Thoughts on Proposals to Transfer Federal Land to the States ?

[trekker9]

I don't see how sportsmen gain if the land is "given" to the states.


http://www.sltrib.com/home/2451901-155/bishop-stewart-launch-action-group-for

 

[Jason Snyder]

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk/showthread.php?t=263505

good info here

 

[wapitibob]

Amazing that any adult who hunts or camps would think this is a good idea.

 

[ttrains]

I think it's a horrible idea. I worry that states will sell huge tracts to oil and gas, Wyoming has already sold off over 15% of the land they were granted at statehood. If they're not going to sell it, I don't understand what the motivation is to take over public land and spend millions managing these lands?

 

[AK Troutbum]

I think it's a horrible idea. I worry that states will sell huge tracts to oil and gas, Wyoming has already sold off over 15% of the land they were granted at statehood. If they're not going to sell it, I don't understand what the motivation is to take over public land and spend millions managing these lands?

Oh, it will absolutely be for sale. If this does go through (God I hope not), it may be a good idea to invest in a company that makes "No Trespassing" signs, because I'm sure there sales will also go through the roof.

 

[Mike21]

This is a bad idea and has no chance of happening, zero. you think even if this passed Osama would sign the bill?

I do not support the selling of fed land unless as part of the sell wilderness back country was maintained in perpituity. However I think every one agrees that the states do a much bett job at managing wildlife than the Feds. So why do most support state control of wildlife but believe they are un capable of managing land? Wolves for example have been a nightmare for wildlife/game management at the state level, Grizzlies are next in the lower 48. Is the staus quo the only way to manage land and wildlife?

 

[Jason Snyder]

Did you read the information in the link that I posted? Many state land trusts have much more restrictive rules on land use than do the feds. I'm not saying the feds are great at what they do. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't. However, if better management is the end goal here, I fail to see how individual states are any more likely to accomplish this. The same hacks pushing the land transfer are the same hacks that could help the federal agencies manage more efficiently, yet they continually choose not to.

 

[Mike21]

Alaska does a pretty good job of managing land for economic and back country purposes. Chugach state park is one example. And Alaska residents got checks for almost $2000 this year based on resource development. So maybe what we need is a new model. Public land set aside for back country in perpetuity and responsible resource development to pay for food and college educations, roofs over head etc.

The fact of the matter is fed gov land management had choked of the vital local economies of the rural west. Activism through professionalism is the norm at these agencies. Enviro activist use their position as bureaucrats to block all forms of development, even responsible forms like selective logging. Now we have reactionary legislation to try to bring a balance to managing public land.

 

[wapitibob]

This is a bad idea and has no chance of happening, zero. you think even if this passed Osama would sign the bill?

However I think every one agrees that the states do a much better job at managing wildlife than the Feds.

I'm not worried about managing wildlife, I'm worried about access.
You can't even scout your hunt on state land in NM, let alone hunt it without the game dept buying the rights to do so. State land is also under full control of the lesee; ie it essentially becomes private property.
Can't camp on state land in WY.
Can't hunt on state land in CO.
Two day camping limit on Montana state land.

 

[trekker9]

]This is a bad idea and has no chance of happening, zero[/B]. you think even if this passed Osama would sign the bill?

I do not support the selling of fed land unless as part of the sell wilderness back country was maintained in perpituity. However I think every one agrees that the states do a much bett job at managing wildlife than the Feds. So why do most support state control of wildlife but believe they are un capable of managing land? Wolves for example have been a nightmare for wildlife/game management at the state level, Grizzlies are next in the lower 48. Is the staus quo the only way to manage land and wildlife?

if We have a Republican Congress and a Republican President in 2016, I think there is a good chance they would ram this thru.

 

[cuerro viejo]

It's a win loose either way.

Personally not a fan of the BLM, and states already set hunting acces on Federal lands via tags.

It will all come down to how Well the states manage it and how they set up lease agreements.

 

[Ray]

Alaska does a pretty good job of managing land for economic and back country purposes. Chugach state park is one example. And Alaska residents got checks for almost $2000 this year based on resource development.

Not accurate. Our PFD check is the result of stock market portfolio management. There are funds coming in from the Trans Alaska Pipeline and other oil royalties which is split between government coffers and the PFD, but the PFD check we get is souly due to how stocks perform.

In the first thread on this subject back in early April I posted a link to the text of the floor speech given by the author of this ammendment. Her goal is to get more federal land into the hands of states so they can do something with it with less red tape. Wind farms, fracking, timber sales, etc. The author is from AK and I can see her point up here on the development of NPR-A to get more north slope oil into the TAPS. But how does a state that is broke buy billions of dollars worth of federal land? What does any state have to trade that has any value to the feds. I don't see it.

 

[JWP58]

The fact of the matter is fed gov land management had choked of the vital local economies of the rural west. Activism through professionalism is the norm at these agencies. Enviro activist use their position as bureaucrats to block all forms of development, even responsible forms like selective logging. Now we have reactionary legislation to try to bring a balance to managing public land.

No what we have is crony politicians seeing another avenue to make a buck, for themselves. I would bet my paycheck that these turds at both the state and federal level have buyers/leasers/contracts waiting for this transfer to take place. And Im sure all involved will be rewarded financially....greatly (both publicly and privately)

I know the new cool trend is to scream from the mountain tops about how bad the federal government is, and lets not forget Mr. Bundy's favorite catch phrases....Constitution! Freedom! Sovereign!

But the truth is if BLM/N.F. lands are transferred to the states they will be sold off for profit and locked up. So ya, I'd rather them stay under federal management.

 

[Shrek]

This is just the start of the backlash against the federal lockup of western lands. Every time they close a road for an "endangered " animal or designate another wilderness they are alienating ten people for every one that cheers. When states can't develope oil , gas , wind , timber , or solar they are going to fight. I the end the rewilding agenda of the enviromentalist will probably lead to the end of public land in the west. Money talks and BS walks. If they continue to try and lock up land instead of allowing resource developement cheap on public lands then big money will force it to be sold off so they can develop it as private property. Right now the environmentalist are winning all the battles but smart money says they loose the war and everything will be lost. Bankers in NYC like cheap gas and oil leases just as much as the oil companies they own. So the next time some of you celebrate a new wilderness or road closure that will keep the local atv's crowd out just know you are slowly cutting your own throat.

 

[dotman]

This is just the start of the backlash against the federal lockup of western lands. Every time they close a road for an "endangered " animal or designate another wilderness they are alienating ten people for every one that cheers. When states can't develope oil , gas , wind , timber , or solar they are going to fight. I the end the rewilding agenda of the enviromentalist will probably lead to the end of public land in the west. Money talks and BS walks. If they continue to try and lock up land instead of allowing resource developement cheap on public lands then big money will force it to be sold off so they can develop it as private property. Right now the environmentalist are winning all the battles but smart money says they loose the war and everything will be lost. Bankers in NYC like cheap gas and oil leases just as much as the oil companies they own. So the next time some of you celebrate a new wilderness or road closure that will keep the local atv's crowd out just know you are slowly cutting your own throat.

I don't agree

 

[Mike21]

This is just the start of the backlash against the federal lockup of western lands. Every time they close a road for an "endangered " animal or designate another wilderness they are alienating ten people for every one that cheers. When states can't develope oil , gas , wind , timber , or solar they are going to fight. I the end the rewilding agenda of the enviromentalist will probably lead to the end of public land in the west. Money talks and BS walks. If they continue to try and lock up land instead of allowing resource developement cheap on public lands then big money will force it to be sold off so they can develop it as private property. Right now the environmentalist are winning all the battles but smart money says they loose the war and everything will be lost. Bankers in NYC like cheap gas and oil leases just as much as the oil companies they own. So the next time some of you celebrate a new wilderness or road closure that will keep the local atv's crowd out just know you are slowly cutting your own throat.

I do agree

 

[Mike21]

Not accurate. Our PFD check is the result of stock market portfolio management. There are funds coming in from the Trans Alaska Pipeline and other oil royalties which is split between government coffers and the PFD, but the PFD check we get is souly due to how stocks perform.

100% accurate , minerals are resource development....(see below). Dividends in the stock market are payments on capital made off of minerals. And you live in AK?

"The Alaska Department of Revenue, Permanent Fund Dividend Division is responsible for determining applicant eligibility for the distribution of an annual dividend that is paid to Alaska residents from investment earnings of mineral royalties." http://pfd.alaska.gov/DivisionInfo/AboutUs

 

[Matt Cashell]

I the end the rewilding agenda of the enviromentalist will probably lead to the end of public land in the west. Money talks and BS walks. If they continue to try and lock up land instead of allowing resource developement cheap on public lands then big money will force it to be sold off so they can develop it as private property.

Sorry Shrek,

This is pure misinformation. It doesn't make sense any way you read it. Preservation will lead to privatization? "Transfer" is the first step towards sale, not multiple use. Bipartison compromise on multiple use has seen great success in the Federal System, as evidenced by the recent success of the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. The RMFHA increased both designated wilderness AND timber sale. Meanwhile, last month the Montana DNRC approved the outright SALE of 640 acres of state land right here in the Bitterroot. See ya never, former public land...

The idea that the timber industry is totally behind land transfer is also false, at least in Montana it is the opposite:

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_70a429a9-0de2-564a-b488-3d1704b923c9.html

The real winners on land transfer are big money extraction companies, and public land hunters will be some of the biggest losers.

 

[Shrek]

Bitterroot Bulls , I agree that the big money extraction companies are the ones that are and will be pushing the transfer so they can buy it if they can't get at it by leasing it. Big Money investors and big money that just wants to own a big piece of real estate wil be joining push. Wall Street pretty much owns both sides of the political isle so if Wall Street really gets behind transfer then it becomes very likely it wil happen. Wall Street would very much like to not own all the land but they want to make the extraction dollars more. They prefer cheap low investment leases but that avenue is being closed off increasingly.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Shrek,

You are actually describing the Big Money Extraction Industry pretty well. They are big bullies saying, "Give me your lunch money or I'll beat you up and take your lunch money and your jacket too..."

The solution isn't to relinquish to the bully's demands, though. The solution is to punch the bully in the mouth and tell him to keep his grubby paws off your lunch money.