster if that was removed. PTL would impact not only hunting but anything you want to do outdoors. I'm truly shocked that were wasting millions on a lawsuit that would only benefit the Good 'ol Mormon network.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk