Thoughts on Proposals to Transfer Federal Land to the States ?

[mmw194287]

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

Another side-stepping non-sequiter. Mike, nothing personal, but I hope you eventually realize that a forum for backcountry wilderness hunting might not be the most receptive audience for the privatization agenda. The "Green Decoys" thread was tiresome and this one is getting there. Believe what you want--you're obviously not interested in substantive exchange--but to pretend that the rest of us just don't understand the issues at stake is irritating.

 

[Mike21]

Another side-stepping non-sequiter. Mike, nothing personal, but I hope you eventually realize that a forum for backcountry wilderness hunting might not be the most receptive audience for the privatization agenda. The "Green Decoys" thread was tiresome and this one is getting there. Believe what you want--you're obviously not interested in substantive exchange--but to pretend that the rest of us just don't understand the issues at stake is irritating.

Who would of thought a handful of back country hunters believe the only people capable of managing the back country is federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

This really isn't a thread full of " back country hunters" it's the same handful of posters making the same arguments, over and over on this post and others on the same subject. Out of thousands on Rokslide there is 5 or so that you can count on to keep up the narrative of "big money, corporations, mining, exploitation" etc etc

 

[mmw194287]

Who would of thought a handful of back country hunters believe the only people capable of managing the back country is federal bureaucrats in Washington D.C.

This really isn't a thread full of " back country hunters" it's the same handful of posters making the same arguments, over and over on this post and others on the same subject. Out of thousands on Rokslide there is 5 or so that you can count on to keep up the narrative of "big money, corporations, mining, exploitation" etc etc

And yet another post dodging the substantive issue under consideration.

The reality is that only a handful of folks have the patience to debunk the same threadbare narrative. I'm sorry that you feel so bullied and victimized here, but the reality is that your views are wildly out-of-step with popular opinion across the political spectrum and particularly among hunters and anglers. It shouldn't be any surprise that few here are interested in refuting your claims again and again, especially when you so quickly resort to name-calling.

 

[Jason Snyder]

Mike21,

I asked you a few simple questions. Are you going to answer them or not?

 

[cuerro viejo]

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

Never said Texas was the model, I just used texas as a heavy regulated example of mineral and surface rights as a income revenue that exceeds operational costs, while also serving as multi-use defined by landowners. I also said the BLM says they are self sufficient and also used a 700k acre Indian reservation where 300k acres of mineral rights pay out a nice pay check to tribe members along with an excess that goes into trust.

Point is you can have both, it doesn't have to be single use. Infact single use is idiotic private or public.

It's an option, that is way more practical then some want to beleive.

To go back to the Public land in Texas, it's still More then 2 million (federal acres,) which doesn't include thousands of miles of Tital flats, and spoil islands. But like I said the hunting lease agruement made earlier was a shot in the dark, being that many texans and NR hunt public regularly. We also have the cheapest draw hunts in the nation for NR and Res.

 

[SDC]

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.

Thanks for finally answering the question, at least in a round-about way. So, by calculation, at the cheapest rate of $0.10/acre, and taking acreage the size of the ranch you own (42k acres), that's $4200/year, with the potential of it going to as much as $1M/year. I can do a helluva lot of backcountry hunting in various states for that kind of coin.

As you said, it's more than just a number (whether that be a lease, or a hunt).

 

[SDC]

Point proven. See above posts, same handful of posters

Well, Mike, I've asked you to engage on the questions I've asked; I've still not "shouted you down" or name called; I've not said "big money" once. Would you care to rejoin the conversation and put up your argument in support of public lands transfer?

 

[Matt Cashell]

Never said Texas was the model, I just used texas as a heavy regulated example of mineral and surface rights as a income revenue that exceeds operational costs, while also serving as multi-use defined by landowners. I also said the BLM says they are self sufficient and also used a 700k acre Indian reservation where 300k acres of mineral rights pay out a nice pay check to tribe members along with an excess that goes into trust.

Point is you can have both, it doesn't have to be single use. Infact single use is idiotic private or public.

It's an option, that is way more practical then some want to beleive.

To go back to the Public land in Texas, it's still More then 2 million (federal acres,) which doesn't include thousands of miles of Tital flats, and spoil islands. But like I said the hunting lease agruement made earlier was a shot in the dark, being that many texans and NR hunt public regularly. We also have the cheapest draw hunts in the nation for NR and Res.

texans42,

I never advocated for single use.

I am not opposed to reasonable mineral development under regulated leases on public lands. I think those uses should be considered, and definitely are an option, even under the multiple use considerations in the federal system. Your BLM example illustrates the point.

What I don't like as an option, is transferring the large areas of public lands to the states, where they don't have the same considerations for multiple use as the federal system, and the emphasis is on making revenue, rather than conservation. Further, the Western states have a history of selling large portions of their lands to private parties, and that is not good for sportsmen.

 

[SDC]

Never said Texas was the model, I just used texas as a heavy regulated example of mineral and surface rights as a income revenue that exceeds operational costs, while also serving as multi-use defined by landowners. I also said the BLM says they are self sufficient and also used a 700k acre Indian reservation where 300k acres of mineral rights pay out a nice pay check to tribe members along with an excess that goes into trust.

Point is you can have both, it doesn't have to be single use. Infact single use is idiotic private or public.

It's an option, that is way more practical then some want to beleive.

To go back to the Public land in Texas, it's still More then 2 million (federal acres,) which doesn't include thousands of miles of Tital flats, and spoil islands. But like I said the hunting lease agruement made earlier was a shot in the dark, being that many texans and NR hunt public regularly. We also have the cheapest draw hunts in the nation for NR and Res.

I agree with you that single use is stupid. I don't recall anyone advocating for that, on either side.

Since you keep bringing up public lands in TX. Yes, you have 2M acres, give or take, and that doesn't include the coastline or flats. Coincidentally, that's almost the exact same acreage (2M) as my home state of Virginia. For comparative purposes, that means that TX has roughly 1.1% of its total area in public lands, whereas Virginia has approximately 7.3% of the total area in public lands. TX may have the same amount of land open to the public, but that's a greater than 600% difference in access potential (given the overall size of the state in comparison to public lands) . When you look at acreage per population, the contrast is just as stark. 27M people in TX, with 2M acres (0.074 acres per person) as compared to 8M people with 2M acres (0.25 acres per person). On coastline, based upon NOAA measurements, TX has 3,359 miles of coastline (7th among the states). VA ranks 8th, with 3,315 miles of coastline.

As someone that hunts, fishes, hikes, and camps public lands in Virginia (and many other states) quite frequently, I think the comparisons between the two states as far as public lands, shoreline, access, and use are rather accurate. I can also tell you that, at times and locations, those public areas in VA can get crowded. I'd not want to consider what they'd look like with 3.5x as many people to access the same amount of public land and shoreline, nor would I want to consider having to potentially drive up to 6x as far to get to them.

Just food for thought, and for comparative purposes only.

BTW - I even like TX. Some of my ancestors from SW VA were there when TX was "born". It's a good state, but as for public lands usage and as an example, it doesn't really make a lot of sense in many respects.

 

[cuerro viejo]

texans42,

I never advocated for single use.

I am not opposed to reasonable mineral development under regulated leases on public lands. I think those uses should be considered, and definitely are an option, even under the multiple use considerations in the federal system. Your BLM example illustrates the point.

What I don't like as an option, is transferring the large areas of public lands to the states, where they don't have the same considerations for multiple use as the federal system, and the emphasis is on making revenue, rather than conservation. Further, the Western states have a history of selling large portions of their lands to private parties, and that is not good for sportsmen.

Not saying you said you want single use, I just can't grasp who would be that dumb to lock land into single use.

I don't want to see change to the current model, but I feel that goverment will force change because of the ridiculous spending they have incurred. I feel it's our duty to push our states to implement sensible legislation that guarantee retained ownership and multi use. History doesn't have to repeat itself we have sensible options

 

[SDC]

Not saying you said you want single use, I just can't grasp who would be that dumb to lock land into single use.

I don't want to see change to the current model, but I feel that goverment will force change because of the ridiculous spending they have incurred. I feel it's our duty to push our states to implement sensible legislation that guarantee retained ownership and multi use. History doesn't have to repeat itself we have sensible options

There's a lot - and I mean a lot - there that I agree with. The Feds have spent us into near oblivion. This is truth. Because of this, they are trying to force changes that are not wise. This is truth. History does not have to repeat itself. This is truth. Our duty is to push state to implement sensible legislation. This is truth.

I agree with you that a change to the current situation is not wanted nor wise.

Therefore, this one option being pushed by some knuckleheads in Congress as a means to get one-time cost savings to offset the long-term and systemic problems that the Feds have created, is not a real answer. It's like giving away the family farm instead of looking at the massive and frivolous spending habits of the "adults" in the household. It won't change a thing, and it will leave us all poorer in the end.

Now, if we want to discuss what ought to be done to fix the problem that the Feds have created for us, I'm game for that and I suspect that we'll find ourselves in agreement on almost all points. Transfer of public lands is just not a wise choice to fix that problem, IMHO.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I agree with you that single use is stupid. I don't recall anyone advocating for that, on either side.

Since you keep bringing up public lands in TX. Yes, you have 2M acres, give or take, and that doesn't include the coastline or flats. Coincidentally, that's almost the exact same acreage (2M) as my home state of Virginia. For comparative purposes, that means that TX has roughly 1.1% of its total area in public lands, whereas Virginia has approximately 7.3% of the total area in public lands. TX may have the same amount of land open to the public, but that's a greater than 600% difference in access potential (given the overall size of the state in comparison to public lands) . When you look at acreage per population, the contrast is just as stark. 27M people in TX, with 2M acres (0.074 acres per person) as compared to 8M people with 2M acres (0.25 acres per person). On coastline, based upon NOAA measurements, TX has 3,359 miles of coastline (7th among the states). VA ranks 8th, with 3,315 miles of coastline.

As someone that hunts, fishes, hikes, and camps public lands in Virginia (and many other states) quite frequently, I think the comparisons between the two states as far as public lands, shoreline, access, and use are rather accurate. I can also tell you that, at times and locations, those public areas in VA can get crowded. I'd not want to consider what they'd look like with 3.5x as many people to access the same amount of public land and shoreline, nor would I want to consider having to potentially drive up to 6x as far to get to them.

Just food for thought, and for comparative purposes only.

BTW - I even like TX. Some of my ancestors from SW VA were there when TX was "born". It's a good state, but as for public lands usage and as an example, it doesn't really make a lot of sense in many respects.

Whole different path to state hood. That number does account for the barrier chain(with vast majority public land), Using noaa it basically gives a usage coast line area 6 times that of VA. Some numbers don't tell the whole story. Only a little over 1/3 of the of the land touching salt is private

Usage is an eye of the beholder. You really can't compare usage since they are different type environments. Texas Public land usuage is actually very light for the majority of it, but there are a few that have very sought after access(draw type tags).

I'm actually in Richmond a bunch I like the state. Love Me some chespeake. Hunted all up and down upper and eastern shore last year.

 

[SDC]

I'm looking at the NOAA stats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_coastline The NOAA stats include all the barrier and chain islands as well as everything that's "tidal". They are far more complete, and the NOAA differences are 44 miles, total (in favor of TX). The CRS measurements, which include just hard line miles (and you're right, they don't include the barrier or chain islands for either state, nor tidal) give a 3.27x advantage to TX (367 miles to 112). The CRS numbers are generally not used by anyone because they just don't cover all the coastal areas. There's no 6x advantage in any of those numbers.

Again, agreed that there was a totally different path to statehood. Just comparative purposes as far as acreage, access, and population.

If you've hunted the Eastern Shore, have you tried for the little Sika deer yet, or are you primarily waterfowl hunting? Waterfowl I haven't gotten into (yet), as I grew up many hours from the salt and in the mountains. Sika, though, are TOUGH to hunt (and ridiculously tasty).

Let me know when you're in Richmond next. I'll buy lunch, if I'm "in the office" that day.

 

[cuerro viejo]

You're looking at just a straight Length number. Look up the tital area. Between the barrier islands and mainland are mainly tidal flats. My bay boat gets up in 10" and runs in 5" and I better watch tides or I might be there a day or two if that helps make more sense.

I was just duck and goose hunting (late Jan- remember the epic blizzard that never made it last year) but I did see a few Sitka. The Sitka story is actually pretty cool when you read up on it. Similar to Axis, Nilgai and Aoudad here in Texas.

 

[SDC]

You're looking at just a straight Length number. Look up the tital area. Between the barrier islands and mainland are mainly tidal flats. My bay boat gets up in 10" and runs in 5" and I better watch tides or I might be there a day or two if that helps make more sense.

I was just duck and goose hunting (late Jan- remember the epic blizzard that never made it last year) but I did see a few Sitka. The Sitka story is actually pretty cool when you read up on it. Similar to Axis, Nilgai and Aoudad here in Texas.

The NOAA figures I quoted do take into consideration all the tidal areas; unlike the CRS numbers. So, no, I'm not just looking at a straight length number. The same thing can happen (and does) around the Eastern Shore of VA quite often.

Yes, I recall that "epic blizzard" that just fizzled. Too bad it hadn't actually hit about a month earlier (the last bit of deer season may well have been epic if it had). The Sika are a rather amazing little animal, and somewhat similar to those in TX that you mention. I did a little write-up on the Sika a little while back and am working with a group focused on the Sika of the DelMarVa, too. They are a real gem.

 

[BroodBuster]

Today the Gov of Wa declared a drought state of emergency. An hour later the head of the water district that provides water to ~7 of the 7.5 million residents urged consumers not to conserve water this summer. He said that all of the water reservoirs are full and that rates are based on consumption so if residents conserve water they will have to raise rates????

20 years ago I could fish for and kill two native steelhead a day in the month of April on about 170 Wa rivers. Today I can fish for steelhead on like 5 rivers in April.

Now maybe Texas Gov has a clue but there's no way in hell I would want Wa Gov anywhere near our Fed controlled public lands. It'd be a disaster from day 1!

 

[Floorguy]

Nevermind