Transferring Federal Lands

All the ends and outs of the carbon energy buisness beside.

How is it that every ounce of usable carbon, in what ever form
will NOT be dug or drilled up and used by us all?
 
https://www.revealnews.org/article/the-problems-with-the-state-movement-to-take-federal-land/

The backing of groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a nonprofit that drives policy and whose members include Koch Industries and ExxonMobil ? have begun to reintroduce land-transfer bills in statehouses across the West. Last year alone, conservatives in Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Washington and Wyoming put forward legislation that laid the groundwork for transfers of public land to the states.

Their goal is simple: open up greater stretches of the West to mining, drilling, ranching and other economic activities, generating tax revenue for the states, and, of course, profits for the companies and individuals involved. (Otherwise, the states simply couldn't afford to manage so much land.)

The only way it makes sense financially is to open the land up

States cannot afford to manage this much public land unless they open more of it to natural resource extraction. This is what a report commissioned as part of Utah?s land transfer law found: For Utah to be able to generate the money it needs to manage 31 million more acres, it would have to increase drilling and mining. And it would need to demand 100 percent of the royalties from extraction (Utah currently splits mineral royalties 50-50 with the federal government). And even then, oil and gas prices would need to remain stable and high.

An Idaho study found that in 8 of 9 scenarios, the state couldn't afford a land transfer at all. In the one scenario where the state could make money, the timber industry would have to be having an extraordinary year.
 
This land transfer scheme is, in my opinion, the biggest threat there is to hunting in the west as we know it.

Thanks for the links. What state are you in blackmail?

[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-16 AT 10:34PM (MST)[p]An article from the Wilderness Society?

You go there to find out how oil & gas leases work? Really?

The article is full of misnomers and inacurracies. No doubt on purpose. That is very typical of environmental groups like the Wilderness Society. They will tell a 1,000 lies to one truth. That article is full of bunk!!

Leases, weather under suspension or not are still open to the public and still open to hunting. The vast majority of federal leases under suspension are not developed and cannot be developed until a decision is made to reinstate the lease. Most will not be reinstated, because of some violation of the lease.

Paying fees on suspended leases? The Wilderness Society has no idea what they are talking about or are purposely making false statements to mislead the reader.

The Wilderness Society and groups like them are at the root cause of the land transfer idea. They litigate and oppose everything the BLM and Forest Service do. Hence, the land transfer would avoid many lawsuits frpm these environmental groups. They have an agenda, and it isn't to ptotect your opportunity to hunt.

Blacktail, if you want to find out how oil & gas leases work, then go talk to an oil company or the BLM, not an environmental group that lies 99% of the time about the oil industry.
 
Oil and gas companies have one motive and one motive only, profit, talking to them would waste your time, talk to the people who write the leases if you want to know how they work, it's not hard. Do not talk to an oil company representative, remember motive. And no the wilderness society isn't the reason for the land transfer lease push, it started with the sagebrush rebellion people and they have learned to use everyone they can find who has a problem with rules governing public lands.
Public land ranchers are the kingpins, oil and gas is being pushed people who want to ride ATVs anywhere, antiwilderness advocates, wolf haters and a few others.

The laws governing public land are just that, laws. If anyone sees that the law isn't followed, they have a right and should follow up and make sure the rules are followed.
 
I'm from Oregon.

>This land transfer scheme is, in
>my opinion, the biggest threat
>there is to hunting in
>the west as we know
>it.
>
>Thanks for the links. What state
>are you in blackmail?
>
>[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I
>just stir it.[/font]
 
Piper? You don't know what your talking about.

The people that write the leases? Guess what, that's the BLM.....just the people I said to talk to.

I also suggested to talk to the oil companies, cause guess what.... They know how the leases work....go figure. The Wilderness Society has no clue, and if they did they would feed you a pack of lies, which is just what they did in that article.

Sagebrush rebellion? Piper you know squat about the proposed public lands transfer.

Yes, it is groups like the Wilderness Society at the root of the problem.

Laws not being followed? Like what Piper? The ones the Wilderness Society lie about? Maybe you ought to go talk to the BLM, cause your obviously oblivious to any laws governing leases or anything about how they work.
 
LAST EDITED ON Jan-10-16 AT 12:44PM (MST)[p].
[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
Blacktail_slayer, I just noticed my stupid tablet autocorrected your handle to Blackmail. I assure you it was not intentional. My apologies and Thank you
 
Lest there be any mistake what all this is about...

I was looking at a webpage that Ammon Bundy created for the "Safety Committee" he formed in Burns OR here:
http://www.hccommitteeofsafety.org/home.html

On the recent correspondence page was this link.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzA6vDGp4Z8WSnhJTHk1amtFS3NzdXJNRzZCVVJydXIwclJV/view



Read it. Especially the last section entitled "The Debate"


The debate: The question is whether to sell the lands held by the federal government to private ownership or to grant the title to the individual states? There is little doubt that federally held lands have a great amount of value. Whether their value would equal the debt owed is not for this debate, but only if these lands could or should be disposed of by the federal government. To this, the answer is ?absolutely.?

A prudent-minded person would have to conclude that the founders never envisioned the federal government owning large amounts of lands within the states, or they simply would have mentioned it in the Constitution. Since they did not, then they did not. There is no mention of designating wilderness areas, national forests,[1] or grasslands, or any so-called ?beautiful places? to be locked away forever. All the resources of the states were to be for the benefit of the inhabitants of the states or of the state itself.[2]
Every founding document clearly specifies the intent of land holding of the federal government was to be small, limited and for specific purposes only. All other lands were to be in the ownership of the states or of the individual. Moreover, the intent was for the soils to be for productive uses to create wealth for the states and the nation. That, once again, is where we are today.
Sell these lands to bonafide purchaser,[3] pay off our national debt, allow private ownership to makes these lands productive; and this nation will prosper and have a wonderful future.

[1] Federal laws that created national forestlands, monuments, grasslands, etc. have no standing within the intent of the Constitution or any other founding documents.
[2] In the book entitled History of the Oregon Constitution, the lands within Oregon?s boundaries were not intended for federal ownership, but rather for private ownership and productivity.
[3] Bonafide purchasers of grazing lands would be those producers currently with leases and/or qualified for leases under the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. Purchase price would be based in connection with current leasing rates and on a 30-year amortization.

[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
The state of Nevada has sold 2.7 million acres (99.98 percent) of its state land had and now retains only a paltry 3,000 acres of its original school trust lands. So the acres they received at statehood, got auctioned, sold and divided and became the Las Vegas Strip. How many acres of that 2.7 million does the state still have? At most (no official number can be found) 35,000 acres. Out of 2.7 MILLION!

Roughly 700,000 acres of state land in Idaho are already currently closed to public access. Idaho has already sold over 1.5 million acres of the state land which it was originally granted, which amounts to over 30 percent of all state lands it has owned.

Wisconsin had 3.25 million acres of trust land. They have about 75,000 left!

I agree with this:

"I am all for private companies providing resources for profits however I am not for further subsidization of private companies by the American tax payers. Look deep and that is the obvious motivation and if it isn't then these companies are fools for spending millions lobbing for it.

First the states have a worse record of managing lands in many cases make the Feds looks adept in land Management. Further more they (states) have less money and resources then the fed and their prognoses for any better or cheaper management with similar public access and use is almost impossible.

The second reason is that Corporations understand full well they the states can not afford to manage these lands and have history huge sell offs that have taken place in the past. The amount of lobbying that is taken place is insane. The motivations are clear and again it becomes a tax pay subsidizing corporate profits."
 
In AZ, we have more state lands now than were granted when we moved from territory to statehood. It all depends on who YOU elect. Tough to follow the intent of the founders and the constitution when you have a bunch of Godless thieves in government and citizens without a vision for multiple purpose use (recreation, conservation and profit).

"You can fly a helicopter to the top of Everest and say you've been there. The problem with that is you were an a$$hole when you started and you're still an a$$hole when you get back.
Its the climb that makes you a different person". - Yvon Chouinard
 
Is it wrong for me to suspect that even today, there are guys patting influential Politicians on the back with one hand while stuffing a envelope full of hundred dollars bills in the guys suit with his other? I have no reason to think otherwise. Shady deals, back room meetings, under the table offers, it could happen and it scares the $hit outa me that it will.

Keep your paws off our Land!

Joey


"It's all about knowing what your firearms practical limitations are and combining that with your own personal limitations!"
 
Of course it's not wrong sage. It may not always be as blatant as you portray it but you can bet there is back scratching going on, funding for pet projects being ransomed, insider deals happening. Unfortunately it's the way it works.


[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I just stir it.[/font]
 
?Based on the courts' previous application of the Property Clause, there is a high probability that a court would hold that the federal government is the sovereign of public lands surrendered to or withheld by the federal government at the time of Utah's acceptance into the Union. See generally United States v. Nye County, 920 F. Supp. 1108, 1109 (D. Nev. 1996); Gibson v. Chouteau, 80 U.S. 92 (1872). In short, the state has no standing as sovereign to exercise eminent domain or assert any other state law that is contrary to federal law on land or property that the federal government holds under the Property Clause.? From the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel dated February 10, 2010.

Now here we get into the meat of the topic?as a side-note this is what should have come first in this document, because all else are side issues. While this?the argument that the Enclave Clause (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) rather than the Property Clause (Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2) rules all federal lands in spite of the "Property Clause" language to wit: ?nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State??is your core concern and likely both the source of your anger and your hope, it is really without warrant and those egging you on like Bundy family friend Nevada Representative Michele Fiore (1,2,3) know it or at least should know it.

In Ms. Fiore?s case she tried to write legislation in Nevada known in some circles as the ?Bundy Bill? using a similar philosophy to covert federal lands to state lands. Ms. Fiore?s efforts did not proceed because the Legislative Counsel Bureau told the Nevada Assembly leadership that the bill she offered was unconstitutional. And she should have already known that because her colleagues in this effort to take federal lands away from the people who actually own them (1,2,3) tried a similar legal stunt in Utah a few years before with the same response from legal experts familiar with case law and the US Constitution (see above opinion in Utah).

"Emphasis shifted during the 20th century from the disposal and conveyance of title to private citizens to the retention and management of the remaining federal lands. During debates on the 1934 Taylor Grazing Act, some western Members of Congress acknowledged the poor prospects for relinquishing federal lands to the states, but language included in the act left disposal as a possibility. It was not until the enactment of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) that Congress expressly declared that the remaining public domain lands generally would remain in federal ownership." pages 2-3 of in Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data by Congressional Research Service (2014)"

Bob Ferris
 
Congressman Ra?l Labrador, R-Idaho is trying to push a bill to transfer fed land to the states. "The bill complements the efforts of the Federal Land Action Group." Now follow the money behind the "Federal Land Action Group". Representatives Chris Stewart (R-Utah) and Rob Bishop (R-Utah) launched the Federal Land Action. Other members of the Group include Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/
 
Follow the Money- "The usual suspects are backing Ivory. He sits on the federalism committee of the American Legislative Exchange Council. His nonprofit, the American Lands Council (ALC), is largely funded by local and county governments eager to gain control of land in their communities. It has also taken funding from utility companies and Americans for Prosperity, the dark-money group founded by the Koch brothers.

In 2013, more than 50 percent of the funds the ALC raised went to Ivory and his wife, who together were paid more than $100,000. The Campaign for Account?ability, a Washington, DC-based watchdog group, has asked attorneys general in Utah, Arizona, and Montana to investigate Ivory for allegedly peddling "demonstrably untrue statements" about constitutional law while soliciting checks from government officials. Anne Weismann, the group's executive director, says the ALC "just reeks of the classic snake oil salesman." (Montana's AG has declined to investigate.)" http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/ken-ivory-federal-land-bundy
 
A little Oregon Territory & Fed Gov History

I hear people argue about who owned the land in the past with this subject. Do you mean when the Indians had it or when the US was going back and forth with other countries who owned the Oregon Territory (OR, WA & ID)? I would say the land that is the Forest Service now is about 125 years old. From 1843 to 1850 Oregon settlers could claim a full section of land (640 acres). When Oregon became a Territory in 1848, Congress nullified the land grants. Congress passed the Oregon Donation Land Claim Act in 1850 that expired in 1855 that saw 7,000 land patents been issued. This Act which only allowed adult white males to claim a half section of land for himself and if married another half section in his wife?s name. The Federal Forest Reserve Act of 1891 allowed around 40 million acres of land to be established by 1897 and managed by the General Land Office (Department of Interior). Congress moved the reserves in 1905 to the Division of Forestry (Dept of Ag).

I'm not sure how much of that 40 million acres was developed back in the 1800's with the low amount of people out west, lack of technology, lack of water for livestock, and rugged terrain. Yes in the valleys and lower foothills. So I would say we didn't do anything before the government took it. The government actually never took it from US citizens. US citizens never purchased this land because you could not farm and make money off the land again because of the technology, ruggedness, and lack of water back then.
 
Fun fact: In some western states the citizens of those states petitioned the federal and state governments to acquire parcels of land. This was mainly done to disable the homestead act. The early land grabbers didn't want any more neighbors. I do believe the Custer national forest in SE MT was created for that very reason.

So for a myriad of reasons the government owns and controls a crapload of land. The citizens of this great nation in the past have had a plethora of opportunities to change the way federal land is acquired or sold. It doesn't take a genius to know that we don't want the states to solely control these lands. We just have to create a system where the citizens of the states have a lot more say in the management of them and the courts have a lot less power in that management process.
 
>This land transfer scheme is, in
>my opinion, the biggest threat
>there is to hunting in
>the west as we know
>it.
>
>Thanks for the links. What state
>are you in blackmail?
>
>[font color="blue"]I don't make the soup,I
>just stir it.[/font]

Absolutely!
Justin
 
So if Federal Public Land is transferred to the States we should assume it will become STATE TRUST LANDS as natural resources will be used to maximize profit for the state(s). A guy that goes by Trial153 explained pretty well why this would be a huge mistake for the public that enjoy using public land.

Quote from Trial153:

?The State Land Boards will explicitly claim, "STATE TRUST LANDS ARE NOT PUBLIC LANDS." Go to the Colorado State Land Board website and that is the first sentence of the second paragraph.

And, they are correct. Those lands are held by the state for a select group of beneficiaries (school systems) and a very specific purpose - funding the schools.

As the 10th Amendment dictates, the Feds cannot force the states to manage those lands in any way other than the state, via the State Land Board, sees fit. Immediately, the logical theories like you stated, start falling by the wayside.

And here is how it plays out in a manner that causes concern and why these states will not agree to the "theory" you logically proposed. I'll use the easiest examples, to illustrate the points; Colorado and Oregon.

Colorado does not allow hunting, camping, or other recreation on State Trust Lands, unless those rights are leased by the state wildlife agency. Due to budget limitations, CPW only leases a small fraction of the State Trust Lands for public recreation access; a very small portion.

Given CO has 23 million acres of BLM and USFS lands, transferring those lands to the CO State Land Board means hunters lose 23 million acres of access. As a hunter, I ask the politicians promoting the idea, "HOW DO WE REPLACE 23 MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC HUNTING ACCESS, JUST IN COLORADO?"

The politicians don't have an answer when asked the question. They change the subject.

Some would say, force the states to allow access if those lands were transferred. I doubt Congress is inclined to reverse 240 years of the 10th Amendment by telling the states what to do in order that we would have hunting access.

I wish it was different in these western states, but that is how the State Land Boards operate. In NM and WY you cannot camp on these State lands. In MT, we had to fight the legislature for to change the law from the Colorado model to a new law where we can now pay a fee to hunt these lands.

Imagine transferring millions of acres in NM and WY where you could no longer have your elk camp in the Gila and you were expected to drive from Datil or Magdalena every day. Or you finally drew the Region G deer tag, but you had to hike in ever morning (about 8 hours) and hike out every night (about 5 hours) because these are now State lands and you cannot camp on them. Imagine if you hired an outfitter to take you into the Thoroughfare Country in NW WY and you had to ride horses in 20+ miles each morning and back out each evening, because these lands are now state lands and WY state lands are off limits to camping.

Hopefully that illustrates how much hunting access would be lost under a state transfer scenario.

Then, we have to look at the state Constitutional mandates these land boards have to maximize profits from state lands for funding schools. Profit maximization is the requirement of these state agencies.

I have no problem with lands being managed for profits. But, given the legal environment of the west, a lot of places you cannot manage lands profitably due to litigation under the ESA or other obscure laws. These laws such as the ESA apply to all landowners, BLM, USFS, private, or States, so it is a reality of the landscape.

The best example is Elliot State Forest in Oregon, comprised of 90,000 acres of productive timber land owned by the state land agency and formerly managed for a profit while allowing public recreation.

Or maybe I should restate as; managed profitably until the litigation started. Now, due to litigation, the State Forest has lost a ton of money and this very popular Forest is being sold. The state land board has no recourse, as they are mandated by state law/constitution to either manage for a profit or dispose of the land.

In the scenario you suggested, the states would not accept ownership of the lands without the right to dispose of them. That would burden them with the costs and obligations of litigation currently paid by the Feds, road maintenance, wild fire suppression, invasive weed control, property taxes to the counties, with no assurance they could make a profit on lands, especially in locations under ESA or other litigious issues.

A few examples of how litigation would sink the states if they took the lands. All of Western MT is covered by ESA issues. All of Western WY is covered by ESA issues. Most of Eastern and Northern ID are covered by ESA issues. Most of SW NM and SE AZ are covered by ESA issues. If the wingnuts win their appeal of the USFWS decision to not list sage grouse and sage grouse end up on the ESA, the entire inter-mountain west will be subject to ESA regulations.

Those ESA areas have pretty much no land management occurring, due to litigation. None of the transfer advocates have been able to explain how the states could take on all of these land ownership costs and hold these lands in places where Federal-level litigation would prevent any income generating management strategies, plus incur the costs to litigate the issues.

As a result, the states would have no choice but to sell the lands, which is the end goal of the promoters of the schemes. They have no interest in better land management. The promoters use state transfer as a rallying point to hide their motives, which prior to fifteen years ago was openly advertised as an effort to sell the public lands. Then, getting their teeth kicked in, they came back with a new mantra of "transfer the public lands," seemingly less offensive to the American public. Same people, same funders, same motive, just wrapped in a different package.

I understand how on the surface this sounds good to those of us who believe in smaller government and would like to see the Federal agencies freed of all the litigation that prevents them from managing lands. But, when inspected with more detail, changing ownership of the lands is not the answer, rather changing Congress and removing the Congressional obstructionists who handcuff Federal land management is a better path.

Just one guy's opinion from 20+ years of having been in the political battles of it.?
 
http://grist.org/living/guess-whos-funding-the-bundys-crazy-land-grab-movement-the-koch-brothers/

"In early February, it was announced that Ivory would be stepping down as head of the American Lands Council and joining the South Carolina?based group Federalism in Action ? specifically, its ?Free the Lands? project, a collaboration between the American Lands Council Foundation and Federalism in Action. And that's where the Koch money comes in: Federalism in Action is a member of the State Policy Network, a Koch brother?funded network of more than 50 right-wing think tanks and libertarian groups focusing on state policy."
 
LAST EDITED ON Feb-13-16 AT 03:30PM (MST)[p]Blacktail,

Good information. I just realized you quoted Big Fin in your post. He is the one with the 20+ years experience. He just posted it over on the Bowsite blog.

I have been consistently saying for over two years now that the Federal Government and the citizens of the US will never let the states take over the public lands.

What I see happening is the loud noise of the grinding and gnashing of teeth that many of the conservation organizations are jumping on the band wagon and have whipped the hunting public into a frenzy all over much to do about nothing. That is the way I see it.

What we do have to worry about is the extreme radical environmental groups, namely the Center for Biological Diversity, and several more whom are using the Endangered Species Act to stop all consumptive uses on our public land, including hunting. They are doing it on an ever increasing march forward and in collaboration with sympathetic federal employees and the liberal Administration appointees to the highest positions i.e. (Interior Secretary, EPA Secretary and etc.) that are negatively affecting the way the public land is being managed.
 
The state lands we have in Utah are far better managed IMO.
The only thing I get nervous about with public land transfer
Is will it be auctioned off. The blm is getting very bad. They don't manage like they should and allow things like feral horses
To run everyone off the lands. The blm is a horrible land management agency and doesn't allow very many projects in my area. They instead
Allow sage and horses degrade the land and never allow fires
To burn. Blm sucks! If state could guarantee no sell offs I'd be on board
 
Anyone else hear about these National Bills or have more information?

House Moves On Bills That Would Allow States To Seize Millions Of Acres Of Public Lands
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/02/23/3752342/bundy-copycat-bills-public-lands/

The first bill, introduced by Representative Don Young from Alaska (R), would allow any state to seize control and ownership of up to 2 million acres of national forests within its borders ? an area nearly the size of Yellowstone National Park. A state would then be able to auction off the lands to private ownership or for mining, logging, and drilling.


The second bill, written by Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), would give states and counties the right to take direct control of up to 4 million acres of national forests across the country for clear-cut logging, without regard to environmental laws and protections. A third bill, written by Rep. Chris Stewart (R-UT), would turn over what the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance estimates to be 6,000 miles of road right-of-ways on U.S. public lands to counties in Utah, opening the door for road construction and development.
 
H.R. 2316 (Rep. Raul Labrador), To generate dependable economic activity for counties and local governments containing National Forest System land by establishing a demonstration program for local, sustainable forest management, and for other purposes. ?Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act?
Hearing Memo
H.R. 3650 (Rep. Don Young), To authorize States to select and acquire certain National Forest System lands to be managed and operated by the State for timber production and other purposes under the laws of the State, and for other purposes. ?State National Forest Management Act of 2015?
Hearing Memo
H.R. 3826 (Rep. Greg Walden), To amend the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 to modify provisions relating to certain land exchanges in the Mt. Hood Wilderness in the State of Oregon. ?Mount Hood Cooper Spur Land Exchange Clarification Act?
Hearing Memo
H.R. 4510 (Rep. Jared Polis), To insure adequate use and access to the existing Bolts Ditch headgate and ditch segment within the Holy Cross Wilderness in Eagle County, Colorado, and for other purposes. ?Bolts Ditch Access and Use Act?
Hearing Memo
H.R. 4579 (Rep. Chris Stewart), To withdraw certain Bureau of Land Management land in the State of Utah from all forms of public appropriation, to provide for the shared management of the withdrawn land by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Air Force to facilitate enhanced weapons testing and pilot training, enhance public safety, and provide for continued public access to the withdrawn land, to provide for the exchange of certain Federal land and State land, and for other purposes.

http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=399943
 
Do something. If this whole situation bothers you then speak up. I realize that is what you are doing online, but the silent majority needs to speak up about the importance of properly run federal lands. I know that seems like an oxymoron, but the fact the land exists for us to use and hunt and what eve else does not change the fact that "we the people" own it. Even if we don't agree with all uses (or non-uses) of it. As sportsman we need to not let corrupt political leaders bleed westerners dry of our privilege of these great places.

I have talk to many folks that don't agree that spending millions of dollars on this is a good use of UT (let a loan the other states) money to pursue under the fight of State's Rights, however I have talked to folk that disagree but are not willing or don't know how to speak up. Again I go back to do something! Speak up!

Having and enjoying public lands does not make you a liberal. It does not make you side with the government. It doesn't even make you vote for Hillary! It shows your appreciation of what we have as citizens of this country (that is paid for mostly by people that don't even live here). After all, pubic lands are an American idea. That is something all sides should stand behind. I don't want to pay a trespass fee for my next hunt. Do you?
 
>Ox, the mustangs run unchecked on
>State lands also.


Actually the state will let you fence it off wbich will keep them out. The state can't remove the Mustangs they are blm a jurisdiction. However fencing them off is a start
 

Click-a-Pic ... Details & Bigger Photos
Back
Top Bottom