Thoughts on Proposals to Transfer Federal Land to the States ?

[SDC]

Ask yourself where you'd like to hunt this fall: high fence ranch in Texas, or the Bob Marshall? The transfer of PUBLIC lands out of PUBLIC hands leads to TX. Retaining them in PUBLIC hands, keeps areas like the Bob open to hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc.

It's really about as simple as that.

 

[trekker9]

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.

And yet, some scream "FREEDOM" while they give us decisions like Citizens United.

 

[Archerm]

I have always been a proponent of Stewardship and not transfer without stewardship only rights. There is a big difference between the two. When money and greed are thrown into the mix all parties involved get their hands dirty. Politicians landowners big business right on down the line. I can see land locked federal lands or lands with minimal access being sold off to nearby landowners who wont grant access to these lands. Tax payers should always have access to all public lands no matter who they are.

 

[SDC]

I've not yet heard a single proponent of these proposed transfers articulate a clear, coherent rationale for WHY this should happen and what benefits of these proposed transfers would befall wildlife, fisheries, hunters, anglers, and the public.

 

[Mike21]

I've not yet heard a single proponent of these proposed transfers articulate a clear, coherent rationale for WHY this should happen and what benefits of these proposed transfers would befall wildlife, fisheries, hunters, anglers, and the public.

Are you the one who decides what "clear, coherent rationale "is? Judging your stalwart position I doubt anybody could.....

That being said, sell off of public land is a non starter for back country hunters. But who manages it has a lot of merit to the state managed argument. As mentioned before, Alaska sets aside millions of acres in state parks, montana manages wildlife better than the Feds ie wolves in the BOB. We can't hunt most national parks and monuments ( which only take a exec order by the pres and are never returned), etc. This issue really goes back to what all libtards want: make capitalism the enemy. Never mind college educations, food, roofs or all of the liberals retirement invested in the stock market.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Comparing state to federal management for wildlife is comparing apples to oranges. The primary role the feds had in wolf management was to oversee the recovery until it could be returned to the states. They didn't intend nor want to manage them as a game animal, and once they were removed from the ESA there was no reason to. Given all the hubaloo about how great Montana is at managing vs. the feds, the number of wolves hasn't really fluctuated that much since delisting.

Federal management of migratory waterfowl has been rather successful, no?

There are a lot of undesirable details that quickly surface when one starts looking at how lands are administered under state trusts. Sportsmen rarely get even close to the same benefits that they do to federal lands.

Also, to answer your earlier question about why Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are such desireable areas to hunt, it comes down to access to widlife and undeveloped open spaces. Pure and simple. You lose access you lose hunters.

My opposition to federal land transfers has nothing to do with capitalism. Nothing at all.

 

[SDC]

Are you the one who decides what "clear, coherent rationale "is? Judging your stalwart position I doubt anybody could.....

That being said, sell off of public land is a non starter for back country hunters. But who manages it has a lot of merit to the state managed argument. As mentioned before, Alaska sets aside millions of acres in state parks, montana manages wildlife better than the Feds ie wolves in the BOB. We can't hunt most national parks and monuments ( which only take a exec order by the pres and are never returned), etc. This issue really goes back to what all libtards want: make capitalism the enemy. Never mind college educations, food, roofs or all of the liberals retirement invested in the stock market.

I think most people can decide for themselves what clear and coherent rationale is without someone else interpreting that for them.

You haven't a clue about my positions on anything except BHA and the transfer of public lands. On BHA, well, we've been down that road. On the transfer of public lands, I'll restate that I've yet to hear any clear, coherent rationale for those proposals or the benefits to the various areas that I brought up.

If you're insinuating that I'm a "libtard", you're so far off base it's laughable. That you'd bring that red herring up and not discuss anything in specific isn't saying a Hell of a lot for your position.

As for management of areas, there is a question of resources; i.e., funding and staffing. There have been reports that many states, were they to be "transferred" public lands would simply not have the funding or manpower to adequately manage those areas at all and faced with those decisions would quickly move toward outright sales of those once-federally held public lands. That's just simple economics and part and parcel of this "transfer" push (remember, it started off with and still has aspects of sales of public lands for debt repayment, etc.).

As for not being able to hunt most national parks and monuments, that's correct. Of course, a very large number of parks and monuments are in urban areas that wouldn't be generally open to hunting anyway (The National Mall, Arlington, Liberty Bell, etc.). Yes, there are certainly national monuments and parks that would be great hunting areas, but that ship is largely sailing when the facts about new designations (Browns Canyon, etc.) are brought up and that those areas remain under the management of the original agency (Forest Service, BLM), with hunting remaining intact.

So, if you believe you have a clear, coherent rationale for the transfer of public lands that ends with benefits to wildlife, fisheries, hunters, anglers, and the public, please make it. I'd be quite interested in hearing/reading it, and debating such proposals on their merits.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Mike,

If you want public lands managed like a business, then by all means advocate for state management.

Federal management falls more under the Teddy Roosevelt conservation model.

To me, and many others, this is vastly superior from the perspective of a public land hunter.

It is also non-partisan as many republicans also oppose transfer, and land sales, including Montana Representative Ryan Zinke.

http://helenair.com/news/politics/z...cle_4065c0a2-44cb-5086-b3f4-74519f3ccb2e.html

 

[Shrek]

Just to be clear about my position on this.. I am not in favor of the transfer of lands to the states for the purely selfish reason that I want to go and recreate on them. I will point out that there is an argument to be made that the constitution was not adhered to when the Western states where admitted to the union but I don't know what to do about it and I'd prefer it all stay public. I am pointing out that the push to lock up federal lands , force rewilding , and end traditional uses of the lands by Washington bureaucrats controlled by radical environmentalists is going to get some real push back and those that want to exploit that push back to transfer the lands from public to private are getting a real opportunity to do so. From wolves to grizzly bears to spotted owls to wilderness designation to monument designation and on and on the noose gets tighter and tighter around any local control and opportunity to develop economically. States are responding to the concerns of thier citizens and especially big money constituents. Big money constituents have powerful friends in the state and federal government and wall street. When the mill closes , the mine closes , the oil jobs dry up , and bubba can't drive down the roads to hunt and fish the local desire to rid themselves of far off shackles will lead to irreversible actions. Big money will get its way with the concent of the people. Although transfer would be disastrous for public access to the land many if not most locals would gladly trade that public land for jobs and an economic future for their kids. That may be a bad bargain and a false promise in tthe long run but right now frustration is running high. For a long time the scales tipped too far towards exploitation and the backlash has led to point now that the pendulum has politically swung too far the other way and there is a swing back that might just end the swings and we loose everything we love.

 

[Jason Snyder]

The "rewilding" is a much larger perception than it ever has been a reality.

 

[Shrek]

I find that the rewilding agenda is much more reality than is perceived and that for most of its working life it has flown under the radar. It's proponents have been mostly weak politically but have steadily gained influence in the interior department and biology departments in most universities and that is now coming to fruition in the next generation of of game and forest managers. Babbitt and the Clintons hired a bunch of them way back in the 90's and those people are now moving into senior positions. They set the centerpiece of the plan into motion with the planning and promotion of the reintroduction of large predators and increasing their numbers until there is no surplus game to be harvested or managed by man. The reintroductions and promotion of wolves , lions , and grizzlies have allowed the federalization of and centralization in Washington of much of the game and forest use control that was traditionally done locally. They've had great success in designating vast streches of the west wilderness or off limits to mechanized access and crippled exploitation or resources like timber harvesting , mining , and oil drilling. This is great in the short run for those of us who want vast open wilderness to hunt on but we're not in the long term plan. Eventually people will be completely barred from most of the land and all exploitive uses including hunting and fishing will be banned. This is the goal that those in charge of environmental groups work for every day with radical fever. As exploitive uses of the federal lands are extinguished the industries that allowed people to live in the rural communities die and the people who live there are forced to move or cling to a very tenuous way of life and their children move to bigger cities for a future and eventually the rural community disappears. Open your eyes and look and you will see the agenda advancing at an ever growing pace all around you.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I have opened my eyes, and I'll agree to disagree with you. If anything I see more collaborative use now than I did 20 years ago.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Ask yourself where you'd like to hunt this fall: high fence ranch in Texas, or the Bob Marshall? The transfer of PUBLIC lands out of PUBLIC hands leads to TX. Retaining them in PUBLIC hands, keeps areas like the Bob open to hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, etc.

It's really about as simple as that.

That is so way off course texas has always been mainly private since its independence, Infact Texas lands where deed way before it was a state in the Union. Sorry to disappoint you but no massive federal land grabs in Texas... but Texas still has close to 3 million acres of federal public land. Funny thing is the state lands are more accessible then the COE controlled federal lands. On top of that accessing Fed NF Lands in Texas is a joke.



Most people can't phartom texas private land holding size. The HF reference is a joke also especially in the context of this thread. On top of that Texas Animals don't migrate so in many cases Fence height is irrelevant because land holdings exceed home area by 20 fold.

The fact you referenced That State ownership would lead to HF is comical.

All natural resource leases can lead to better access for hunters. Buddies CO ranch has over 70 miles of improved roads, all put in and maintained by the leasing company.

You obviously never had to deal with the BLM. Worst land management in the US.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Comparing state to federal management for wildlife is comparing apples to oranges. The primary role the feds had in wolf management was to oversee the recovery until it could be returned to the states. They didn't intend nor want to manage them as a game animal, and once they were removed from the ESA there was no reason to. Given all the hubaloo about how great Montana is at managing vs. the feds, the number of wolves hasn't really fluctuated that much since delisting.

Federal management of migratory waterfowl has been rather successful, no?

There are a lot of undesirable details that quickly surface when one starts looking at how lands are administered under state trusts. Sportsmen rarely get even close to the same benefits that they do to federal lands.

Also, to answer your earlier question about why Idaho, Montana and Wyoming are such desireable areas to hunt, it comes down to access to widlife and undeveloped open spaces. Pure and simple. You lose access you lose hunters.

My opposition to federal land transfers has nothing to do with capitalism. Nothing at all.

State level and private sector has just as much success to the Duck population then the Feds do. Outlawing market gunning and setting seasons was the single greatest thing for water fowl, second is private protections in the Praire pot hole regions. States still set their seasons.

If you want a royal cluster on the federal management side look at Red Snapper in the Gulf. Half the gulf shore line gave a big middle fingers to the Feds via state ran waters. The Feds want a two day season, yet state waters are still producing extremely health populations of fish.

 

[cuerro viejo]

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.

They don't want to buy it.. Corp tax structure lends better to lease.

 

[Shrek]

They don't want to buy it.. Corp tax structure lends better to lease.

This is very true and why if reasonable access is allowed via leases to extractive uses then there is no weight behind the push to privatize public land. Oil drilling comes and goes and with reasonable care mining doesn't end the world. And as for the states immediately selling all the land all I know is that the most game I saw the last two years was on Montana state school trust lands.....you know...the type of land that a state like Montana would sell off in no time. Some how Montana hasn't sold all of that land off since admission to the Union. More I think about it the less I fear the loss of public access to the land if it were to be transferred to the states.

 

[SDC]

That is so way off course texas has always been mainly private since its independence, Infact Texas lands where deed way before it was a state in the Union. Sorry to disappoint you but no massive federal land grabs in Texas... but Texas still has close to 3 million acres of federal public land. Funny thing is the state lands are more accessible then the COE controlled federal lands. On top of that accessing Fed NF Lands in Texas is a joke.



Most people can't phartom texas private land holding size. The HF reference is a joke also especially in the context of this thread. On top of that Texas Animals don't migrate so in many cases Fence height is irrelevant because land holdings exceed home area by 20 fold.

The fact you referenced That State ownership would lead to HF is comical.

All natural resource leases can lead to better access for hunters. Buddies CO ranch has over 70 miles of improved roads, all put in and maintained by the leasing company.

You obviously never had to deal with the BLM. Worst land management in the US.

I can fathom lease holding sizes in TX rather well, thank you. I can also fathom the expense of buying into one of those leases on an annual basis vs open public access to NF, BLM, and other publicly held lands. That is a huge difference, and regardless of the "TX animals don't migrate" line, the HF still exists and "free range" is a joke in TX. Box blinds, feeders, fences, and high fees for access don't compare to open public access without gates, fences, or fees. There are a lot of species that don't migrate that are huntable on public lands (whitetails in the East, for example) or don't migrate enough to cross off of public lands in the West (chukars, whitetails in some places, grouse and quail, etc.).

I didn't reference that state ownership would lead to high fences. What I said was that massive transfers of federally held public lands to the states would, based upon studies and comments made by state management agencies, lead to lands being sold into private hands because the states have neither the resources or the manpower to manage them. The eventual end of the sale of public lands is TX-style HF operations. We're already seeing some of that in areas of MT where massive private estates are being established (by Texans and Californians, mainly) on blue-ribbon trout streams and areas of prime elk habitat and migration corridors. The private estates are then closed to public access and try as hard as they can to block any public access to public lands beyond or around them.

I completely disagree that all natural resource leases lead to better access and opportunities for sportsmen. Check out the "leases" in WV for coal mining, where the trout streams are buried under what used to be a mountain top and habitat for deer, grouse, bear, and basically everything else is leveled to get at the coal underneath. Check the NG leases in PA that severely damage trout streams and fragment habitat. "Access" is had, yes, but to what then is left?

Leases can be, and should be, had on public lands for appropriate extraction. No disagreement on that whatsoever. Oddly, I don't hear that being brought up as a means of offsetting whatever the excuse du jour is in Congress for the transfer of public lands.

 

[Jason Snyder]

I find that the rewilding agenda is much more reality than is perceived and that for most of its working life it has flown under the radar. It's proponents have been mostly weak politically but have steadily gained influence in the interior department and biology departments in most universities and that is now coming to fruition in the next generation of of game and forest managers. Babbitt and the Clintons hired a bunch of them way back in the 90's and those people are now moving into senior positions. They set the centerpiece of the plan into motion with the planning and promotion of the reintroduction of large predators and increasing their numbers until there is no surplus game to be harvested or managed by man. The reintroductions and promotion of wolves , lions , and grizzlies have allowed the federalization of and centralization in Washington of much of the game and forest use control that was traditionally done locally. They've had great success in designating vast streches of the west wilderness or off limits to mechanized access and crippled exploitation or resources like timber harvesting , mining , and oil drilling. This is great in the short run for those of us who want vast open wilderness to hunt on but we're not in the long term plan. Eventually people will be completely barred from most of the land and all exploitive uses including hunting and fishing will be banned. This is the goal that those in charge of environmental groups work for every day with radical fever. As exploitive uses of the federal lands are extinguished the industries that allowed people to live in the rural communities die and the people who live there are forced to move or cling to a very tenuous way of life and their children move to bigger cities for a future and eventually the rural community disappears. Open your eyes and look and you will see the agenda advancing at an ever growing pace all around you.

http://blogs.idahostatesman.com/farm-bill-forestry-provisions-get-wide-support/

http://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3390

http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/jonah-field-and-pinedale-anticline-natural-gas-success-story

http://www.denverpost.com/environme...lateau-drilling-battle-leads-legal-compromise

http://archive.coloradoan.com/artic...ncludes-programs-boost-Colorado-forest-health

http://www.bozemandailychronicle.co...cle_f260ce4a-47e9-11e3-bb2f-001a4bcf887a.html

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/bulltrout/Planning.html

https://www.hcn.org/issues/46.19/rocky-mountain-sawmills-rebound

Gray wolves have been delisted. A concerted effort has been ongoing to keep sage grouse from being listed on the ESA.

Yes, resource extraction is different than it was in the 60s and 70s, and thank heavens it is. I agree that the pendulum can swing too far in either direction, but to say that a rewilding effort is in place and is happening is nonsense. I have lived and worked in the western states all of my life. Towns and economies have dwindled. Some for good reason, others for not so good. Mistakes have been made (i.e. spotted owl protections) and very good things have been done (i.e. watershed recoveries) both on the small and the large scale.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I can fathom lease holding sizes in TX rather well, thank you. I can also fathom the expense of buying into one of those leases on an annual basis vs open public access to NF, BLM, and other publicly held lands. That is a huge difference, and regardless of the "TX animals don't migrate" line, the HF still exists and "free range" is a joke in TX. Box blinds, feeders, fences, and high fees for access don't compare to open public access without gates, fences, or fees. There are a lot of species that don't migrate that are huntable on public lands (whitetails in the East, for example) or don't migrate enough to cross off of public lands in the West (chukars, whitetails in some places, grouse and quail, etc.).

I didn't reference that state ownership would lead to high fences. What I said was that massive transfers of federally held public lands to the states would, based upon studies and comments made by state management agencies, lead to lands being sold into private hands because the states have neither the resources or the manpower to manage them. The eventual end of the sale of public lands is TX-style HF operations. We're already seeing some of that in areas of MT where massive private estates are being established (by Texans and Californians, mainly) on blue-ribbon trout streams and areas of prime elk habitat and migration corridors. The private estates are then closed to public access and try as hard as they can to block any public access to public lands beyond or around them.

I completely disagree that all natural resource leases lead to better access and opportunities for sportsmen. Check out the "leases" in WV for coal mining, where the trout streams are buried under what used to be a mountain top and habitat for deer, grouse, bear, and basically everything else is leveled to get at the coal underneath. Check the NG leases in PA that severely damage trout streams and fragment habitat. "Access" is had, yes, but to what then is left?

Leases can be, and should be, had on public lands for appropriate extraction. No disagreement on that whatsoever. Oddly, I don't hear that being brought up as a means of offsetting whatever the excuse du jour is in Congress for the transfer of public lands.

yet those reclaimed coal mines have been instrumental in the success of re-introduced elk.

You won't find feeders on my 42k acre ranch. My Neibghors are 100k and 72k... I also quail hunt on a ranch the size of Rhode Island( 825k). Your right free range is a joke in Texas...lol...a state that Montana would fit almost 2 times. Yet the average home range for a WT in Texas is less then 1500 acres and shrinks with age.

Sounds like you just cant stand private property rights or any private land ownership. Those big private estates your seeing most likely where already private land...

States should manage the public land in their states, but public land should remain public land.

 

[Matt Cashell]

States should manage the public land in their states, but public land should remain public land.

As I have stated, I prefer the Federal Management model for large areas of public land.

With that said, even if one prefers the state model, those responsible for land management in the states have said they would not be able to afford to manage the transferred federal lands. The only options left would be sale or widespread extraction development and the big money behind the extraction industry would be happy to oblige.

That is the crux of the issue: In order for public lands to remain public, maintaining the federal model is the best option.

I support private property rights, I don't support OUR public lands turning into someone's private lands.