Public land transfer issue

[Publiclandhunter]

I guess to start my time here off right I will start with a post about the most important thing to me currently in the hunting world and that is the transfer or sale of public lands to the states.

I think every sportsmen should be very concerned about this issue. If our federal public lands are turned over to the states who do not have the budgets to manage them we will begin to lose our favorite hunting and fishing spots to sales. I would say it is every sportsmens duty to write our county, state, and federal representatives on this issue. I would also join a group such as BHA, RMEF, TRCP, Trout Unlimited and others who have came out against the transfer of public lands. Do not vote for those who support this idea, and vote those who do out of office. Together we can beat this terrible idea that will forever damage our outdoor heritage and future generations opportunities and access forever.

 

[dotman]

Better vote for Trump if you truely care about this.

 

[Trial153]

Trump on the republican side and sanders on the democratic side.

Join BHA, RMEF ect... Talk to your congressman in person if your able to.

 

[Schaaf]

Right there with you, OP. It has become a hard line for me. I refuse to vote for someone who is promising to transfer federal lands back to the "states" *cough* Koch Brothers *cough Wilks Brothers

 

[1hoda]

Which offices are the Koch brothers or Wilks brothers running for?

Or did you mean transfer public lands to them? Why did you single those two out when there are much larger private land holders than those two who are much more aggressive buyers and owners of private land?

 

[MuleyFever]

Which offices are the Koch brothers or Wilks brothers running for?

Or did you mean transfer public lands to them? Why did you single those two out when there are much larger private land holders than those two who are much more aggressive buyers and owners of private land?

I am pretty sure he was just giving 2 examples. I didnt read him say "only". I dont think you need to use the biggest or most aggressive when giving an example. Using a more well known example gets your point across better than using examples that most people may not know, even if they are bigger.

 

[elkyinzer]

Agreed, the Koch bros (as mentioned above, well-known example) and their brethren are so good at lobbying and out in front of the issue that we are fighting this battle from a position of weakness and need to be allied with ALL conservation groups.

What also pisses me off is that politically, I agree with 99% of what libertarians have to say and identify myself as one, yet their leaders are so blatantly pro-land transfer. There has to be room for a philosophical dialogue revolving around the fact that we have an inherent right to maintain our deep connection with wild places, and efficiently managed public land best maintains that right for future generations.

 

[1hoda]

But the Koch family owns only 3 ranches, and have owned them for decades. Just not sure why bringing them into the public land sale discussion is relevant.

 

[Schaaf]

Didn't realize I had touched a nerve. I singled those 2 sets out because of the amount of money they give to lobby for the transfer of federal lands.

 

[dreamingbig]

But the Koch family owns only 3 ranches, and have owned them for decades. Just not sure why bringing them into the public land sale discussion is relevant.

It is relevant because they are funding the sneaky and untruthful peeps that are the American land council.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Interesting (to me) and pertinent thread, because writing to my political offices and other hierarchal decision makers of land rights and exchanges does ZERO good. I used to be frustrated and annoyed by the process, but now I accept that our systems are too flawed to turn things around. In fact, most of these land exchanges are deals made decades ago that have resolved to full plan, even Designtated Wilderness areas. Public land transfers are a HUGE deal to Alaskans and non-alaskan tourists.

The latest example is a massive land exchange that BLM was obliged to carry out based on a deal made during Alaska Native Claims Setlement Act (ANCSA) in the 70s. Back then Nixon signed into law that lands of aboriginal claim were divided out to twelve Native regional corporations and over 200 local village corps. all across Alaska.

Back then only about 7% of Alaska's land area was state owned, while the feds titled more than 90%. Here's the kicker!: Some lands were not transferred to Natives at that time, but held by the state and labeled "Native Select" lands, which meant that at some point down the road those lands may be transferred to its rightful claimed owner (natives). This was known as the "freeze" order in 1969, which left about 8 million acres available to public access but labeled as Native Select.

Well, 30 years later and the debt has been reconciled by the state, handing over nearly all 8 million acres to private land owners (native interests). As a result, roughly a dozen traditionally used river corridors are now privately owned and the wildlife hunting opportunities are unauthorized by trespass laws.

The point I wanted to make is that things that are affecting our generation are often products of decades old practices and political compromises that served to postpone the impacts to future generations (us and our children). The system is strained by a long and tedious political muscle memory. I'm not convinced that public opinion will do anything but suck our emotional investment dry.

lb

 

[1hoda]

Liberals always finger the Koch brothers.

What about Tom Steyer, the billionaire liberal hypocrite who made his fortune in fossil fuels but now is aggressively against them? He’s been influential in stopping fossil fuel extraction on public lands, making the financial unsustainability even worse. Ever stop to think about how this makes the sale/ transfer even more likely? That’s the root of the problem isn’t it? Paying for upkeep of public lands?

So the conversation we should be having is let’s change the current unsustainable model to something that IS sustainable so that there’s no financial reason to even have the public land transfer discussion. That model includes increasing revenue (timber and mineral sales, among other things) and reducing costs (bloated bureaucracy and ballooning firefighting budgets are two examples that come to mind).

 

[airlocksniffer]

Liberals always finger the Koch brothers.

What about Tom Steyer, the billionaire liberal hypocrite who made his fortune in fossil fuels but now is aggressively against them? He’s been influential in stopping fossil fuel extraction on public lands, making the financial unsustainability even worse. Ever stop to think about how this makes the sale/ transfer even more likely? That’s the root of the problem isn’t it? Paying for upkeep of public lands?

So the conversation we should be having is let’s change the current unsustainable model to something that IS sustainable so that there’s no financial reason to even have the public land transfer discussion. That model includes increasing revenue (timber and mineral sales, among other things) and reducing costs (bloated bureaucracy and ballooning firefighting budgets are two examples that come to mind).

Why does this always have to turn into a liberal vs conservative thing? Public land is treasured by all people, whatever side of the aisle you vote. Sure, the push for transfer is currently coming from conservative politicians but there is broad public support for public lands, regardless of party affiliation. I think most voters and hunters really don't know about this and what it would mean to our hunting. Education is key, not finger pointing.

 

[1hoda]

I offered my view as to the problem and the solution.

 

[dotman]

Liberals always finger the Koch brothers.

What about Tom Steyer, the billionaire liberal hypocrite who made his fortune in fossil fuels but now is aggressively against them? He’s been influential in stopping fossil fuel extraction on public lands, making the financial unsustainability even worse. Ever stop to think about how this makes the sale/ transfer even more likely? That’s the root of the problem isn’t it? Paying for upkeep of public lands?

So the conversation we should be having is let’s change the current unsustainable model to something that IS sustainable so that there’s no financial reason to even have the public land transfer discussion. That model includes increasing revenue (timber and mineral sales, among other things) and reducing costs (bloated bureaucracy and ballooning firefighting budgets are two examples that come to mind).

Well i'm far from a liberal but I can still see the greed some have. Hard to defend the Koch brothers when they have invested so much towards the hope of a federal land transfer. Not sure why you feel you need to defend them, maybe you know them?

I'm also not for stripping the land of its resources. I'm ok with proper timber harvests to keep the forests healthy but zero mining. Way too much damage has already been done with mining and some places just need to stay healthy, wild and hardly touched by man.

 

[COlineman78]

Agreed, also the feds can afford to maintain it; no one advocating the sale is using cost as a reason to transfer it to states otherwise they would realize how unsustainable it is. Therefore the argument of not extracting fossil fuels is moot. While the inability to log due to law suits does affect the land and the budgets through increased fires it is also a moot point when it comes to the land transfer.

The issue is those advocating for the transfer of public lands, who are primary selfish individuals or companies that want a chance to buy public lands for personal use/gain and they know that's not going to happen while the feds control it, but know it's inevitable once it get's in state hands. For instance, here in CO there is a lot of checkerboard BLM and that will be the first thing to go because the state isn't going to want to sit on small pieces of 40 acre land the virtually no one uses. Well eventually that threshold will start getting bigger and bigger because there are 120 acre plots that no one uses, so why not sell them. Next thing you know the only land left will be the big national forests and parks and the state is going to charge a park fee to access them just like they already do for all of our state parks.

 

[1hoda]

Again, let's talk about what's causing the problem and the solutions to it.

I see these threads that say don't vote for so and so but no one ever talks about the root cause or more important, the solution. Agree with Airlocksniffers point about education.

What's your solution?

 

[COlineman78]

The solution is to educate the public and politicians about how this benefits no one other than the selfish people advocating for it like the Bundy's. Support Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and other groups working to defend our access to public land.

 

[gelton]

Agreed, also the feds can afford to maintain it; no one advocating the sale is using cost as a reason to transfer it to states otherwise they would realize how unsustainable it is. Therefore the argument of not extracting fossil fuels is moot. While the inability to log due to law suits does affect the land and the budgets through increased fires it is also a moot point when it comes to the land transfer.

The issue is those advocating for the transfer of public lands, who are primary selfish individuals or companies that want a chance to buy public lands for personal use/gain and they know that's not going to happen while the feds control it, but know it's inevitable once it get's in state hands. For instance, here in CO there is a lot of checkerboard BLM and that will be the first thing to go because the state isn't going to want to sit on small pieces of 40 acre land the virtually no one uses. Well eventually that threshold will start getting bigger and bigger because there are 120 acre plots that no one uses, so why not sell them. Next thing you know the only land left will be the big national forests and parks and the state is going to charge a park fee to access them just like they already do for all of our state parks.

I certainly am not advocating for the feds to transfer public land to the states but saying the feds can "afford" to maintain it and states cannot is a bit of a stretch. Our federal government is 19,000,000,000,000 in debt. If one were to count to 19 trillion and it took them one second to count each number - they would be counting for 602,471 years!! Its insurmountable especially considering that in 10 years 80% of our budget will be going directly to social programs.

I would venture to say that our states balance sheets look WAY better than that.

 

[COlineman78]

And public land management is just $13.4b. That's less than 0.4% of the federal budget. Asking the states with the most public land like CO and Alaska to come up with an extra $1b a year to maintain lands is unreasonable and unattainable. For instance the Colorado state budget is $5.6b, the state is 25% public land so as an estimate we'll say that it will cost $2b to maintain it. That's now 26% of the state budget. This is even worse for states like WY that the amount of land per capita is much larger.