collapse
Free Domestic Economy Shipping Be a more successful hunter!

Author Topic: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?  (Read 6505 times)

Offline OutHouse

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2015
  • Posts: 591
  • Location: Cowiche WA
  • Department of Foliage, Lifetime Member
Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« on: January 19, 2017, 10:43:14 AM »
Read some stuff in the news about the federal legislature wanting to create law that provides for the transfer of federal public land to the states. The apparent aim of the change in law is open up public land for purchase or natural resource extraction. I personally have a bad feeling about this because access to decent hunting ground is becoming harder and harder as the decades go by. I certainly wouldn't want a bunch of rich yups buying up National Forest land to put their vacation houses on--and then being able to exclude hunters or any other group they find undesirable. On the other hand, I have heard some argue that the states would be better at managing the land, but there is still the possibility it gets privatized. What are your thoughts, guys and gals?

Offline swanny

  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Posts: 1690
  • Location: Kent
    • 9to5active
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2017, 11:43:08 AM »
Totally against it. All it does is open up the ability for the states to then sell the land to private parties. Federal lands need to remain at the federal level

Offline bracer40

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Sourdough
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2010
  • Posts: 1019
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2017, 12:49:45 PM »
One of the main problems with states being given control is that most states are required by law to maximize revenues from their land holdings. The  Feds have no such requirement.
I've listened to a lot of well informed, smart people who are fighting this push by the Republican Party. Even many ranchers whose cattle graze on public land are against this due to lower grazing rights for fed lands vs state lands (the BUNDY's don't count. They are thieves who refused to pay for the grazing rights they originally agreed to pay)
“Just give me a comfortable couch, a dog, a good book, and a woman. Then if you can get the dog to go somewhere and read the book, I might have a little fun.”
― Groucho Marx

Offline Bean Counter

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2017, 12:56:48 PM »
I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state.  :twocents:

Offline JLS

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2010
  • Posts: 4604
  • Location: In my last tracks.....
  • Groups: Support the LWCF!
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #4 on: January 19, 2017, 01:49:22 PM »
One of the main problems with states being given control is that most states are required by law to maximize revenues from their land holdings. The  Feds have no such requirement.
I've listened to a lot of well informed, smart people who are fighting this push by the Republican Party. Even many ranchers whose cattle graze on public land are against this due to lower grazing rights for fed lands vs state lands (the BUNDY's don't count. They are thieves who refused to pay for the grazing rights they originally agreed to pay)

Agreed.  In addition, many state DNR agencies have drastically different rules on land use than federal lands.  Just because the state owns it doesn't mean you get to use it.  Randy Newberg has put together a lot of information on this on YouTube.  I'd suggest anyone start there as he does a very comprehensive job of explaining the potential ramifications.

If you are opposed to this, I'd suggest you write your Congressional representatives and let them know. 
Matthew 7:13-14

Offline kentrek

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Frontiersman
  • *
  • Join Date: Mar 2012
  • Posts: 2893
  • Location: west coast
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2017, 02:02:21 PM »
IHunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

This is the fine print that would lead hunting towards a bad direction in America....

Offline OutHouse

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2015
  • Posts: 591
  • Location: Cowiche WA
  • Department of Foliage, Lifetime Member
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2017, 02:55:14 PM »
I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state.  :twocents:

I agree that hunting would survive but it might just be for the people who either buy the land themselves or who otherwise can gain special access. Your idea about easements is interesting but from the legal work I've done in real estate transactions I can say the buyers of that land will be the ones calling the shots when it comes to negotiating the sale etc...Hunters simply won't be at the table when the purchase and sale agreements are entered into. That will leave us without easements. However, maybe some states would make it a requirement.

Offline JasonG

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • ***
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 160
  • Location: Issaquah Wa
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2017, 03:09:15 PM »
Keep public lands in public hands. Mismanagement of state owned property will end up sold to the private sector. There goes your access. Go to sportsmensaccess.org and sign the petition. This is important ladies and gentlemen!!

Offline elkinrutdrivemenuts

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 2050
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2017, 03:11:00 PM »
Absolutely not.  Terrible idea, the only people it would benefit are the ones who will buy it from the state because they cant afford to handle the management of those lands.

Offline Special T

  • Truth the new Hate Speech.
  • Washington For Wildlife
  • Trade Count: (+11)
  • Explorer
  • *
  • Join Date: Aug 2009
  • Posts: 16577
  • Location: Skagit Valley
  • Wake me when you need me.
    • Silver Arrow Bowmen
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2017, 03:19:14 PM »
In order to find a reasonable solution you really have to define the problem accurately. Federal ownership wouldn't be an issue if  Bunnie Huggers weren't pushing so much ESA nonsense.  If our now best practices of mining, drilling, grazing and logging were actually taking place this wouldn't be an issue.
The Truth is like Poetry, and most people hate Poetry

Offline Bean Counter

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2017, 03:25:26 PM »
I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state.  :twocents:

I agree that hunting would survive but it might just be for the people who either buy the land themselves or who otherwise can gain special access. Your idea about easements is interesting but from the legal work I've done in real estate transactions I can say the buyers of that land will be the ones calling the shots when it comes to negotiating the sale etc...

Negotiations are a two way street. The buyer brings money that the seller wants, the seller holds an asset that the buyer wants.

Quote
Hunters simply won't be at the table when the purchase and sale agreements are entered into. That will leave us without easements. However, maybe some states would make it a requirement.

Why should the states that would do it right suffer because of those who would do it wrong? Do you you think its good that U.S. Senators and Representatives in Ill-Annoy and New Yawk are voting to legislate your gun rights? You only believe in states rights when its convenient to your wallet?  :dunno:

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2581
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2017, 03:26:00 PM »
I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

Do you have an example of that ever happening with state auctioned land? 

I think it would take a pretty big sucker to buy land that they would then need to pay to maintain but have no control over it.

Offline Bean Counter

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2017, 03:33:43 PM »
IHunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

This is the fine print that would lead hunting towards a bad direction in America....

How well is an ever expanding federal government working out for the direction of America? Its not enough to have a state department of education, we need to have the feds with their own department as well. Then we wonder why we can't escape Common Core and have boys showering with girls? Its not enough to have a state department of ecology but we need to have the feds with their own department as well.. Then we wonder why the last lead smelting plant in the U.S. is driven out of business  :bash:

Offline Bean Counter

  • Site Sponsor
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Explorer
  • ******
  • Join Date: Jul 2008
  • Posts: 13624
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #13 on: January 19, 2017, 03:36:41 PM »
I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

Do you have an example of that ever happening with state auctioned land?

I think it would take a pretty big sucker to buy land that they would then need to pay to maintain but have no control over it.


I'm not a realtor, sorry. I'm just a guy who loves the Constitution, distrusts and dislikes the federal government, and happens to love the state he lives in (Arizona).

The biggest ranch in Arizona is the Boquillas Ranch ("the Big Bo"). Its $80 to hunt there and all you have to search is "Unit 10 Bulls" to see what you get for your $80.00. Have fun chasing hoof rotten spikes in a sea of orange, but hey, its free   :rolleyes:

Offline OutHouse

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Longhunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jul 2015
  • Posts: 591
  • Location: Cowiche WA
  • Department of Foliage, Lifetime Member
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #14 on: January 19, 2017, 04:05:20 PM »
I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

 You don't get to bitch about the onerous aspects of federal control and influence like wolf populations run amuck if you want the feds owning half your state.  :twocents:

I agree that hunting would survive but it might just be for the people who either buy the land themselves or who otherwise can gain special access. Your idea about easements is interesting but from the legal work I've done in real estate transactions I can say the buyers of that land will be the ones calling the shots when it comes to negotiating the sale etc...

Negotiations are a two way street. The buyer brings money that the seller wants, the seller holds an asset that the buyer wants.

Quote
Hunters simply won't be at the table when the purchase and sale agreements are entered into. That will leave us without easements. However, maybe some states would make it a requirement.

Why should the states that would do it right suffer because of those who would do it wrong? Do you you think its good that U.S. Senators and Representatives in Ill-Annoy and New Yawk are voting to legislate your gun rights? You only believe in states rights when its convenient to your wallet?  :dunno:

Oh I believe in states rights (seriously do) but from a constitutional perspective it doesn't have a lot of teeth. In another comment you said you love the constitution. Well, learn something about it. Research the 10th amendment and then you'll know that the state's rights argument should be a fall back argument at best.

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2581
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #15 on: January 19, 2017, 04:37:24 PM »
IHunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.

This is the fine print that would lead hunting towards a bad direction in America....

How well is an ever expanding federal government working out for the direction of America? Its not enough to have a state department of education, we need to have the feds with their own department as well. Then we wonder why we can't escape Common Core and have boys showering with girls? Its not enough to have a state department of ecology but we need to have the feds with their own department as well.. Then we wonder why the last lead smelting plant in the U.S. is driven out of business  :bash:

What does that have to do with public land?  There is no more public land today than there was the moment we acquired what is the current US, in fact, it has gone down slightly.  What has changed is that the states have sold off a ton of the land they controlled and it is now locked up and not available for use by the public.  In general, you have more freedom to use fed land than you do with state land and they have an excellent track record of not selling it off.

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 9544
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #16 on: January 19, 2017, 05:08:16 PM »
What does that have to do with public land?  There is no more public land today than there was the moment we acquired what is the current US, in fact, it has gone down slightly.  What has changed is that the states have sold off a ton of the land they controlled and it is now locked up and not available for use by the public.  In general, you have more freedom to use fed land than you do with state land and they have an excellent track record of not selling it off.
It might not get sold off as in deed and title, but sure feels like sometimes a couple greeny groups own it.  All they have to do is reach for their phone implying they're calling their lawyers and some of the FS districts just let them dictate--closing roads, decomming trails/roads, shutting down logging, blocking military training, etc.  Getting to the point that any new owner other than the FS might be worth a shot just to get someone in to stand up to the greenies.

Offline Stein

  • Trade Count: (+1)
  • Frontiersman
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2013
  • Posts: 2581
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #17 on: January 19, 2017, 05:11:53 PM »
Every year I hunt BLM land, almost exclusively, and have yet to see a greenie or anyone for that matter.

Offline Chappy84

  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Pilgrim
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2015
  • Posts: 37
  • Location: walla walla
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #18 on: January 19, 2017, 05:19:19 PM »
45.8% of California is federal. 28.5% of Washington is federal. How's the hunting in Cali? I would need to be far more educated on this topic to take a stand but my gut says less FED is good. It is after all supposed to be THESE United States not, THE United States. It has been my impression that the fed was designed to play a small roll in this country? Any way school me people I'm all ears.

Thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline elkinrutdrivemenuts

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Sourdough
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Posts: 2050
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #19 on: January 19, 2017, 05:32:26 PM »
What does that have to do with public land?  There is no more public land today than there was the moment we acquired what is the current US, in fact, it has gone down slightly.  What has changed is that the states have sold off a ton of the land they controlled and it is now locked up and not available for use by the public.  In general, you have more freedom to use fed land than you do with state land and they have an excellent track record of not selling it off.
It might not get sold off as in deed and title, but sure feels like sometimes a couple greeny groups own it.  All they have to do is reach for their phone implying they're calling their lawyers and some of the FS districts just let them dictate--closing roads, decomming trails/roads, shutting down logging, blocking military training, etc.  Getting to the point that any new owner other than the FS might be worth a shot just to get someone in to stand up to the greenies.

You do realize that everyone has access to public land right?  So it needs to be managed to allow access to all types of activities, not just the ones important to you.

Offline JimmyHoffa

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (+2)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 9544
  • Location: 150 Years Too Late
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #20 on: January 19, 2017, 05:37:50 PM »
What does that have to do with public land?  There is no more public land today than there was the moment we acquired what is the current US, in fact, it has gone down slightly.  What has changed is that the states have sold off a ton of the land they controlled and it is now locked up and not available for use by the public.  In general, you have more freedom to use fed land than you do with state land and they have an excellent track record of not selling it off.
It might not get sold off as in deed and title, but sure feels like sometimes a couple greeny groups own it.  All they have to do is reach for their phone implying they're calling their lawyers and some of the FS districts just let them dictate--closing roads, decomming trails/roads, shutting down logging, blocking military training, etc.  Getting to the point that any new owner other than the FS might be worth a shot just to get someone in to stand up to the greenies.

You do realize that everyone has access to public land right?  So it needs to be managed to allow access to all types of activities, not just the ones important to you.
Exactly!!!!!!!  I don't want anyone off multi-use lands.  Come west and see the greenies constantly trying to invent new ways to keep anyone that isn't like them off public land.
I don't know how I got labeled anti-access.  I WANT there to be a place for jeep/yota clubs, shooting, snow machines, mountain biking, mushroom hunting, logging, camping.  I couldn't imagine being a district manager with the forest service seeing what they have to deal with, sad in a way how the courts can be used.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2017, 05:47:05 PM by JimmyHoffa »

Offline meatwhack

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hunter
  • *
  • Join Date: Oct 2011
  • Posts: 154
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #21 on: January 19, 2017, 07:44:12 PM »
I think this could go either way depending on the state. Some states would manage the land better than the current federal management while other states wouldn't manage it as well or possibly sell it to the highest bidder.

Offline mburrows

  • Trade Count: (+3)
  • Longhunter
  • *****
  • Join Date: Aug 2007
  • Posts: 534
  • Location: Duck Blind
  • Go Cougs!
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #22 on: January 19, 2017, 09:01:07 PM »
Keeping it federal is the only way to ensure it stays public. States cant afford to manage that much land and would sell it when they got the right offer in which case its likely to go private and more than likely to be off limits to 99% of hunters.  It happens all the time.

Offline bigtex

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 7956
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #23 on: January 19, 2017, 09:12:12 PM »
45.8% of California is federal. 28.5% of Washington is federal. How's the hunting in Cali? I would need to be far more educated on this topic to take a stand but my gut says less FED is good. It is after all supposed to be THESE United States not, THE United States. It has been my impression that the fed was designed to play a small roll in this country? Any way school me people I'm all ears.
In my opinion hunting in California is 10 times better than WA  :twocents: I just started hunting there the past few years and have been shocked.

Offline bigtex

  • Virtual Campfire
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Old Salt
  • *
  • Join Date: Dec 2009
  • Posts: 7956
Re: Transfer of Federal Public Lands?
« Reply #24 on: January 19, 2017, 09:13:38 PM »
I'm for it. Hunting will survive and there are plenty of ways to force access easements into the transfer of lands that don't remain in state control.
Do you have an example of that ever happening with state auctioned land? 
I know of none. In fact, nearly all of the recent sales of WA DNR lands have been to county parks departments which prohibit hunting.

 

* Recent Topics

The Green Scam of “Endangered Species” by Special T
[Today at 04:35:09 PM]


Elkfever's Peaches Ridge Hunt by dupedc
[Today at 04:26:09 PM]


BBD. Norway pass by Rainier10
[Today at 04:20:46 PM]


jennabug's first deer story by Rainier10
[Today at 04:16:52 PM]


2017 Deer, post them here (photos & stats) by Firetwin3
[Today at 04:02:09 PM]


Coyote down by The scout
[Today at 04:01:42 PM]


WTS-Mathews outback by HHPro
[Today at 03:55:35 PM]


WTS-Duck and goose decoys by HHPro
[Today at 03:47:09 PM]


Wet optics while BT/Roosie hunting! by doubletall
[Today at 03:31:38 PM]


WANTED - small wood stove - cash buyer by JDHasty
[Today at 03:31:05 PM]


For Sale- 7mm LR Package by dylanb
[Today at 03:23:19 PM]


Well, this is gonna be different..... by WapitiTalk1
[Today at 03:10:14 PM]


Banana Ice Cream by NOCK NOCK
[Today at 02:45:51 PM]


Garmin collar by Bwana Bob
[Today at 02:45:47 PM]


Who's on instagram? by mtmn35rem5
[Today at 02:39:22 PM]


Nice Hammock Starter kit by Meat Truck
[Today at 02:38:26 PM]


First bear ever - BIG boar down! by LDennis24
[Today at 02:26:24 PM]


Coyote hunting by drysideshooter
[Today at 02:14:55 PM]


Bobcat down by drysideshooter
[Today at 02:12:42 PM]


Wife's opening day Mulie by Brushbuster
[Today at 02:11:28 PM]