Montana joint resolution to transfer federal public land

[Mbogage]

Not sure what you mean by “some has no real benefit?” Can you give an example ?

 

[TaperPin]

Our 30 year old kids are old enough to actually start thinking deeper about issues rather than just repeating their friends or what’s coming through their news feed. It’s not easy for them adjusting to the actual depth of real issues. Many sources where people consume news are superficial at best, and usually pushing a black or white narrative. Simply looking more deeply into issues starts to challenge the legitimacy of the producers of superficial talk radio, that aren’t always the poster children of telling the full story in an unbiased way.

In many western areas that have experienced significant growth, land is getting tighter all the time. Rather than squeeze communities into unnecessarily small footprints with overloaded road systems that are twice as expensive to upgrade, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to have some method of transferring ownership from federal to state or even private. Maybe it’s 100 year leases, maybe it’s a land exchange so federal numbers stay consistent, maybe it’s something else. If it’s too easy every president will have an excuse for whittling fed land away until it will look like Plymouth Rock - a tiny chipped away version of its former self.

As things stand today I question a person’s perspective when they claim federal land isn’t transferred - the extent of exclusive use by things like open pit mines, oil fields, or other projects essentially has sucked it out of use by the public for ridiculously low fees for longer than many lifetimes. Canadian gold companies operating on us public land might as well print money - I’ve been on a few projects for upper management and the budgets are fat.

Our country needs to get past this interest in consuming misleading information and then trying to sound knowledgeable about professional management, which actually requires facts. It will pass eventually after society gets tired of being lied to. Historically this has swung like a pendulum - we’re not special and the cycle will go full circle eventually.

 

[Gila]

Wow I had no idea this was the case. Could you post some links to these rules? Not that I don’t trust you. I’d just like to read up on them myself so I’m more informed and I haven’t been able to find them from the searching I’ve been doing.

If what

Someone would have to be very familiar with EVERY states’ constitution to make a statement like that. I have known of attorneys with the NRDC who made it their life’s work to understand state constitutions. But they wouldn’t be posting anything on this forum. Saying MOST state constitutions is suspect. States get huge revenues from energy extraction and production leases from federal lands. As far as the state of Utah is concerned, “The Church” has been looking for ways to add to their extraction portfolio for years. That is simply a way to do business. This Administration has shifted how our public lands are to be managed:

———————Feb 21st 2025————————
SANTA FE, N.M – The Bureau of Land Management New Mexico State Office leased seven parcels totaling 1,317.29 acres for $20,671,801 in total receipts for its quarterly oil and gas lease sale. The combined bonus bids and rentals from the lease will be distributed between the federal government and the State of New Mexico.

Oil and gas lease sales support domestic energy production and American energy independence, while contributing to the nation’s economic and military security. Consistent with Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” the BLM's lease sales help meet the energy needs of U.S. citizens and solidify the nation as a global energy leader long into the future.

Leasing is the first step in the process to develop federal oil and gas resources. The BLM ensures oil and gas development meets the requirements set forth by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and other applicable legal authorities.

Oil and gas leases are awarded for a term of 10 years and as long thereafter as there is production of oil and gas in paying quantities. The federal government receives a royalty of 16.67 percent of the value of production. Information on current and upcoming BLM leases is available through the National Fluid Lease Sale System.
—————————————————————

In some western states primarily the South West, Spanish Land Grants were divided into Federal, State and Private lands by treaty. I wouldn’t attempt to open that bag of worms though because there are still court battles going on to determine ownership of those land grants. In New Mexico our state lands are for the most part put into Trust and are perpetual. Quite a bit of our state lands are open to the public for hunting and fishing. Hopefully our state lands will remain intact which is more likely than not.

The best thing to do is to join conservation organizations that fit your own personal uses of public lands that you want preserved. HOWL is an excellent, far reaching organization. Your state chapter of the Wildlife Federation is another one. Since hunting, fishing and trapping are consumptive uses of public lands, the organizations should promote the North American Conservation Model.

 

[tdhanses]

Not sure what you mean by “some has no real benefit?” Can you give an example ?

Well for one all the land currently surrounded by private land that has zero access.

There are millions of acres the public can’t access, well other then the landowners of the surrounding property, they can access it and many include this blocked access when they sell to boost the value of their property, best thing we could do is sell all these parcels.

 

[Gila]

Ignoring the elephant in the room to be politically correct won’t solve anything. This administration has declared a National Energy emergency which gives the President Executive authority to produce energy on any public lands bypassing regulatory bodies in the process. Our public lands and the management thereof exists because of a matrix of federal agencies. Congress has funded those agencies that manage the public resources. Now enter DOGE whose primary mission is to grab money by reducing the size of these Federal Agencies. Reduce staff and you reduce the Agency’s capability. It really is that simple. No theories, no opinion, just simple fact.

Imagine drawing a once in a lifetime tag for this fall and going to the National Forest and finding the gates locked because the NF couldn’t perform seasonal road maintenance. Or the forrest gates are locked because the fire watch towers couldn’t be manned. Maybe the camp site is closed because no one is there to pickup up the trash. What are you going to do if your “honey hole” becomes a strip mine? Raising the green headed monster of public lands transfer is a “red herring” to detract from the real issue, which is PUBLIC LAND USE.

 

[Teodoro]

Well for one all the land currently surrounded by private land that has zero access.

There are millions of acres the public can’t access, well other then the landowners of the surrounding property, they can access it and many include this blocked access when they sell to boost the value of their property, best thing we could do is sell all these parcels.

Instead of selling it, let's amend the Unlawful Inclosures Act to create easements for foot travel along parcel edges to all landlocked public land.

 

[tdhanses]

Instead of selling it, let's amend the Unlawful Inclosures Act to create easements for foot travel along parcel edges to all landlocked public land.

So take land away from private owners? The land locked public land should have been sold many many years ago.

 

[Teodoro]

I think whether they're losing any rights that they actually already have would kind of depend on how you read our existing laws. But to be generous and avoid a squabble, I think we could pay just compensation as with any eminent domain case. A dollar per parcel ought to be plenty.
Editing for clarity: in checkerboard regions, this would just work out to making corner crossing legal. So I really do think a dollar is enough for letting folks step corner to corner through some (very debatably) private air. I'd be open to more if there was some remote parcel where the law ended up creating a long footpath.

 

[2ski]

Well for one all the land currently surrounded by private land that has zero access.

There are millions of acres the public can’t access, well other then the landowners of the surrounding property, they can access it and many include this blocked access when they sell to boost the value of their property, best thing we could do is sell all these parcels.

Just because its landlocked doesn't mean it can't be used for a profit by the state. The land can still be leased. And the state and the lease holder are going to have an easement to access the land. There's no easement for hunting it, but the land does hold value that isn't from selling it.

 

[Mbogage]

The land is public, just because it is land locked is no reason to sell it. Maybe trade a piece of private for a piece of public to gain access to the majority of the land locked public. Selling the public is just what the rich land owners who are locking up the land want. And they want it at a cheap price because it is land locked. Then we just lose.

 

[Mbogage]

Once it goes to the state, who knows what will happen to it. It would likely be sold. How about we make congress do there job and set some reasonable cattle lease fees and oil and mining fees?

 

[rogerdoger]

I don’t always understand 100% of what I read in bills like this, but I don’t see anywhere that it mentions selling the land to billionaires, or selling the land at all. Where do you see that?

It is fairly simple and does not need to be stated. Federal lands become state lands, state lands by law have to turn a profit. Montana taxes cannot cover cost to manage lands. One year of a bad wildfire, state broke equals land sold to highest bidder equals you polishing your gun and knob on your couch.

Everyone needs to read MT GOP Platform, page 13 says it all.

 

[tdhanses]

Just because its landlocked doesn't mean it can't be used for a profit by the state. The land can still be leased. And the state and the lease holder are going to have an easement to access the land. There's no easement for hunting it, but the land does hold value that isn't from selling it.

The leases are usually pennies though compared to the open market.

 

[NDGuy]

 

[WaWox]

Wow I had no idea this was the case. Could you post some links to these rules? Not that I don’t trust you. I’d just like to read up on them myself so I’m more informed and I haven’t been able to find them from the searching I’ve been doing.

If what you say is true, then it seems that the federal government retaining ownership is the only option to keep them public, as bad as they are at managing them.

Office of State Lands and Investments - Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently Asked Questions

lands.wyo.gov

Here states pretty clearly that wyo has a fiduciary duty to maximize revenue for public institutions

Contrast that with the Feds legal duty to consider MULTIPLE USES. That's why the feds don't sell everything, don't put a strip mine everywhere they can, and don't log every tree. They are forced to consider all of revenue, recreation, and wildlife.

State agencies and state constitutions do not.

Even WA state, tree hugger as it may sound to other non coastal western states, is agonizing over whether its legal to *stop* logging old growth.

The drive to log because they have a legal duty to produce revenue leads to tons of dumb decisions -- not far from where I live, enviro orgs tried to stop a clear cutting timber sale on a steep slope. Courts sided with department of nat resources and the sale went ahead because the state is only supposed to maximize revenue.

Well. The clearcut slope slid the next fall, destroying several roads and camp grounds. Cleanup will take years and total cost is a large multiple of timber revenue earned. But hey, we maximized revenue [ignore costs to other agencies and users!!] ! Win!

And if tree hugging outdoor recreation loving WA messes it up like this, what do you think the ranchers and oil barons running the interior west will do?

 

[grainhog]

Just because its landlocked doesn't mean it can't be used for a profit by the state. The land can still be leased. And the state and the lease holder are going to have an easement to access the land. There's no easement for hunting it, but the land does hold value that isn't from selling it.

It also still has value as habitat, for both game species and other flora/fauna alike, and is inarguably more resistant to development under public ownership.

One of the foundational understandings obtained over time through the study of landscape ecology is that habitat fragmentation degrades biodiversity. This process is further modified by increasingly warm, dry conditions throughout the west. Increased prevalence of invasives, decreased viability of natives. Modified disturbance regimes, widespread transitions to cover types entirely outside the historic range of variability. These processes are tidal in scale and force.

The federal land management agencies could no doubt "manage more effectively" in some cases, but the "failure to manage" narrative pushed by the Steve Daines's of the world is overblown, trending toward propaganda in many cases. Not to mention the agencies are the sources of most of the meaningful, actionable inventory and monitoring programs, even in the context of chronically anemic budgets.

Yet my amazement is renewed every time I see comments on this forum to the effect that "I've never seen deer or a mountain biker at that point location over there, and this fact serves as proof that it and some vague, indiscriminate land area surrounding it have no value for hunting or recreation, and should be transferred out of federal ownership." Huh?

 

[elkhunter505]

The leases are usually pennies though compared to the open market.

So what? I don’t understand the obsession with making as much money as possible on these lands that are public.

I would bet a ton of money that hunters would be willing to pay something like a habitat stamp to help pay for easements. If it’s landlocked, I don’t want it sold just for that reason and that reason alone. I don’t care that I can’t access it right at this moment, if there is a possibility that my kids or their kids could access it in the future either due to changing guard at the LO level which could lead to more willingness for easements or the states investing in parcels that go up for sale to open up the access, I want that as an option. However, I do believe we have a lot of bad eggs in the hunting community that make access through or on private land a PITA because they screw it up for all of us. We need to do a better job policing those individuals if we want these options in the future.

 

[rogerdoger]

Push to develop state lands.

Proposal would allow state trust lands to be sold for real estate development

Public land managers want to make it easier to develop and sell state trust lands for real estate. Lawmakers are divided on supporting it.

www.mtpr.org

Rules for recreation. Say good bye to backpacking and very limited camping. Little to no motorized.

https://dnrc.mt.gov/_docs/Trust-Land/Recreation/RecreationalUseGuidelines.pdf

State lands have not always been public, not to long ago they were not, can be reversed pretty quickly.

Recreational Use of State Public Lands — Public Land Water Access Association

www.plwa.org

I

 

[rogerdoger]

Got this from HuntTalk, shows what percent of state lands have been sold in western states. Montana is on the lower side, but now we have a lot more big money in the state pulling strings.

 

[Gila]

So what? I don’t understand the obsession with making as much money as possible on these lands that are public.

I would bet a ton of money that hunters would be willing to pay something like a habitat stamp to help pay for easements. If it’s landlocked, I don’t want it sold just for that reason and that reason alone. I don’t care that I can’t access it right at this moment, if there is a possibility that my kids or their kids could access it in the future either due to changing guard at the LO level which could lead to more willingness for easements or the states investing in parcels that go up for sale to open up the access, I want that as an option. However, I do believe we have a lot of bad eggs in the hunting community that make access through or on private land a PITA because they screw it up for all of us. We need to do a better job policing those individuals if we want these options in the future.

If fish and game pays them for trespass, it isn’t bogged down in legislation. New Mexico does that but I think the hunting access is renewed every year. RMEF has funded some critical trespass for land landlocked National Forest land in New Mexico. We also have quite a bit of state land that is open to hunting that is checkered within NF and BLM lands. We have a different problem though in that private land owners are paid for conservation easements by “private enterprises” that doesn’t include access for public hunting.