State Land and recreating

[wapitibob]

This is worth the watch for those who haven't kept up with the push to transfer Federal land to the individual states Land Boards.

 

[IdahoBeav]

State land is not public land? I wonder how a nonres buddy of mine and I killed deer last November on land that belongs to the state of Idaho.

 

[Stickmark]

State land can be restrictive. In Arizona, you are not allowed to discharge firearms outside of hunting.

 

[Branny21]

Very Interesting! Thabks for posting

 

[fmyth]

State land can be restrictive. In Arizona, you are not allowed to discharge firearms outside of hunting.

And you need to purchase a permit for all other forms of recreation. Hunting license includes access but only while hunting. Some parcels near me are no longer open for any type of recreating and have been fenced gated and posted.

 

[robby denning]

good on Randy getting this out there. Had my butt handed to me a few times trying to access state land in Colorado. Thought it was "public" only to find out that a particular lessor can restrict access. Next state property over might be fine to access. It as like this piece of BLM is open, this piece is not, even if both pieces touched a road.

 

[idelkslayer]

State land is not public land? I wonder how a nonres buddy of mine and I killed deer last November on land that belongs to the state of Idaho.

This is how:

F&G Commission approves agreement to continue recreation access on state endowment lands

Idaho Fish and Game Commission on Aug. 23 approved a memorandum of agreement with the Idaho Department of Lands to continue public access for hunting, fish, trapping and other recreation on about 2.3 million acres of state endowment lands.

idfg.idaho.gov

 

[wapitibob]

This is how:

F&G Commission approves agreement to continue recreation access on state endowment lands

Idaho Fish and Game Commission on Aug. 23 approved a memorandum of agreement with the Idaho Department of Lands to continue public access for hunting, fish, trapping and other recreation on about 2.3 million acres of state endowment lands.

idfg.idaho.gov

NM Game and Fish pays 1 million/year

 

[realunlucky]

NM Game and Fish pays 1 million/year

And it's still restricted with rules limiting what you can do while hunting like no staying over night

Sent from my SM-S926U using Tapatalk

 

[Sccritterkiller]

good on Randy getting this out there. Had my butt handed to me a few times trying to access state land in Colorado. Thought it was "public" only to find out that a particular lessor can restrict access. Next state property over might be fine to access. It as like this piece of BLM is open, this piece is not, even if both pieces touched a road.

IIRC in CO CWP has to lease the land(s) from the state land board in order for it to be open to hunting.

One of the many reasons I have never applied in CO.

 

[robby denning]

IIRC in CO CWP has to lease the land(s) from the state land board in order for it to be open to hunting.

One of the many reasons I have never applied in CO.

Thanks for clarifying. I never knew why.

 

[Jason Snyder]

It’s not a huge stretch to envision the day when private leases will out compete state F&G access agreements.

 

[Customweld]

It’s not a huge stretch to envision the day when private leases will out compete state F&G access agreements.

Technically, I'm not sure how Idaho is getting around that now.

 

[LongWayAround]

State land is not public land? I wonder how a nonres buddy of mine and I killed deer last November on land that belongs to the state of Idaho.

In Colorado, "state trust lands" are for the purpose of generating revenue for the school system. Something like 10-15% is publicly accessible, the rest is leased privately.

 

[Poser]

There are several plots of state land around me that state "Colorado State Trust Land -no public access" despite there being road access running through the land.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

Thanks for clarifying. I never knew why.

Most western states have some form of use agreement between State F&G and State Land Boards.
Most state land boards are required by state statue to manage the states lands and produce funding for whatever the law states, schools, ect
Some states manage their budget/reasources better than others so there isn't a need for additional funding to close a deficit, aka higher bids.

 

[mulecreek]

I suspect if FS and/or BLM land ever got transferred to State hands, it would either be classified differently than current State Trust Lands or existing State Trust Land regs would change. I personally find the argument that "if a Fed land transfer were to happen, that would mean overnight camping in Wyoming would end" to be nonsense and one of the dumbest arguments against a transfer.

 

[flyfisher117]

I suspect if FS and/or BLM land ever got transferred to State hands, it would either be classified differently than current State Trust Lands or existing State Trust Land regs would change. I personally find the argument that "if a Fed land transfer were to happen, that would mean overnight camping in Wyoming would end" to be nonsense and one of the dumbest arguments against a transfer.

I have yet to see one person arguing it would happen over night. It's an argument of when and how will it negatively impact us. The public land enthusiasts.

 

[Sccritterkiller]

I suspect if FS and/or BLM land ever got transferred to State hands, it would either be classified differently than current State Trust Lands or existing State Trust Land regs would change. I personally find the argument that "if a Fed land transfer were to happen, that would mean overnight camping in Wyoming would end" to be nonsense and one of the dumbest arguments against a transfer.

What's more likely to happen if the land is transferred to the states is it would be sold off to satisfy the legislative requirements to balance the state budget or provide fund for land board initiatives...
States can't afford to keep that much land public. Once they have to pay for the 1st wildfire season it would create a deficit in the state budget and by law state assets would be liquidated to balance the budget.

 

[mulecreek]

I am not advocating for a transfer. I am saying the argument that should a transfer happen it would bring an end to camping in Wyoming because you cannot currently camp on Wyo State land is a stupid argument. It is so ridiculously stupid that it devalues the entire argument against a transfer.

How to pay for managment. Legality of a transfer. Sale of land to private individuals. Those are solid arguments against a transfer.

No more camping in Wyoming. That just sounds stupid.