Thoughts on Proposals to Transfer Federal Land to the States ?

[cuerro viejo]

I've seen the good/bad of mineral extraction, especially in Pennsylvania. Early 1900's PA led the nation in coal production and I drive past monster open strips and waste coal piles on my way to work every morning. Some of the most beautiful streams you've ever seen are polluted from mine drainage.

More recently energy companies have come for the Marcellus Shale gas reserves. They improve rural roads and create new jobs, which is good. They also pump a ton of money into our state capital to stop any taxes or environmental regulation. So yeah it's like you say Tex, "it's all in how those leases are written". When you have a bunch of politicians writing the "lease" with companies that are giving those same politicians and money you can bet the public won't be on the right side of those leases.

They cant hide from environmental regs down here. My currently property taxes(we don't have income taxes) in town actually went down because of influx of city and county revenue increases.

But again it's about how they are written and who manages it. Maybe I'm just an isolated incident, or my local goverment is more in tune with its citizens. No idea. I seen the good first hand, not much bad.

 

[Mike21]

Just an observation but I notice on posts involving this type of topic it's the same handful of posters that gang up on anyone with a different view than theirs. This does two things: 1. stifles open debate 2. Makes any poster not willing to be shouted down, defend themselves with every attack.

If I was not so willing to engage the predictable narratives that are regurgitated, I would stay out of the conversation.

Open mindedness as long as you agree with us, right?

 

[Jason Snyder]

Just an observation but I notice on posts involving this type of topic it's the same handful of posters that gang up on anyone with a different view than theirs. This does two things: 1. stifles open debate 2. Makes any poster not willing to be shouted down, defend themselves with every attack.

If I was not so willing to engage the predictable narratives that are regurgitated, I would stay out of the conversation.

Open mindedness as long as you agree with us, right?

That sword cuts both ways Mike.

Can you refute the fact that state trust lands are operated under the mandate (usually constitutional) to maximize revenues from said land? They aren't managed for multiple use where we all have say in land use policy. Sometimes they aren't even available to the public for recreational use. In others, the recreational use is greatly limited relative to federal land. How is this a good thing for hunters and anglers?

 

[Matt Cashell]

Just an observation but I notice on posts involving this type of topic it's the same handful of posters that gang up on anyone with a different view than theirs. This does two things: 1. stifles open debate 2. Makes any poster not willing to be shouted down, defend themselves with every attack.

This seems like an attempt to stifle debate, Mike. You may want to consider that your opinion is simply not shared by many hunters, and they aren't personally attacking you.

The capitalistic bogey man is coming to a wilderness near you to rape and pillage.

This is not a fair assessment of what I said. I said the Big Money Extraction Industry is coming for our public lands. I would rather see public lands managed for conservation and not for profit. If you want to label me an anti-capitalist or a red commie, that is up to you. I prefer to see myself as following in the footsteps of Teddy Roosevelt.

alaska is managing their state land just fine. They can afford it and invest the profits with dividends. So there goes the " not being able to afford it" argument. The reason the fed spends so much managing the land is because they are enforcing excessive regulations.

60% of Alaska's surface area is federal land. Much of the money used to fund the dividend investments comes from North Slope federal lands. So maybe Federal management in that case isn't so bad for Alaskans?

 

[Wasatchbuck]

As I have stated, I prefer the Federal Management model for large areas of public land.
The only options left would be sale or widespread extraction development and the big money....
[/QUOTE

See my previous post about "making capitalism the enemy". The capitalistic bogey man is coming to a wilderness near you to rape and pillage. No one is proposing that, and no one is proposing selling the land. Sounds like a conspiracy theory. This left wing propaganda is in lockstep with the most radical environmentalists agenda.

alaska is managing their state land just fine. They can afford it and invest the profits with dividends. So there goes the " not being able to afford it" argument. The reason the fed spends so much managing the land is because they are enforcing excessive regulations.

For once I am ok with the feds enforcing excessive regulations, because if not them then who...the states? We are not exactly sprouting new public lands every day and those that currently exist I would like to stay pristine. All that is left is not getting any bigger and I would love for my children to be able to experience the same thing I have been blessed to do in designated wilderness other national forests. Do I think given the chance politicians and big money will have a massive impact on the land....yeah I do and not for the better. History has proven itself over and over again that left UN-regulated or with marginal oversight big money will do everything in thier power to get away with whatever they can. Their interest is not in the land, its in the bottom line and I dont care who you are that simply is not good for the health of the land.

 

[trekker9]

Just an observation but I notice on posts involving this type of topic it's the same handful of posters that gang up on anyone with a different view than theirs. This does two things: 1. stifles open debate 2. Makes any poster not willing to be shouted down, defend themselves with every attack.

If I was not so willing to engage the predictable narratives that are regurgitated, I would stay out of the conversation.

Open mindedness as long as you agree with us, right?

Aren't You the Guy who labeled us who don't agree with You as "libtards" ?

 

[trekker9]

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

Imaginary elk as a way to justify mountain top removal ? Is that You Rick Perry ?

 

[T43]

I have a few questions for the pro transfer guys. How long do you foresee a consumptive extraction lease lasting? How would a state required to maintain a balanced budget fund management of land with either no lease (not every acre of public land contains oil, timber or minerals) or any expired lease once the desired consumable materials have been extracted? How will this look in 50 years? 100?

How would a state be able to ensure the lease would be productive for the surrounding communities? I have heard the argument of a company coming in and putting people back to work. That sounds great but what I haven't heard is the very real possibility that some lands may be leased for the sole purpose of keeping people off them. A timber company leasing what was once a national forest that puts people to work and allows public access seems like a selling point proponents have used to promote transfer. What happens when the timber company gets outbid by a billionaire environmentalist who wants to create a giant preserve. A state bound by it's constitution to make maximum profit off it's land will be bound to the highest bidder. Joe getting his job back at the mill sounds great but what if Joe ends up unemployed living next to the Bill Gates wilderness preserve where no consumptive practices including hunting and fishing are allowed.

How would transferring land to states with no management infrastructure in place be better than overhauling the current federal management system already in place?

Last question, if the western state of your choice were given all public land within its borders tomorrow how long would it take before it could draw up leases, collect revenue, create regulations and pay for the maintenance of the current infrastructure? Where would you hunt until then?

 

[cuerro viejo]

I have a few questions for the pro transfer guys. How long do you foresee a consumptive extraction lease lasting? How would a state required to maintain a balanced budget fund management of land with either no lease (not every acre of public land contains oil, timber or minerals) or any expired lease once the desired consumable materials have been extracted? How will this look in 50 years? 100?

How would a state be able to ensure the lease would be productive for the surrounding communities? I have heard the argument of a company coming in and putting people back to work. That sounds great but what I haven't heard is the very real possibility that some lands may be leased for the sole purpose of keeping people off them. A timber company leasing what was once a national forest that puts people to work and allows public access seems like a selling point proponents have used to promote transfer. What happens when the timber company gets outbid by a billionaire environmentalist who wants to create a giant preserve. A state bound by it's constitution to make maximum profit off it's land will be bound to the highest bidder. Joe getting his job back at the mill sounds great but what if Joe ends up unemployed living next to the Bill Gates wilderness preserve where no consumptive practices including hunting and fishing are allowed.

How would transferring land to states with no management infrastructure in place be better than overhauling the current federal management system already in place?

Last question, if the western state of your choice were given all public land within its borders tomorrow how long would it take before it could draw up leases, collect revenue, create regulations and pay for the maintenance of the current infrastructure? Where would you hunt until then?

a year to two years tops on setting up the leases. Experation date indefinite if set up correctly.leases are just that, they don't have to before total control. Infact anyone that leases out total control is dumb or just doesn't care.

Your right no every place has minerals or surface leases but those that do could pay for the majority of of the places with in the state that does not. BLM brags about being self supporting.

I've given three easy examples.. BLM, King ranch and S. UTE. Two of the three are closed for the most part on public info, but enough information is available to get a pretty good idea of how much they are in the green after operational expenses.

From what I've seen on this thread it isn't if it could be self supporting it how much people distrust their current state elected leadership.

 

[dotman]

Those that aren't use to mineral leases don't understand mineral leases. Minerals aren't exactly viewed well by most folks because their only expose is via the doom and gloom of liberal media.

Remember the joke of a documentary Frac Nation?

The damage clauses and leases I've seen over the last 20 years are very eye opening. Oil and gas companies walk a very very fine line with them. They have way to much to loose.

Yeah until the corp goes bankrupt and doesn't have to pay for any clean ups. Take the Summitville mine for example, that org went bankrupt and the share holders started up another mine. Now we the taxpayers are forking out millions to clean that area up.

 

[SDC]

Just an observation but I notice on posts involving this type of topic it's the same handful of posters that gang up on anyone with a different view than theirs. This does two things: 1. stifles open debate 2. Makes any poster not willing to be shouted down, defend themselves with every attack.

If I was not so willing to engage the predictable narratives that are regurgitated, I would stay out of the conversation.

Open mindedness as long as you agree with us, right?

Since I've not "shouted you down", and I certainly haven't been here long enough to be a "usual suspect", and I'm not a "libtard" (hmmmm...), perhaps you'll continue to engage with me on the questions I've asked. Can you present the argument I've requested to support your position? I'd like to hear it.

 

[SDC]

I can hunt in Texas for 45 dollars(federal fee) and a state license. I have 2 million acres to hunt. And 3 dollars and lic on state land.

I didn't ask you how much it cost to hunt public land in TX. I asked you how much a lease to hunt those private ranches in TX runs. In fact, I've asked that question twice before and now again.

 

[SDC]

Yeah until the corp goes bankrupt and doesn't have to pay for any clean ups. Take the Summitville mine for example, that org went bankrupt and the share holders started up another mine. Now we the taxpayers are forking out millions to clean that area up.

Bankruptcy is a very easy corporate liability restructuring to shed responsibilities of earlier projects. The project legacy doesn't go away, but the obligation to take care of it does.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Yeah until the corp goes bankrupt and doesn't have to pay for any clean ups. Take the Summitville mine for example, that org went bankrupt and the share holders started up another mine. Now we the taxpayers are forking out millions to clean that area up.

Again that's on how leases are written. Texas has governance in place to where the leasing company has to set up a separate trust to cover something like that, and land owner can increase it.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I didn't ask you how much it cost to hunt public land in TX. I asked you how much a lease to hunt those private ranches in TX runs. In fact, I've asked that question twice before and now again.

Ok, I pay property taxes to hunt. I own my own ranch. But I also hunt public a lot for free Or $45 for federal usage permit.

Leases cost differ a ton from .10 an acre to $25 an acre. You get on an MLD lease and you may have 20 plus tags for deer with a five month season, plus there is no closed season on FR exotics and leases are usually year round access. Or you can hunt public. YOU as a non resident could kill 5 deer+ exotics in Texas for less then I could buy a NR tag in Montana.

There is more to a lease then just a number.

 

[Mike21]

Just an observation but I notice on posts involving this type of topic it's the same handful of posters that gang up on anyone with a different view than theirs. This does two things: 1. stifles open debate 2. Makes any poster not willing to be shouted down, defend themselves with every attack.

If I was not so willing to engage the predictable narratives that are regurgitated, I would stay out of the conversation.

Open mindedness as long as you agree with us, right?

Point proven. See above posts, same handful of posters

 

[T43]

a year to two years tops on setting up the leases. Experation date indefinite if set up correctly.leases are just that, they don't have to before total control. Infact anyone that leases out total control is dumb or just doesn't care.

Your right no every place has minerals or surface leases but those that do could pay for the majority of of the places with in the state that does not. BLM brags about being self supporting.

I've given three easy examples.. BLM, King ranch and S. UTE. Two of the three are closed for the most part on public info, but enough information is available to get a pretty good idea of how much they are in the green after operational expenses.

From what I've seen on this thread it isn't if it could be self supporting it how much people distrust their current state elected leadership.

Thanks for your answers but that expose a few major issues.

If it takes a year or two tops to set up a lease where does the money come from to manage the land that first fire season? Not including maintaining current infrastructure (roads etc) and not including the price of enforcing regulations to stop a free for all on the no longer fed controlled land one bad August fire could easily throw a state in the red before any lease is signed.

I understand the argument that lands with no consumptive value "could" be maintained using funds generated by productive lands however according to many states constitutions lands must be managed to produce a maximum profit. That puts land with no consumptive value into the red making it very difficult for a state to hold on to it for its habitat value alone. Land in this category will multiply as resources are consumed.

When the ore runs out and the wells run dry state governments will have no choice but to sell the land as they will have no other means of paying for managing it... Look kids on the left is the Bloomberg Anti hunting preserve and on your right is the new Chinese national forest. Nope sorry your not allowed on either one but we saved enough money this year to camp for a weekend in Koch state.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Point proven. See above posts, same handful of posters

Mike,

Don't award yourself victory so soon...

I don't see any shouting down, other than somebody likening those opposed to transfer to "libtards", "radical environmentalists", or anti-capitalist, and then crying bully when points are refuted with reasonable arguments and supporting facts.

The tone of the thread is pretty reasonable overall, really.

 

[Matt Cashell]

texans42,

I get what you are saying about mineral leases. The western states could possibly break even if they ramped up extraction development after transfer, according to the Utah study. The Federal government could likely exploit the resources to help balance the budget. However, there are many of us that think federal public lands should be managed for multiple use, with an emphasis on conservation and recreation, and not necessarily for financial self-sustainability or profit. Puiblic lands have more value than dollar signs or the minerals, gas, and oil within them, IMO.

I also don't think Texas is the model for public lands. Less than 2% public doesn't sound like a ton of opportunity :

http://www.economist.com/node/176738

 

[Mike21]

Mike,

I don't see any shouting down, other than somebody likening those opposed to transfer to "libtards", "radical environmentalists", or anti-capitalist,

if I only had a dime for every time you have said "big money".