Montana joint resolution to transfer federal public land

[Customweld]

We are also the only state that allocates unit wide landowner tags to hunt ANY public lands in a unit.

That's not entirely true. Idaho LAP tags are good for the whole unit in which they are designated to.

 

[Billinsd]

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.

DOGE-Department of Government Efficiency Workforce Optimization Initiative
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1. Purpose. To restore accountability to the American public, this order commences a critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy. By eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity, my Administration will empower American families, workers, taxpayers, and our system of Government itself.

 

[Gila]

That's not entirely true. Idaho LAP tags are good for the whole unit in which they are designated to.

That’s a shame because those tags will eventually privatize hunting on public lands like here in New Mexico. Land owner tags that can be sold or bartered is a failed concept.

 

[Billinsd]

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.

From what I gather it looked like the Forest Circus caved. Maddy Muson Director of Wild Montana got what she wanted. What happened to BHA? Looks like they got beat out by Maddy. The Forest Circus approved it all. Looks like if you have stupid people on your team you lose? Go figure!

 

[Billinsd]

View attachment 844441

Most of those share holders responsible for ruining the world live in China and India!!!

 

[JeffRaines]

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"


View attachment 844811

It doesn’t take visiting another country to see what could happen in the west - just go spend some time in the southeast or northeast in some states.

Where I grew up in the southeast there was next to zero public land. You either owned land or had to purchase access via pricey leases in order to hunt. Now go look up what leases cost, and realize that not every landowner will offer those... also add in the fact that at some point leases will be damn near your only option.

Sure, there will still be public land available... but think about this - we already complain about overcrowded trailheads and people being all over during season. Imagine a world where 20% of the currently available hunting area is privatized. 30%... 40%...50%. If it's bad now, selling off public lands is only going to make it worse. Do you think Ted Tuner and his ilk are going to magically open their lands up so you can go hunt? Fat chance. Maybe if you're a personal friend or have deep pockets.

Maybe you guys are well off enough to be ready to buy a couple hundred/thousand acres when they go up for sale and retain a slice of paradise. For the rest of us working folks it’s a bad deal all around.

When it comes to government efficiency, budgets and whatnot... I dont see a reason to not continue to fund public land agencies. It only benefits us. It's not like this money is going overseas to fund proxy wars or some other egregious things. Those things can and should be cut - but things that benefit Americans should not.

America first.

 

[NDGuy]

Most of those share holders responsible for ruining the world live in China and India!!!

Our gov officials still bend over and spread em

 

[Billinsd]

Our gov officials still bend over and spread em

Hopefully Doge will eliminate most of those unelected bureaucrats!

 

[Billinsd]

When it comes to government efficiency, budgets and whatnot... I dont see a reason to not continue to fund public land agencies. It only benefits us. It's not like this money is going overseas to fund proxy wars or some other egregious things. Those things can and should be cut - but things that benefit Americans should not.

America first

Amen, America first. Who is talking about cutting all federal public land agencies' funding? No one. Are you against oversight, accountability, reducing waste and abuse, increasing efficiency, of these agencies to some degree?

 

[NDGuy]

Hopefully Doge will eliminate most of those unelected bureaucrats!

 

[mostlybirch]

Amen, America first. Who is talking about cutting all federal public land agencies' funding? No one. Are you against oversight, accountability, reducing waste and abuse, increasing efficiency, of these agencies to some degree?

Sending in the computer science kids to mass fire wildland firefighters only to rehire them later doesn't scream efficiency.

 

[Billinsd]

Sending in the computer science kids to mass fire wildland firefighters only to rehire them later doesn't scream efficiency.

Oh, you are talking about the 2,000 mostly "probational" forest circus workers, "some" of them firemen? The next Democrat administration will hire them all back and give them back pay, absolutely and apalling!!! My 16 year old son is taking an AP computer science class. Maybe he could get a job this summer? However, he's more interested in aerospace engineering, he'd much prefer a gig with Elon's SpaceX program.

 

[elkhunter505]

 

[Billinsd]

Bruh!

 

[Gila]

Getting back to the topic. Utah and Montana have a cold chance in hell of prevailing IMO. As far as Zinke’s bill is concerned, Congress won’t touch it with a ten foot pole right now IMO. The focus at this time is funding the federal agencies that manage our public lands. I guess we will soon find out if there are enough moderate Republicans in Congress that won’t sway to the snake charmer.

 

[MuleyFever]

Just came across this.

Doug Burgum, President Trump’s secretary of the interior, explained that the nation’s parks, public lands, and natural resources—including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals—are assets on “the nation’s balance sheet.” Burgum speculated in his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. He argued that the U.S. government, run like a business, should know the value of the corporation’s assets and use those assets “to get a return for the American people.” Under Trump’s proposal, the value of public lands would be determined by their potential market value to grow an SWF, and not by their value to hunters and fishermen; family ranchers; and communities that rely on clean water and air as well as jobs and income that come from natural resource development, recreation, and tourism.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/

 

[NDGuy]

Just came across this.

Doug Burgum, President Trump’s secretary of the interior, explained that the nation’s parks, public lands, and natural resources—including timber, fossil fuels, and minerals—are assets on “the nation’s balance sheet.” Burgum speculated in his confirmation hearing that federal lands could be worth as much as $200 trillion. He argued that the U.S. government, run like a business, should know the value of the corporation’s assets and use those assets “to get a return for the American people.” Under Trump’s proposal, the value of public lands would be determined by their potential market value to grow an SWF, and not by their value to hunters and fishermen; family ranchers; and communities that rely on clean water and air as well as jobs and income that come from natural resource development, recreation, and tourism.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/

I remain hopeful for Doug…that being said

Nothing is looking good

 

[mostlybirch]

Like I said previously, I spend a lot of time on public lands in the mineral exploration business, and despite the faults many user groups can rightfully place on the management of those lands, the fact that we have a system where we can all hunt, fish, recreate, enjoy wild areas, AND produce oil, extract minerals, placer mine gold, ranch, etc is nothing short of extraordinary, and should be protected tooth and nail. I find it in incredible the balance the current system is able to maintain.

And because of that, reducing those public lands to "assets on the balance sheet" is such a foreign concept to me it makes my stomach turn. Very difficult to quantify the amount of money that already goes into surrounding business, guides, and purchases made specifically to hunt or travel on those lands. The National Parks are already a huge ROI for the taxpayer, so it makes no fiscal sense to me to upset that balance.

Question is what to do next? My legislators have heard from me but likelihood of deviating from party lines seems low.

Where's Teddy when you need him?

 

[rogerdoger]

The most important thing I feel we can do is put aside the petty stuff we feel about certain groups and fight for the common goal of keeping lands public. As I mentioned earlier I get involved with organizations, it’s not that I approve of everything they do but I know they have a common interest of keeping lands public. We all love to be outside and enjoy, let’s unite on that front. You can sure as hell bet the other side is united on selling public lands but they all have different thoughts on who’s pockets should get lined with cash.

 

[rogerthat]

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.

Why not trade them for accessible parcels? That would be the best thing we could do don’t you think?