Public Land Transfer

[Bucksnorts]

This is a very devicive issue and I feel like many have made up there minds on the subject. This post is addressed to those of you that detest the idea of the State of Utah and other western states assuming management of these lands. We know this will eventually lead to the sale of massive amount of public land the resource extraction companies, special interest groups, and most likely many of our state political leaders and their buddies. I have been watching this issue and feel that while of us oppose it we constantly get snubbed by our political leaders with draft letters telling us how wrong we are. I feel like we need to better organized and more proactive.

I have become impressed with the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) organization. Their main focus is on maintaining access to public land for those of us that enjoy hunting, fishing, and camping on the land. I recommend everybody check them out and join if this is an issue that is important to you. It is only when we voice our concern as a group that we will make our misguided politicians listen to us. Much like other "conservation" groups in the state that support the transfer of public assets to private entities.

I realize this has the potential to blow up into a big, insulting debate amongst our members. My only request is that each take their time to check out BHA and consider their mission and if it is important to you.

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/

 

[jm77]

You are right, this is a very decisive issue; between the informed and the uninformed. The uninformed believe, sometimes at no fault of their own, that more local control of public land is better. This thinking is rooted in the conception that the Feds are inept and intrusive, saddled with "red tape" policies that are inefficient. In some cases they are right about this, but federal public land is handled with a true multiple use and protection policy.

However, the informed, who have experience dealing with state land policies know, in general, they are "for profit". This is almost never beneficial to the sportsman or recreationist on public land. In the worst cases, states deny access completely to the hunting and fishing public.

You are right Buck, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is leading the fight to keep public lands accessible to sportsman.

 

[huntjock]

I am one of those who have not taken the time to read the fine print. (Disclaimer)

I have no problem with states taking control of our federal public lands, but ONLY under the condition that NONE of that land can EVER change hands. EVER.

I am not sure if this is provisioned as such. If not, yeah, we will eventually see the time when we will be guilty of trespassing on land we used to be able to access.

 

[pufftuffly]

LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 08:50AM (MST)[p]Well, the uninformed just chimed in.

 

[theox]

>LAST EDITED ON May-20-16
>AT 08:50?AM (MST)
>
>Well, the uninformed just chimed in.
>


Ya glad you didn't say much

 

[theox]

LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 09:08AM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 09:01?AM (MST)

>I am one of those who
>have not taken the time
>to read the fine print.
>(Disclaimer)
>
>I have no problem with states
>taking control of our federal
>public lands, but ONLY under
>the condition that NONE of
>that land can EVER change
>hands. EVER.
>
>I am not sure if this
>is provisioned as such. If
>not, yeah, we will eventually
>see the time when we
>will be guilty of trespassing
>on land we used to
>be able to access.

That would be my stipulation. Put it in a trust were it could never be sold etc.

I think the state would manage it far better than the Feds.

Don't listen to pufflynotsotuffly. He doesn't seem to run on all cylinders.

 

[NVBighorn]

1. The states could not afford to manage the land. Think wildfire

2. They will sell it and would never agree to being excluded from selling

3. It's all about money

4. Just as important as selling the land you have no way of maintaining access to state owned lands. Look at state land in Colorado and Utah.



This is a really good start:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...gs/letters-from-the-west/article78731237.html

Utah has a bunch of these guys who need to be ousted. So does Nevada.

BHA is a great organization. Another one that is working against the land transfer movement on a state and national level is Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

 

[Bucksnorts]

>1. The states could not afford
>to manage the land. Think
>wildfire
>
>2. They will sell it and
>would never agree to being
>excluded from selling
>
>3. It's all about money
>
>4. Just as important as selling
>the land you have no
>way of maintaining access to
>state owned lands. Look at
>state land in Colorado and
>Utah.
>
>
>
>This is a really good start:
>
>
>http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...gs/letters-from-the-west/article78731237.html
>
>Utah has a bunch of these
>guys who need to be
>ousted. So does Nevada.
>
>BHA is a great organization. Another
>one that is working against
>the land transfer movement on
>a state and national level
>is Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
>


Exactly this. Utah has made no qualms in saying why they want the land. They will be obligated to sell it after the first big fire season because it will bankrupt the state. Please get informed on the stance these states are taking and then get involved.

 

[pufftuffly]

Theox,

Serious question.

What do you think the odds are that the state of Utah would put in a stipulation that they would never sell any land?

 

[theox]

>1. The states could not afford
>to manage the land. Think
>wildfire
>
>2. They will sell it and
>would never agree to being
>excluded from selling
>
>3. It's all about money
>
>4. Just as important as selling
>the land you have no
>way of maintaining access to
>state owned lands. Look at
>state land in Colorado and
>Utah.
>
>
>
>This is a really good start:
>
>
>http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...gs/letters-from-the-west/article78731237.html
>
>Utah has a bunch of these
>guys who need to be
>ousted. So does Nevada.
>
>BHA is a great organization. Another
>one that is working against
>the land transfer movement on
>a state and national level
>is Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
>


You are soooooo wrong.
1. Wildfire is great for the land!
2. Lots of state land is not ever sold look at ax
3. It's not about money it's about mismanagement of public lands. Such as suppression of wildfire, mismanagement of wild horses , AND most importantly the abuse of people using it such as ranchers being forced off and recreationalista being booted off. Let me remind you ranchers are not free grazers. They paid a lump some to buy the allotment they graze. They basically bought the grass/ feed on those lands. The yearly grazing fee that yes is minimal is supposed to be used for range improvements I can't remember the exact figure but it's like 80%. And do you think they comply with thAt!? Helllll no! They use it for legislation and schemes to eliminate ranchers.
4. What about the state land in Utah? It's not blocked off in Utah.

 

[theox]

>Theox,
>
>Serious question.
>
>What do you think the odds
>are that the state of
>Utah would put in a
>stipulation that they would never
>sell any land?


Thank you for a more civil approach this time.

While I have interests in both sides of this fight. My major hang up with the transfer is the fear of selling it off. That is the only reason I am nervous about it. As a member of a ranching family and an avid hunter I am completely split on it.
I want land to stay public for hunters and recreationalists that's important to me. And let me tell you if the land did get sold I would likely be on the positive end of that as my family would likely be a major purchaser. However I know many would not be so lucky so I could not support that because being in other people's shoes would really suck. I think the land should stay public. I hunt a lot of public land and I think it adds to the challenge. Now on the other end of the spectrum I have seen first hand the abuse of the blm. I will not get into depth on it but if you wanna know more mr puff just pm me.
However like I said I have seen the abuse and I know a lot more than you think about it. I know how severely mismanaged and abused our public land is in my neck of the woods by the blm. I see the use of tools such as sage grouse, tortoise and mustangs as well as wolves being used to drive hunters ranchers and recreationalists off lands. This is done by none other than our federal government.
On our allotments we propose many habitat improvement projects that are constantly denied by the blm. However the state is often very willing to help fund or at least give permission to improve. We have greatly improved our private along as many many acres of state lands often times at our own personal costs and man power. From these efforts we have put forth a lot of wildlife have benefited. When compared to blm it is a stark contrast to which habitat is in better shape and I don't think I need to tell which is far better.
Anyway if you have specific questions puff please pm and I'll gladly answer any u may have to the best of my ability.
Thanks again for asking a question in a civil manner.

 

[Bucksnorts]

>>1. The states could not afford
>>to manage the land. Think
>>wildfire
>>
>>2. They will sell it and
>>would never agree to being
>>excluded from selling
>>
>>3. It's all about money
>>
>>4. Just as important as selling
>>the land you have no
>>way of maintaining access to
>>state owned lands. Look at
>>state land in Colorado and
>>Utah.
>>
>>
>>
>>This is a really good start:
>>
>>
>>http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/...gs/letters-from-the-west/article78731237.html
>>
>>Utah has a bunch of these
>>guys who need to be
>>ousted. So does Nevada.
>>
>>BHA is a great organization. Another
>>one that is working against
>>the land transfer movement on
>>a state and national level
>>is Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
>>
>
>
>You are soooooo wrong.
>1. Wildfire is great for the
>land!
>2. Lots of state land is
>not ever sold look at
>ax
>3. It's not about money it's
>about mismanagement of public lands.
>Such as suppression of wildfire,
>mismanagement of wild horses ,
>AND most importantly the abuse
>of people using it such
>as ranchers being forced off
>and recreationalista being booted off.
> Let me remind you
>ranchers are not free grazers.
>They paid a lump some
>to buy the allotment they
>graze. They basically bought the
>grass/ feed on those lands.
>The yearly grazing fee that
>yes is minimal is supposed
>to be used for range
>improvements I can't remember the
>exact figure but it's like
>80%. And do you think
>they comply with thAt!? Helllll
>no! They use it for
>legislation and schemes to eliminate
>ranchers.
>4. What about the state land
>in Utah? It's not blocked
>off in Utah.

I agree wildfire is good for the land. Most Federal agencies now let them burn until they pose a risk to infrastructure. However uncontrolled wildfire is usually why fires are fought. People get real upset when their infrastructure gets burned down. Thus fires are fought.

I find it funny that the BLM is always maligned for the wild horse issue. They manage them according to the crappy laws they have been hamstrung by. The agency is not the villain, the ridiculous horse protection laws are. Those are made by congress. We cant shoot them and nobody wants to adopt them. I know many BLM managers that would privately prefer just to gun them down but they cannot because of the law.

It is just like the people that hate police because they gave them a ticket. They only enforce what we have tacitly agreed upon when our law makers made the law. Lets get the Horse protection laws changed and then we can do something about the issue.


Actually much of state land is sold and leased every year. Look up SITLA. That means not access to the public.

 

[deadibob]

Even if the states wanted to keep the land for open use, they couldn't do it. Management costs are just too high. They would be forced to sell it or charge user fees. As a kid I lived near Snow Canyon state park. It was a cool place to go. Now you can't even drive through it without being charged. Most other state parks are the same way. No thanks.

 

[WapitiBob]

Anybody that hunts around the west and deals with the restrictions understands a transfer is a bad idea.

 

[NVBighorn]

LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 01:07PM (MST)[p]>
>You are soooooo wrong.
>1. Wildfire is great for the
>land!
>2. Lots of state land is
>not ever sold look at
>ax
>3. It's not about money it's
>about mismanagement of public lands.
>Such as suppression of wildfire,
>mismanagement of wild horses ,
>AND most importantly the abuse
>of people using it such
>as ranchers being forced off
>and recreationalista being booted off.
> Let me remind you
>ranchers are not free grazers.
>They paid a lump some
>to buy the allotment they
>graze. They basically bought the
>grass/ feed on those lands.
>The yearly grazing fee that
>yes is minimal is supposed
>to be used for range
>improvements I can't remember the
>exact figure but it's like
>80%. And do you think
>they comply with thAt!? Helllll
>no! They use it for
>legislation and schemes to eliminate
>ranchers.
>4. What about the state land
>in Utah? It's not blocked
>off in Utah.

Theox,

Just keep drinking the Koolaid. I'm not new to this topic.

Wildfire is a good thing on a small scale. But look at the seas of cheatgrass in Nevada where the fires were very large. My comment was about the cost of fire fighting, suppression, control or however you wish to refer to it. Billions my friend, billions of dollars.

The BASIS for being upset with BLM is not about money. I will give you that. However the PURPOSE behind the transfer of public land and the ultimate sale of the good parts is ENTIRELY about money. They are using the ranchers plight as the means to get their way. Your ranching family will be just as big of victims in the end as we sportsmen. They will not be able to afford to buy the land they want. And if it's prime stuff big money and foreign investors will buy it. It will either be cut up into developments, raped and pillaged by big money and left to blow away or locked up by the big money people who buy it.

FYI, your 80% of grazing fee figure is way wrong. 25% of the $2.11/AUM goes to range improvements as 8100 funds, 12.5% goes to the states. Can't do much with that.

Don't get me wrong. I think public land grazing ranchers are salt of the earth people. And I understand their frustration with the feds. But it would cost them more and they would not get anything more back from state ownership.

Are you telling me you can go onto any Utah State owned land any time you wish and do whatever you want? Hunt, shoot, ride ATVs, camp? Because I can do that on federally managed public land every single day of every single year. I don't think you can do that on school trust lands for sure. Show me I'm wrong if I am.


Edit:
>They paid a lump some
>to buy the allotment they
>graze. They basically bought the
>grass/ feed on those lands.
Wrong again.
They may have bought it from the previous rancher but I bet they didn't buy it from BLM unless they bought some other ranchers "preference" that was given up to or revoked by BLM because the rancher didn't follow his permit. The argument that they bought and paid for it doesn't wash. I, as a citizen and taxpayer of the US, did not receive a dime from that sale in most cases.

 

[Packout]

LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 01:32PM (MST)[p]Sorry this is long--
The following is the part of the Utah Bill, just passed this year as to how the State will manage Public Land (if the State wins), that makes me most worried. If you read line 474 you can see that the Director of this Agency will be able to sell up to 200 acres of public lands without approval. Parcels over 200 acres must receive legislative approval (line 479). Lands can be sold for "economic development" or "expansion of communities", plus many other reasons which can be interpreted from the language in the Bill.

So will the 100 acres they sell up Provo Peak or on the Tushars or the Henry Mtns or the La Sals or the Unitas or the Peter Sinks be one of the places you and many others frequent? Will they determine an additional 2,000 acres up AF Canyon are needed for the Snowbird's "economic development"? Or what about a Ski Resort on Nebo? Maybe lease the Book Cliffs as a CWMU? Maybe a nice "summer community" in the Waters? Maybe sell off the winter range above Bountiful and Nephi? You see, whatever is sold is gone forever. It won't all be sold, but some will. And that is a FACT!

Who will the Director be? The director may enter into contracts and cooperative agreements involving the... development of public land. (line 481 and 482)

468 63L-8-311. Implementation provisions.
469 (1) (a) The director may conduct investigations, studies, and experiments involving the
470 management, protection, development, acquisition, and transfer of public land.
471 (b) The director may work with other departments, agencies, or political subdivisions
472 in conducting an investigation, study, or experiment, as described in Subsection (1)(a).
473 (c) (i) Where an investigation, study, or experiment described in Subsection (1)(a)
474 finds that the transfer of a tract of public land in excess of 200 acres would promote economic
475 land management or serve an important public interest, including the expansion of
476 communities and economic development, the director shall recommend the transfer to the
477 Natural Resources, Agriculture, and Environment Interim Committee and include the basis for
478 the recommendation.
479 (ii) No transfer of a tract of public land in excess of 200 acres may be authorized until
480 approved by the Legislature and the governor.
481 (2) The director may enter into contracts and cooperative agreements involving the
482 management, protection, and development of public land.
483 (3) (a) The director may accept voluntary contributions or donations of money,
484 services, and real or personal property for:
485 (i) the management, protection, and development of public land, including the
486 acquisition of rights-of-way;
487 (ii) any purpose described in Sections 63L-8-307, 63L-8-308, 63L-8-309, and
488 63L-8-310; or
489 (iii) cadastral surveying performed on public land and intermingled land.
490 (b) The director shall deposit any money donated or contributed under this section in
491 the account designated by the donor or, if not specified, in the Public Land Management Fund
492 created in Section 63L-8-308.

So there you have it. There is no spin. It is black and white, written into law. The State WILL sell a portion public lands acquired from the Federal Gov't.

 

[wstrntines]

LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 02:47PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 02:45?PM (MST)

Pufftuffly the chances are zero go watch randy newberg on youtube and you'll learn it has never worked utah has sold more state land than any other state. Nevada has sold off 99% state land. He's doing a youtube series right now on his channel it is gonna be 12 videos on this current issue. There are also some other videos hes posted about it the last couple months and I think there is a whole podcast as well.

https://youtu.be/sh9SXNx_GKc

 

[pufftuffly]

Wstrntines,

You're preaching to the quior. I know that, and I respect the hell out of Newberg and what he's done for the regular sportsmen.
I posed that question to the cowboy to see if he would sling some more of his BS, and he did.

 

[theox]

>LAST EDITED ON May-20-16
>AT 01:07?PM (MST)
>
>>
>>You are soooooo wrong.
>>1. Wildfire is great for the
>>land!
>>2. Lots of state land is
>>not ever sold look at
>>ax
>>3. It's not about money it's
>>about mismanagement of public lands.
>>Such as suppression of wildfire,
>>mismanagement of wild horses ,
>>AND most importantly the abuse
>>of people using it such
>>as ranchers being forced off
>>and recreationalista being booted off.
>> Let me remind you
>>ranchers are not free grazers.
>>They paid a lump some
>>to buy the allotment they
>>graze. They basically bought the
>>grass/ feed on those lands.
>>The yearly grazing fee that
>>yes is minimal is supposed
>>to be used for range
>>improvements I can't remember the
>>exact figure but it's like
>>80%. And do you think
>>they comply with thAt!? Helllll
>>no! They use it for
>>legislation and schemes to eliminate
>>ranchers.
>>4. What about the state land
>>in Utah? It's not blocked
>>off in Utah.
>
>Theox,
>
>Just keep drinking the Koolaid. I'm
>not new to this topic.
>
>
>Wildfire is a good thing on
>a small scale. But look
>at the seas of cheatgrass
>in Nevada where the fires
>were very large. My comment
>was about the cost of
>fire fighting, suppression, control or
>however you wish to refer
>to it. Billions my friend,
>billions of dollars.
>
>The BASIS for being upset with
>BLM is not about money.
>I will give you that.
>However the PURPOSE behind the
>transfer of public land and
>the ultimate sale of the
>good parts is ENTIRELY about
>money. They are using the
>ranchers plight as the means
>to get their way. Your
>ranching family will be just
>as big of victims in
>the end as we sportsmen.
>They will not be able
>to afford to buy the
>land they want. And if
>it's prime stuff big money
>and foreign investors will buy
>it. It will either be
>cut up into developments, raped
>and pillaged by big money
>and left to blow away
>or locked up by the
>big money people who buy
>it.
>
>FYI, your 80% of grazing fee
>figure is way wrong. 25%
>of the $2.11/AUM goes to
>range improvements as 8100 funds,
>12.5% goes to the states.
>Can't do much with that.
>
>
>Don't get me wrong. I think
>public land grazing ranchers are
>salt of the earth people.
>And I understand their frustration
>with the feds. But it
>would cost them more and
>they would not get anything
>more back from state ownership.
>
>
>Are you telling me you can
>go onto any Utah State
>owned land any time you
>wish and do whatever you
>want? Hunt, shoot, ride ATVs,
>camp? Because I can do
>that on federally managed public
>land every single day of
>every single year. I don't
>think you can do that
>on school trust lands for
>sure. Show me I'm wrong
>if I am.
>
>
>Edit:
>>They paid a lump some
>>to buy the allotment they
>>graze. They basically bought the
>>grass/ feed on those lands.
>Wrong again.
>They may have bought it from
>the previous rancher but I
>bet they didn't buy it
>from BLM unless they bought
>some other ranchers "preference" that
>was given up to or
>revoked by BLM because the
>rancher didn't follow his permit.
>The argument that they bought
>and paid for it doesn't
>wash. I, as a citizen
>and taxpayer of the US,
>did not receive a dime
>from that sale in most
>cases.

Wow everything you said I can disagree with. You are drinking the koolaid. Everything u said is propaganda spread by the blm.
Your cheatgrass theory is wrong
Your 25% is wrong.
Your whole statement is incorrect. Please do some tease arch for yourself. You must work for the blm.

 

[theox]

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3556659-155/bill-advances-to-outline-how-utah

 

[pufftuffly]

Noel, Perry, and Bishop have their names written all over this. What a trio of douch bags.

An 11 member public land advisory board Huh? Kind of like that joke of a wildlife board we have. We all see how that's been working. With the amount of corruption in Utahs legislation that advisory board means nothing to me.

The Feds certainly arn't perfect by any means but I trust them with our public land a 1000 times more than the corrupt mormon republicans we got running the show right now.

 

[kittykiller]

Dude you sure are whiney. You should be damn grateful for what you got. There are a lot of folks who dream of having a blm grazing permit and living off the land.

Federal agencies are bound by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as part of due process. It might take forever, but it least it's fair to the owners of public lands (the American people). Maybe if you don't like it, you should give it up.

 

[jm77]

LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 09:27PM (MST)[p]LAST EDITED ON May-20-16 AT 09:26?PM (MST)

I finally get the definition of a 'Utard'; an individual from Utah who hunts or fishes or recreates on public land and is in favor of states taking over federal public land.

 

[NVBighorn]

Theox,

I said if I am wrong please show me. Just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. If you think I dislike ranching you are 100% wrong.

Blm grazing fees are split like this:
37.5% goes to the US Treasury
25% goes to the BLM for.projects anywhere they choose.to use them
25% goes to BLM supposedly for range improvements where the money is collected (I agree, it doesn't appear to get spent that way)
12.5% goes to the state I'm which it.was collected.to be used for grazing boards

I encourage you to do your own research but this is fact.

No I do not work for BLM. I actually work to protect all of our hunting rights and access. The idea of the feds transferring all public lands over to the states is one of the biggest threats to you and I as Western hunters.

 

[Finn]

Bucksnorts is absolutely right about Backcountry Hunters and Anglers. RMEF also deserves credit for actively opposing the transfer.

In more than a half-century of hunting and fishing, I don't recall a bigger threat to our heritage. As a former co-chair for the Utah state chapter of BHA, I'm aware of who the players are in this game. So I'm puzzled why it is that so few players are folks who wear camo.

Maybe hunters and anglers don't believe that this transfer could actually happen. When Utah politicians first began talking about a lawsuit, I chuckled, too. But then I realized that while a judicial transfer won't happen, a legislative transfer could be very possible given the right combination of President, Congress and Supreme Court. Even without Cruz (and Mike Lee on the SCOTUS), the upcoming election could still potentially create that perfect trifecta.

Maybe hunters and anglers have been lulled into complacency by the veneer of partisan politics. But the transfer of ownership of hundreds of millions of acres is not conservative; it's radically progressive. And many of the Republican politicians who are promoting the transfer have demonstrated little regard for conservation and our outdoor heritage. (Rob Bishop)

Or maybe hunters and anglers have just been so jaded by corruption in government and cronyism in wildlife management that they feel powerless. But that doesn't have to be the case. Randy Newburg was previously mentioned - he makes a good point when he says it's time for us to become politically active with a willingness to collaborate and a unified voice.

But I refuse to believe that sportsmen are standing on the sidelines with their hands in their pockets because they don't care one way or the other.

 

[hank4elk]

Member of BHA & RMEF.
From my cold dead hands .....

 

[Finn]

Spoke with Bishop and Chaffetz staffers today. They tell me that the best way to avoid a state "take over" is to support Bishop's Public Lands Initiative. Problem is, Bishop's PLI places all management control squarely in the governor's office (commissioners appointed by the governor). So PLI is state control. Exactly like the Wildlife Board model. Why doesn't that excite me?

You think this is cool? Well, consider for just a moment. At present, Utah is a solid red state...except in the capitol city. All projections are that Utah's population will double by 2050. You want to bet that the new population will continue to be Republican voters? Bet your access to public lands on it?

Given the powers to the governor that Bishop's proposal creates, y'all ready for an anti-hunting Governor? Because truth be told, we're a minority in the debate.

 

[Zwickey]

Federal lands are owned by all of us and managed for multiple use. State lands are not public lands but owned and controlled by the state land boards with their first priority being to make money. I don't think their top priority is going to be trying to improve the experience of hunters, anglers, campers, hikers, mountain bikers and others that use the land for free now. Their priority will be with whatever brings in the most revenue. That is their job. It is much more profitable to lease to an outfitter or other businesses or corporations that do not want the public accessing it or at the very least charging access fees. Letting us have free access to it like we do now won't be a priority. And that's just the land that's not sold off.

We have it pretty darn good the way it is with access to millions of acres of public land here in the west. I see no upside (if the states take control) for anybody who currently accesses these lands. However if the states take over there is the potential for a devastating downside that can never be taken back.