Transfer of Federal Public Lands?

[Stein]

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.

Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

[Knocker of rocks]

Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

Depends on the state and how it gets transfered.  In Washington, if they transfered the massive USFS lands to an entitiy not the WaDNR, then it would not be State Schools land.  All depends of the tranfer and acceptance documents.

[Stein]

Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

Depends on the state and how it gets transfered.  In Washington, if they transfered the massive USFS lands to an entitiy not the WaDNR, then it would not be State Schools land.  All depends of the tranfer and acceptance documents.

DNR manages the school trust land:

As a trust land manager, DNR is obligated to follow the common law duties of a trustee which include generating revenue, managing trust assets prudently and acting with undivided loyalty to trust beneficiaries (Washington Supreme Court: Skamania vs. State of Washington, 1984)

Note their charter, to generate revenue for schools.  It isn't to provide recreational access.

State trust lands are distinctive in that they are managed to produce non-tax revenue for specific beneficiaries.

Many people who aren't paying attention (most voters) think that the feds are bad, locals are good and they want to have more control over federal land.  What will happen is that the states will go broke trying to manage them and end up selling them off or exclusively leasing them to mining, ag, or other interest groups.  There is no doubt public access will either suffer or go away.

[Knocker of rocks]

Almost true.  If they transfer it to the states, it is State School Trust land.  In many states, you can't hunt, fish, camp or even enter it.  It isn't the same thing as a state park, it is set up to profit for the benefit of the public school system.

Depends on the state and how it gets transferred.  In Washington, if they transferred the massive USFS lands to an entity not the WaDNR, then it would not be State Schools land.  All depends of the transfer and acceptance documents.

DNR manages the school trust land:

Yes, I know that.  And how do you know that the lands in this theoretical transfer would be given to DNR?

My point remains valid.

Since DNR lands own their heritage to Washington statehood, transcontinental railways and the homestead act and all it's precursors and descendants, it would seem likely that a new management entity would be required for newly transferred federal lands because Washington lacks the ability at present to manage former national parks, rec areas and wilderness.

[Stein]

Who would they give it to?  I guarantee it isn't the WDFW.  Point is, nobody has the budget to manage it.

[Knocker of rocks]

Who would they give it to?  I guarantee it isn't the WDFW.  Point is, nobody has the budget to manage it.

  Especially when payments in leu of taxes are removed from the states budget

[yakimanoob]

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.

THIS.  For goodness sakes.  There's plenty to gripe about regarding federal over-reach and big-government, but federal land management is not one of them. 

The core issue, as has already been pointed out, is that most states are under a legal requirement to SELL state-owned land unless that land can be managed for a profit.  That is the antithesis of preserving land for recreation and conservation.  How the hell are you supposed to secure and protect enough habitat to support an elk or mountain goat herd AND manage that land for profit at the same time? If the states didn't have the requirement to sell, this would become an interesting question about who is better than who at land management.  As it stands, it's not even a question.  The Federal government is legally allowed to preserve our lands.  The states are not. 

Steven Rinella said something on his podcast that hit me hard, and should motivate each and every one of us to fiercely protect our federal public lands. 

"I own the title to 640 million acres of land, and so do each and every one of you." 

[yakimanoob]

To take action:

Support RMEF, as I imagine many/most of you do already.  http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFonPublicLandsTransfer.aspx

If you don't mind linking arms with non-hunters who want the same thing you want, support Keep it Public - https://keepitpublic.org/

Also check out http://www.protectourpublicland.org/

Also do the things everyone else has already said!

[Special T]

If the USFS continued the management on the model Gifford Pinchots then there would money for maintenance brows for deer and elk, and maintained roads for sportsmen to access the woods mountains and lakes.

The whole reason why you see this pushback is because the USFS has not been operating in the public's best interest. When they have the $ to read out complete road bases but not to maintain them THEY made a natural allie a critic.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Stein]

So you expect the states to throw more money at it?

[Special T]

It's sad that so many don't see that the judicious cutting of timber generates more money than is necessary to provide access and maintenance.

All I ever hear is excuses for why it can't be done. If the USFS wants to prove its worth the perhaps they should be support solutions instead of just asking for more .  If Pichot cold do it why can't we now? If something needs to change then why not push Congress for a solution.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Rob Allen]

[quote author=Knocker of rocks

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?
[/quote]

1. That is for  the people  who  want to steal my land to figure out i am not going to help them.
Not only is land transfer  a bad idea it's  an evil one. Stealing from the many to give to the few.

46000 an acre  huh?  That's  a bargain  price  should be 10 times  that.

Well  the only  issue  i can think of more important  than maintaining our  public land is our national debt. Someone has to be responsible  for it but none of us want to pony  up the bucks. If the country goes  bankrupt  no other issue  no matter how important  it seems  now will matter  one bit.

[AKBowman]

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.

If that is the case than you CANNOT be for this. Understand clearly: it is the states constitutional obligation to sell assets that are losing funds for the state. The western states cannot currently afford the land we have and the driving forces behind the idea of "state land transfer" damn well known it.

It would be a very short while before states would use this excuse to sell huge chunks of these now federal lands. It's already happening in OR. It would happen here. Think of how many folks recreate on Tiger Mtn State Forest and imagine it shut down to all access.

And if you think this huge surplus of land will get bought up by anyone who cares about wilderness or land management (like a timber company or large ranch used as an example in a previous post) think again. First likely buyer will be foreigners who will look to potentially develop the land.

The big thing that no one has talked about is how this will DRAMATICALLY dilute existing land values all across the western US.

[swanny]

The people spoke and the governemtn listened, Oregon will not be selling off Elliott Forest http://portlandtribune.com/pt/9-news/358272-238317-land-board-rejects-sale-keeps-elliott-state-forest-in-public-hands

[Stein]

Another one was just stopped in Wyoming, they wanted to transfer for a piece that would cut off over 4,000 acres of other public land.  Personally, I can't see how any public land sportsman or lover of the outdoors could be anything but fanatically against this.