I would bet it would be bad for hunters and good for cattlemen. BLM ranchers hold a lot more state influence on land useage that do most hunters organizations which are often split an don't work toward a common interest. I don't look for this to go to far.
If any State has borders,and in itself is a State within a Union of States. And this Union makes the United States. Wouldnt each State be sovereign, and separate, from the others.
" didnt mean to make that sound so .. "Egg Headish" sorry. But my point is, I cant really understand why this is even an issue.IMO Every State should own the land within its borders that isn't privately owned. in the instance of National Parks, "Ownership" should stay with the State and reasonably leased to the government.
I have heard it said that the State of Utah, my home State, is a receiver State. meaning it gets more money from the Feds. than it pays in taxes to them. I wonder what might happen if Utah was allowed to utilise these lands with leases to the Oil and Gas and Coal industries, with the lease and royalty monies going to the State. We all remember the Grand Staircase BS. Funny who it came to pass after ultrasound found a 200 mile long reservoir of Oil in the middle of it.
Again IMO the State should control these lands and the people benefit from them. NOW with that being said, If Utah does infact gain "ownership" I am afraid that they would screw it up by then "giving" allot to the schools who would in turn sell it off " for the good of the children" only to then whine about needing more.
I have seen very little good done for the people in my area by the feds. I have many friends that were Coal miners, and we all know where Obummer and his cronies stand on mining.
In the case of Utah, I believe with all the natural resources we have can and should be utilized for the PEOPLE of the State. In the way of Jobs and Taxes. We are no longer a State of Industries,the Beehive has shrunk drastically in the last 25 years.
Sorry for the long post
you don't want the state to have it. in 10 years their would be no public use, rich people would have it all, wake up and look at the state of Utah trying to sell off all the school trust ground. I don't like the feds, but as long as they run things your kids and grand kids will be the owners of public land,,!!!
If it came down to state control. Which would take a miracle. They would need to amend that states constitution that wouldn't allow the purchase of any public land. I agree there's money to be made with its usefulness. Whether it be from the natural resources or recreational use. Just like the troubles the BLM is having right now they have to balance out the use of the land. But it would be far better managed on a state by state basis. The best thing that would happen is environmentalists from across the country wouldn't be calling the shots!
LAST EDITED ON Apr-19-14 AT 12:00PM (MST)[p]Be good news for the guys who want to ramp up the selling of state lands and the politicians they are associated with. Lots of western states are currently selling some their state-held lands. Link below.
In about five minutes, I found links to ones I was previously aware of.
Imagine the windfall selling these lands would be to states. Some may think the temptation to ramp up selling of newly acquired lands, to go on a state-funded spending spree, is something state politicians would resist. If you do think that temptation will not get heads spinning in state legislatures and public land sales cranked up, then you have a lot more respect of the integrity level, or lack thereof, that exists in state politicians than I do.
When they sell, you can forget hunting access. And, I suspect when they sell, some would buy the acreage that holds access to the bigger chunks, therefore complicating the problem of inaccessible lands that already exists, just converting it from inaccessible Federal lands to inaccessible state lands.
In Colorado, you cannot hunt state lands, unless the CO Parks and Wildlife has leased the hunting rights, something they don't have budget to do and thus very little state land is open to hunting in Colorado. There are 23 million acres of accessible Federal land in Colorado. Under laws such as this, you can kiss good bye to hunting access on those 23 million acres.
And, when other states see the Colorado model of not allowing hunting access on state lands, how long you think it will be until the well-funded interests convince other state legislatures to follow the Colorado model and not allow hunting access on state lands. My guess would be that in the first legislative sessions upon gaining control over Federal lands, many bills would be introduced in western state legislatures to disallow hunting access on state lands.
Not saying the Federal laws governing land management are a model, but if you are a hunter, you can expect a lot of the good hunting lands, or at least the parcels that control access to the good hunting lands, to be sold to the highest bidder.
"Hunt when you can - You're gonna' run out of health before you run out of money!"
As much as I think the Feds over step, and the need for more states rights, it would be a bad idea. At least at this point in history.
Feds are getting more and more over reaching and being controlled by the fringe that does not live in the west.
EPA is completely out of control and used as a political tool
I can tell you with 100% certainty, that in the state of Wyoming it would be a horrible thing for hunters. States lands are not managed for recreation. In fact, on the list of priorities for managing state land in Wyo, recreation is the very last item.
We hunters are in constant battles with The Office of State Lands over land trades, land sales and closures that would not benefit recreation and hunting.(but somehow always benefit ranchers) In Wyoming, the state manages for the highest return.
Hell, we are not even allowed to camp on state land!!
I don't know about the other states, but here in AZ the vast majority of state land sales go to cities, counties, the Department of Transportation, G&F and small special interest groups to preserve some land of local interest. Additionally, tracts of good habitat could be purchased by RMEF and other outdoor groups. The locals would need to stay involved with what is going on in their respective states, the way it was intended from the beginning of this great nation. Too many have been lulled into letting big government run every aspect of their life and take no responsibility for the outcome. This could be a turning point.
The Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners has extended to the public THE PRIVELEGE OF USING legally accessible State Trust Land for hunting, fishing and general recreational uses. Restrictions are: No hunting on cultivated lands; motorized vehicles are confined to established roads; NO OVERNIGHT CAMPING; NO FIRES; no fireworks and no dumping of trash. Public users must obey all authorized closures, restrictions and posting. To search for closures, restrictions and postings by County click here.
THE RMEF gives most of the land to the state when brought sage, so if the state sold it who will we give it to?? wake up. the states are not the way to go , the state needs to kept its cooked ways off out public ground,!!!! ( you think the state is so grate give them your ground,,,,lets see how that works out for you!!)
In Utah, this transfer would be an epic disaster for hunters and fishermen. (Really, any outdoors enthusiast.)
I don't have to project what I think would happen. I know what would happen, because I've already personally witnessed it. The very way of life for the regular sportsman in Utah would be in danger of extinction. And that is no dramatization or exaggeration, either.
I have an uncle and I'm not really happy that he tries to control every aspect of my life and charges me huge sums of money to do so.
On the other hand, I have a little brother who is so money hungry that he would sell off my birth-right to the highest bidder (or sell to whom he could personally profit from the most).
We're stuck between a rock and a hard place but make no mistake about it, little brother would love to sell it all off in a few years with no regard to hunting rights.
If the State controls, we lose! Period!
The threat isn't that great yet.
I believe they will try and push hard during the next few years and then hope for a favorable change in the Whitehouse.
This is all the more reason to question hard where your politicians stand.
I am sure we have nothing to worry about with continued fed ownership or control... They..(the Government) would never just close public lands down to hunting. Surely Obama has never even considered that an option. Ranching, Mining, Timber and Public Hunting are some of the highest importance for our government. I could never see them closing our lands with armed agents or running us off our public land...RIGHT???
I gotta disagree with most of you. I think state lands are better managed curretnyl. Federal lands are in decline with little to no rehabilitation. On another note i definently think there needs to be a pact that the land stays public! no selling it off. Grazing leases etc are ok but no selling the land!
I would rather the individual states have control of our land than the feds selling it to cover their debt with China. Preserving our hunting will not be a top priority for the feds when our economy goes into free fall...
I am in the backcountry much more now than when I was younger and the older I get the more I ride UTV's. I run across people from all over the USA who like to visit and without exception they all say, "Be glad Utah is owned by the Federal Government. In our state you can't find trails to travel and everything is closed down." My friends, in these cases the environmentalists may be helping us and not even realizing it.
On the other hand show me previous state lands in the high country and I will show you cabins and no trespassing signs. The state will sell everything and anything that is worth developing.
I realize the Federal Government is broke and they may sell the lands off anyway, but the State of Utah would sell the land off faster than a speeding bullet. I vote for keeping the lands Federal.
wolfhunter said, "I would rather the individual states have control of our land than the feds selling it to cover their debt with China. Preserving our hunting will not be a top priority for the feds when our economy goes into free fall..."
I don't think they could legally sell the land off, but for the sake of this discussion we will just assume they can. We are still projecting would might happen under hypothetical situations and some future collapse of the economy. I can only speak for Utah, where I am at and have observed how things go, that if Utah got control of the public lands, they would be sold off immediately, not just if the economy collapse and they needed money.
Utah has proven that they will do this already. It's not something that I am guessing would happen under hypotheticals, it is something that would happen immediately, because they have done it already.
My first thought was; if the states get control we are going to lose access to everything or it will be sold. But!! - We are losing access as it is.
My problem with Federal control is that they provide central access for environmental groups. Federal courts and federal regulations will be manipulated by lobbyists and PACs. If you live in a rural state you will basically be managed by the populace states. The best example is the wolf situation. If the states had control there wouldn't be one Canadian wolf running in our backyards eating elk.
As much as I dislike what has become of my US gubberment, I dread the thought of any state getting control of the Fed lands.
That worked out well for those folks back east ,huh?
US outdoors lovers of all stripes would be instantly SOL as the states would sell them off to highest bidder and special interests. Rape and pillage and fencing off the elite estates would make us little better off than Europe.
A few states have half-ass state parks/public lands and most of the ones I have seen are pathetic. The rest are getting there....
Some time ago our own Utah representative Jason Chaffetz and John McCain were going to sponsor a bill that would allow the Federal Government to sell off the lands to individuals. I wrote both of them as well as Senator Hatch of my opposition to that bill and told them that I could not support any candidate who would submit that type of bill. Heard back from Chaffetz who stood firm on his position, but Hatch said he would consider the matter in the fullest extent and had not made up his mind.
We can talk on this forum all we like, but unless we go to the extra extent of full communication it goes for not.
I hoenestly think those of you that think the feds manage the lands better than the state should really keep their eyes open next time they are out. THe state lands are almost always in better shape and the state actually allows fires to burn sometimes. Anyway my one stipulation to the state getting control is that the lands remain public and cannot be sold off. I do believe the state can and will manage the lands better than the feds. Currently the blm does not allow very much rehab projects. State allows them. On our range the state allows us to rehab s lot of land but weve never been apporved by blm. It is a stark contrast on how much better the state lands on our range look than blm encroached mess! The feds will get us off the land eventually, i guarantee the next fight coming to public lands for utah is sage grouse areas and shut downs of lands. The state will manage better to utahns needs and to the best for the certain areas. But, we do need to get a clause in there that states: the land remains public!
The biggest thing that would happen is all of the federal regulations which apply to federal land would become irrelevant. What kind of solutions the state would come up with would be hotly debated no doubt, but they would at least start with a clean slate. Hopefully, it would take at least a couple of generations for the state to create as big of a regulatory mess as the feds have.
LAST EDITED ON Apr-24-14 AT 09:10PM (MST)[p]The state land in Wyoming is a mess, overgrazed, important regulations are lax, people can't even camp overnight on Wyoming state land.
Clauses that say the land can't be sold? That's a joke, isn't it?
Turning public land over to the states would be the worst blow to sportsmen since the creation of public land, it would be the beginning of the end. Thank god the majority of American citizens wouldn't stand for it.
The best managed most pristine land is federal wilderness by far, almost universally the water is pure, the air clean and wildlife abundant.
Come on up to Northern Idaho and I could show you the marked difference between Idaho managed timber lands and Fed managed timberlands. We will simply pick any timber sale on either land and walk the creeks. Then go and look at how the slash was managed, how the roads are constructed, what species have been replanted and what the residual stand, if any on State lands, looks like. It is like night and day....sorta like standing in a pristine grass land looking over the fence into a feedlot. The State is simply yanking the trees off the land with out any real effort at looking to the future. Their roads are a mess and the creeks are choked with debris, sediment and devoid of shade. Ugly. I would also say this...in Idaho, it is all about money. Business interests in the State want to get their hands on Federal land to make money. Same goes for some in State Government...but if you follow their politics closely, you will discover they are also tied at the hip to some business that would stand to make money off the transfer and liquidation of assets, be that direct land sales, mining, timber harvest, fee for hunting, etc., that would immediately occur if the State got it's greedy hands on the Federal lands.
One last thing....the same politicians who go on and on about federal handouts, need to cut back on government...blah, blah, blah....are demanding the biggest Federal handout...the property of all Americans. Do you hear any of them say they will pay us fair market value for our land? NOPE! Just hand it over. Look the other way on the billions and billions of dollars we Americans have invested in the lands. Yup...biggest hypocrites there ever was. I say...keep the land in Federal ownership...they are taking much, much better care of it than the State is taking care of our State lands.
LAST EDITED ON Apr-25-14 AT 12:17PM (MST)[p]Clearwater, you nailed it! All you have to do is follow the money and eventually it will end up in a politician's bed. These guys look out for themselves and their own only, not the public they were elected to represent.
What you are seeing in Idaho would be doubled in Utah. At least Idaho has figured out that you can't keep the public out of public water.
Utah's favorite son Chafetz just stated this morning on a news program that "The government has spent billions turning private land into public, this is going in the wrong direction." Right before this he stated that once the Federal land becomes state land it would then be put up for sale to private citizens so that it could then become part of the tax base for the state. These are the true intentions of those that support this movement. He screams about the over reach of the Feds and how they want your money. The only thing that pisses him off is that your money is not going to him.
If you support this foolishness then you need to look no further than Texas for what your hunting land access will soon look like.