airlocksniffer
WKR
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Location
- Helena, MT
This is a cross post from a member over at Hunt Talk which I feel is a good argument against public land transfer. Please don't turn this into a D vs R pissing contest. Federal public lands are highly valued by both sides of the political spectrum.
FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER FALLACIES
1. FALLACY: STATES HAVE LEGAL RIGHT TO THOSE FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS; THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OWN PUBLIC LANDS.
The Wallace Stegner Center at the University of Utah completed a legal analysis which concludes that Utah has no legal right to the lands it demands and furthermore the federal government has Constitutional authority to retain federal public lands, a conclusion borne out previously in US Supreme Court decisions. Link to Analysis
2. FALLACY: PUBLIC LANDS WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND MULTIPLE USE.
State constitutions, such as that of Montana, predominantly mandate that state owned lands produce revenue as number one priority. Multiple use is secondary, if considered at all, and is typically limited. Multiple use is the keystone of federal public lands policy and the critical factor in the value to state’s citizens, as well as to the other Americans who own and enjoy that public land.
3. FALLACY: FEDERAL FUNDING WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR MANAGING THOSE STATE PUBLIC LANDS.
It is certain that taxpayers from other states more highly populated, who no longer are represented or retain ownership of the state public lands, will likewise no longer be willing to contribute tax dollars to manage other states’ lands.
4. FALLACY: EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY REVENUE TO MANAGE STATE PUBLIC LANDS.
The Utah University system completed a fiscal analysis of financial impacts of the transfer of federal public lands to the State of Utah. The conclusion was that after the initial huge financial burden on Utah’s revenues, eventually natural resource exploitation, particularly extraction of fossil fuels, could potentially provide adequate revenues, but estimated with some uncertainty, based on the then relatively high fossil fuel prices. The paramount priority would be on fossil fuel extraction, with multiple use becoming almost insignificant. Current fossil fuel prices would significantly reduce that revenue to a management deficit.
5. FALLACY: PRESENTLY THERE IS NO LOCAL INPUT IN FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS.
By law there are publicized proposals and plans regarding federal public lands, which include public comment periods and hearings, often extended to maximize local public input opportunity, which is typically published as factors.
6. FALLACY: FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ARE MADE IN FAR-OFF WASHINGTON, DC
Decisions, policies, and implementation are by agency personnel on-the-ground in the local areas affected. Public land managers, supervisors, rangers, officers, personnel who plan, decide, and implement policies are your neighbors and local service organization members, local youth sports team coaches, parents, PTA members, and hard working state citizens who live in your home town, people who also typically use those same public lands you enjoy.
7. FALLACY: UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILL BE EASIER FOR STATES AND WILL BE BETTER MANAGED.
The assumption that state government can manage extraction of natural resources more efficiently and with fewer constraints than federal agencies is false. States are subject to the same laws and regulations imposed by Congress and now cited as hampering resource extraction from federal public lands. Furthermore, the same energy, mineral, and timber market value and trade agreement factors would impose similar constraints on state management.
8. FALLACY: THE STATE EMPLOYMENT PICTURE WILL BE IMPROVED.
The thousands of federal employees who presently contribute significantly to each state’s economy where they work and reside will be forced to undergo a transition apparently not considered to date. It is uncertain whether those positions would be terminated, would be transferred into state agencies, or would be retained. The relative compensation differences between federal and state personnel systems would create difficult challenges, peculiar to each state’s compensation system. The long-term impacts on states labor markets and employment pictures have not been clearly analyzed .
FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS TRANSFER FALLACIES
1. FALLACY: STATES HAVE LEGAL RIGHT TO THOSE FEDERAL PUBLIC LANDS; THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY TO OWN PUBLIC LANDS.
The Wallace Stegner Center at the University of Utah completed a legal analysis which concludes that Utah has no legal right to the lands it demands and furthermore the federal government has Constitutional authority to retain federal public lands, a conclusion borne out previously in US Supreme Court decisions. Link to Analysis
2. FALLACY: PUBLIC LANDS WILL REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS AND MULTIPLE USE.
State constitutions, such as that of Montana, predominantly mandate that state owned lands produce revenue as number one priority. Multiple use is secondary, if considered at all, and is typically limited. Multiple use is the keystone of federal public lands policy and the critical factor in the value to state’s citizens, as well as to the other Americans who own and enjoy that public land.
3. FALLACY: FEDERAL FUNDING WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR MANAGING THOSE STATE PUBLIC LANDS.
It is certain that taxpayers from other states more highly populated, who no longer are represented or retain ownership of the state public lands, will likewise no longer be willing to contribute tax dollars to manage other states’ lands.
4. FALLACY: EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILL PROVIDE NECESSARY REVENUE TO MANAGE STATE PUBLIC LANDS.
The Utah University system completed a fiscal analysis of financial impacts of the transfer of federal public lands to the State of Utah. The conclusion was that after the initial huge financial burden on Utah’s revenues, eventually natural resource exploitation, particularly extraction of fossil fuels, could potentially provide adequate revenues, but estimated with some uncertainty, based on the then relatively high fossil fuel prices. The paramount priority would be on fossil fuel extraction, with multiple use becoming almost insignificant. Current fossil fuel prices would significantly reduce that revenue to a management deficit.
5. FALLACY: PRESENTLY THERE IS NO LOCAL INPUT IN FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS.
By law there are publicized proposals and plans regarding federal public lands, which include public comment periods and hearings, often extended to maximize local public input opportunity, which is typically published as factors.
6. FALLACY: FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT DECISIONS ARE MADE IN FAR-OFF WASHINGTON, DC
Decisions, policies, and implementation are by agency personnel on-the-ground in the local areas affected. Public land managers, supervisors, rangers, officers, personnel who plan, decide, and implement policies are your neighbors and local service organization members, local youth sports team coaches, parents, PTA members, and hard working state citizens who live in your home town, people who also typically use those same public lands you enjoy.
7. FALLACY: UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES WILL BE EASIER FOR STATES AND WILL BE BETTER MANAGED.
The assumption that state government can manage extraction of natural resources more efficiently and with fewer constraints than federal agencies is false. States are subject to the same laws and regulations imposed by Congress and now cited as hampering resource extraction from federal public lands. Furthermore, the same energy, mineral, and timber market value and trade agreement factors would impose similar constraints on state management.
8. FALLACY: THE STATE EMPLOYMENT PICTURE WILL BE IMPROVED.
The thousands of federal employees who presently contribute significantly to each state’s economy where they work and reside will be forced to undergo a transition apparently not considered to date. It is uncertain whether those positions would be terminated, would be transferred into state agencies, or would be retained. The relative compensation differences between federal and state personnel systems would create difficult challenges, peculiar to each state’s compensation system. The long-term impacts on states labor markets and employment pictures have not been clearly analyzed .
