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

[Ozzymodel70]

To put a spin on this thread our youth will suffer severally. I have 3 young kids 7,5,2 years of age. It is my duty to raise them in the outdoors. Just as our parents did most of us. With the loss of public land this would be so much more difficult. And I find state managed land to have far more restrictions on it then NF. And the cost of public land vs private is just ridiculous.

 

[CarlTuesday]

My 2 cents: in Alaska it'd be great, mostly because of how the state manages it's lands, as compared to so much of the state being tied up in Federal management with little understanding of our state or issues. We have things where villages can't get a short road built to an airstrip because it's federal land all the time, so they need to take a boat for medical evacuation, as an example.

Plus, at least up here, the use and access of state land is much more reasonable than all of the federal stuff, IMHO. Add in that we are, to be honest, a resource extraction economy and it makes sense for AK. Elsewhere, who knows.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

My 2 cents: in Alaska it'd be great, mostly because of how the state manages it's lands, as compared to so much of the state being tied up in Federal management with little understanding of our state or issues. We have things where villages can't get a short road built to an airstrip because it's federal land all the time, so they need to take a boat for medical evacuation, as an example.

Plus, at least up here, the use and access of state land is much more reasonable than all of the federal stuff, IMHO. Add in that we are, to be honest, a resource extraction economy and it makes sense for AK. Elsewhere, who knows.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Really I think Alaska would be a poor choice too. Your currently running your state with appointed boards for anything that has value. That's almost 100% special interest run little to no voter input. Exactly what scares me about state run lands. Yes the Fed's are also controlling with strong special interests leading the way but they are not prement directives because it's to much work to bring a congressional majority to a vote. Peaks and valleys you can't trust either state or federal to do the right thing but it's easier to bring enough dissent in Congress to atlest block a sell off to special interests as history has already proved

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[kicker338]

Here ia an update from my last post. Just got back from testing some loads for my 280 on national forest land. The spot where I went to is an unofficial shooting spot allowed by the local ranger office. While shooting, 2 rangers showed up, started harassing me about shooting there, after informing them that this site was set aside for shooting by there own office they tried to imply that I, shooting into a 15ft. bank of pee gravel, that was in front of a 100ft. hill wasn't safely shooting then left. They had just stopped 2 guys down the road from me who were shooting pistols. Don't get me wrong I love the national forest, the only place I can hunt for free that is at least for now, just don't have any respect for thepeople who run it.

 

[Violent Hippie]

I come across forest service workers from time to time but not rangers( Forest Service Law enforcement officers). I cant recall the last time if ever I came across a federal ranger and I frequent forest service land weekly. I actually just shot some rounds yesterday on forest service land in a typical non official designated shooting area. With a employer as large as the USFS I guess it depends on what workers are assigned to your area.If there is a DICK in charge of your area I guess it can become more "regulated". I've been fortunate to not come across much pressure or intimidation from any USFS employees.

 

[Takem]

I agree this is a terrible idea. Thanks for the post it reminded me I need to extend more support to BHA.

 

[wyoguy]

Yeah I just read this in regards to a wildfire around Cody, WY and the amount of money it takes to fight one has to be rediculous. There is a total of 463 personnel working on the fire including 12 crews, 7 helicopters, 2 water tenders, 1 dozer, and 27 engines. On a 4500 acre fire that is 0% contained what state is going to have the funds to pay or even afford the equipment for everything the government provides.

 

[sneaky]

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?

Guess you've never heard of, or read, the Enabling Acts that these states agreed to at statehood.

 

[sneaky]

Yeah I am not saying the feds should transfer, and if I lived in a western state I would fight the hell out of it too. But I don't, and since I don't I get raped with non resident hunting license fees. If the land is ours then where is the legitimacy of the raping?

As I mentioned Texas non resident hunting fees are 1/5th of those out west. Heck, you can come to Texas as a non resident for $315 for a general hunting license that includes all species (unlimited Hogs, 4-5 whitetail, Javelina 3 in possession and more), or a 5 day license for $48. You can even hunt Aligators for $125.

So again, budget wise its about the same.

For about that same amount of money for a license a NR can go to Tennessee and shoot three does A DAY for the entire season if they want plus two bucks, 4 spring turkeys, between 6-12 on fall turkeys in middle Tennessee, hogs and chase black Bears and fish. Not really impressed that you get 5 deer in Texas that most likely weigh 120 pounds or less. Enough with beating the drum for Texas, we get, y'all take everything personally. I could care less about Texas, but that doesn't mean I'm going to try and dictate what goes on there. Sadly, Texas money is driving this movement to screw the rest of the country out of their public lands. You can't argue that fact.

 

[Gobbler36]

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

yes this is spot on, yeah rich guys in Texas raise 200'' bucks alot easier on big ranch that is all to themselves, but national forest are so much more complex than that. hikers, climbers, hunters, extraction industries and the list goes on that the feds have to think about. the argument that you can get a damn good lease for 2500 or 3000 dollars is absurd we shouldnt have to pay for ground to hunt this isnt the UK. i for one cant fork that over every year and doing a diy elk hunt is still half that cost if your coming from across the Mississippi

 

[Gobbler36]

I budget about $1800 per year to hunt Colorado for two weeks:

Gas $280
Tag $650
Hotel $140 x 2 = $280 (one on the way there one on the way back 18 hour drive solo)
Food = $150
Packout if needed = $350

$1710

Now for $800 more you can get on a pretty decent lease where you can hunt hogs year round - unlimited, doves twice a year, Javelinas-3 in possession, whitetail-4 per year in most counties and plenty of other critters too.

That is not to say that the Feds should transfer, only to state that you pay to play in both instances, and given the longer seasons and bigger bag limits the trade off is about the same. Dont misunderstand the comparison as pointing to my personal enjoyment of hunting out west...there is nothing like it and these large tracks of land are a true blessing, chasing elk is way more fun than sitting in a deer blind, but financially the commitment is about the same.

No its not its still $800 dollars that half your elk trip the next year. plus with all the states privatizing then they can pretty much set their price. and does this money go back into wildlife like your tag does?

 

[SpannerAK]

Really I think Alaska would be a poor choice too. Your currently running your state with appointed boards for anything that has value. That's almost 100% special interest run little to no voter input. Exactly what scares me about state run lands. Yes the Fed's are also controlling with strong special interests leading the way but they are not prement directives because it's to much work to bring a congressional majority to a vote. Peaks and valleys you can't trust either state or federal to do the right thing but it's easier to bring enough dissent in Congress to atlest block a sell off to special interests as history has already proved

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

So not everything so cut and dry, imagine the piece of federal land you hunt on is locked out except for the locals. That is what is happening up here right now the Feds have shut down caribou hunting on federal land in unit 23, all except federal substances users for no biological reasoning.

 

[realunlucky]

So not everything so cut and dry, imagine the piece of federal land you hunt on is locked out except for the locals. That is what is happening up here right now the Feds have shut down caribou hunting on federal land in unit 23, all except federal substances users for no biological reasoning.

Understand that issue. Hunted 23 last year out of kotzebue and my trip over lapped the presidents special lobby session with the locals. One battle doesn't win the war. Just stating your state level representation isn't any less corrupt than the federal and my belief is its much more and e easier to influence on a state rather than national level

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Utah has been battling federal over reach of our lands as long as anyone. We are yearly locked out of lands utahans have utilized since before statehood but I'm not fooled for a second that special interest groups are pushing this not Joe avg. What that means is they are looking for a pay off. Salt Lake city capital building gathers plenty of say one thing mean another politicians it's a no win situation for ol Joe. Better the devil you know in these situations

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[CarlTuesday]

Understand that issue.... Just stating your state level representation isn't any less corrupt than the federal and my belief is its much more and e easier to influence on a state rather than national level

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Exactly, so if they're all corrupt were better off with less reach and the ability to influence at the local level. I can call and talk to boards or F&G.

Some Congressman from Kentucky or whoever on a federal committee doesn't give a crap about Alaska... So national FWS or other regs get pushed out without thinking about impacts at the AK level.

 

[realunlucky]

How is calling them working out for you so far?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[realunlucky]

Can the states do it better and how will they pay the bill for trying? Neither of these has been addressed enough to even have an argument over transfer of control.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[TJ]

Can the states do it better and how will they pay the bill for trying? Neither of these has been addressed enough to even have an argument over transfer of control.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I seriously doubt the States could pay for the management of Federal lands.

If anyone has not read this, it's really worth a look. (see link)


https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...nds_Report-Final-Web_processed.pdf?1463611646

 

[Murdy]

Exactly, so if they're all corrupt were better off with less reach and the ability to influence at the local level. I can call and talk to boards or F&G.

And so can Exxon, mining interests, and others looking to make themselves rich off our public lands. In my opinion, it's a lot easier for a large corporation to buy influence at the state and local level, or buy an election and put one of their lackeys in office.

 

[Trial153]

Don't forget that most influence is via corporate lobbying comes from the form of laws gifted to state representatives via groups like ALEC. Buying influence is much easier on the state level.