State Land and recreating

IdahoBeav

WKR
Joined
Jan 29, 2017
Messages
995
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.
 

fmyth

WKR
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
1,808
Location
Arizona
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

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
15,952
Location
SE Idaho
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.
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
514
Location
Idaho
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:
 
OP
W

wapitibob

WKR
Joined
Feb 24, 2012
Messages
6,149
Location
Bend Oregon
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
2,017
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.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2015
Messages
2,935
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

WKR
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
5,737
Location
Durango CO
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.

Untitled.png
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
2,017
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

FNG
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
52
Location
Wyoming
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.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2013
Messages
630
Location
Idaho
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.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
2,017
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.
 
Top