selling federal lands to states

oldwyoelkhunter · Mar 28, 2012

I saw on the news this morning where several states I believe CO, UT, ID had bills in their legislatures to try to get the feds to turn over several million acres of public lands to thenm to foster energy development. I don't know the details and it may be a lot of smoke and no fire. These "sagebrush rebellion" type things come up regularly in the west and usually don't amount to much.

I fear however that with the new rise in libertarianism in this country that things could be different. I am pretty conservative on most issues but when people start talking about selling off our public lands I start to get really nervous. Public lands are what makes this such a great country to be a hunter and fisherman in. I also see what a poor job Wyoming does in managing its state public trust lands for wildlife and outdoor recreation. I think they do even a worse job than BLM and way worse than the USFS. On top of that selling to an adjoining rancher is much more likely with the state. As bad as radical enviros are they do offer some balance to radical development where federal public lands are concerned.

My question is how do you as a sportsman or woman feel about selling off public lands in the west? How strongly would you oppose it?

I see our hunters and fishermen as the best chance of conserving these lands for future generations. I hope that you do to. Thanks

PleaseDear · Mar 28, 2012

Screw that plan.

Then the states will sell to the big corporations/landowners--ect. and our public ground will be long gone....along with hunting it.

Robb

Cornhusker · Mar 28, 2012

I agree with Robb and you on this totally against selling it to states who will eventually find a way to sell it to private.

bucklover · Mar 28, 2012

I don't agree with selling, but sometimes trading different sections for different sections are not a bad idea. Wy is so checkerboarded it's sometimes impossible to get to where you want. If some sections could be clustered together in exchange for others, it could open up a lot more land for the public, if that was the intent in the first place. The danger is all the good stuff could become privatized.

huntin50 · Mar 28, 2012

It depends on who is running things in each state and who is in charge of Federal lands. Those who are in office.

Some Fed agencies want to lockout the public from using our lands. No multiple use. Very low quality habitat for wildlife. The Government isn't going to do anything. They are 15 trillion in debt.

If states could make the land more productive,create jobs, bring money to States. States would not sell off the land. States would Keep it a public money making operation for States. Keep it open access for the public to use, it would be a win win situation for everyone. We could increase our carrying capacity to have more deer and elk.
A few thoughts.

mulecreek · Mar 28, 2012

This is a bad idea. It's the first step to losing public access. While I am frustrated at times with how the feds manage lands, I still think states have a greater tendancy to be short sided. The fact that the Fed's are blocking development of some lands is a good thing. Most of what these states want is drilling for gas. The last thing we need at this tiem is more nat gas. Take a look at the price, $2.10/mBTu. There is currently a glut of nat gas on the market, that is what has driven prices so low. Utah just wants to be the next Bakken field and rake in the royalties so they can piss them away on some stupid convention center or events complex. So few communities or States actual put these new found revenues from energy development to any good long term use.

Out of curiousity, what is your beef with how Wyoming manages it's State lands? I never saw a real problem, but given that it is such a small piece of the pie I never paid much attention. I do know that it is easier and cheaper to get mining done on state lands than federal lands.

teamhoyt · Mar 28, 2012

States manage their land for one thing and only one thing MONEY. Public access to these lands is dependant on how it affects the lands profitabilty, so if the land has grazing value or other value and the public has an impact on the quality of the grass(for example) it can be closed to public access or maybe just closed for vehicle use. However the state is somehow mandated that they can land amounts or value but they cannot drop below a certian amount of land, I beleive this is somehow a state staute or law. If the state aquired these lands it would be for financial gain 1st and foremost.

wisconsinfarmer · Mar 28, 2012

I can happen we bought a 120 acres that the state of Wisconsin put up for auction.

bucklover · Mar 28, 2012

LAST EDITED ON Mar-28-12 AT 07:58PM (MST)[p]Mulecreek, Wyoming's checker boarding of ownership locks up many, many sections of public owned property. There has been an ongoing battle concerning crossing a corner from one public section to another. State owned sections are leased out, and many who lease start treating those sections like they own it. Also, Wyoming doesn't allow any camping or campfires on state owned sections. Trying to hunt state owned sections becomes a nightmare, even with quality GPS help. You may win the war, but the battle that might develop with a bordering land owner is usually not worth the misery.

BuzzH · Mar 28, 2012

There is no way that the western states could afford to buy federal lands...no way.

Most state governments barely have enough funding to cover the expenses they have now.

Where are MT, ID, WY, NV, etc. going to come up with the extra cash to purchase land masses of those held by the Federal Government?

So, that basically leaves the feds giving their lands to the states, which wont happen.

For the sake of arguement, lets say it does. There is then NO way that those states could afford to manage the sudden glut of land they'd acquire. The only way they could afford to manage that much land is to immediately sell at least half of it, if not 2/3rds of it. Most state land management offices are so strapped for money, they're barely making payroll.

If that wasnt enough, its just a ridiculous idea to peddle/give away something that is held in trust for ALL citizens. The values associated with federal lands are too numerous to list...hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, bird watching, clean water, clean air, tourism of all types, extractive uses like timber, mining...the list goes on and on.

For the "price" that is paid by the taxpayer, its the deal of the century.

I pity the politicians that make a run at selling off MY PUBLIC LANDS...they try, they'll be serving their last terms. A vast majority of U.S. Citizens are in favor of public lands and that message will be sent clearly to any foolish politicians that are too ignorant to realize that.

delmag1942 · Mar 28, 2012

I am against selling "our" land and will vote accordingly!

mulecreek · Mar 29, 2012

Bucklover,

The checkerboarding along the UP mainline is not just a Wyoming issue. It is also not a state land issue but rather a Fed issue. The checkerboard is BLM and UP(Anadarko) land. Putting the BLM land under state control would not solve the problem. This issue has everything to do with Wyomings attitudes about private land owners and little to do with public land management. Even at that aren't the state sections a relatively small number? I believe it is 2 sections in each township. I could be wrong.

oldwyoelkhunter · Mar 29, 2012

>
>Out of curiousity, what is your
>beef with how Wyoming manages
>it's State lands? I
>never saw a real problem,
>but given that it is
>such a small piece of
>the pie I never paid
>much attention. I do
>know that it is easier
>and cheaper to get mining
>done on state lands than
>federal lands.

It is not so much a beef but rather an observation. I am a retired state wildlife biologist and have a familiarity with the problems associated with the management of public lands. In the north central section of the state where I live most tracts of state trust lands are relatively small and isolated. Wyoming state lands by statute are managed for maximum monetary returns from grazing and mineral resources in order to benefit the schools. Wildlife is strictly a by product of those lease activities not a goal of management of those lands. Hunters do not pay leases or fees to give emphasis to managing wildlife populations therefore no wildlife management occurs. Hunters are not considered stakeholders therefore they have no say so in what goes on.

There appears to be little or no oversight of grazing activites on these lands to protect vegetation. I can show you state tracts that are horribly overgrazed and others where grazing appears reasonable. It is up to the individual lessee to assure good stewardship. There is minimal state enforcement of any grazing standards if there are in fact any. Likewise marking of state tracts and improvement of public access seldom occurs. Marking of lands in my area is done by hunter volunteers. In the past access to many large tracts of state land was sold off to private interests. The state does not look out for the public recreationalist in Wyoming.

I know that management by BLM is far from ideal but It is my opinion that state management would be worse.

mulecreek · Mar 29, 2012

Makes sense. When I was working in the PRB we would occasioally mine through a state section. One thing I did notice was that the reclaimed areas on state sections were definatley over grazed. This was noticable even to me, someone who knows little about grazing practices. We started working with the leasees to set up a rotational grazing practice and saw very positive results. I agree, we saw very little state influence. I wonder how much funding the state provides to manage their lands?

teamhoyt · Mar 29, 2012

generally speaking state school lands are sections 16 and 36. this is not a constant as land swaps and so on have taken place. I do know of a state school land in the bighorn basin that has a house and a farm on it. Looking at all the maps and gps software I was nervous that it really was not public. I called the assessors office in that county and they said it was indeed public land, but, there was an address listed for the farm owner. I then called the state land board in Cheyenne where they told me the land could be hunted, just not in their fields and it would be curtious to let the home owner know that I would be in there. Apparently the state had basically allowed a hunderd year lease on the property. I do know that the forest service practices this as well(100 yr leases) on their(our) managed lands

Zeke · Mar 29, 2012

As much as I distrust the Feds, I distrust the States with land management even more. I suspect the outdoorsman would be the big losers if the States get most of the control.

States would make a ton of money selling it off to the highest bidder but we'd lose the right to hunt and fish some of the most beautiful places in the world.

I'm against any large scale State land aquisitions!

Zeke

mulecreek · Mar 29, 2012

States would stand to make even more off the mineral rights. Much of the land in question is more valuable to the States if they lease the surface rights and collect a royalty on the mineral rights. This is what the whole arguement is over. The Feds are already making a mint off of it. The Feds already sell off the lease to the highest bidder so it wouldn't really change the equation. When I hear politicians say they can't see why the Feds own so much land it slams home hte point that even they don't understand how companies pay royalties for coal, oil and gas. Cut this flow of money off to the Fed and then you have an even bigger problem. This is why i am confident it will not happen. The federal royalty on surface coal is 12.5%. That is 12.5% of revenue, not bottom line. I have worked at mines that the company did not make 12.5% on each ton. In many instances we the tax payers are making a better profit than the mining company. This is another example of hypocracy for those that demonize fossil fuels.

DougW · Mar 29, 2012

Food for thought (ie. IT CAN HAPPEN ANYWHERE): the USFWS recently tried to essentially sell (to the state of CO) the rights to some federal land on the edge of the Rocky Flats federal zone (in Jefferson Co.). The USFWS solicited proposals for future use of the land, and accepted the proposal that included ROW and CO road construction (Northwest Parkway toll road) on this particular parcel (big surprise there, NOT!!!). This was all a corporate, clean, big $$ deal with all the big boys involved, until:

The nearby cities of Golden and Superior, along with 2 environmental groups, filed a lawsuit against the USFWS and their proposal evaluation process.

This is all now in the court system.

SouthernWyo · Mar 31, 2012

The bottom line is that state trust lands or "school section" lands are not, in reality, public lands. As has been stated above, they are lands historically given to the individual states by the federal government, to be used, under law, to generate revenues for the states' education system.

In theory, the wise management for sustained use on these lands would result in the greatest long-term benefits and revenues to the state (i.e. continued increased forage production = increased opportunity to stock the ground and produce beef from that forage, etc.) In reality, short-term gains overshadow any long-term management decisions because they usually cost significant funds to implement, hence poor continued management, a lack of oversight, and business as usual.

Free, unrestricted access for recreationists to state lands generates zero revenue for education systems, and therefore, under law, should and will remain a low priority for state government. The ability of the public to access state trust lands is a privilege, not a right. This may be distasteful to most of the hunting public, but it is fact, and it is pretty black and white.

Retention and management of true public lands for multiple use and sustained yields is in the best interest of the various resource users and the public at large. This system allows for management decisions to (again in theory) be made with considerations other than pure profitability. There is no doubt in my mind that transfer of federal lands to individual states would result in the loss of these lands for the public, and eventual transfer to private ownership.

Blueticker · Mar 31, 2012

One thing not mentioned here is that there are some in congress who have also proposed selling off our federal lands to the private sector in order to pay off some of our national debt. What a stupid idea! In general the feds do a pathetic job of running our public lands. The USFS lands are supposed to be managed for multiple use but for the last 25 years their agenda has been to create a giant wilderness.

tx_packmule · Apr 1, 2012

They can take out loans based on estimated royalties from energy exploration and development data. The states could make a ton of money (if mineral rights havent been severed), but there'd have to be new approaches to wildlife mgmt bc of habitat loss.

alaska_bou · Apr 2, 2012

If you live in WY then you know WY has a HUGE SURPLUS of tax revenue from the energy industry. WY ABSOLUTELY has the money to purchase land from the feds should it decide to do so. WY is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars of energy revenue that isn't moving. This is public info, go check it out.

Western WY deer numbers have declined 40% and yes the blame is on the energy industry. My favorite antelope units are now littered with roads, pumps, compressors, fences and other junk. Antelope are much more resilent than mule deer, however it will take more than a decade to repair this damage.

Also, don't kid yourself. The more energy we produce in the US (oil) the more we export. The majority does not stay in the US to reduce our foriegn dependence...

tx_packmule · Apr 2, 2012

Yep, but would be willing to bet the states and Feds are sitting on enough O&G revenue from lease bonus, potential royalties/overrides/working interest, etc to completely wipe out our national debt.