Montana joint resolution to transfer federal public land

[Customweld]

Most state constitutions enforce some combination of provisions that would force states to sell most if not all of the federal lands received in a move like this.

- balanced budget requirements
- state lands have to be managed to generate profit
- state lands need to have their proceeds appropriated for specific uses


So eg Wyoming would have to sell all public lands received because of 1+2 in their constitution. A loss making piece of land would immediately be sold, profitable lands likely donw the line when someone challenges them on whether they are getting maximum revenue.


I believe most states have similar rules. When I talked to people in Utah who have hunted and guided there all their lives when the original lawsuit started, they were terrified. They said 100% certain that they would lose access.

Idaho is much the same. This paragraph is on the front page of IDL's webpage:
"Land Board policy allows for public recreation on endowment lands provided those activities do not degrade the lands, interfere with management activities, or otherwise negatively affect the long-term financial return to beneficiaries."
Which tells you that recreation is on the bottom rung of priorities.
This is also from their webpage:
Article IX, Section 8 of the Idaho Constitution mandates that state endowment trust lands must be managed to secure the maximum long-term financial return to the endowment beneficiaries.

Revenue-generating activities on endowment lands and earnings from invested funds provide millions of dollars annually in support of Idaho’s public school system and numerous other state of Idaho institutions. In addition to providing financial support to the nine beneficiaries, endowment lands may also benefit the citizens of Idaho by providing access for recreational pursuits, so long as recreation activities are consistent with the constitutional mandate

 

[chanson_roland]

Some of y'all ok with losing and selling even 1 acre of Public Land is crazy.

I don't agree with how a lot of it is being managed, sure. But selling it? Not even getting a chance to have a say in its management? That is absurd. Our public lands are one of the best things about this country that are still left.

I don't think enough people have traveled to other countries without public land for hunting and fishing. Absolutely NONE. I'm talking about Western, developed countries with much better healthcare, education, public transportation, etc., than we have in the USA.

Places where the wild game is owned not by the state or the public but by royal families. You kill something, and they send you to big boy jail.

So, everyone sits around drinking coffee, having deep intellectual conversations about metaphysics because it's damn near impossible to go hunting or fishing unless you've got a long name with a lot of consonants and a Hapsburg lip.

Our public land system isn't perfect, but it's WAY better than anything else in the world.

See this bad boy right here? Untouchable.

"A Republic, if you can keep it"

 

[mostlybirch]

These lands are ours to steward so our future generations can enjoy wild places and hunt wild game. The temporary budgetary shortcomings of state or federal governments, which in all likelihood would barely be dented by private land sales, are so insignificant to the incredibly rare gift we have in America.

On another note, as someone who has worked for Canadian mining companies on BLM land across the west and has a solid grasp on the permitting process to explore and build roads and generally tear stuff up: any commentary from politicians about "opening locked up land" comes across as total nonsense. I can submit paperwork and be cutting 5 acres of disturbance in less than 30 days. So this is all a pretext for completely dismantling the organizations and privatization of our common lands.

Ironically, staff shortages at the BLM/FS INCREASES the permitting time for mining companies.

 

[goathunter]

BHA seems like they are the best voice for things like this, hope they get after it

 

[grainhog]

BHA seems like they are the best voice for things like this, hope they get after it

I don't pay dues, I don't attend their social events, but I may start, because the bottom line is they appear to be light-years ahead of any other comparable organization in their efforts to communicate what's going on and to activate people in Helena.

 

[rogerdoger]

I think it is good for everyone to get involved with these organizations. HOWL, Montana League of Conservation Voters, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Public Land And Water Access Association.

I do not necessarily agree with everything they do but I do back the effort to keep land in public hands. They need members now more than ever, down grade one hunting item this year and join one or a few.

For the ones in this thread that have spoke about the crazies land transfer, PLWA is a great organization that fights those things, hell some of the members helped make state land open to recreation in Montana.

 

[2-Stix]

Randy Newberg has been talking a lot on this topic. Look up I think a 4 part series on it with Marcus.

 

[WaWox]

- Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
- Alliance for Wild Rockies
- Wilderness Watch


I am a member / life member/ supporter of these and highly recommend everyone else to also support if you care about public and wild lands to remain public and wild.

 

[CJ19]

So now we are down to promoting straight up anti hunting groups in this thread? Am looking at the websites for the later 2 in that list incorrectly?

- Backcountry Hunters and Anglers
- Alliance for Wild Rockies
- Wilderness Watch


I am a member / life member/ supporter of these and highly recommend everyone else to also support if you care about public and wild lands to remain public and wild.

 

[elkhunter505]

- Alliance for Wild Rockies
- Wilderness Watch

If these two are similar to the wilderness alliance and refuse to allow helicopter capture of animals within wilderness boundaries, I cannot support them personally. There are a lot of species and populations out there that need research and a major impediment is these types of organizations threatening to sue the forest service for granting the permits due to the thought that putting a helicopter in the wilderness for a single day or two does more damage than horse packing strings and I for one refuse to believe that.

Take a look at the numbers surrounding native populations of mountain goats in Montana like in the Swans, Anacondas, etc. Those populations need our help but organizations like these inhibit the ability to capture those animals for research using the most effective tool.

 

[goathunter]

So now we are down to promoting straight up anti hunting groups in this thread? Am looking at the websites for the later 2 in that list incorrectly?

I don't know about the other two groups. I've read things (on here) about BHA as a national organization that sounds some alarms. I assume that's why you were giggling at my post. The local chapter has put their money where their mouth is on every single issue like this. That's tough to ignore. It's enough to change my views on them.

 

[CJ19]

I don't know about the other two groups. I've read things (on here) about BHA as a national organization that sounds some alarms. I assume that's why you were giggling at my post. The local chapter has put their money where their mouth is on every single issue like this. That's tough to ignore. It's enough to change my views on them.

I am not accusing BHA of being anti hunting. I think BHA corporate is a bunch of clowns and has cost hunters dearly on some of the most important topics relevant to hunters. I think they do some good, but for most hunters the bad has historically outweighed the good. I think locally there are plenty of good BHA members just trying to make a positive impact locally. I also think BHA probably has something about wearing flat brim hats in their dress code.

the other 2 look anti hunting to me.

 

[Gila]

I am not accusing BHA of being anti hunting. I think BHA corporate is a bunch of clowns and has cost hunters dearly on some of the most important topics relevant to hunters. I think they do some good, but for most hunters the bad has historically outweighed the good. I think locally there are plenty of good BHA members just trying to make a positive impact locally. I also think BHA probably has something about wearing flat brim hats in their dress code.

the other 2 look anti hunting to me.

Maybe you would like to expound on why you don’t like BHA?

I am a recent member but I have been a member of and/or donated to dozens of hunting and sport-fishing groups over the years. I have also started local chapters for some of these groups. BHA has a different “perspective” sometimes of how they attack the issues which I consider to be another weapon in our arsenal to advance hunting, fishing opportunity and to preserve our public lands. All of our local groups work on a united front. When one has a project that can benefit everyone, the other groups stand behind them.

Together we are strong. Political division and partisan politics only erodes our advocacy. The Wildlife Federation has done quite a bit for us over the years. I have donated or been a member of every local chapter in every state I have hunted. They are on top of the local issues and get shit done. RMEF has accomplished great things in my state. In particular getting trespass easements through private land for access to some great elk hunting.

Playing partisan politics is a non-starter….as far as the two groups mentioned here, the first time I have heard about them so I can’t give any evaluation.

 

[CJ19]

Maybe you would like to expound on why you don’t like BHA?

I am a recent member but I have been a member of and/or donated to dozens of hunting and sport-fishing groups over the years. I have also started local chapters for some of these groups. BHA has a different “perspective” sometimes of how they attack the issues which I consider to be another weapon in our arsenal to advance hunting, fishing opportunity and to preserve our public lands. All of our local groups work on a united front. When one has a project that can benefit everyone, the other groups stand behind them.

Together we are strong. Political division and partisan politics only erodes our advocacy. The Wildlife Federation has done quite a bit for us over the years. I have donated or been a member of every local chapter in every state I have hunted. They are on top of the local issues and get shit done. RMEF has accomplished great things in my state. In particular getting trespass easements through private land for access to some great elk hunting.

Playing partisan politics is a non-starter….as far as the two groups mentioned here, the first time I have heard about them so I can’t give any evaluation.

There are dozens for threads about BHA and why people don't like them. They put politics at the front of everything they do or at least used to. Wildlife federation isn't far behind. I am not going to get into some political rage thread. You guys have like 40 pages of that over the last few days. My point was clearly that the last 2 groups of 3 listed look suspect to me. BHA is a group some people like. Lots of people don't. Join them if you want. I wont be.

 

[Gila]

RED ALERT! I am not going to start a new thread for this!

The BLM is taking public comments to withdraw from extraction 264,000 acres in the Ruby Mountains- Nevada. Please take action by becoming a member and/or donate but please contact BHA to get your comment in! take action!

“Backcountry Hunters & Anglers believes that there are places for responsible oil, gas and mineral development. But there are also places that are simply too special – and where development would cause irreparable harm to irreplaceable landscapes.

Nevada’s Ruby Mountains are one of the latter, and we need the help of Public Land Owners® like you to ensure they remain wild and free for us and future generations.

Take action alongside BHA to help secure a 20-year mineral withdrawal for the Ruby Mountains.

The Bureau of Land Management is accepting public comments through March 31. Be heard today.

Your Friends in Conservation,

– Team BHA

 

[Gila]

Ok apparently I need to make it a separate thread…..Done!

 

[mt terry d]

Federal public land in the west is one of the few assets in which you and the billionaires have an equivalent stake, it's all of ours, and I personally think we need to defend our ownership of these lands like our lives depend on it.

If the Federal land belongs to everyone why do out of staters have to pay more to hunt on "their" Federal land? Sometimes even require a State-licensed guide?

The Feds lock us out of "our" land all the time. The closer "control" is to home the better.
Always.

 

[rogerdoger]

If the Federal land belongs to everyone why do out of staters have to pay more to hunt on "their" Federal land? Sometimes even require a State-licensed guide?

The Feds lock us out of "our" land all the time. The closer "control" is to home the better.
Always.

The states manage the wildlife and tags, not the federal government. Once you pay your fees to the state wildlife agency it is free to hunt on the federal land.

State of Montana requires a fee to hunt on state land.

 

[Gila]

There are dozens for threads about BHA and why people don't like them. They put politics at the front of everything they do or at least used to. Wildlife federation isn't far behind. I am not going to get into some political rage thread. You guys have like 40 pages of that over the last few days. My point was clearly that the last 2 groups of 3 listed look suspect to me. BHA is a group some people like. Lots of people don't. Join them if you want. I wont be.

There are some members of hunting - fishing groups that project the political climate of their local area. But that only detracts from the overall objective of any local chapter. I can’t and won’t single out BHA for that. Any successful, beneficial conservation bill passed has been bi-partisan. Simply because you have to include all of the stake holders for public use.

“United we stand, divided we fall. Let us not split into factions which must destroy that union upon which our existence hangs." - Patrick Henry

 

[Gila]

The states manage the wildlife and tags, not the federal government. Once you pay your fees to the state wildlife agency it is free to hunt on the federal land.

State of Montana requires a fee to hunt on state land.

Actually in New Mexico the outfitters determine who gets most of the tags to hunt public lands. Crazy isn’t it? We are the only state that gives 10% of public land tags in the public draw to outfitters. We are also the only state that allocates unit wide landowner tags to hunt ANY public lands in a unit. Those unit wide Landowner tags are bought by outfitters for guided hunts. Residents are SOL. If a DIY Public lands hunter (resident or non-resident) is lucky enough to buy a tag because of an outfitter cancellation, you better have a thick wallet because you will pay 5 figures for that tag to hunt public lands!