Post by: OutHouse on January 19, 2017, 10:43:14 AM
Post by: swanny on January 19, 2017, 11:43:08 AM
Post by: bracer40 on January 19, 2017, 12:49:45 PM
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)
Post by: Bean Counter on January 19, 2017, 12:56:48 PM
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:
Post by: JLS 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.
Post by: kentrek 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....
Post by: OutHouse 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.
Post by: JasonG on January 19, 2017, 03:09:15 PM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on January 19, 2017, 03:11:00 PM
Post by: Special T on January 19, 2017, 03:19:14 PM
Post by: Bean Counter 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:
Post by: Stein 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.
Post by: Bean Counter 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:
Post by: Bean Counter 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:
Post by: OutHouse 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.QuoteHunters 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.
Post by: Stein 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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa 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.
Post by: Stein on January 19, 2017, 05:11:53 PM
Post by: Chappy84 on January 19, 2017, 05:19:19 PM
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts 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.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on January 19, 2017, 05:37:50 PM
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.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.
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.
Post by: meatwhack on January 19, 2017, 07:44:12 PM
Post by: mburrows on January 19, 2017, 09:01:07 PM
Post by: bigtex 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.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2017, 09:13:38 PM
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.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?
Post by: Nmesub on January 19, 2017, 10:50:28 PM
Rule change to ease transfer of land to states. Those that say this is a good thing go try and hunt on public lands in the south east. I vote down the line Republican but if they continue down this path I'm done and believe a majority of the hunting community would be also.
Post by: Eric M on January 20, 2017, 12:54:40 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 20, 2017, 04:32:24 AM
The first video in a very informative series. He's pretty passionate about this.
... watching
Post by: bracer40 on January 20, 2017, 06:16:31 AM
Post by: meatwhack on January 20, 2017, 07:23:33 AM
Post by: NumaJohn on January 20, 2017, 07:34:08 AM
The Newberg videos are compelling, to be sure, but I do not need to overcomplicate a simple issue to be convinced that the transfer of federal lands to state or private stewards is a bad idea. The federal land belongs to ALL Americans, and we should keep it that way if we want multiple use.
Just as many on the Forum believe hunters need to "band together" to save our hunting privileges and 2nd Amendment rights, people of all stripes and political leanings and outdoor interests need to rally behind what is OURS. We need to move beyond "us" vs. "them" and resist a movement that ultimately is much more about the super wealthy such as the Koch brothers than it is about federal government overreach, bunny huggers vs. hunters, etc. If the common hunter wants access, the time is now to speak up, write letters, resist.
My two cents,
John
Post by: bracer40 on January 20, 2017, 07:55:04 AM
Hello, all.Well put John. I have a friend in the outdoor industry (25-30 years) and they're rallied around this same issue as well . And there are a lot of bunny huggers in their crowd.
The Newberg videos are compelling, to be sure, but I do not need to overcomplicate a simple issue to be convinced that the transfer of federal lands to state or private stewards is a bad idea. The federal land belongs to ALL Americans, and we should keep it that way if we want multiple use.
Just as many on the Forum believe hunters need to "band together" to save our hunting privileges and 2nd Amendment rights, people of all stripes and political leanings and outdoor interests need to rally behind what is OURS. We need to move beyond "us" vs. "them" and resist a movement that ultimately is much more about the super wealthy such as the Koch brothers than it is about federal government overreach, bunny huggers vs. hunters, etc. If the common hunter wants access, the time is now to speak up, write letters, resist.
My two cents,
John
Post by: kentrek on January 20, 2017, 08:00:18 AM
Hello, all.
The Newberg videos are compelling, to be sure, but I do not need to overcomplicate a simple issue to be convinced that the transfer of federal lands to state or private stewards is a bad idea. The federal land belongs to ALL Americans, and we should keep it that way if we want multiple use.
Just as many on the Forum believe hunters need to "band together" to save our hunting privileges and 2nd Amendment rights, people of all stripes and political leanings and outdoor interests need to rally behind what is OURS. We need to move beyond "us" vs. "them" and resist a movement that ultimately is much more about the super wealthy such as the Koch brothers than it is about federal government overreach, bunny huggers vs. hunters, etc. If the common hunter wants access, the time is now to speak up, write letters, resist.
My two cents,
John
Agreed
Post by: TriggerMike on January 20, 2017, 06:22:29 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!!X2. Keep it public! And sign the petition at www.sportsmensaccess.org
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
Post by: bracer40 on January 20, 2017, 07:20:02 PM
Post by: wildmeat on January 20, 2017, 07:27:22 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.You nailed it on the head. Im a small scale miner/hunter/fisherman/trapper and all around outdoors man. If you put "Federal land" which is our Public Land into state controlled land you can kiss you access good by. They will slowly start removing roads which will deny access to some who cant walk in.
Post by: davk on January 21, 2017, 11:03:14 AM
Post by: Bean Counter on January 21, 2017, 02:53:20 PM
http://sportsmenreport.com/update-judge-orders-destruction-of-data-from-illegal-idaho-elkwolf-collaring-in-wilderness//
"Judge orders destruction of data from illegal Idaho elk/wolf collaring in wilderness..
...In this ruling, a FEDERAL Judge did not simply remove one of the “tools” from the wolf management “tool bag”, but exposed the real problem, which is FEDERAL control of land and the misapplication of the WILDERNESS ACT and the ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT..."
Post by: baldopepper on January 21, 2017, 03:19:57 PM
Post by: Seabass on January 22, 2017, 10:47:18 AM
Post by: fish vacuum on January 22, 2017, 04:24:33 PM
It seems that people believe "public" is only applicable to Federal. State owned lands are also "public". Am I wrong?State's don't have the budget to manage additional state land and would likely sell.
Post by: CementFinisher on January 22, 2017, 04:32:52 PM
Post by: wheels on January 22, 2017, 04:48:20 PM
Post by: swanny on January 23, 2017, 07:35:25 AM
Post by: haus on January 23, 2017, 08:19:45 AM
Sure the USFS has its short comings, unmitigated logging was counter punched with basically the 'do nothing' management policy we currently have. The impact on hunting, especially on the west side has been significant.
Due to the land management policy change coinciding with our states abandonment of aggressive predator control plus various diseases it's difficult to absolutely claim which factor had the greatest influence. That being said it's blatantly obvious that the USFS management choices have had an impact on the westsides deer and elk populations.
Conservation organizations are making progress though and in several NF parcels that I frequent the changes they've made are helping improve the habitat.
Post by: TriggerMike on January 23, 2017, 09:54:50 AM
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.
Post by: bradslam on January 23, 2017, 10:19:17 AM
Just go to YouTube and do a search for Randy Newberg Public Land Transfer and all 16 videos will come up.
Post by: haus on January 23, 2017, 10:40:20 AM
Post by: OutHouse on January 23, 2017, 02:28:59 PM
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. :twocents:
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.
Post by: bracer40 on January 23, 2017, 03:38:15 PM
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
Post by: csaaphill on January 23, 2017, 10:07:31 PM
Post by: haus on January 24, 2017, 07:11:56 AM
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.
Post by: baldopepper on January 24, 2017, 08:09:46 AM
Post by: NumaJohn on February 06, 2017, 11:57:16 AM
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
Post by: MTMule on February 21, 2017, 11:45:35 PM
If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.
Post by: Gobble Doc on February 22, 2017, 11:19:12 AM
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-
Post by: Rob Allen on May 01, 2017, 06:17:18 AM
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.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 01, 2017, 07:00:12 AM
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?
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on May 01, 2017, 07:03:12 AM
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.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.
Thank you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Hunting CPO on May 01, 2017, 08:09:09 AM
Post by: Stein on May 01, 2017, 08:14:18 AM
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.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 01, 2017, 08:23:48 AM
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.
Post by: Stein on May 01, 2017, 08:35:42 AM
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:
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 01, 2017, 08:41:13 AM
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.
Post by: Stein on May 01, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on May 01, 2017, 09:44:55 AM
Who would they give it to? I guarantee it isn't the WDFW. Point is, nobody has the budget to manage it.
:yeah: Especially when payments in leu of taxes are removed from the states budget
Post by: yakimanoob on May 01, 2017, 11:24:38 AM
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.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.
If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.
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."
Post by: yakimanoob on May 01, 2017, 11:29:15 AM
Support RMEF, as I imagine many/most of you do already. http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFonPublicLandsTransfer.aspx (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/ (https://keepitpublic.org/)
Also check out http://www.protectourpublicland.org/ (http://www.protectourpublicland.org/)
Also do the things everyone else has already said! :)
Post by: Special T on May 01, 2017, 11:43:52 AM
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
Post by: Stein on May 01, 2017, 11:48:16 AM
Post by: Special T on May 01, 2017, 11:54:57 AM
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
Post by: Rob Allen on May 04, 2017, 10:08:34 PM
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.
Post by: AKBowman on May 10, 2017, 10:57:50 PM
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.
Post by: swanny on May 11, 2017, 09:05:17 AM
Post by: Stein on May 11, 2017, 02:00:07 PM
Post by: elkinrutdrivemenuts on May 12, 2017, 12:23:55 PM
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.
It blows my mind as well. Sadly those that do buy into the bs theory are also the same type that have to learn lessons the hard way. This is one mistake we cannot allow because we will never get this land back.
Post by: JLS on May 12, 2017, 12:43:44 PM
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.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.
If it were up to me the budget would be tripled.
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."
It's also worth noting that the outdoor industry is 887 BILLION dollars a year in the US. Public lands in the West play a huge role in the outdoor industry.
Even if only a conservative estimate of half that revenue was related public land use, that's still over 400 BILLION dollars. I think the operating budgets that are roughly 1-2% of these revenues, and I consider that a pretty good return. Honestly, the amount of grazing and timber revenue folks get all spun up over really pales in comparison.
Post by: DaveMonti on May 12, 2017, 12:56:28 PM
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.
It blows my mind as well. Sadly those that do buy into the bs theory are also the same type that have to learn lessons the hard way. This is one mistake we cannot allow because we will never get this land back.
This is simple. Some folks are so anti-Federal Government that ALL their decisions and support lie against it. These people are not looking at any federal issues objectively, only emotionally. As with anything, there is a balance, but all that goes out the window when your arguments are emotional based. It goes both ways on every issue, fanatical support for Pro or Con.
Post by: yakimanoob on May 12, 2017, 06:02:34 PM
It's also worth noting that the outdoor industry is 887 BILLION dollars a year in the US. Public lands in the West play a huge role in the outdoor industry.:yeah:
Even if only a conservative estimate of half that revenue was related public land use, that's still over 400 BILLION dollars. I think the operating budgets that are roughly 1-2% of these revenues, and I consider that a pretty good return. Honestly, the amount of grazing and timber revenue folks get all spun up over really pales in comparison.