Thoughts on Proposals to Transfer Federal Land to the States ?

[cuerro viejo]

Bitter- even if the bill doesn't pass its only a matter of time before it does. Feds don't have the money either. It's a better time spent working with State Goverment to get a respectable state management plan in place then to spend efforts on the inevitable. IMO.

In our lifetime it will revert back to state management, I don't foresee an acceptable balanced Federal budget anytime soon.

Schlumberger just struck a 1.7 billion dollar with Russian oil company...That's 1.7 billion dollars that could of started on state leases and trickled down into local economies. This is just the tip of the ice berg. Some times we are are own worse enemy.

BLM claims to be self supporting at 130 billion in revenue/lease fees.... Mainly due to mineral leases.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I don't see it as inevitable. In fact, the reason I am posting on this thread is to get the word out that it can be defeated, just as the Sagebrush Rebellion was defeated.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I don't see it as inevitable. In fact, the reason I am posting on this thread is to get the word out that it can be defeated, just as the Sagebrush Rebellion was defeated.

May be maybe not...with out a balanced federal budget... There will be no certainties. I'm not saying I dislike current Fed management(in some ways, nobody will always be 100 happy) but I think it's smarter to make sure our state governments have a plan to retain it as self supporting public land.

 

[Jason Snyder]

IMO you won't see state management of federal lands for several reasons. Number one, it would be the equivalent of an unfunded mandate. Here are millions of acres to administer and manage, but wait, where's the personnel and operating monies? Number two, the primary goal is to eliminate federal ownership. Federal environmental protections are more stringent than state protections. If you eliminate those, you make it much easier to drill, cut, dig, develop, etc. That is why Murkowski initiated this. Number three, how in the world would this make management any more efficient, or "better" in any sense?

 

[SDC]

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.

You are dead wrong on thinking that I am opposed to private property or private property rights (been a Heritage Foundation supporter for a damn long time; ditto Cato Institute). Those estates I referenced were not always private land. There's a hint there, if you can figure it out. I see you also don't reference the fees associated with hunting those private land leases in TX; which is a major point. What's the expense level for hunting access on a prime lease in TX? How about the access fees associated with hunting public lands in MT?

Yes, public land should remain public land and that's what this entire thing is about.

If you paid attention to the chatter behind what's driving this "transfer", you'd know that it's not about having states manage those lands that will be transferred to them; it's about having those lands transferred to states so that states can then determine how to dispose of the ownership of much of them - i.e., privatization of public lands.

Those "reclaimed coal mines" in WV have not been instrumental in the reintroduction of elk, because no elk have been reintroduced in WV. If you're referencing the old open pit mines in KY, then yes they have. Those are completely different subjects than the mountain-top removal leases in WV that I mentioned, though.

The "it will happen anyway, we just have to deal with it" mindset is defeatist and inaccurate. It doesn't have to happen (transfer of federal public lands to state interests or private interests), and it shouldn't. Could they and should they be better managed? Of course.

 

[Jason Snyder]

May be maybe not...with out a balanced federal budget... There will be no certainties. I'm not saying I dislike current Fed management(in some ways, nobody will always be 100 happy) but I think it's smarter to make sure our state governments have a plan to retain it as self supporting public land.

The only way I would ever support transfer to the states would be if there was an easement attached to the land deed that would ensure that it remained public land in perpetuity, and that it would be managed for multiple use and not maximum profit. Every state land trust is managed for maximum profit, with recreational use being a lower priority.

I have no problem with responsible timber harvest, responsible mineral extraction, etc. However, maintaining the integrity and pristine nature of our public lands is also important to me.

 

[SDC]

IMO you won't see state management of federal lands for several reasons. Number one, it would be the equivalent of an unfunded mandate. Here are millions of acres to administer and manage, but wait, where's the personnel and operating monies? Number two, the primary goal is to eliminate federal ownership. Federal environmental protections are more stringent than state protections. If you eliminate those, you make it much easier to drill, cut, dig, develop, etc. That is why Murkowski initiated this. Number three, how in the world would this make management any more efficient, or "better" in any sense?

Excellent questions and points.

States don't truck with unfunded mandates, because many of them have balanced budget amendments and requirements. Instead of staffing up and managing properly, they'll sell off assets or cut lease deals that are bad for wildlife, fisheries, and sportsmen.

 

[cuerro viejo]

You are dead wrong on thinking that I am opposed to private property or private property rights (been a Heritage Foundation supporter for a damn long time; ditto Cato Institute). Those estates I referenced were not always private land. There's a hint there, if you can figure it out. I see you also don't reference the fees associated with hunting those private land leases in TX; which is a major point. What's the expense level for hunting access on a prime lease in TX? How about the access fees associated with hunting public lands in MT?

Yes, public land should remain public land and that's what this entire thing is about.

If you paid attention to the chatter behind what's driving this "transfer", you'd know that it's not about having states manage those lands that will be transferred to them; it's about having those lands transferred to states so that states can then determine how to dispose of the ownership of much of them - i.e., privatization of public lands.

Those "reclaimed coal mines" in WV have not been instrumental in the reintroduction of elk, because no elk have been reintroduced in WV. If you're referencing the old open pit mines in KY, then yes they have. Those are completely different subjects than the mountain-top removal leases in WV that I mentioned, though.

The "it will happen anyway, we just have to deal with it" mindset is defeatist and inaccurate. It doesn't have to happen (transfer of federal public lands to state interests or private interests), and it shouldn't. Could they and should they be better managed? Of course.

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.

 

[gmajor]

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

This is dead accurate. Debating the merits of federal vs state wildlife management is only tangential to this central point.

I have no problem with responsible timber harvest, responsible mineral extraction, etc. However, maintaining the integrity and pristine nature of our public lands is also important to me.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The only way I would ever support transfer to the states would be if there was an easement attached to the land deed that would ensure that it remained public land in perpetuity, and that it would be managed for multiple use and not maximum profit. Every state land trust is managed for maximum profit, with recreational use being a lower priority.

I have no problem with responsible timber harvest, responsible mineral extraction, etc. However, maintaining the integrity and pristine nature of our public lands is also important to me.

And it can be had. It's all about how those leases are written up. No reason why states can write lease agreements as well as the private sector does. Enviormental Impact can be very minimal.

 

[BroodBuster]

The Feds have taken in a record $1.8 trillion thru April and Congress can't afford managing public lands???

When was the last time Congress ever sold anything? Congress is in the business of spending money not selling things.

This is a rider to the budget bill that also includes the repeal of Obamacare. Ain't happening! This is nothing more than pandering to the tea party.

I've been saying for decades I'm a conservative without a party. The sooner that liberals come to the same conclusion the better off we will be as a nation.

Thanks to Citizen United we are now a nation of The Corparation, by the Corporation, for the Corporation!!!

Welcome to America.

 

[Jason Snyder]

And it can be had. It's all about how those leases are written up. No reason why states can write lease agreements as well as the private sector does. Enviormental Impact can be very minimal.

I have yet to see any assurances as such being mentioned as even a transient thought. Do you really think that if it's not even mentioned in an attempt to pacify the opposition it would ever be a realistic consideration? Instead, I just keep hearing the same rhetorical bullshit about "local management" blah, blah, blah.

Look at who is funding this push. They don't care one iota about the unwashed public.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I have yet to see any assurances as such being mentioned as even a transient thought. Do you really think that if it's not even mentioned in an attempt to pacify the opposition it would ever be a realistic consideration? Instead, I just keep hearing the same rhetorical bullshit about "local management" blah, blah, blah.

Look at who is funding this push. They don't care one iota about the unwashed public.

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.

 

[Eric Bailey]

Here is an interesting article about hunting access on state trust lands and how it differs from federal lands.

http://www.ourpubliclands.org/blog/sportsmen-state-takeover-public-lands-could-leave-public-behind

Highlights: "Nevada has just 3,000 acres of state trust lands left from 2.7 million. (Because they sold it all to the highest bidder). The state of Idaho permits recreation on its 2.4 million acres of trust lands only if it doesn’t interfere with revenue-producing activities and is leasing some tracts for residential use. In Colorado, only 18 percent of the 2.8 million acres of state lands are open to hunting and fishing."

 

[jmez]

The Feds aren't going to sell off or transfer any of their lands. The Federal Gvmnt doesn't do that. The budget is irrelevant, it will never be balanced. The gvmnt doesn't look for ways to intake money to balance or pay off any debt. Any new monies that come in are immediately earmarked for spending increases.

If the Feds were to sell them or transfer them then what becomes of all the Federal offices and employees tasked with maintaining them now? When was the last time the Federal Gvmnt made drastic reductions in their workforce and closed down entire agencies? That doesn't win votes, that doesn't and won't get done.

 

[Wasatchbuck]

Bitter- even if the bill doesn't pass its only a matter of time before it does. Feds don't have the money either. It's a better time spent working with State Goverment to get a respectable state management plan in place then to spend efforts on the inevitable. IMO.

In our lifetime it will revert back to state management, I don't foresee an acceptable balanced Federal budget anytime soon.

Schlumberger just struck a 1.7 billion dollar with Russian oil company...That's 1.7 billion dollars that could of started on state leases and trickled down into local economies. This is just the tip of the ice berg. Some times we are are own worse enemy.

BLM claims to be self supporting at 130 billion in revenue/lease fees.... Mainly due to mineral leases.

The Russians can have it too, every last penny. I may be on my own with this one but I could care less what schlumberger would bring to my local economy if it meant drilling or fracking on public lands. This is the very reason public lands need to stay in the hands of the feds and not the state otherwise we will see a well around every corner and elk around none.

 

[Matt Cashell]

The Russians can have it too, every last penny. I may be on my own with this one but I could care less what schlumberger would bring to my local economy if it meant drilling or fracking on public lands. This is the very reason public lands need to stay in the hands of the feds and not the state otherwise we will see a well around every corner and elk around none.

You are not alone.

 

[cuerro viejo]

The Russians can have it too, every last penny. I may be on my own with this one but I could care less what schlumberger would bring to my local economy if it meant drilling or fracking on public lands. This is the very reason public lands need to stay in the hands of the feds and not the state otherwise we will see a well around every corner and elk around none.

How much oil and gas production have you been around? Fracking comes after drilling by the way.

My roads are prefect, they can not come on property before 10am or after 3 pm from oct- jan and no drilling, pulling etc during those months. I pick well sites(they can drill multi wells from one site), every hurt little sapling tree is a 10k fine, leave gate open 10k fine, use another road other then main road 15k fine, get off a road 20k us up to 50k in damages per incident, any trash equals fine. They also Dug 8 5-8 acre tanks and 8 one acre tanks with electric wells supporting them. When they are paying $2000 to $22k an acre for lease and a production % they don't want to loose that lease and they sure don't want things going bad.

Like I said its all about how those leases are written. I grew up around it all my life so it's second nature to me. I understand not every one understands it.

Some of the biggest Bulls and Bucks in CO come off southern UTE and they are one of the richest reservations in the country....all off Mineral leases and royalties.

King ranch 850,000 acres it's mineral interest alone self support it and then some. Cattle revenue is just a bonus.

Yet I go hunt Idaho and get buzzed by motor cycles 6 miles in.. Lol

Like I said its all how it's written up, open mind is never a bad thing

 

[Arbutusbucks]

My roads are prefect, they can not come on property before 10am or after 3 pm from oct- jan and no drilling, pulling etc during those months. I pick well sites(they can drill multi wells from one site), every hurt little sapling tree is a 10k fine, leave gate open 10k fine, use another road other then main road 15k fine, get off a road 20k us up to 50k in damages per incident, any trash equals fine. They also Dug 8 5-8 acre tanks and 8 one acre tanks with electric wells supporting them. When they are paying $2000 to $22k an acre for lease and a production % they don't want to loose that lease and they sure don't want things going bad.

Like I said its all about how those leases are written. I grew up around it all my life so it's second nature to me. I understand not every one understands it.

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.

 

[Mike21]

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.