No More Federal Land?

[nwmein199]

I have listened to several podcasts recently talk about Utah suing the federal government saying its unconstitutional for the federal government to own any lands besides DC and military installations. The lawsuit only calls for BLM land but the lawsuit says its intended "to address whether the federal government can simply hold unappropriated lands within a State indefinitely". The implications from this are insanely huge. National parks, national monuments, national forests, BLM, any/all federally owned land, all moved moved out from possession of the federal government. These lands may not just be handed over to the the states, they could go to the highest bidder. The wildfires paid for by the federal government each year would bankrupt most states in a single fire season.

There have been 12 states that have signed an amicus briefed siding with the state of Utah: Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, Arizona, Iowa, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, & Texas.

States that currently ban target shooting on public lands: California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Those 4 states currently have 130,000,000 acres of federal land. If this were to go through, you would lose to ability to target shoot on over 130,000,000 acres of public land. You would loose access to camping on 23,500,000 acres in Colorado if this were to go through. You would loose access to camping on 30,000,000 acres in Wyoming.

https://senate.utah.gov/utah-files-landmark-lawsuit-challenging-federal-control-over-most-blm-land/
https://www.themeateater.com/listen/meateater/ep-638-tktktktktk-bradbrooks-davewillms great discussion about this lawsuit with a lawyer
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/hunters_cannot_dismiss_the_magnitude_of_utah_s_public_lands_lawsuit
https://www.hcn.org/articles/why-utah-is-suing-the-u-s-for-control-of-public-land/
The Elk Talk Podcast episode #137: Access to Elk, Complications Abound (2nd half of the podcast explains this lawsuit well)

[Naches Sportsman]

It’s going to be an interesting 4 years no matter who a person voted for. At least there’s still checks and balances in the judicial branch.

Federal Lands is a hot topic same with federal land manangement activities around fire. Expect more acres to burn if some of the republican elected officials get their way.

[baldopepper]

Have to remember, by mandate, all.state lands must be managed for maximum profit to the state.  I can promise you that in Utah, despite what their govoner says, that would mean privatization of these lands. Either thru sales or leases.  A form of this land grab has been circulating in Utah for many years.  Big land owners in the state are frustrated that they can't grab even more and keep the general public off it. Utahs current govoner seems very willing to help them do it.

[CarbonHunter]

This has been an area of contention for as long as land has been deeded. Even if this lawsuit was to succeed it would trigger a massive amount of other lawsuits blocking the ruling on other grounds.

Just imagine how many people could file a claim against a state that took ownership of the land and blocked them from doing what they historically did on the land that was owned by them, the tax payer.

[boneaddict]

I believe Trumps mindset was to offload a bunch of it.   He is the one that gave the Bison range back to the Tribe.    I wonder what his son has to say about it as an outdoorsman, but his view isnt likely the same as a common man.

[pianoman9701]

A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.

[JimmyHoffa]

In this state, I'm wondering if it would be better to skip the state and go to tribes.  Then wdfw could be bypassed.

[bigtex]

A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.

You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.

USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.

Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[pianoman9701]

A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.

You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.

USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.

Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I'm confused by your first comment and your last comment. Are we lucky or unlucky? Those two comments are seemingly contradictory. Is the incoming commissioner going to take away our access or not?

[MeepDog]

A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.

You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.

USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.

Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Unfettered access to state lands is a bit of a stretch. We do have it good don't get me wrong, but our state closed all access to DNR land because it was hot outside a couple years back, and they close premium habitat and call it a natural area. I love that we can access random chunks of state land, even with farms on them, but they have the power to shut us out and recently did start using it.

[Fidelk]

States that currently ban target shooting on public lands: California, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico. Those 4 states currently have 130,000,000 acres of federal land. If this were to go through, you would lose to ability to target shoot on over 130,000,000 acres of public land. You would loose access to camping on 23,500,000 acres in Colorado if this were to go through. You would loose access to camping on 30,000,000 acres in Wyoming.

I don't think that any State can impose its rules on "federal land". The federal government has Supremacy.

[dwils233]

A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.

USFS doesn't have a ban on logging federal lands. I was literally in an active logging unit today watching some work get done. It absolutely changed in the late 80's/early 90's but even the most hardened forester I know these days will concede that our forestry practices for much of the 20th century were unsustainable and ecologically unsound. The pendulum swung from one extreme to the other, but logging has never full-stopped. It needs to be efficient and effective, and balanced for intentional outcomes....you can't do those things fast or at the scale needed right now, but plenty of folks are trying (and it only takes a few to slow things down).

Millions upon millions of board feet come off FS lands in WA each year. We just have 10's of millions that constantly need treatment

[baldopepper]

There are several factors involved with Utah wanting control of federal lands and logging really plays no part in it.  Locals are more interested in expanding cheap grazing rights, expansion of tourism development and, in some cases, gaining control of hunting access. Using the mandate to maximize profit that state will turn everything it can over to private interests. Free camping, hiking, hunting etc will be relegated to those areas that are not generally desirable.   If this lawsuit becomes successful  we will see changes in the western states that the majority of us won't like.

[bigtex]

A solid argument could be made that the USDA and FS's banning of logging on federal lands since the 1980s is responsible for the intense damage caused by wildfires today...all supposedly done to protect the spotted owl, among other excuses, an owl that we know doesn't need old growth to survive and is in fact being killed off...by another owl. This clearly demonstrates the inability of the federal government to manage anything other than the military and maybe, the Treasury. With a return to responsible forestry, it's quite possible that the states could successfully manage those lands more efficiently and wouldn't have the disastrous wildfires to deal with.

You want the incoming DNR Public Lands Commisisoner who wants to see less logging on DNR lands to take over all fed lands in WA? It'd be a disaster.

USFS has cut more timber in the past decade then the past 30 years. It'll never be like it used to be, but things are slowly improving.

Some states don't even allow public access to state land, or severely restrict it. We're lucky here in WA where we really have unfettered access to state lands, people in other states aren't so lucky.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

I'm confused by your first comment and your last comment. Are we lucky or unlucky? Those two comments are seemingly contradictory. Is the incoming commissioner going to take away our access or not?

Well im confused on how you're confused.

You appear to say that states may do more logging if they controlled the land. May be true for most states but not in WA where the incoming DNR Commissioner wants to cut back on logging.

My only comment on access is in the last paragraph where I say we have unfettered access to state lands in WA as compared to many other states.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Humptulips]

Much ado, never happen.