Bowsite.com

Keeping vast amounts of land public was one of the best things the Gummint ever did!!

But, I'm in favor of balancing economic interest with environmental (hunting land) interests too. We just need to be careful how we manage our natural resources.

God Bless men

Just sayin'....

How can you comment on a thread without reading the linked article anyways?

It is one of the PR arms funded by George Soros, the left's darling multi-billionaire, and evil rival of the Koch brothers.

Reading anything they publish and expecting honest reporting is like reading the recent HSUS magazine article about mountain lion hunting and expecting to find honest, factual, unbiased representation.

Their PR arm once sent a letter to a newspaper publisher claiming that their "extensive research" uncovered that I was a professional media PR representative for the oil and gas industry, and demanded that they print a story about it. My only connection to that industry, ever, has been putting gas in my vehicle at the pump. The publisher emailed me about it and thought it was pretty funny (their claim).

Unfortunately, I'm very pessimistic. Big money seems to always get its way. If it can't buy its way (it usually does) it buys the necessary propaganda to persuade the little guy that "their way" is in everyone's best interest. Seems like it works every time.

I'm very sad to admit that I think the public land opportunities I've had my entire life will be gone before my grandkids will get to enjoy them. It kills me to see the American West turning into the American East.

Anyway, read the link.

My best three elk spots were big chunks of BLM that were sold or traded to adjoining ranchers in sweetheart deals between them and officials at the local BLM office. So I've felt the pain personally. (The only minor consolation was that the BLM guys who thought they'd be getting access to a tasty private elk hunting spot after the trade were kicked off, too, when it became leased to an outfitter).

I just don't trust the validity of anything that originates from Think Progress or Media Matters.

--Mitch

Action Needed: Two Land Seizure Bills to Be Voted on Tomorrow!

Wyoming BHA Members:

We need your help ASAP to help stop two public land seizure bills from being introduced in the Wyoming legislature tomorrow. Please take a minute to call your legislator at (307) 777-7852 and urge them to vote “no” on HB 126 and HB 142.

House Bill 126 would waste $100,000 taxpayer dollars on yet another state study of the management of your public lands. Rather than creating real solutions, this bill would unconstitutionally assert state land commission authority over federal land management decisions, all under the guise of improving public access.

House Bill 142 blatantly opens the door for a large-scale public land sell-off and/or transfer, leading to a loss of public hunting, fishing and recreation opportunity for all. This bill is unconstitutional and would be devastating for the American sportsman.

Please email or call your elected officials today at (307) 777-7852.

Thank you for taking action on this important issue.

Koch bros evil....Big Government good!

Last year 'Queen Lisa for life' Murkowski was successful in giving away 80+ thousand acres of the Tongass to Sealaska Corp. The regional private for profit Native Corp. She plugged the bill into the Military Apportions bill. Much of the 80K acres was popular sport hunting and fishing areas as well as subsistence areas for several local communities. These lands are now private no-trespass.

Some of these lands have infrastructure (roads & log transfer facilities) costing in the multi-millions of taxpayer dollars to build.

No sale of public lands ... just giving it away to a private Corp that will log it from boundary to boundary.

National forests are owned collectively by the citizens of this country. The government doesn't own them. Only manages them.

What the Feds do with their land is there business. I don't want to see it sold to private entity's either. But, I don't see where it is any different than a person selling their property to someone else. There is no difference actually.

I'm sure the states taking ownership would be bad in some instances. I'm sure it would be good in other instances. What I'm also certain about is the ability of the state to manage their own land and resources better than a big federal government thousands of miles away.

The intent of the BLM agency is totally different than the National Forests. By inception, this agency gained control of ungranted land. That's why it was developed. It is common for the agency to lease resource rights to private industry. Rights like mining, gas, etc..... So why would it be bad to allow a state the land inhabits, to do that instead of a more cumbersome big government?

I say give the states ownership to do the same. But, clause into the transfer agreement that ithe land itself can never be sold. Only resource extraction leases. That sounds like a practical common sense alternative. But, maybe that's just me.

Just my thoughts. God Bless men

As far as I know, all BLM land out here is open to the public with some restrictions like road closures, etc., to protect areas.

All of this public land takeover business is pretty much 100 percent republican driven.

The State Land Boards will explicitly claim, "STATE TRUST LANDS ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS." Go to the Colorado State Land Board website and that is the first sentence of the second paragraph.

And, they are correct. Those lands are held by the state for a select group of beneficiaries (school systems) and a very specific purpose - funding the schools.

As the 10th Amendment dictates, the Feds cannot force the states to manage those lands in any way other than the state, via the State Land Board, sees fit. Immediately, the logical theories like you stated, start falling by the wayside.

And here is how it plays out in a manner that causes concern and why these states will not agree to the "theory" you logically proposed. I'll use the easiest examples, to illustrate the points; Colorado and Oregon.

Colorado does not allow hunting, camping, or other recreation on State Trust Lands, unless those rights are leased by the state wildlife agency. Due to budget limitations, CPW only leases a small fraction of the State Trust Lands for public recreation access; a very small portion.

Given CO has 23 million acres of BLM and USFS lands, transferring those lands to the CO State Land Board means hunters lose 23 million acres of access. As a hunter, I ask the politicians promoting the idea, "HOW DO WE REPLACE 23 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC HUNTING ACCESS, JUST IN COLORADO?"

The politicians don't have an answer when asked the question. They change the subject.

Some would say, force the states to allow access if those lands were transferred. I doubt Congress is inclined to reverse 240 years of the 10th Amendment by telling the states what to do in order that we would have hunting access.

I wish it was different in these western states, but that is how the State Land Boards operate. In NM and WY you cannot camp on these State lands. In MT, we had to fight the legislature for to change the law from the Colorado model to a new law where we can now pay a fee to hunt these lands.

Imagine transferring millions of acres in NM and WY where you could no longer have your elk camp in the Gila and you were expected to drive from Datil or Magdalena every day. Or you finally drew the Region G deer tag, but you had to hike in ever morning (about 8 hours) and hike out every night (about 5 hours) because these are now State lands and you cannot camp on them. Imagine if you hired an outfitter to take you into the Thoroughfare Country in NW WY and you had to ride horses in 20+ miles each morning and back out each evening, because these lands are now state lands and WY state lands are off limits to camping.

Hopefully that illustrates how much hunting access would be lost under a state transfer scenario.

Then, we have to look at the state Constitutional mandates these land boards have to maximize profits from state lands for funding schools. Profit maximization is the requirement of these state agencies.

I have no problem with lands being managed for profits. But, given the legal environment of the west, a lot of places you cannot manage lands profitably due to litigation under the ESA or other obscure laws. These laws such as the ESA apply to all landowners, BLM, USFS, private, or States, so it is a reality of the landscape.

The best example is Elliot State Forest in Oregon, comprised of 90,000 acres of productive timber land owned by the state land agency and formerly managed for a profit while allowing public recreation.

Or maybe I should restate as; managed profitably until the litigation started. Now, due to litigation, the State Forest has lost a ton of money and this very popular Forest is being sold. The state land board has no recourse, as they are mandated by state law/constitution to either manage for a profit or dispose of the land.

In the scenario you suggested, the states would not accept ownership of the lands without the right to dispose of them. That would burden them with the costs and obligations of litigation currently paid by the Feds, road maintenance, wild fire suppression, invasive weed control, property taxes to the counties, with no assurance they could make a profit on lands, especially in locations under ESA or other litigious issues.

A few examples of how litigation would sink the states if they took the lands. All of Western MT is covered by ESA issues. All of Western WY is covered by ESA issues. Most of Eastern and Northern ID are covered by ESA issues. Most of SW NM and SE AZ are covered by ESA issues. If the wingnuts win their appeal of the USFWS decision to not list sage grouse and sage grouse end up on the ESA, the entire inter-mountain west will be subject to ESA regulations.

Those ESA areas have pretty much no land management occurring, due to litigation. None of the transfer advocates have been able to explain how the states could take on all of these land ownership costs and hold these lands in places where Federal-level litigation would prevent any income generating management strategies, plus incur the costs to litigate the issues.

As a result, the states would have no choice but to sell the lands, which is the end goal of the promoters of the schemes. They have no interest in better land management. The promoters use state transfer as a rallying point to hide their motives, which prior to fifteen years ago was openly advertised as an effort to sell the public lands. Then, getting their teeth kicked in, they came back with a new mantra of "transfer the public lands," seemingly less offensive to the American public. Same people, same funders, same motive, just wrapped in a different package.

I understand how on the surface this sounds good to those of us who believe in smaller government and would like to see the Federal agencies freed of all the litigation that prevents them from managing lands. But, when inspected with more detail, changing ownership of the lands is not the answer, rather changing Congress and removing the Congressional obstructionists who handcuff Federal land management is a better path.

Just one guy's opinion from 20+ years of having been in the political battles of it.

In NM where I hunted one year a strip of land that gave access to some great hunting was sold by the state to the rancher who then had even more "private/public" land to hunt.

Once again, a republican administration.

If you think turning federal lands over to the states will make public hunting any better, you have been drinking too much Koch beer.

Ed

But here's a fact: the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is hardly a bastion of liberalism, has conducted a study the results of which show that the number one reason people quit hunting is access to places to hunt. Take away access and the effect is to reduce the number of hunters, which in turn puts more competition for remaining private hunting properties and drastically reduces the available funds for conservation. The western states simply do not have the money to care these lands. Firefighting alone would bust some state budgets. The effect of all this would eventually lead not only a vast reduction in the number of hunters, but hunting itself would become an activity for those with the ability to pay. In other words, we would be creating something similar to what transpired in Europe. Within a two or three generations we could lose hunting altogether, as we have seen in Europe, because only a small number of privileged few would still have a stake in the game. Theodore Roosevelt knew and understood this, as his writings make abundantly clear. The continued success of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation depends on citizens of every strata of society, from the rich to the poor, having a stake in the game.

I think hunters need to understand that the greatest threat to the future of hunting comes not from so-called animal rights organizations like PETA or the HSUS, which actually have very little political clout, but rather the real threat comes the very politicians who depend on the votes of hunters and other sportsmen to put them into office. PETA and the HSUS cannot pass legislation harmful to hunters, but politicians can. It's time we hunters come to grips with the fact that we have politicians, many of whom are in high places, that every intention of pursuing an agenda that will eventually place our public hands into private hands.

Anyway, rooselk, the source defines the narrative, and spins the "facts" to support the narrative.

You are way off about the lack of political clout of PETA, HSUS, Defenders, etc.. In initiative states, they control the future of hunting. They managed to get bear baiting and spring hunting banned in CO, banned trapping, funded the lion campaigns in CA and OR, and will get lion and bear hunting banned in CO this fall if they choose to put it on the ballot. No matter who manages public land, or which politicians we vote into office, the ballot box rules.

That's a great point and well expressed Big Fin. Thank you for doing so with class and respect. It clearly shows the difference those in the west face versus those in the east, whom hunt on public land, without all the name calling, post deleting, and political drama that comes with most of these threads. I appreciate that.

I don't have an answer for the ESA. Nobody does as far as I can tell.

In WV, the state shares management responsibility with the feds on our national forests. We have no BLM land. So, it is of of no consequence here. However, it appears to be a huge deal and, a deal breaker if you live out west. Where BLM land holdings are huge. I understand that.

I also understand the legislation procedure of funding for state schools and such in certain states. What I am confused about is the willingness of any state, comprised of such large federal and pubically owned lands, to do away with what is no doubt their largest income in those areas. The taxes they get from the federal government because the land is in their state. Because many of these lands are deemed worthless as a business investment.

It is my understanding from research that lands under the BLM's reign were basically stolen from the states upon it's inception as a government organization. They were mostly non desirable lands, non inhibited lands, previously mined lands, etc.... Lands that the state may not have wanted at the time. Personally, I think the reason the government did it was to capture the possibility of the resources the land provided. Which is why laws governing the BLM give it the distinct ability to manage these lands as Congress see's fit. Without the public's approval.

What that has to do with this topic is plenty. Legislation is written everyday, voted upon and passed or rejected in states. Congress has interpreted every Amendment extensively and, twisted their coverage to fit it's agenda. This wouldn't even require that. Just people intent on getting it right. What I suggested is easy enough and, would have to be a precursor to any ownership changes. In other words, we can be against it because the way things are. Or, we can work together to get it right. That is a typical request and, charge of the politically driven zealots that chime in on everyone of these threads. And, as usual, it is in this thread already.

So, to do as they suggest and compromise their mother earth stance, to allow the people most affected by these lands, to manage them as they see fit, with state legislation laws keeping the state from selling them, is the legitimate answer. And, the only correct, moral option out there at this point. What was once theirs can be theirs again. More importantly, the states and their residents, could benefit off of the conservation minded management owning these lands would require. I see it as a win-win. Not a chance for the Chinese to own a large piece of the west.

When most look at this topic as a whole, they tend to over look the real issues and, cloud their thought with agenda driven babble. Nothing is impossible or doable without guidelines. Guidelines in any contract outside of this topic are discussed as fluid until a final resolution is reached. Yet, when we get to this, it is one way or the highway in most people's mind. I don't look at it that way. And, I don't see why anyone else would either. Land transfer could go back to the states and, the people of those states could be assured that the land would never be sold. That is undeniable.

I am constantly accused as being pro extraction, pro industry, etc... It is a punch line used by those unable to debate anything besides preservation. I'm often accused of being conspiracy minded. Well, I'm not the one using examples of a foreign country setting up shop in many of the western states as reason to be against this. Everyone wants to scream foul instead of fix the problem. Which is why this is a problem.

As Lou pointed out above, it appears to me the feds are the biggest threat to selling off these lands to lobbied interests. If the states want the land back, make the contract that gives it back, dependent on legislation passed by said state, to always obtain that land for the use by residents of that state. To be managed as multiple use, with the obvious best use preceding in the management plan out lining these lands.

I hear the doubts. Well, hear the economics of it. Hunting is big business. It has it's place at the table with corporate interests. And, no money hungry government is going to miss out on a chance to collect the revenue it would provide. That I'm sure of.

God Bless men

If Colorado( or any other western state) were to get control of our federal lands and manage it like they do the lands they currently hold I'd be moving to someplace else, the National Forests and BLM land are the main reason I choose to live out here in the boonies.

We have more to fear from Obama appointees systematically designating large tracts as unhuntable, like the latest CA National Monument proposals. I mean, really, appointing the CEO of REI as Secretary of the Interior? If the sausage hit the grinder, who do you suppose Sally and her "managers" would stand with- National Shooting Sports Foundation and RMEF, or Sierra Club and Audubon?

We also have much to fear from groups like SFW and "Big Game Forever", who want to privatize the hunting of the public resource on public lands. But listening to them, you'd think they are all about preservation of hunting rights.

Again, the source defines the narrative.

I find it ironic that most miss the fact the same Congress people that are responsible for "protecting" these lands from being sold, are supposedly going to be the same Congress people lining up to fleece their pockets when the state's gets control.

God Bless men

Their goal is simple: open up greater stretches of the West to mining, drilling, ranching and other economic activities, generating tax revenue for the states, and, of course, profits for the companies and individuals involved. (Otherwise, the states simply couldn’t afford to manage so much land.)

The only way it makes sense financially is to open the land up

States cannot afford to manage this much public land unless they open more of it to natural resource extraction. This is what a report commissioned as part of Utah’s land transfer law found: For Utah to be able to generate the money it needs to manage 31 million more acres, it would have to increase drilling and mining. And it would need to demand 100 percent of the royalties from extraction (Utah currently splits mineral royalties 50-50 with the federal government). And even then, oil and gas prices would need to remain stable and high.

An Idaho study found that in 8 of 9 scenarios, the state couldn’t afford a land transfer at all. In the one scenario where the state could make money, the timber industry would have to be having an extraordinary year.

Roughly 700,000 acres of state land in Idaho are already currently closed to public access. Idaho has already sold over 1.5 million acres of the state land which it was originally granted, which amounts to over 30 percent of all state lands it has owned.

Wisconsin had 3.25 million acres of trust land. They have about 75,000 left!

I agree with this:

"I am all for private companies providing resources for profits however I am not for further subsidization of private companies by the American tax payers. Look deep and that is the obvious motivation and if it isn't then these companies are fools for spending millions lobbing for it.

First the states have a worse record of managing lands in many cases make the Feds looks adept in land Management. Further more they (states) have less money and resources then the fed and their prognoses for any better or cheaper management with similar public access and use is almost impossible.

The second reason is that Corporations understand full well they the states can not afford to manage these lands and have history huge sell offs that have taken place in the past. The amount of lobbying that is taken place is insane. The motivations are clear and again it becomes a tax pay subsidizing corporate profits."

"First the states have a worse record of managing lands in many cases make the Feds looks adept in land Management." Cite some specific examples, please.

Feds lease grazing on OUR wildlife habitat for pennies on the dollar, allow overgrazing because they admittedly don't have the resources to properly enforce it, then force the states (hunters) to pay game damage payments to ranchers because the deer, elk, and pronghorns can't make a living on the decimated winter range.

Feds routinely sell and lease drilling and mining rights. Feds sell and trade land to wealthy landowners, who just happen to make big campaign donations.

Why do I care if the state of Colorado sells millions of acres of State Trust land to provide money for schools, etc? The general public has no access to these millions of acres. If they can raise more money by selling them than leasing for grazing and outfitted hunting, I'm all for it. Doesn't do me any good sitting there behind the "No Trespassing" signs, while outfitters sell hunts on it.

Speaking of the subsidization of private companies by the American taxpayers, when you were an outfitter and getting free landowner vouchers from the STATE to subsidize your outfitting business, vouchers that took tags away from general taxpayers like myself, did you feel the same way about subsidizing private businesses?

This fight is just as much about preserving an idea. The idea that this country's freedom, and part of that freedom is public land belongs to all of us. It's a God given right and not a line item on a corporate balance sheet.

States manage state trust land to generate revenue for schools, etc. In CO, the public isn't allowed to access them unless the CPW (state) pays the state land board for that access.

Feds manage BLM and NF as a revenue generating business. Ditto with National Parks, which lease out business opportunities to concessionaires.

There is no "God-given right" to freely use government- owner land. That privilege is granted by the various agencies, over which God has no influence. They can close public access at any time, for a variety of reasons.

I graze my land at about 8 times what the BLM and Forest service get. The BLM and Forest Service would like to charge market rates but the lobbyists for the cattle industry own the legislatures.

The biggest thing keeping the BLM and Forest Sevice in charge and out of state control is that the people of the United States would not let the states get control.

All the examples given show the fallacy that state control is superior.

Under BLM and Forest Service I get to use these lands.

"The biggest thing keeping the BLM and Forest Service in charge and out of state control is that the people of the United States would not let the states get control."

I think your are 100% correct on this. All of the blather being put out by many prominent conservation organizations are making the hunters go crazy on this issue. It is mostly hype, and a good way for them to recruit new hunters. It ain't gonna happen folks. The feds and the citizens of the US aren't going to let the States ever get control of the public lands.

The rest of your post Larry is mostly BS. You have no definitive facts to back up your commonly mistaken subsidy issues. That is ok because you and many folks in your camp have the same old and tired misconceptions. Much of the issue boils down to the have and the have nots and the jealousy therefrom. Many have a deep hatred of ranchers and their political power. Much of this is warranted and much of it isn't There is a balance.

What we really need is for the US Forest Service and BLM to either purchase or trade or other wise obtain access to huge swaths of public land that are basically landlocked. Some of our Congressmen are working on this issue but it will take a cooperative effort and a lot more ground work with sportsmen, hunters and fishermen alike, to get this done. If we had better access you would free up hundreds of thousands of acres of public land for hunting and fishing.

Then compare it to what I get for grazing heifers, $15 per month, which I haven't raised in 8 years.

I also spent $25,000 putting in two new dams for water. On the BLM, the ranchers get the dams for nothing. They are supposed to maintain them, but almost never do.

BLM and Forest Service grazing leases are money losing ventures for the Federal Government, only maintained because of pressure from western congressmen.

Even the local ranchers who don't have these leases consider them an unfair advantage.

Hello? They are already doing this. Not sure why people don't know about it. On the other side of my mountain the USFS opened up thousands of acres of previously checkerboarded/landlocked land for hunting and recreation. They bought the private parcels from the railroad, which had owned the private checkerboards (and logged the USFS) for railroad ties.

In another instance I'm close to, they bought a ranch and traded it to a guy who previously held access to thousands of acres of National Forest, thereby opening up access to the public for hunting.

In yet another instance close to home, the BLM traded for a big chunk of land for waterfowl and pronghorn hunting and added it to more contiguous public land, which then gained access from the other end that didn't exist before.

In another one, the State of Colorado purchased a couple of private inholdings to create a big contiguous State Trust hunting and fishing area.

In another one nearby, the BLM purchased a perpetual easement to open up a whole mountain to hunting that was never accessible to the public before.

In yet another one near me, the State Division of Wildlife acquired a big chunk, which then provided access to more thousands of acres of State and USFS land for hunting and fishing.

All of this has happened just in one part of Colorado.

I could keep going on this but I'd rather go out and shoot...

I have been to Congress twice in the last year on the topic of public lands. An interesting observation that shows me how little this fight has to do with "better management" of the lands. Better management being something I am completely in favor of.

In April I was called as a witness to the House Natural Resources Committee to testify on the economic value public lands have to western communities. I was the only witness allowed to be called by the side that supported public lands. The side that wants to sell Federal lands called three witnesses, including an economist I know and respect.

In his testimony, the economist provided all the instances where States return much more from their lands than the Federal agencies, and in all examples provided it was because States charge much more for similar resources as a result of Congress setting the rates very low to repay some political favors.

Those who called this witness hailed him as a genius. Not because he gave them some really good ideas the Feds could implement for better returns, rather they used his report as to why States are the way to go.

Top differences between Fed and State fees from land use and resource extraction cited by the economist were:

1. Federal grazing rate being about 10% of what States charge.

2. Federal agencies not allowed to put leases out to competitive bid as States do, thus eliminating competition for other land values such as wildlife, water, and conservation values.

3. Feds charge half the coal royalty rate as the States charge.

4. Feds charge 50%-70% of the oil and gas royalty rate the States charge.

These Congressmen/women who called the economist as a witness do not see it as an opportunity to manage Federal lands better and take lessons from the States. Congress could make everyone of the changes suggested and improve Federal land management. Instead, after the hearing is over, these anti-public land Committee members praise the economist's report for helping them make the case that the lands should go to the States.

Fast forward one month later. The Secretary of Interior comes to the same Committee and says she intends to start the process of better returns on Federal lands. She is seeking Congress' approval to act on some of the ideas to increase returns on Federal lands. The ideas she provides are to change the differences listed in items 3 and 4 above. It is almost verbatim to what testimony was given a month prior by the economist.

Now, the same Congressmen/women who praised the economist as being a genius become hostile to the Secretary of Interior and ridicule her as she provides the economist's ideas as a starting point for better management of BLM lands. Her suggestions are rejected summarily by the pro-transfer members of the Committee. She is shown the door.

Seeing that response by those who claim Federal lands are mismanaged showed me that they have no interest in better management. Better management is nothing more than a smoke screen to those who want to transfer/sell public lands. They have every power to improve that land management and when provided that opportunity, they reject it.

I wish it was different, but that is how it works in Congress. I spend a lot of time in discussions with these policy leaders. When you bring up topics that would allow for more flexibility and better returns on Federal lands, the Congressional critics who ideologically hate public lands and criticize Federal land management refuse to act on sensible ideas that would improve Federal land management.

We in America have done a good job of blaming many of our problems on the "damn Feds." Well, the "damn Feds" are Congress. We could have a huge step forward if we changed the "Damn Feds" and got rid of many obstructionists in Congress.

These folks in Congress don't want solutions. They don't want better management. They want gridlock and turmoil as it supports their narrative. And they know people will take their frustrations out on the local forester, range manager, biologist, when really they should kick their Congressman in the political crotch.

The "better management" argument by the anti-public lands crowd is a dead end with me. I've spent too much time fighting with them to buy into the hypocrisy of their claims when compared to their actions.

I think we are all interested in better management. First of all I am very pro public lands and am always telling people that I don't think the general public or Congress will ever allow the Federal Government to let the states take control of the public land. I could be wrong but I just don't see it ever happening.

As far as public lands grazing and the grazing fee debate you are trying to compare apples to oranges. Here in the SW we have year long grazing allotments and many of them have been in family management for over four generations. They have very little deeded land or commensurate property attached and therefore are and have been almost totally dependent on the public land since the late 1880's and early 1900's. These ranchers have invested hugely in and for many years of range improvements, and most importantly have developed water systems and many types of water catchments. These were done in cooperation with the Agencies and includes many miles of fence for better forage utilization and benefits to not only their livestock but to all of the wildlife. Most of these developments were made using mostly rancher money and a lot of the materials used in these improvements are range improvement dollars that a portion of the grazing fees went back into. I spent many hours of work with my D7 dozer for years building and cleaning tanks on our grazing allotments.

Most of this huge US Forest Service managed land was the lesser quality lands that weren't homesteaded. The land that was homesteaded was the bottom land along the streams and riparian areas. The huge difference in the grazing fee debate is most of these public lands have much less carrying capacity so whereas out on private and most State lands you have high carrying capacities and much lower costs to run more cattle on less acres for less cost. My son and nephew still run a huge swath of public ranch country and it is the roughest ranch in the State of New Mexico. It amounts to 145 sections of country to run less than 300 cow. Their costs per cow at the present grazing fee on the USFS is very comparable to what they would pay out on private even if they could find enough private. This part of the world is 90% USFS and all of the private land in this part of the county wouldn't be enough to run 500 cows on. These ranches are an integral part of our counties economic revenue and these ranches are utilizing a renewable natural resource, and have been since the 1870's. Most are good managers and stewards of the land for not only their livestock but wildlife also. Since the 1980's our elk herds have exploded and for the most part the ranchers are living with them and even accepting them and doing more range improvements to benefit from the landowner permits they sometimes get on their deeded property along the rivers and streams here that the elk need for critical spring and early summer habitat.

Bidding on these old family ranches is not an option or even feasible.

I have owned three different grazing leases here on the Gila/Apache/Sitgreaves National Forests and was President of the Gila National Forest Grazing Permittee Association for several years and know grazing and management of the public land here in the SW part very intimately.

With that said I think the public lands grazer gets a bum rap most of the time.

I did see the light however many years ago and got rid of our public land ranches and went into outfitting full time. I saw a much brighter future in recreation of the public land than ranching. I haven't regretted my decision and have built up one of the top wilderness hunting operations in the west. I am definitely pro public land but get on the hook when my friends, neighbors and family are accused of being subsided welfare ranchers. Come down and let me show you first hand of the invalidity of that notion.

If you ever get down here to hunt stop by and have a cup of coffee and we can visit about all of our elk hunting. I have watched your show and think you do a good job. I think the RMEF is fortunate to have your caliber of director on their board. I used to judge the World Champion Bugling Contest for many years.

By the way I used to go to Washington, DC to testify and lobby for our FS grazing association. I'm with you that our Congress isn't very functional at all.

Picture is 1/2 mile from my house on USFS but had just come out of my farm where they spent all summer. 22 bulls with 4 over 350 and one in the 370's. The 427 bull that was poached in 2014 was very near where this picture was taken.

I think it shows the hypocrisy of the "sell/transfer the Federal land" crowd when they complain about poor Federal management, but they scream even louder when the Federal land managers try to do things that improve returns on Federal lands. They can't have it both ways.

Personally, I have no problem with public land grazing being as low as it is, so long as they comply with the grazing rules, they realize this cheap grazing is not a perpetual property right, and they actually pay the fee. In your part of the world, and in other arid environments, the water sources built for cattle are a benefit to wildlife. Grazing itself, if done properly can be better for wildlife than no grazing.

My point is this. One cannot argue about States being good land managers and Feds being bad land managers, and then defend the ridiculously below-market fees Congress forces the Feds to use when trying to get a decent return on Federal lands.

There is a reason the timber industry in Montana has come out against transfer/sell of Federal lands. There is a reason none of the state or national grazing groups have come out in favor of transferring/selling public lands. They know they have it pretty good with the pricing being what it currently is.

I would caution any groups/person who is currently getting a screaming deal on Federal land usage fees, like those the economist mentioned in his Congressional testimony, ranchers, oil and gas, coal, to think twice about screaming for state control under the premise of "better management." Better management usually entails getting a market-based return on those lands, something Congress refuses to let the Federal agencies do, and is much to the benefit of those users, many of whom are important constituents to the obstructionists in Congress.

Go back and read my post. I gave a fairly general but accurate overview of to the true reality of the grazing fee issue.

Public lands grazing fees when everything is taken into consideration ave very comparable to the state and private grazing rates. You continue to emphasize ".....cheap grazing...." and ".....ridiculously below market fees.....

You are wrong for a huge part when you state, "There is a reason none of the state or national grazing groups have come out in favor of transferring/selling public lands." Many, at least in NM, were and are at the forefront of lobbying at our state legislature to have the states take control of the public land.

I have watched the radical environmental groups use the grazing fee issue for many years and their well oiled propaganda machine has put this in every media, publication and mainstream communications so often and so long that they have actually turned the general public and in particular hunters into actually believing this fairy tale. If you tell this falsehood often enough and long enough the people start believing it as gospel. On the surface what you are saying looks correct. If you take time to dig in and truly compare the cost and benefits of public versus private and even State grazing fees, you might be surprised.

Come down to New Mexico and Arizona and talk to the University PHD economists and range experts and then go out onto these ranches and you will quickly see that the grazing fee comparisons are almost even when you take in all of the monetary costs and the costs that have no quantifiable measure but have great effects as to the well being of the public lands rancher. Just the time and effort to deal with the red tape of the government agency is a part of the cost. These ranchers are under even more pressure from the Endangered Specie Act and the radical environmentalists.

Big Fin our biggest enemy are the radical enviros namely the Center for Biological Diversity. That is whom the RMEF and all true conservation organizations should be worrying about. These NGO's are well organized and very, very well funded. The states are never going to gain control of the public lands.

I do remember a few years ago I saw somewhere in RMEF printed material or stories that they were even mentioning the Wildlands Project as if it were something good. Check into this movement if you want to see something scary and we thought was absolutely crazy and not going anywhere. We we were wrong the movement is alive and well and they are gaining ground every day to make all wilderness areas off limits to humans and all areas inbetween as corrido areas with very limited human use. The are promoting full predator re-establishment with wolves being their first avenue to stop public use of the land and last year the CBD released a 36 page petition to force the USFWS to return the grizzlies to much of the west including the Mogollon Rim which basically is all of the great elk country through AZ and down into the Gila in NM.

These deep ecologist folks Dr. Reed Noss and Earth First founder George Foreman are the masterminds. Their website used to have on it that "a human is no better than a cat , a rat or a snail." They took it off finaly. These people are Earth Worshippers. They hate humans out on their alter the mother earth.

RMEF better take a hard look at what these folks are doing to the western US as well as the rest of the US. They don't want hunters out there either. The ranching, logging, oil, mining and hunting and recreation folks better join hands to fight these people and not whip each other into a frenzy over the state gaining control of the public land. United we can stand but fighting each other does no good.

I'm a retired engineer, I worked in hi tech industries for most of my working years. I got bored (in about 3 weeks) after I retired.

I did some fun things guiding and running jet boats for a year or few and then ended up with a summer job for the USFS. I've been doing that for 12 years.

When I hear the folks around here preaching about how the state would run and take care of the land better than the "feds" I basically laugh my butt off.

My job is control of noxious weeds so I naturally look at the status of them when I'm out working or when I'm out playing.

Take my word for it --- state run lands are NOT better managed, not here in Idaho anyway. There are many school house sections of Idaho endowment lands around here that have not seen ANY management, care, or even been looked at in YEARS.

The state is NOT a better steward for these lands, they don't even seem to give a damn. I'm not going to site any particular area but at least in Central Idaho this myth of better management is just so much BS.

The state doesn't have the resource or evidently the desire to do what these nuts claim they would/could do.

My own personal belief is that it IS just an effort by a moneyed (is that a word?) few to make more $$$ at the expense of John Q Public. No it's not just the republicans, the left side is active as hell too!!

DDD

What is to keep the Center for Biological Diversity, SFW, or myself from looking at those beautiful bulls on that property your family has improved over generations, and decide to offer a higher bid for the lease than a rancher running 300 cows could ever offer?

Currently under federal management that would not be allowed because your family has preference due to long time use. Even if someone offers more money than your family can, your use of the property is protected. Under current state management that use is not protected and high bidder takes the lease. This can and has already happened in New Mexico on state lands.

I think what Big Fin and others like myself are trying to point out in regards to "cheap" federal grazing rates is that ranchers using federal lands have it about as cheap as it can ever be. Currently, it is basically subsidized and quite frankly, I'm fine with that. I'd like having your family ranching and caring for those sections of land that I can now access for hunting and recreation even if it costs taxpayers more money than the leases return. We should be allies in retaining the rights we currently enjoy and looking for ways to reform management policy that is not sound.

Under state management, I as a hunter stand to lose access and your family as ranchers stand to lose grazing leases if you are outbid. Sure, the land might actually return more money to the state budgets, but current users suffer loss of access.

I agree with you on the dangers of far left environmental groups getting to implement their vision for land management. I'm also not blind to the dangers of allowing those who only see $$$$$ when they look at public lands implement their vision for land management.

For those who say that transfer of federal lands to state ain't gonna happen.... you aren't listening to what official Republican Party policy is saying. Sell/transfer is part of the party platform and those in state legislatures who were previously considered "fringe" operators are gaining publicity and support. IMO that support is due to an anti-fed/Obama sentiment rather than an understanding of what stands to happen should transfer occur.

IMO, conservative Republican candidates who break from the party's official policy concerning future land management, could capitalize on both anti/Obama frustration and the distrust many center/left leaning voters have for pro/transfer politicians.

With regard to ranching fees, the fact that land has been leased to a family for generations doesn't entitle them to get bargain rates forever, and if they are not actually bargain rates because of the low value of the land for ranching, that would be borne out by putting it up for bid.

Still un-addressed are the bargain rates on coal or oil production on federal lands. That needs to be addressed.

What do we have to gain from changing the status quo?

We have all to loose and nothing to gain. However the politicians that are being paid off by industry lobbies to facilitate these transfers have a lot to gain. For example take a look at the super pac constitutions for Cruz, the out spoken admitted land grabber. It reads like the who who in big oil, natural gas, mining and industrial support companies. Not to mention his wife Goldman sacs private equity hacks who stand to profite from the investment in the above companies.

I am in tune with the NM legislators and the NM movement to acquire the public land. I will say again and this is strictly my own opinion, the state legislators won't let it happen, The populace of the United States won't let it happen and the US Congress won't let it happen. And I don't want it to happen.

If the rancher's equity in the range improvements they have put in place for the long term holding of the grazing leases are added up, that alone would equalize the grazing fee difference. If you consider that the many multiple uses of the public land including wood cutters, hunters, recreationists, logging, mining, ATV'ers, bird watchers and the list goes on. They all are using the same public land. The government is realizing a substantial value for all of these simultaneous uses. The livestock producer has his fences cut, his gates left open and cattle get scattered all over and it takes weeks to straighten out just that one open gate, water tanks shot, pipeline's tore up, illegal four wheeler trails all over and up steep horse trails and the resulting erosion and cattle shot and left to rot, cattle shot and butchered and on and on.

On private land however the rancher can lock it all up and manage his land with out all of the damage and left open gates. He can also harvest and sell his own timber. He can do many things to better his land with out gov't and environmental intrusion. He has the prime bottom lands that can run 10 times the amount of cattle and then you guys are trying to tell me the public lands grazing fees are cheap. Yes on the surface they look dirt cheap. If you figure in all of the added costs of running on public land it quickly evens right out. Oh and they can't shoot the wolves eating their livestock on public land but on private if you find a wolf attacking your livestock you can shoot the darn things. Radical environmental repercussions hit the public lands much harder than private lands. All of the huge layer of government red tape to deal with is a big burden.

The big share of these public lands ranchers are good managers and maintain their improvements and keep the water flowing so that all wildlife benefit also.

We are not complaining mind you, just trying to point out the huge difference between private grazing and public.

It would be so nice for some on this blog to really try to dig in and find out the real story here. It isn't black and white and most of you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

yea it reads the same way.

Trial, the more you post in these threads the more convinced I am you are nothing but a political puppet.

if there was some way we all could block your asinine rambling we all be better off, in ever single thread.

Here's the course. Instead of debating the issues, you turn these threads into political punch lines. Therefore, when someone does disagree with your reasoning, you begin to try and belittle them. At least I'm capable of debating issues politics aside. You have yet to prove that ability or desire. And, resort to childish banter when doing so.

Babble? Yeah, we all know who is babbling the same thing over and over.

God Bless men

The reflex of calling someone a liberal or a right-winger is what leads to, in some cases, people being misled into believing something that is against their own interests.(full disclosure, I am a moderate who voted against Obama both times)

For example, I don't like welfare both for the cost, but more for what it has done to our society - the entitlement mentality. However, corporate welfare is a reality, and I am not blind to influence buying of congressmen by wealthy interests to get sweetheart deals that cost the taxpayer. Yet this us-against-them divide seems to get many conservatives (such as Republican politicians) supporting below market value timber rights and mineral rights on federal lands.

Look at the ethanol farce. It is not only a fraud environmentally, but it costs the gasoline-buying pubic plenty, especially fisherman and other boaters whose engines get ruined by this crap. But it pumps money into Agribusiness' pocket. Why would a conservative support it? BTW Obama does and McCain did not, but it would be dead without Republican support.

Ed

This is just one tiny sliver of the map around where I live. Per the discussion on Trial's other "debate free" thread, I quickly identified over 6,000 acres of landlocked or otherwise inaccessible USFS and BLM land just in my immediate neighborhood.

I'm against sale or transfer of public lands, too. But the reality is that there are probably millions of acres throughout the West that are inaccessible.

"Should" the USFS buy the adjoining private land and make all this contiguous? Of course they "should". But the market price for land in this area on the little map is around $2,000-4,000 per acre, minimum. So each little white square is valued at roughly $2,000,000. To connect the dots in this tiny parcel would cost taxpayers over $20 million dollars.

Their goal is simple: open up greater stretches of the West to mining, drilling, ranching and other economic activities, generating tax revenue for the states, and, of course, profits for the companies and individuals involved. (Otherwise, the states simply couldn’t afford to manage so much land.)

The only way it makes sense financially is to open the land up

States cannot afford to manage this much public land unless they open more of it to natural resource extraction. This is what a report commissioned as part of Utah’s land transfer law found: For Utah to be able to generate the money it needs to manage 31 million more acres, it would have to increase drilling and mining. And it would need to demand 100 percent of the royalties from extraction (Utah currently splits mineral royalties 50-50 with the federal government). And even then, oil and gas prices would need to remain stable and high.

An Idaho study found that in 8 of 9 scenarios, the state couldn’t afford a land transfer at all. In the one scenario where the state could make money, the timber industry would have to be having an extraordinary year.

The state of Nevada has sold 2.7 million acres (99.98 percent) of its state land had and now retains only a paltry 3,000 acres of its original school trust lands. So the acres they received at statehood, got auctioned, sold and divided and became the Las Vegas Strip. How many acres of that 2.7 million does the state still have? At most (no official number can be found) 35,000 acres. Out of 2.7 MILLION!

Roughly 700,000 acres of state land in Idaho are already currently closed to public access. Idaho has already sold over 1.5 million acres of the state land which it was originally granted, which amounts to over 30 percent of all state lands it has owned.

Wisconsin had 3.25 million acres of trust land. They have about 75,000 left!

I hear people argue about who owned the land in the past with this subject. Do you mean when the Indians had it or when the US was going back and forth with other countries who owned the Oregon Territory (OR, WA & ID)? I would say the land that is the Forest Service now is about 125 years old. From 1843 to 1850 Oregon settlers could claim a full section of land (640 acres). When Oregon became a Territory in 1848, Congress nullified the land grants. Congress passed the Oregon Donation Land Claim Act in 1850 that expired in 1855 that saw 7,000 land patents been issued. This Act which only allowed adult white males to claim a half section of land for himself and if married another half section in his wife’s name. The Federal Forest Reserve Act of 1891 allowed around 40 million acres of land to be established by 1897 and managed by the General Land Office (Department of Interior). Congress moved the reserves in 1905 to the Division of Forestry (Dept of Ag).

I'm not sure how much of that 40 million acres was developed back in the 1800's with the low amount of people out west, lack of technology, lack of water for livestock, and rugged terrain. Yes in the valleys and lower foothills. So I would say we didn't do anything before the government took it. The government actually never took it from US citizens. US citizens never purchased this land because you could not farm and make money off the land again because of the technology, ruggedness, and lack of water back then.

I can't seem to find anything online about it but it would be interesting to know. Definitely precedent-setting.

The entire effort is being co-funded by George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.

From some of the posts on this thread, it seems amazing that there's any public land left all. Then again, if liberals had their way, we'd have no hunting, no gun ownership, wolves everywhere to control wildlife, and life would be just grand. But we would all have free health care and doctors like yourself would be paid minimum wage, because, you know, it wouldn't be fair for you to make more than a Popeye's Chicken worker.

Again look at western Oregon maps that show checker boarded public and private land. Then can the local western Oregon BLM offices and ask if there is access to those small BLM parcels through private property.

Hope I don't upset local Oregon hunters here by sharing this info with out-of-state hunters!

There is no disparity on cost of access between residents or nonresidents on federally owned property. Those lands are held in trust by the federal government for all citizens and access costs the same regardless of residency.

I know different states have different access laws concerning private property rights, but that is definitely NOT allowed in Montana. Public lands may only be access from public easements unless you access from private land that you have gained permission from a landowner to be on his property.

Doesn't matter anyway because it is the private landowner who can prosecute if he wants, and up to the local Sheriff to decide if charges are warranted. Neither the BLM nor USFS have any say in the matter.

EDIT: Gray Ghost mentioned access to tiny parcels across private land. Yes, you can, so long as there is a specific easement negotiated and legally recorded across the private land.

My corner crossing information was because he specifically referenced my checkerboard map above, saying it didn't mean anything. Those who have defended themselves in court may disagree.

"Corner crossings in the checkerboard land pattern area or elsewhere are not considered legal."

FACTUAL BACKGROUND This controversy exists because of the unusual "checkerboard" land ownership pattern prevalent in much of the West. In order to promote the development of transportation improvements such as railroads, the government often granted land in alternating sections along and near the proposed route.

The government typically donated the odd-numbered sections while reserving the even-numbered sections for later disposal that often did not occur.

In areas of checkerboard ownership, federal and nonfederal landowners must often cross the other's property to get to their own, which can create numerous legal difficulties with respect to land access.

Not sure why people keep bringing up CORNER CROSSING when I'm not even talking about that. I guess you just have to come here to western Oregon and find out for yourselves. ALL the locals know it, hunt it, fish it, camp it, and hike it!

“Based on the courts' previous application of the Property Clause, there is a high probability that a court would hold that the federal government is the sovereign of public lands surrendered to or withheld by the federal government at the time of Utah's acceptance into the Union. See generally United States v. Nye County, 920 F. Supp. 1108, 1109 (D. Nev. 1996); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92 (1872). In short, the state has no standing as sovereign to exercise eminent domain or assert any other state law that is contrary to federal law on land or property that the federal government holds under the Property Clause.” From the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel dated February 10, 2010.

Now here we get into the meat of the topic—as a side-note this is what should have come first in this document, because all else are side issues. While this—the argument that the Enclave Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) rather than the Property Clause (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2) rules all federal lands in spite of the "Property Clause" language to wit: “nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State”—is your core concern and likely both the source of your anger and your hope, it is really without warrant and those egging you on like Bundy family friend Nevada Representative Michele Fiore (1,2,3) know it or at least should know it.

In Ms. Fiore’s case she tried to write legislation in Nevada known in some circles as the “Bundy Bill” using a similar philosophy to covert federal lands to state lands. Ms. Fiore’s efforts did not proceed because the Legislative Counsel Bureau told the Nevada Assembly leadership that the bill she offered was unconstitutional. And she should have already known that because her colleagues in this effort to take federal lands away from the people who actually own them (1,2,3) tried a similar legal stunt in Utah a few years before with the same response from legal experts familiar with case law and the US Constitution (see above opinion in Utah).

"Emphasis shifted during the 20th century from the disposal and conveyance of title to private citizens to the retention and management of the remaining federal lands. During debates on the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, some western Members of Congress acknowledged the poor prospects for relinquishing federal lands to the states, but language included in the act left disposal as a possibility. It was not until the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) that Congress expressly declared that the remaining public domain lands generally would remain in federal ownership." pages 2-3 of in Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data by Congressional Research Service (2014)"

BLM land belongs to the government. It isn't designated as public unless the government sees fit to allow it. Like it or not, that is the way it is. The way it was intended. And, the way it will be approached.

In these discussion but, a few hand full of people even realize this. Distinguishing between the two is very important if you intend to have a deliberate conversation on how to approach it.

God Bless men

The states have zero business trying to take over the federal lands that are owned by ALL citizens of the USA.

The roads shown on my map don't give access to the public squares, even though some of them originate from public roads. Even numbered roads can be posted at the boundaries.

What you are describing isn't rocket surgery. You can ask the BLM about easements anywhere, not just Oregon. But the HUGE majority of checkerboard sections are not legally accessible. Whether or not you'll be prosecuted is a different matter entirely.

"Western Oregon maps looks just like that with checker boarded public parcels but we the public can access all of it!"

That is absolutely not true, at least within the law. There is not a public road connecting every checkerboarded section in Oregon. Otherwise the public road system would look like a spiderweb through private land.

For an example, go look at Sierra Pacific's website. They have their blanket permission and rules for access right on their website. That's why you have access.

SAY IT AIN'T SO! THIS CAN'T BE TRUE!

I'm kind of surprised you were not aware that our checkerboard areas are, for the most part, open to travel and hunting, and other recreation. these Timber Co / Government checkerboards are seen a lot.

In your earlier post you made it seem like a great thing that the "public can access all of it!" If it's true that there is a public road every square mile in western Oregon, it must be a really sucky place to live.

No wonder all the lefty greenies in Portland seem so sour and depressed most of the time!

I don't pay a lot of attention to OR aaccess issues. My bad, and thanks for pointing it out.

Read again. No public nor congressional approval nor consent needed. Just a paper and a pen.

Please note... hunting was a part of the LEGALLY MANDATED multiple use plan of the area beforehand. YOU COULD HUNT IT. The law said hunting had to be a part of the management plan. That is no longer guaranteed, it is totally up to the Feds, with NO public input, to do what they feel like.... hunters... won... nothing. They were however put on the clock... any powerful anti-hunting interest now has their opening to do what they will, again... with the swipe of a pen.

Anyone that wants to put the Fed interest in the welfare of hunters on the top row only need to look at things like the wolf introductions stuffed down the throats of those who live, work, and have to deal with it 24/7 in the western states. Done so using the leverage of withholding federal money that had been appropriated for those states...... i. e. you don't require seat belts or this or that.... you get no federal interstate highway funds.

You know... things that are stuffed down their throats by some liberal urban bonehead in DC or NYC or someplace that hunters were eradicated from generations ago....

Some of these are blocking access to larger parcels of National Forest where it is legal to hunt, or at least forcing a long hike-around because being caught in there with a weapon during hunting season is a BIG problem.

Good deal for WY resident hunters and outfitters, bad deal for hunters from the other 56 states (out of Obama's "57 states"..)

You can fish, hike, camp, backpack, photograph, conceive babies, pan for gold, pretty much anything except carry a bow. Ridiculous.

Spike, if the lands are put in monument status, there's zero chance of it becoming a richy rich's playground.

Transfer of lands to the states will insure that a large portion will go to the richest of us and that's the 1% ers.

I think the 1% are playing the tea party right wingers. Throw in some verbiage about being patriotic, and it being your duty and all. Then throw out some stuff about how this public lands management is keeping the average man down economically and there you go. You have a following of Bundy's.

There are 15 total wilderness areas in Wyoming and the last designations were in 1984 when Reagan was President.

There were no inclusions into Wyoming Wilderness during Clinton rein.

But blaming King Reagan would not go well with ideology.

God Bless men

I'm fully aware that is a state rule. That doesn't make it any different. It is stupid and yes, welfare for outfitters.

The management of our public lands could be done a lot better, they have been defunded to make a case of just that.

Our state lands remind me of a cleaning rag that's been used so hard that it's still intact but almost see thru because it's been used so much. For the most part these lands are far from pristine, and not very wildlife friendly.

Personally, I think this whole land grabbing issue is just an attempt to amass people under a party designation. Which this thread pretty much attests too. And, I think those amassed make a lot of assumptions about the opposing side. I don't recall anyone here saying the feds were doing a bad job of management. But, I do see where it helps to insinuate that when defending their position on this topic.

God Bless men.

The only reason it sounds like the land grabbing issue is an attempt to amass people under a party designation is because right now it is OFFICIAL Republican party platform policy to move towards state transfer and sale of public lands. Currently, Donald Trump is the only Republican candidate who has gone on record as being against the transfer of federal lands to state management.

The other Republican candidates are on record as supporting transfer, with Cruz being especially supportive of transfer.

Maybe in your tiny little world everything is explained by looking at Dem vs. Republican, but there are a lot of people who are pointing out the folly of what the Republicans are proposing that have pulled the R. lever consistently in past elections.

The ISSUE of pubic land for sale or transfer is non existent. PUBLIC land is not for sale nor transfer to the states. It isn't legal. It never will be. Because publically owned property belongs to the public. Not the Government. I have said that for THREE years here. In every one of these threads. However, don't take my word for it. Do your own research and see for yourself why these Bills in Congress include the transfer of BLM land and NOT the National Forests.

Research why the BLM is the BLM. You will then see the differences and, you will soon see these Bills are not what is being made out to be by the OP's of these threads. As Lou pointed out, the proposition of bills we could possibly see in front of our Congress today are just an extenuation of the Bill put into play in the mid 1990's. That's it. There will never be a bill to successfully transfer ownership of PUBLIC National Forest land to the states.

So, I see politics as blinding folks posting here. Party preferences are causing them to lump different land holdings into one large group and, call it all public land. Well, I got news for you. It isn't all public land. Blindness, caused by party preferences, spurs them to talk about the evils of a timber company owning large tracts of forest land, as if it is a threat. When it takes about 1/10th of a second of common sense to realize that timber companies want the land undeveloped, and inhibited by people who use it as recreation. So, there is no harm they offer to these places in the form of development. Selling it off. Abolishing use's Etc... I see the same blindness exhibited by men that point out a party or, candidate as being driven by funding to steal this land from the public, when they are attempting to complete the intent of the whole process coming full circle. As designed I might add. It is just political banter to amass anything opposite of corporate. Say it ain't so? Well, I really don't think that is possible at this point.

Leave your party preferences at the door. Because if you don't, you miss the little details that define this topic.

God Bless men

This is their Hail Mary pass. I saw Aaron Rodgers throw 2 this season and win games. So who knows.

It's my cold dead fingers issue.

Insert random other party fear here__________________________

You don't think the policy will continue if your gal Hillary is elected?

Hmmm, who is pushing for this wind development? Imagine if 20 million acres of our public land were turned into WIND FARMS? How much hunting do you supposed you Lefties would be doing beneath the turbines?

"Loss" of public land is a bipartisan problem. You guys are worried about 1.5 million acres. I'm worried about millions and millions of acres of public land that will be rendered inaccessible to all of us because of Left-wing politics.

Green Left-wing billionaire Wall Street hedge fund robber barons (and huge Democratic bundlers-donors) like Tom Steyer want to lock up public land for giant wind and solar farms, which then eliminates hunting and recreation, but that's ok because they're on your side.

Others on the Left want to lock up land for hiking, sightseeing and other recreation, but eliminate hunting.

If a timber company wants to responsibly log public land and keep it (and their privately-held land) open for hunting and recreation, somehow that's bad?

But it seems Lefties have a problem addressing the problem objectively without creating mythical straw-men to blame, without looking at the big picture. Yes, some Republicans are for wholesale transfer to the states, but not enough that it will pass a national House or Senate vote. Let's not forget it was Bill Clinton who signed the law in the first place, mandating agencies to identify and "dispose of" surplus land.

Some Democrats are against all guns, against hunting, against hunting on public land, for wholesale wolf reintroduction, but again, not enough to get it through even with a super-majority and ideological president.

Why not just say it's white people trying to lock black people out of public land? Then we could make it into a racial straw-man too.

Massive wind and solar farms will never happen, folks. Don't worry about it....

"Presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders in December introduced a sweeping renewable-energy plan that would, among other things, require tens of thousands of new wind turbines."

Do you think the Democrite plans to put "tens of thousands of wind turbines" on 20,000,000 acres of our public land in the West is "conserving" the land?

Really? Obama ordered his BLM to do an inventory on land with "wind potential". The BLM identified 20M suitable acres. Sanders has pledged to go full-force in wrecking that land if elected.

That's 31,000 SQUARE MILES. Have you seen a wind farm? How was the hunting? How was the pristine scenery?

The "tree-hugging", "green" Lefty crowd wants to rape huge tracts of our public land with massive solar and wind farms. This is no secret. While I'm not in favor of transfer of control to the states, the Dems know if this happens their land-grab to convert it into a 31,000 square mile power plant will go down the tubes.

This whole weepy "saving the pristine land" gimmick is nothing more than a ruse by the political Left until they can grab it for their own commercial, government-subsidized uses.

It's so easy to pull a few emotional strings and get the strong hearted, weaker minded aroused with the green agenda. Here's the facts so there is no confusion. We are all WILLING to fight for it. But, in order to win we have got to approach it from a stand point that leaves the finger pointing, political puppets out. This behavior is what allows it to continue. Why can you men not see that?

This, my liberal friends, is the Democrat's vision of a perfect sunset over public land in the West.

Ahhh, I'm picturing a quiet evening in a treestand strapped to one of these things, waiting for the buck of my dreams to wander by! The only sounds will be the whispering of the blades and the hum of the turbines. So peaceful...

And the migratory birds figured out how to get to and from places a long ways apart - they'll figure out how to fly around them.

I agree with your point Lou, but I still think there's a lot of places where wind and solar farms could be put in and not a single big game animal would be disaffected.

Ike, I agree with you because it makes sense. Most anyone would say the same. However, from whats been expressed in this thread, by a good bit of the posts, is the obvious reality that for some it would only qualify as a good idea if the people proposing it had a D in their party designation. That is the sad part of it.

God Bless men.

That's why we have to pick our poison and our organizations to support, because no politician or organization is perfect, nor immune from special interests on either side.

I suppose you could hunt in between the strips!

Her bill was about allowing counties to request abatement from federal agencies to help curb wildfires. Where I live, and surviving two massive wildfires that crossed back and forth from USFS to county to private land in the past several years, this is not a bad thing. Our local HotShots fighting the fires, county crews, and private citizens dozing fire breaks, alongside the USFS fire crews, were a big part of the containment effort.

Her bill had nothing to do with any sort of "land grab".

My goodness, I hope you boys aren't getting paid to lobby for this cause. If so, quit. You'll ensure we do loose all the federal land for our recreation by continuing this the way you are going about it.

ARTICLE X. State and Federal Lands The Idaho Republican Party believes that due to state and federal governments administering the majority of Idaho lands, we need to limit and reduce the amount of land owned or administered by the federal government. We believe Idaho should manage and administer all state and federal lands.

"This executive action came into being because Congress would not act to bring forward a federal approach to this issue."

"Laws passed in 2015 require at least half of California’s electricity to come from renewable sources by 2030."

Hmmmm, now where do you suppose the massive wind and solar farms will be located to provide half of CA's electricity? Where, where, where? Why, on our pristine public lands you all appear so concerned about, that's where!

But notice it doesn't say CA must produce it. Only acquire it. According to this article, it will require federal action to force other uncooperative Western states to get on board and start producing "renewable energy" NOW.

I just ran some quick numbers - California's mandate to have 50% of electricity from renewable resources would consume roughly 2 MILLION ACRES of federal public land just for the turbine farms. That doesn't include the massive transmission lines and substations that go along with them. That's just California.

How about that? Which state has the most wind with that much FEDERAL PUBLIC LAND. Hmmm... Could it be Wyoming? Hmmmm.... I'm not in favor of wholesale transfer to the states, but if the feds continue overreach like our current president seems inclined to do, feds could force-feed Wyoming with the task of becoming the 3,000 SQUARE MILE power plant for California.

How do you suppose the WY hunters would like it if the question were framed to them truthfully?

Thanks for this one. It confirms what I posted earlier - that these proposals are from a few whack jobs on the fringe, and will never pass the state legislatures. "Twenty one of the proposals in six state legislatures died".

But if you want to use them as examples to slam all conservatives, by all means, have at it. I can post plenty of factual data to prove the Dems are all about exploiting public land in the West for profiteering by their own taxpayer-subsidized "green" special interests.

When will you understand that this isn't a Republican or Democrat issue? It's about politicians of every stripe and their sponsoring special interests to profit from our public lands by any deceptive means necessary.

2 million acres. That is 2.5 times bigger than the whole state of Rhode Island.

It is becoming ever clear why the Pres. signed in the National Monument in California. Just another example of political favors when the long term future is already known considering some of these lands. I wander how hunting and, other types of outdoor recreation is going to get the shaft because of this type of back scratching by the politicians promoting protection of these same lands?

Makes one who is willing to think realize reality. It makes sheep out of those that aren't. God Bless men

Most Californians want renewable energy. But a loud and well-financed fringe minority far left whackos don't want any solar or wind farms either - they just think we should all go without energy.

A fix so WY will not have to be "force-feed 3,000 sq miles of power plant" is to make some National Monuments. Problem fixed! Hahaha Thought you would like that.

Lou is right ... lots of "interests" out there. Politicians know who feeds them, and it's not hunters, or other outdoors-people.

WY is in a major money crunch right now with energy prices so low, and this sort of thing is sold to the locals as "building jobs".

As a new big game hunter and interested in public lands I started looking into this the other day and was amazed at the amount of State Trust Land that is inaccessible in Colorado.

After hearing a lot of the discussion and with the advent of the internet one would think the states could make a killing off of this land! For example, lots of STL east of Co Springs, much of which holds Pronghorn... some good pot hole ponds for waterfowl, ect... what if they Divided it up into sections much like mini GMU's and let hunters lease it for a day for $10-20 The"leasing" could be done by internet and pay by credit card, imagine if they opened up STL like that all over the state. The State would make a killing, people have to check in and out via internet, obviously they could make certain land walk in only or limit atv, use or low velocity weapons only if it is too near a town, but I feel this would be amazing revenue for the states and open up so many opportunities for sportsmen.

Most of those sections aren't fenced, and since you are a new hunter you may not be aware of the big trespassing problem in that area. Guys from the Front Range drive around all over out there during seasons, with licenses but no permission. But WY allows open access to State trust land and is able to manage it. Although they have waaay fewer hunters than CO so maybe trespassing on adjacent land isn't much of a problem.

A better solution would be to treat it like NF and lease the grazing rights but allow public access where access is legally available.

John's example is exactly what I was referring to, and it's only the tip of the iceberg of what the green left wants to do with our public lands.

What I don't want to see is federal public land transferred to states to be sold, or kept as federal public land to be "sold" to green special interests as massive wind and solar farms on wildlife habitat, as John described. The Rawlins wind farm is just the beginning as far as detrimental effect on hunters and wildlife.

"I will build tens of thousands of windmills." The BLM has identified 20 million acres of public land that is wind-suitable.

Let's put it another way: If Wyoming controlled that land, do you think there would be 1,000 windmills built on critical big game winter range to provide electricity to California? Maybe yes, maybe no. But in this case the feds shoved it down the throats of the folks of Wyoming. Get used to it - it's only beginning.

"Wind farms - coming soon to public land near you!"

House Moves On Bills That Would Allow States To Seize Millions Of Acres Of Public Lands

The first bill, introduced by Representative Don Young from Alaska (R), would allow any state to seize control and ownership of up to 2 million acres of national forests within its borders — an area nearly the size of Yellowstone National Park. A state would then be able to auction off the lands to private ownership or for mining, logging, and drilling.

The second bill, written by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), would give states and counties the right to take direct control of up to 4 million acres of national forests across the country for clear-cut logging, without regard to environmental laws and protections. A third bill, written by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), would turn over what the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance estimates to be 6,000 miles of road right-of-ways on U.S. public lands to counties in Utah, opening the door for road construction and development.

might be a lil more credible...........

How about instead focusing on exposing the current USFWS plan to ban predator hunting on 77 MILLION acres of Alaska's federal wildlife refuges. This is moving forward without a vote, only by decree. This is part of why the states are angry about federal control from the cushy confines of D.C. Nobody bothered to ask the people in Alaska if they want this, just like nobody asked the people in WY if they wanted a giant wind farm to provide electricity to California.

The rule is being proposed to stop the targeting of predators "to increase the output of large game animals like deer, caribou, and moose for human consumption". That's the exact wording in the rule.

You didn't read about this in ThinkProgress, did you? Nope, because that bunch is all for it. So why aren't you Libs all up in arms about this? Because the benevolent federal government is behind it? Let's keep going with this lefty "Big government control is better" narrative. It's getting fun!

The public comment period ends March 8th. You can comment via this link.

Sure looks like our friends, Defenders of Wildlife, right down the street from USFWS HQ, had a hand in this proposal. Some of the verbiage is like reading their mission statement. After work cocktails in Georgetown pubs? Naaa..., you don't suppose....

"Recent changes in State of Alaska regulations authorize historically illegal hunting practices for predators in order to increase game species.

Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) laws and policies require maintaining biological integrity on refuges, which includes maintaining natural ecological processes such as predator/prey dynamics. This precludes reducing native predators solely for the purpose of providing for increased harvests of a prey species.

Federal law gives FWS authority to implement hunting and trapping closures and restrictions within refuges for reasons of public health and safety, resource protection, protection of cultural or scientific values, subsistence uses, endangered or threatened species conservation, and other management considerations necessary to ensure that the activity or area is being managed in a manner compatible with the purposes for which each particular national wildlife refuge in Alaska was established.

This rule would retain traditional restrictions on hunting in national wildlife refuges consistent with FWS policy. A rulemaking is preferable to temporary closures and restrictions that react to changes in State law but do not ensure long-term protection of wildlife consistent with FWS policy."

H.R. 2316 (Rep. Raul Labrador), To generate dependable economic activity for counties and local governments containing National Forest System land by establishing a demonstration program for local, sustainable forest management, and for other purposes. “Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act” Hearing Memo H.R. 3650 (Rep. Don Young), To authorize States to select and acquire certain National Forest System lands to be managed and operated by the State for timber production and other purposes under the laws of the State, and for other purposes. “State National Forest Management Act of 2015” Hearing Memo H.R. 3826 (Rep. Greg Walden), To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to modify provisions relating to certain land exchanges in the Mt. Hood Wilderness in the State of Oregon. “Mount Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act” Hearing Memo H.R. 4510 (Rep. Jared Polis), To insure adequate use and access to the existing Bolts Ditch headgate and ditch segment within the Holy Cross Wilderness in Eagle County, Colorado, and for other purposes. “Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act” Hearing Memo H.R. 4579 (Rep. Chris Stewart), To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land in the State of Utah from all forms of public appropriation, to provide for the shared management of the withdrawn land by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Air Force to facilitate enhanced weapons testing and pilot training, enhance public safety, and provide for continued public access to the withdrawn land, to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land and State land, and for other purposes.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=399943

Hearing Memo H.R. 4510 (Rep. Jared Polis), To insure adequate use and access to the existing Bolts Ditch headgate and ditch segment within the Holy Cross Wilderness in Eagle County, Colorado, and for other purposes. “Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act”

This one is to ensure continued wilderness access by exchanging one parcel for another. This is a GOOD thing for hunters and outdoorsmen.

On the first bill listed, HR 2316:

"The subcommittee has spent the 114th Congress examining ways to improve the health of our nation’s forests. This task has taken on increased urgency as the 2015 fire season saw a record 10.1 million acres burn due to wildfire across the country.

Many states, particularly in the West, have land ownership intermingled between federal, state, tribal, and private ownership. Failure to properly manage land under federal management can result in the quick spread of insect and disease as well as the spread of fire onto adjoining non-federal lands. Over the past 10 years, there has been an average of 73,277 fires burning an average of 6,991,668 acres per year.4 More than 60% of fires begin on state, private, and tribal lands, but these fires tend to be more contained in nature and consume fewer acres than the fires which begin on federal land."

This is an attempt to share forest management locally, since the USFS has dropped the ball over the past decade according to the USFS data provided.

HR 3826 is an amendment which would ADD TO THE EXISTING MOUNT HOOD WILDERNESS VIA A LAND EXCHANGE! We're talking a whopping 107 acres with a permanent trail access through it.

Wow.

The reason for FS and BLM lack of logging is from lawsuits and the ESA. The same will happen with the states involved. That is why the Elliott State Forest 100,000 acres here in Oregon is up for sale as we speak. All because of ESA and lawsuits.

Thanks for the information. It makes sense. I completely agree with you that the state should double dip like NF and open up more land. The more open public land the better.

Our federal lands have found that they have resources they can sell that offer more income than us ourdoors-people.

Frankly, here in WY, I don't think our politicians have the interests of the common people in mind any more than the federal politicians do.

They are interested in money from big industry, which increasingly is looking like a bipartisan rape of our lands.

My (R) state-level politicians seem interested in ... owning the lands so we can sell it or lease it. My (R) federal-level politicians have the same agenda. My (D) alternatives, where they exist, are indistinguishable.

Truly, I see a major change in the future -- millions of acres removed from public access.

We'll become a "park" society. Like much of Africa, if we want to see "nature" we can always go to Yellowstone. As for the rest of the state ... it'll be sold or leased to people (Californians?) who can pay more than hunters, fishermen, and campers.

Hunters will be angry, but I don't know if we can win this one. We have no legislators or Congress-critters, or Presidential candidates who are on our side.

As far as the state efforts to wrest control away from feds for some public land, the fact that more that 20 of these bills have been introduced in states and have gone nowhere should give a clue as to the viability of these proposals. If they cant pass in WY, they won't pass anywhere now.

Doesn't mean the feds won't sell "multiple use" land use out to the highest bidder, though. The D or R after someone's name means nothing, except perhaps as an indicator of who they might favor as a land raper.

I have a "Prediction Model" for all political prognostication: The Path of Most Graft must always be followed.

This is a Law ... not like a legislative law, but like a Law of Physics. Like gravity.

I'm learning that in EVERY ASPECT of my life, I have come down on the wrong side of the graft equation ... in Medicine, hunting, living in a small town, etc. No wonder no one listens to me.

Matt, please know I'm not picking on you. I consider you a friend and a kindred spirit. We both know which side of the political fence is abusing the ESA and filing the lawsuits.

What is irksome is the concept by some hunters that any "land grab" for progressive uses is "good", while any perceived "land grab" by someone with an R after their name is inherently bad. Giant wind farm vs. state control, for example.

The net result for hunters is the same - both can damage wildlife habitat, be a terrible blight on the landscape, and lock hunters out completely (in the case of wind farms, solar farms, National Monument designations, or sale to private entities). I don't consider swaps to be necessarily bad because those often open up access.

I hunt some State Trust lands here in CO that are outstanding, much of which were formerly private and acquired through swaps. The State is doing the noxious weed control on the surrounding USFS land because the Feds won't, or can't do it. I hunt some USFS that used to be private but was acquired through a land swap.

The Feds (USFS) tried to take property from nine property owners near me because the original USFS survey markers were wrong. They offered to sell their land and homes back to them at market value! It took an act of Congress (really!) led by our R representatives in CO to get this resolved and return the land. We're talking a total of about 10 acres out of a 1.5 million acre National Forest, and they literally "grabbed" it, then offered to sell it back.

It's important for us as outdoorsmen to look past the D and R at the real intent and ultimate consequence of any of these actions.

Could the USFS and Dept of Interior, etc. be under funded due to budget cuts/restraints ?

Perhaps it is more than a few whac-o's, and space cadet protestors wanting this or that.

Could it be lots of $$$$$$ lining the pockets of forked tongued politicians along with some of these protesting folks/fools, in order to secure Federal Land, for the interest of "Big Business"

Has anyone ever thought this underfunding is just another tactic to allow our Federal Land Management Dept.'s to fall into such funding/disarray so the politician's and special interest have the excuse to dissolve these departments in order to claim, "We need to close or shut down all of the departments because it will cost to much of taxpayer's dollars/money to continue to fund and maintain vacant land/wilderness."

Once this happens the politicians and their financial supporters will then be able to sell this BS, to the vast majority of their supporters.

When this happens we all lose !

We as hunters and outdoorsmen, must ask ourselves when we vote, "JUST WHO ARE WE VOTING FOR ?"

From what I observe in the majority of posts on this site is, some of the most popular politicians seem to vote the majority of the time to cut funding for the Dept. of Interior, USFS, etc.

Yes, they can and do talk a good game but when it is time to truly deliver (funding) where is their vote ?

Perhaps it is time we get out heads out of our respective quiver's and start to pick the proper arrow (candidate's) who truly support our positions and not vote for someone because of rhetoric or demagoguery !

Thanks for the information. It makes sense. I completely agree with you that the state should double dip like NF and open up more land. The more open public land the better.

Thanks for the information. It makes sense. I completely agree with you that the state should double dip like NF and open up more land. The more open public land the better.

They are spending a ton on contractors to do beetle kill mitigation to keep roads cleared from falling trees in our area.

Not to mention the millions that the USFS has spent on their offices...

I looked at that Alaska proposal and it seems like they are trying to open areas (refuges) that have been off limits for predator hunting?? Sounds like a good thing.

Interestingly, the federal government still has programs to transfer/sell land for industrial use (mining, oil & gas, etc) but there is a pretty tight hand on it from the environmental groups since the 70's. The federal government has done a better job at keeping public lands than the states, however. The states were granted trust lands by the federal government and a majority of those lands have been sold off over the years.

From a hunting perspective, it is odd that Colorado with significantly more tag sales than surrounding states does not allow access to the State trust lands like NM, UT, AZ, WY, MT, ID, etc. A very small % is open through leases by the CPW and the rest is treated like private land.

Interestingly, only a very small % of the other state trust lands are leased for hunting which means that if the person with the grazing lease shoots an animal on state land without the proper lease, they are breaking the law as well (pretty sure no tickets ever get written on that one, though!).

The Greenies in the USFWS reacted by proposing this new law that would further restrict predator control on the Refuges, stating that their policy " precludes reducing native predators solely for the purpose of providing for increased harvests of a prey species".

In other words, they are telling the State to go to hell with their efforts to help game species recover. It's an example of why people are upset with D.C. for telling the states how to manage land and wildlife.

Like here in RMNP in CO, for example. No hunting = elk overpopulation = taxpayer money used to cull elk instead of hunters paying to do it.

The real questions are what can outdoorsmen (and women) do to make sure that whatever legislation occurs regarding land exchanges, etc., are in our interests instead of a chosen few development types, and how do the people who don't support land conservation keep getting re-elected? I believe there is a general consensus on this thread that transferring Federal land to States is not a good thing.

In terms of wind energy, and natural gas etc, there should be ways to allow for it that causes far less environmental damage than currently seems to be the case. For example, instead of checker boarding drilling sites, require consolidation and directional drilling. Far less impact. Impacts on habitat and wildlife should be carefully reviewed, and maybe areas of critical wildlife habitat (e.g, migration corridors, winter grazing) you just leave alone. There are thousands of abandoned wells in western states that have no bonds for reclamation and no ability to have them sealed properly etc. You can end up with contaminated groundwater for everyone, a very big deal.

Sorry for the rant but there are lots of incredible places we hunters know that if managed properly (or perhaps just left alone) would support wildlife forever, that are being degraded/destroyed. Transferring them to private parties isn't much better.

Where is the land stewardship ethic? How is it applied? Which politicians truly represent a good balance of multiple uses that protects wildlife and the habitat they depend on now and for future generations? How do we get those people elected and keep them in office?

http://www.theolympian.com/news/nation-world/national/article62567867.html

When groups like the Wilderness Society lie and distort the truth, it undermines their credibility. They stated it would allow "states to use the land as they see fit" (as opposed to the Feds giving it away to green special interests to use as they see fit, and leasing it out to private concesssions) and "would exempt the states from all national environmental laws", which is patently untrue, and intended purely as a scare tactic.

A little more honesty on both sides wouldn't hurt.

This is a copy and paste, directly from the bill:

(c) Applicability of other federal laws.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The administration and management of a community forest demonstration area, including implementing actions, shall not be considered Federal action and shall be subject to the following only to the extent that such laws apply to the State or private administration and management of forest lands in the State in which the community forest demonstration area is located:

(A) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 note).

(B) The Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.).

(C) The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

(D) Federal laws and regulations governing procurement by Federal agencies.

(E) Except as provided in paragraph (2), other Federal laws.

The full bill can be read here: https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr2316/BILLS-114hr2316ih.xml

Note the wording. It doesn't exempt the demonstration projects from "all national environmental laws", only those parts where overreach is common.

What the states are asking is for the opportunity to demonstrate that they can manage certain portions of the forest better than the Feds. Maybe they can and maybe they can't. No reason to go running through the woods with our hair on fire. In CO we have a huge area called the Colorado State Forest State Park that is managed pretty well, and has good hunting, fishing, backpacking, camping, and beetle kill mitigation.

If the state didn't stock the lakes, the USFS and the "greedy" concessionaires wouldn't make a nickel. So the Feds are riding on the back of the state for revenue, with no compensation back to the state.

You guys who believe the USFS is good, kind, and benevolent may change your tunes when you have to start paying to park at trailheads, then pay a daily fee to backpack and hunt in "our" National Forests. Nowhere does it say that the USFS can't do that.

Think about it.

Private ownership absolutely WILL manage the land better, if you call making the most profit from the land better management. If you call best management allowing the best multiple use, private ownership is NOT the way to go.

Once the land in question leaves federal ownership the chances that it will ever be returned are very small. The chances that it will be privately owned when my grand-daughter is old enough to hunt far outweighs that chance.

God bless, Steve

So a private entity can pay to lease land from the government, then hire the LEO to patrol the land who has the power to arrest and charge any trespasser on that land. I'm sorry, but it all just smells of mid evil Europe and the King's woods.

This is why I don't support any change in our public lands status. It's just another small step towards the privatization of our public lands.

Lou hit the nail on the head too. We have one area in the NF system here that the state stocks trout. Now, the Feds have "improved" the area. They built a huge camp ground. They charge for you to park and camp there. But, about 7 years ago, they started selling permits to an outfitter that allows him to use the public camping areas behind the gate. You and I are only allowed 14 days in these spots. He is granted 60. Every three days, he wagons in a fresh load of 28 people and gear to his outfitters tents.

This was once a true wilderness paradise. Not many people are willing to walk 18 miles to trout fish. It's foot only travel. Except for the outfitter. Here's the ironic thing, I have tried to buy the permits. It's a no go. The outfitter is in so tight with the district honchos I can't get any where with them.

If you guys think the Feds are the protectors of the National Forest, you are sorely mistaken. They have turned our resource into their business venture. No different than what many who oppose "Management" change, accuse the state of being motivated to do.

Every Federal bill I have read requires the state to obtain ownership of such lands for a minimum of ten years. Most bills simply refer to the state over taking the management responsibility of these lands initially as a trial period. I haven't read them all in detail. So, I can't say that is the case in all of them. But, a state bill and a federal bill aren't the same.

Nevada. I looked into the BLM land sales since They started. They are all around Vegas. Now, I'm not going to say that is a good thing. But, it isn't what is being made out to be. These are individuals, mostly realtors buying this land and developing it. So, we aren't talking huge areas of wilderness areas here. I think it's been stated in everyone of these threads by some that Nevada was in a huge land grab. I see it as the legislature of Nevada wanting the economic climate to prosper.

This topic is so sorely mislabeled in the name of politics it is ridiculous. As Lou said, a little clarity from all sides would be nice.

God Bless men

Roughly 700,000 acres of state land in Idaho are already currently closed to public access. Idaho has already sold over 1.5 million acres of the state land which it was originally granted, which amounts to over 30 percent of all state lands it has owned.

Wisconsin had 3.25 million acres of trust land. They have about 75,000 left!

To answer your questions of Constitutional authority.

There are those who claim the federal government has no constitutional right to own lands except for a few forts and the District of Columbia as authorized in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution. If this was the sum of federal authority, it makes it hard to explain how at the beginning the federal government owned all but the 13 states. Why were not these new territories’ lands instantly given to the citizens, the states, or put up for sale to the highest bidder?

In fact, land acquisition by the United States in North America took place through treaties and purchases, beginning with the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and ending with the purchase of Alaska in 1867. Through the years, the federal government acquired 1.8 billion acres in North America. The U.S. Constitution addresses this in what is called the Property Clause, not in Article I, section 8, clause 17. The Property Clause (Article IV, section 3, clause 2) reads, “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.”

A Nevada state government source said the land amount they were given the 2nd time was 2 million acres. Not 2.7 million as you claim. It should be noted that the state trust lands were structured to sell as seen fit by the states, upon reception of those lands. I bet the wildlife was thick on those lands in that arid environment. It's been a huge loss no doubt when considering the state traded cactus for $150,000 a year jobs. HUGE.

God Bless men.

The lands around Vegas are fruitful mule deer and desert bighorn habitat.

Nevada certainly does have a lot of land that's is suitable for nothing more than testing world record speed, shooting off rockets, and solar farms, but for people who haven't traveled NV extensively, you'd be blown away with what the state has to offer in terms of wildlife resources and mountain ranges.

IMO, it doesn't matter that the lands that NV sold off were sand that are now covered with homes and a thriving economy. The point is that they sold them off and that they are now private and developed.

I bet if you put Yellowstone, Yosemite, Gacier, Zion, etc on the auction block, that there'd be a bunch of developers who would love to snatch them up and subdivide them out.

I know you're playing Devil's Advocate, at least to an extent and I see your point, but answer me this:

Colorado has 3 million acres of state trust land. CPW leases 500,000 of those for hunting.

CO has 13.2 million acres of National Forest.

If the National Forest lands were all handed over to the state today, what percentage of those lands do you think that CPW would lease for hunters? Could you assure us that all those lands would remain open to public hunting?

Would the state prefer to have more say in how the public lands are managed as far as thinning for fire suppression and gross overreach by the current administration when they invent new laws without Congressional approval? Sure.

Here's an example of how upside-down it is: Our large mountain community, surrounded by National Forest, receives Federal grants to dramatically thin and clear timber inside our private land/NF boundaries to protect ourselves from wildfires originating in the National Forest, because the thinning of the NF has been suppressed by enviros who don't believe in timber cutting or road building. The red-tape required to do it on NF makes it virtually impossible to accomplish.

The Feds are paying us to protect ourselves from Federal obsolescence and negligence. The community forest demonstration proposal, referenced above, asks to be exempted from some of the more onerous rules put in place for no other reason than to appease the Green political lobby. That proposal (and the exemptions) is virtually the exact type of project our community is undertaking with Federal grant money, except on a larger scale.

""Roughly 700,000 acres of state land in Idaho are already currently closed to public access. Idaho has already sold over 1.5 million acres of the state land which it was originally granted, which amounts to over 30 percent of all state lands it has owned.""

Show me proof of this please. I ask because Idaho State Law precludes the Idaho Dept. of Lands from selling ANY land. They can only trade for land that is of equal or better value to the state. Lanlocked State ground, that has no access, is land that they will trade off to acquire land that has access, better timber potential, and less environmental issues.

Section 24 of the General Land Revision Act of 1891, which established the National Forest system give the president the right to set aside government owned open land for public reservation. It reads:

Sec. 24: "That the President of the United States may, from time to time, set apart and reserve, in any State or Territory having public land bearing forests, in any part of the public lands wholly or in part covered with timber or undergrowth, whether of commercial value or not, as public reservations; and the President shall, by public proclamation, declare the establishment of such reservations and the limits thereof."

This comes from the USDA Forest Service.

"National Forests are made for and owned by the people. They should also be managed by the people. They are made, not to give the officers in charge of them a chance to work out theories, but to give the people who use them, and those who are affected by their use, a chance to work out their own best profit. This means that if National Forests are going to accomplish anything worth while the people must know all about them and must take a very active part in their management. The officers are paid by the people to act as their agents and to see that all the resources of the Forests are used in the best interest of everyone concerned. What the people as a whole want will be done. To do it it is necessary that the people carefully consider and plainly state just what they want and then take a very active part in seeing that they get it."

It is why Management on National Forests are mandated to obtain public input and approval. And, it is precisely why ownership cannot be given back to the states.

I understand you don't want to see public land transferred. But, using the example of National Forest being given to the state isn't legally possible. It doesn't belong to the federal government to give back to the states. Federal LAW says that.

God Bless men

You may want to do more research about ID selling state public land.

http://www.waow.com/story/31281149/2016/02/22/board-to-consider-putting-another-5900-acres-up-for-sale?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_WAOW_Newsline_9

http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=451038&messages=8&forum=36

you show a deal in 2006 where IDOL lost about 300k on their overall revenue. You show the deal where IDOL had no business owning cottage property around that freakin lake! They got rid of that ground so they can acquire better ground that will yield good timber growth for a profit.

Been working on trading for a piece of IDOL ground for about 4 years. They do a good job of making sure they are getting the better end of the deal and can show profit for our schools.