Montana joint resolution to transfer federal public land

[wyosam]

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.

Or in places like the checkerboard in Wyoming, do some trading to create useable public blocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gila]

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.

Hunt talk data is rather misleading. In New Mexico today we have 9 million in surface acres and 13 million mineral acres. Also the amount of acres sold off since statehood is misleading because the South Western states acquired land from Spanish and Mexican Land grants. Some of that state land was transferred to federal land and other land grant stakeholders and not really sold to private enterprises. However between Henry Singleton and Ted Turner they have 2.3 million acres. Most of their land is not managed for hunting.

In Montana the most recent data I could find was from 2016:

Total area owned by federal government -27,276,820 acres (Mostly Forest Service and BLM land. 29.3% of state area – 10th most of any state in the U.S.)

Total area owned by state government - 5,196,400 acres (Mostly school trust lands. 5.6 % of state area – 16th most of any state in the U.S.)

 

[Big Easy]

Where does the new administration in DC stand on this issue?

Um, you are aware that Trump is a land developer aren’t you?

Sorry that my first post on here is rather snide but he’s a developer first and foremost.

 

[tdhanses]

Or in places like the checkerboard in Wyoming, do some trading to create useable public blocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, some would love to keep the thousands of tiny small blocks of land locked public just because they are public but they make zero sense and add zero benefit to the majority of people. Not all land locked public is a large acerage.

 

[elkhunter505]

Exactly, some would love to keep the thousands of tiny small blocks of land locked public just because they are public but they make zero sense and add zero benefit to the majority of people. Not all land locked public is a large acerage.

Well I’d implore you to look at the hunting community reaction to the Crazy Mountain Divide land swap done earlier this year in MT. Tell you what, we have a much larger chunk of land, but boy are people pissed because some of the traded land is worse for hunting and now the owners have more contiguous land to develop some type of resort similar to the Yellowstone Club. I’m not going to pretend that I know much about it as it is my second year in MT but I know that almost every hunter I know is pissed about it.

 

[WaWox]

The Crazies land swap was crazy because hiking recreation activists and developers teamed up to hoodwink the agency into trading worthless private land for valuable public land, even with smaller total acreage. The land traded away was worth probably 10x if developed, and still many times as much as the public land if just managed for hunting leases or ag.

The problem with the gov trading or selling land is mostly that, like with most things, the gov doesn't know what it's doing and gets the massively shorter end of every single deal they strike.

If the gov managed to sell land at only a 50% discount, I'd be happy. But I'd expect it to be 90% most of the time.

 

[Gila]

Exactly, some would love to keep the thousands of tiny small blocks of land locked public just because they are public but they make zero sense and add zero benefit to the majority of people. Not all land locked public is a large acerage.

Quite a bit of this private land has neighboring BLM grazing leases. Selling off our checkered BLM lands will kill the beef industry and our hunting. Double whammy here! South Dakota has figured out that if they pay landowners $5-10 per acre, that it opens up more than a million acres to public hunting for some of the best pronghorn and mule deer hunting in the country. Time to be creative if we want to keep hunting.

“Success of the existing WIA program, which was initiated in 1988, is demonstrated by its growth to over 1.3 million acres of land in 2011. Half of all hunters used this program in 2020. In a state that is predominately privately- owned (80%), this program to-date has accomplished not only additional Walk-In Area hunting opportunities, but also helped improve relationships between landowners and hunters, and allowed additional harvest of game.”

 

[Gila]

Um, you are aware that Trump is a land developer aren’t you?

Sorry that my first post on here is rather snide but he’s a developer first and foremost.

How many times have we heard these three words: “drill baby drill!”

 

[tdhanses]

Well I’d implore you to look at the hunting community reaction to the Crazy Mountain Divide land swap done earlier this year in MT. Tell you what, we have a much larger chunk of land, but boy are people pissed because some of the traded land is worse for hunting and now the owners have more contiguous land to develop some type of resort similar to the Yellowstone Club. I’m not going to pretend that I know much about it as it is my second year in MT but I know that almost every hunter I know is pissed about it.

Yeah and that will happen but for the most part we have millions upon millions of acres we can access that have great recreation opportunities, to lose 1% isn’t a big issue in the long run, it might effect some locals in the areas but overall it’s not worth the cost to taxpayers to own some of the public lands we have.

 

[tdhanses]

The Crazies land swap was crazy because hiking recreation activists and developers teamed up to hoodwink the agency into trading worthless private land for valuable public land, even with smaller total acreage. The land traded away was worth probably 10x if developed, and still many times as much as the public land if just managed for hunting leases or ag.

The problem with the gov trading or selling land is mostly that, like with most things, the gov doesn't know what it's doing and gets the massively shorter end of every single deal they strike.

If the gov managed to sell land at only a 50% discount, I'd be happy. But I'd expect it to be 90% most of the time.

Yeah I don’t think the gov cares about values or having the most beautiful pieces of land, I’m sure there was a reason, good or bad, but in the end this effects .0000000001% of our population and taxpayers.

 

[tdhanses]

Quite a bit of this private land has neighboring BLM grazing leases. Selling off our checkered BLM lands will kill the beef industry and our hunting. Double whammy here! South Dakota has figured out that if they pay landowners $5-10 per acre, that it opens up more than a million acres to public hunting for some of the best pronghorn and mule deer hunting in the country. Time to be creative if we want to keep hunting.

“Success of the existing WIA program, which was initiated in 1988, is demonstrated by its growth to over 1.3 million acres of land in 2011. Half of all hunters used this program in 2020. In a state that is predominately privately- owned (80%), this program to-date has accomplished not only additional Walk-In Area hunting opportunities, but also helped improve relationships between landowners and hunters, and allowed additional harvest of game.”

Quite a bit of the cattle BLM on the BLM belongs to the area private land owners, they just like the almost free grazing, it wouldn’t kill the cattle industry but we may see a change in who owned most of the cattle in the long term in the areas.

 

[Gila]

Yeah and that will happen but for the most part we have millions upon millions of acres we can access that have great recreation opportunities, to lose 1% isn’t a big issue in the long run, it might effect some locals in the areas but overall it’s not worth the cost to taxpayers to own some of the public lands we have.

Politically deciding which eco-systems have viable public use sets an unfavorable precedent. May start out one percent but it won’t end there.

 

[elkhunter505]

Yeah and that will happen but for the most part we have millions upon millions of acres we can access that have great recreation opportunities, to lose 1% isn’t a big issue in the long run, it might effect some locals in the areas but overall it’s not worth the cost to taxpayers to own some of the public lands we have.

Can you inform me on how those parcels are costing tax payers money if they’re already fully owned by the government? Seems like to me they should only be gaining money through leasing from the private grazers. Is the cost you’re referring to in reference to paying people to manage it?

 

[tdhanses]

Can you inform me on how those parcels are costing tax payers money if they’re already fully owned by the government? Seems like to me they should only be gaining money through leasing from the private grazers. Is the cost you’re referring to in reference to paying people to manage it?

Well they have value and we have debt we pay interest on right, just holding public lands costs us money. Now to hold public lands that have little value because maybe they do not have high direct costs, to me, makes zero sense for them to remain public.

But I get it I’m an outlier here, I think we could cut our public lands easily by 25% and not reduce the recreation opportunities for 99% of the population.

 

[elkhunter505]

Well they have value and we have debt we pay interest on right, just holding public lands costs us money. Now to hold public lands that have little value because maybe they do not have high direct costs, to me, makes zero sense for them to remain public.

But I get it I’m an outlier here, I think we could cut our public lands easily by 25% and not reduce the recreation opportunities for 99% of the population.

That’s a fair point. I disagree that these pieces of land are going to make a dent in that debt in comparison to cuts in other places but I can understand the sentiment.

I actually was having a discussion with a friend the other day surrounding the whole cuts and what not and I got to the point where if I think logically through it, agencies have no incentive to save money since it’s a negative feedback loop. Don’t spend the money, that money doesn’t roll over to the next year, it’s put back into the general fund and then your budget is cut the next year because you didn’t spend it. Just food for thought in the future. Seems like a negative feedback loop that doesn’t give an incentive for saving money. Some agencies can have predictable budgets every year while some do not. Land management agencies don’t have a predictable budget so if they have a light year and don’t spend the money, they end up underfunded the next year if it’s a bad fire year or something stochastic happens rather than having the money they saved roll over to them. Partially a side tangent but maybe food for thought for everyone.