Federal Public Land at risk again!

[packgoatguy]

Just came across this news article from this morning. An Idaho Rep wants to give Federal Public Land over to the state.

Rep. Fulcher proposes exploration of transferring Idaho federal land to state and local control - East Idaho News

WASHINGTON (Idaho Capital Sun) — Idaho U.S. Rep. Russ Fulcher said he is convening meetings statewide to explore transferring management and ownership of the Gem State’s vast federal public lands to state and local governments. The Republican congressman on Monday sent a letter to Idaho...

www.eastidahonews.com

 

[HunterGatherer]

Taken at face value, he makes a lot of great points- specifically that the Feds have mismanaged the federal lands within Idaho, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Then he goes on to say this :

Sounds great but I wonder if these ideas are just a way to sell the plan to congress and Idaho citizens and then once the deal is done all of the land gets raped by commercial interests without regard or due consideration to user groups such as sportsmen, just to make up Idaho’s budget shortfalls. Sounds like potentially cashing in our children’s inheritance to benefit ourselves to some degree. Did Mike Lee use similar wording to justify his efforts?

 

[BuckSmasher]

HARD no. I live in his district. Is there a form letter we can send. His primary opponent just won my vote if/when he is primaried.

 

[Brap01]

I live in Idaho and work for a federal agency as a Forester. I've worked as a Forester since 2008 in Private, State and Federal jobs.

Federal land management is inefficient, mostly due to environmental law, federal regulations and agency internal policy. Some of this is to give the public a chance to be involved in the decision making, and the anti management crowd puts their money where their mouth is. They sue all kinds of forest management, road building, and recreational projects to stop that work. I don't like it but this is "the public" being involved in the process.

I think IDL (the state timber management agency) could do a better job managing SOME of the Forest Service lands (lands that have good timber and access to sawmills within a reasonable haul distance).

The state would lose money on virtually ALL BLM lands and the majority of lands in Eastern / Southern Idaho. The ground is not productive, very remote, with poor infrastructure. Not to mention wildfires. On a recent big fire the was $6,000 per acre burnt just for suppression. That doesn't include fixing roads, planting trees, cleaning up fuels etc.

I fear the state would try to sell land or make citizens pay for access to state lands (like Washington State does).

I don't know what the answer is but there are some things to consider.

 

[packgoatguy]

As much as I don't trust the Feds to do things right... I trust the States even less. Sure, they will be well-meaning and full of promises in the beginning.. but it will only be a matter of time before they sell or lease the land to balance their budgets. And that land is MY LAND and YOUR LAND. Once it's gone, we will never get it back.

 

[packgoatguy]

If the State of Idaho ends up controlling all of the current BLM and Nat Forest lands, eventually the flat lands will be grazed to nubs, the timber lands will be logged into oblivion, the mountains will be mined to death, and the rivers will be so polluted from the mine tailings that no one will be able to drink the water. And what leftover land isn't useful for its share of natural resources will be fenced off into private hunting preserves that only the rich get to visit. But you had better believe that some already fat wallets will get a lot fatter in the meantime... all because they promised a few better paying jobs in a recession that they helped to create.

 

[Brap01]

As much as I don't trust the Feds to do things right... I trust the States even less. Sure, they will be well-meaning and full of promises in the beginning.. but it will only be a matter of time before they sell or lease the land to balance their budgets. And that land is MY LAND and YOUR LAND. Once it's gone, we will never get it back.

That is very true.

I worry that we can't indefinitely go into debt paying for public land. On a long enough timeline if we continue to hemorrhage money on public lands, we might be forced to sell it to help pay off our national debt.

Like you, I want the public land to be public. I just want it to more or less pay for itself because I think that is the way to keep it public so my great great grandchildren get to use it too.

 

[Chris in TN]

I utterly despise our federal government in general, but trust fed land agencies infinitely more than I trust states, and every time I see a state or local government attempt to gain more control, I'm reminded why.

 

[packgoatguy]

That is very true.

I worry that we can't indefinitely go into debt paying for public land. On a long enough timeline if we continue to hemorrhage money on public lands, we might be forced to sell it to help pay off our national debt.

Like you, I want the public land to be public. I just want it to more or less pay for itself because I think that is the way to keep it public so my great great grandchildren get to use it too.

In my opinion, there is no reason they have to operate in the RED, they should be taking a cut of every ounce of ore that comes out if mining claims, asking more for the lumber that gets harvested, and let the grazing rights be sold to the highest bidders instead of for pennies on the dollar. Then put any remaining shortfall back on the rest of the users. I for one would be happy to pay a few extra bucks every year on top of my hunting tags if that meant it would cover the cost of keeping our public lands PUBLIC permanently. If every hiker, mountain climber, fisherman, sightseeing tourist, hunter, birder, atv rider, mountain biker, etc. who benefits from the use of public lands was each taxed a relatively few extra bucks each year... that should more than cover the difference. Just spitballing here... but I do also feel that SOME of the many dollars we pay in federal taxes each year ought to count for something... I guess I figure its pretty reasonable that some of my taxes be allocated to taking care of the collective interest in our Public Lands... I don't recall in history class that there was a requirement that our public lands had to turn a profit or else we would lose them...

 

[Chris in TN]

As I've said elsewhere I'd like to see user fees for consumptive uses. Feds sell lumber and grazing and mining interests. They should sell hunt access.

I was told here the other day that it was dangerous to charge access fees because it would make states want to seize federal lands. Well, apparently they're trying anyway.

 

[Brap01]

In my opinion, there is no reason they have to operate in the RED, they should be taking a cut of every ounce of ore that comes out if mining claims, asking more for the lumber that gets harvested, and let the grazing rights be sold to the highest bidders instead of for pennies on the dollar. Then put any remaining shortfall back on the rest of the users. I for one would be happy to pay a few extra bucks every year on top of my hunting tags if that meant it would cover the cost of keeping our public lands PUBLIC permanently. If every hiker, mountain climber, fisherman, sightseeing tourist, hunter, birder, atv rider, mountain biker, etc. who benefits from the use of public lands was each taxed a relatively few extra bucks each year... that should more than cover the difference. Just spitballing here.

Grazing fees don't pay for the cost of administering the permits (environmental paperwork, measuring range condition, maintaining range improvements etc).

Timber sales in a lot of the west are deficit. Meaning it cost the agency more money to put up a timber sale than the timber is worth. We "subsidize" hauling costs, road maintenance and sell the timber for pennies on the dollar ... just to try to find someone who will actually cut the timber and haul it to a mill. If you include agency overhead costs (salary, L&I, retirement etc etc) then most of the federal timber sales are probably deficit. The timber sale purchasers don't make a lot of money on the sale, even with all the costs offset by the government. If we had timber mills in the same locations that we did in the 1980s, a lot of these economic issues would be solved.

Mining might have big enough margins that it could help pay for public lands.

Recreation fees would have to look like Disney land prices for this to pencil out.

Lots of road blocks to making federal lands revenue neutral.

 

[HunterGatherer]

Grazing fees don't pay for the cost of administering the permits (environmental paperwork, measuring range condition, maintaining range improvements etc).

Timber sales in a lot of the west are deficit. Meaning it cost the agency more money to put up a timber sale than the timber is worth. We "subsidize" hauling costs, road maintenance and sell the timber for pennies on the dollar ... just to try to find someone who will actually cut the timber and haul it to a mill. If you include agency overhead costs (salary, L&I, retirement etc etc) then most of the federal timber sales are probably deficit. The timber sale purchasers don't make a lot of money on the sale, even with all the costs offset by the government. If we had timber mills in the same locations that we did in the 1980s, a lot of these economic issues would be solved.

Mining might have big enough margins that it could help pay for public lands.

Recreation fees would have to look like Disney land prices for this to pencil out.

Lots of road blocks to making federal lands revenue neutral.

Most people don’t realize to what extent we ( the taxpayers) are subsidizing grazing , logging and mining through the land management agencies. To make things worse, federal lands get sold off to the extraction industries and then they go broke because of bad economic policy and then have to sell off the land to private parties who leverage the land and public wildlife for profit (hunting ranches). Once that doesn’t work the land gets sold to developers and sometimes foreign nationals ( like the Chinese). It really is a conundrum … I have no idea how we get out of this.

 

[7mm-08]

As much as I don't trust the Feds to do things right... I trust the States even less. Sure, they will be well-meaning and full of promises in the beginning.. but it will only be a matter of time before they sell or lease the land to balance their budgets. And that land is MY LAND and YOUR LAND. Once it's gone, we will never get it back.

While I empathize with Representative Fulcher's argument that it would be preferable to have greater local input in the management of federal lands within Idaho, I agree with packgoat guy that this is a slippery slope that WILL come back to bite all of us public land owners, residents and nonresidents alike. The Federal fire suppression budget for 2024 exceeded $7 billion dollars. While it is very difficult to break that figure down to a state-by-state allocation, we know that in 2024, the State of Idaho itself spent $58 million fighting fires. Please read the article at the attached link if you think that Idaho has the wherewithal to hold a candle to the deep pockets the Feds have to accomplish just this task - remember, fire suppression is only one aspect of land management. And that's why this whole body of ideas that folks like Representative Fulcher and Senator Lee propose are flawed.

Idaho's firefighting fund drops to $15 million

While the state continues navigating budget holdbacks and revenue shortfalls, the balance of Idaho’s wildfire suppression fund is expected to drop to $15 million after closing the books on the

www.postregister.com

 

[MuleyFever]

Id rather have mismanaged public land I can hunt and recreate on than no land. States will never swallow the cost to actually do what they say and eventually it will end up on the auction block.

 

[Brap01]

Most people don’t realize to what extent we ( the taxpayers) are subsidizing grazing , logging and mining through the land management agencies. To make things worse, federal lands get sold off to the extraction industries and then they go broke because of bad economic policy and then have to sell off the land to private parties who leverage the land and public wildlife for profit (hunting ranches). Once that doesn’t work the land gets sold to developers and sometimes foreign nationals ( like the Chinese). It really is a conundrum … I have no idea how we get out of this.

I don't have solutions, just trying to help others understand the problem.

I do think we could get closer to break even if we could get small mills back into rural areas like we had up until the early 1990s. Timber harvest can be done in a way that provides revenue and reduces wildfire hazard. Saving us fire fighting costs, providing revenue and producing good jobs (foresters, loggers, mill employees).

None of that is possible with the current regulatory state and each federal administration treating natural resource management policy like a yo yo. Who wants to start a mill or logging outfit when the next guy who gets into office is going to stop providing access to the resource you need to survive?

 

[fatlander]

As I've said elsewhere I'd like to see user fees for consumptive uses. Feds sell lumber and grazing and mining interests. They should sell hunt access.

I was told here the other day that it was dangerous to charge access fees because it would make states want to seize federal lands. Well, apparently they're trying anyway.

In Virginia, we do have to pay a measly $4.00 for an extra stamp to hunt national forest.

I would love to see national hunting nonprofits lobby for increased tag and licenses prices with a large percentage of the increase going to public land stewardship. It’s time we brought back hunter and anglers really funding wildlife and wild land management. I paid more for a box of rifle ammo than I did for 3 buck, 3 doe, 3 turkey, and 1 bear tag in my home state.

With that said, I know there’s zero hope of that ever working. The non profits are far more concerned hawking r3 to make more customers for the gear industries. If hunters and anglers had to spend some serious coin on the most critical part of hunting and fishing, that’d cut into the industry’s bottom line.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bigbuckbandit]

So the State of Idaho, who is now in a budget deficit, is supposed to also manage our lands? Mr. real estate broker must think we’re all morons.

 

[fatlander]

So the State of Idaho, who is now in a budget deficit, is supposed to also manage our lands? Mr. real estate broker must think we’re all morons.

We are morons. We’ve been convinced that voting for the same people and parties time and time again that got us 38 trillion into collective debt is going to somehow get better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Brap01]

In Virginia, we do have to pay a measly $4.00 for an extra stamp to hunt national forest.

Was that to hunt national forest or state lands?

I've never hunted back east but in the western states I've hunted the only land use fees are for state and private lands.

 

[fatlander]

Was that to hunt national forest or state lands?

I've never hunted back east but in the western states I've hunted the only land use fees are for state and private lands.

National forest


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk