Transfer of Federal Public Lands?

[TriggerMike]

It seems that people believe "public" is only applicable to Federal. State owned lands are also "public". Am I wrong?

Federal public land and state public trust lands are very different. We own the federal public land. The state owns their trust lands and manage it for "us". They can close, regulate or sell it as they deem fit. Here's an example, we, the citizens, own the federal public land which allows us to come and go as we please, since it is ours. With state lands, we're the customer, not the owner, and the owner can refuse service to customers through regulation when they want. Just look at Colorado, you're not even allowed to hunt on their state trust lands, it's not legal.

X2 that this thread needs to be moved to the general area so it can get more exposure on the forum.

[bradslam]

I would urge all hunters to watch the above mentioned series of videos by Randy Newberg.  And please, watch all 16 of the videos to get a complete perspective; it doesn't take much time.  I know many hunters don't want to face the fact that the politicians that are supporting this are their beloved, 2nd Amendment supporting Republicans, but it's the truth.

Just go to YouTube and do a search for Randy Newberg Public Land Transfer and all 16 videos will come up.

[haus]

Regarding state trust lands, do a search on Colorado's issues with the subject. CPW having to pay out of its coffer to gain access for public hunting and fishing, currently the majority is still locked.

[OutHouse]

Can a mod move this to the main forum? This really should be at the forefront for all to see and discuss, not hidden in the deer area. 

Sorry about that. I have never even looked at the main forum before but now that I have I agree that would be a more appropriate location for this.

[bracer40]

I would urge all hunters to watch the above mentioned series of videos by Randy Newberg.  And please, watch all 16 of the videos to get a complete perspective; it doesn't take much time.  I know many hunters don't want to face the fact that the politicians that are supporting this are their beloved, 2nd Amendment supporting Republicans, but it's the truth.

Just go to YouTube and do a search for Randy Newberg Public Land Transfer and all 16 videos will come up.

His podcasts are also available

[csaaphill]

Since I supported the Bundy Revolution it'd be hypocritical of me to be against this. So I am for but think the state should get only if they promise to not sell it off. With certain things being legal now that weren't years ago this would be a great way to keep them public.

[haus]

Keep in mind that the new boss has two sons that both hunt, and this answer from a F&S interview when questioned about public land transfers:

DT: I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands.

An aside here; I recall reading through a rather lengthy federal document(200+ pages) that covered the management of the national forest in our state. It included tables and image references of established borders for implementation of forest management procedures. I recall a specific section regarding the GPNF where it showed and detailed the rules to abide by for managing certain sections of the forest. I thought it was a 1994 document, but I'm unable to find it. Looked through the NWFP, but I don't see anything in there. Any help in finding this document would be appreciated.

[baldopepper]

I think it's important to understand that because someone says they like to hunt, it doesn't mean they are in favor of free access to all public ground. Too many of us, hunting is a recreational activity that involves getting together with friends and relatives and hopefully putting a little meat in the freezer. We hope to get a trophy class animal but don't predicate our  hunt around trying to get a B&C class animal. Free access to our traditional hunting areas is critical and becoming more of a problem every year. Hunting is becoming a big business now with private land hunts or restricted permit hunts selling for many thousands of dollars.  Don't think for a minute that some of the organizations that offer these types of hunts wouldn't love the opportunity to tie up more of the now public access properties to expand their business. Turning Federal ground over to the states would make it just that much easier for them to negotiate these land lock ups. Then we have the anti-hunters who would love nothing more than to ban hunting on all public ground.  Again, much easier to do on a state level than a federal level (especially in Washington state).  Does anyone on here really think DT's sons go out hunting on public ground rubbing shoulders with we common hunters?  I see this idea as a major threat to a way of life most of us enjoy and look forward to every year.

[NumaJohn]

Hello, all.

FYI, here a recent article that some of you might find of interest if you have been following the debates regarding the pros and cons of whether to sell or transfer more federal lands to states and/or private interests:

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2017/feb/05/transferring-federal-land-an-old-idea-that-still-o/

Federal land is our land. Why would we--hunters and other Americans--relinquish or sell it off to others? That would be extremely short-sighted.

John

[MTMule]

The forest service budget is a few billion dollars or something like that. You'd have to be an idiot to attack federal public lands to minimize federal reach.

If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.

[Gobble Doc]

Here's some public hunting land that went from State to Federal. Unfortunately ALL of the recreational activities like hiking and biking no longer includes hunting. Of course we are now able to protect the sensitive growth of dandelions and blackberries. The Land Bank managed to get it "Permanently protected for generations..." 



News Release Date: October 10, 2010

MITCHELL HILL BECOMES PART OF SAN JUAN ISLAND NHP

FRIDAY HARBOR, WA San Juan Island National Historical Park dramatically expanded its English Camp unit in September with the acquisition of 312 acres of woodlands and trails of Mitchell Hill, which adjoins the southeast boundary, eight miles north of Friday Harbor, announced Peter Dederich, park superintendent.

Making Mitchell Hill a part of the park is an action proposed in the park’s 2008 General Management Plan, and supported by a broad coalition of park stakeholders, and county, state, and federal agencies. It is the first major addition to the park since the 1970s and ensures that Mitchell Hill will be permanently protected for the benefit of future generations, Dederich said.

The property was acquired from the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through a $6 million Congressional appropriation included in President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget and backed by U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen and Sens. Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell. The transaction was completed in partnership with the San Juan County Land Bank, and The Conservation Fund, a national land trust headquartered in Arlington, Virginia. A planning process will be launched soon, Dederich said, to determine how the overall area will be managed. Once Mitchell Hill becomes part of the national park, the Code of Federal Regulations will apply, and "some of those regulations are stricter than the state's," Dederich said. However, the community will be invited to participate in the planning process throughout to divine a balance of conservation and "appropriate visitor use," he stressed.

The DNR managed the site as one of its "Common School Trust Lands" for the benefit of public schools. To that end the land was to be protected and conserved for sustainable forest productivity while maintaining water quality, and fish and wildlife habitat. While grazing has occurred and timber was harvested in the 1940s and again in the 1990s, much of the site is forested with trees ranging from seedlings to 120 years old, including Western red cedar, hemlock, Douglas fir and Garry oak. The area is laced with logging roads and hiking trails, many of which appear on San Juan Island Trails Committee maps.

But some of the most exciting features on Mitchell Hill are traces of the historic military road that bisects the northern edge of the property. This portion of the road was constructed by Royal Marines to travel between American and English camps during the joint military occupation of 1859-1872. The road followed the path of a sheep run cleared by Hudson's Bay Company and Cowichan laborers from Vancouver Island. Visible along portions of the road is rip-rap — rock placed by British troops to reinforce the road — as well as wheel ruts from wagons that once rolled along the road. A few road cuts are evident on rock faces along the canopied forest paths.

"The military road, in essence, captures the period before the U.S. took formal possession of San Juan Island when the boundary dispute was resolved," said National Park historian Mike Vouri, author of four books about the joint military occupation era. "Not only did the road symbolize peacekeeping, it tied one end of the island with the other," Vouri said. "This is very much a part of the island's heritage."

Besides its historical value, Mitchell Hill is also treasured by hikers, horseback riders, bicyclists, and naturalists.

"Protecting the historical and natural values of Mitchell Hill has been a priority for me for the last several years. Mitchell Hill is both a great place to go hiking and the home of an important part of San Juan Island history," said Representative Larsen at the time of Mitchell Hill’s inclusion in the president’s budget. "Funding for Mitchell Hill will enhance recreational and educational opportunities for the over 250,000 visitors who visit San Juan Island National Historical Park each year."

-NPS-

[Rob Allen]

I am all for it under one condition.

Before one parcel is sold there must be buyers in place for  all of them every last bit of it. The sale proceeds must be ewual to or larger than our national debt. That money would  be required to be used for the immediate payment of the national debt and the government must from here on out operate on an annual  budget not to exceed the money brought in the previous year.

I however am not under any illusions this would destroy  every sector of the outdoor industry. Hunting fishing hiking camping all would disappear.  It would destroy everything i hold dear on this planet but i would  make that  sacrifice for our  country.

[Knocker of rocks]

I am all for it under one condition.

Before one parcel is sold there must be buyers in place for  all of them every last bit of it. The sale proceeds must be ewual to or larger than our national debt. That money would  be required to be used for the immediate payment of the national debt and the government must from here on out operate on an annual  budget not to exceed the money brought in the previous year.

I however am not under any illusions this would destroy  every sector of the outdoor industry. Hunting fishing hiking camping all would disappear.  It would destroy everything i hold dear on this planet but i would  make that  sacrifice for our  country.

How could you develop a plan, and find buyers for all the public lands at once.  The average price you seek is about $46,000/acre.

Also, why does the west and it's public lands have to be responsible for a debt created largely by other parts of the country?

[andrew_in_idaho]

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

Way to pick a couple of the worst examples. By that logic the hunting is also better in Washington than Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Arizona and Colorado, Alaska, Utah, and New Mexico as all have more federal control. Way to argue like a liberal, excluding all but the most extreme of data points to fit your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hunting CPO]

Federal doesn't own any land. They hold the land as a trust for the people. If land is transferred to state control it is no longer public lands, its is state lands. Don't think small, think big. Federal lands are for everyone in the US of A. Transfer to state and depending on how they want to treat it they could say you aren't from this state so you have to pay to use this land or that you can't use it at all. Most states control the animals in that state. So hunting and fishing is more controlled by the state not Feds.