While whitetails have greatly benefited from the industrialization of agriculture, elk and mule deer are negatively impacted by the industrialization of agriculture.
State budgets do not allow for long term operation of these properties, plan and simple. It is why are seeing all the transfer of land already....
Constitutional, (or decided but SCOTUS), the states own the wildlife within their borders. The fact that the land is federal property is the only thing that gives me the right to hunt out west. If the states were to own all the land, there would be nothing to stop them from outlawing non resident hunters. Also, the entire country does use these lands. Why should you have to pay for federal roads in California but not federal land in MT? You drive on roads, just not those roads, just like you hunt, just not on those lands. Besides hunting, there are also many groups that take advantage of these lands, and for the most part, pay little usage fees besides federal income tax. Hunters are already funding a majority of these state wildlife agencies.
If that's the case why does Nevada own only 3,000 acres of what it originally owned? How about Utah? Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
I meant destroying it's current form, and use for wildlife. I in no way wany to come off as I am against loggers or ranchers, as my house is built out of lumber and I enjoy a T-Bone steak. I agree everyone has their role and pays money into the pot, but what I am against is complete transfer of public lands to states which would put all of our public western hunting lands into jeopardy. All of our eggs would be in one basket. And those eggs would be bought and made into omelets by those with money and power.
Exactly, anyone can come up with things that one state should or shouldn't do in order to manage state lands in the event of a transfer, but the truth of the matter is that history has shown that states cannot manage land. They sell it.
10-4. Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
They will have more money because of the sale of it to private parties. The precedent on what will happen to these public lands has been set. Hunting as we know it in these vast wilderness areas will cease to exist.
As for the loss of tax revenue on federal lands, the federal government does pay the states "in lieu of taxes" so they are not losing out because the land is public. Here in Montana, a certain landowner who owns about 250 square miles of the state (which contains thousands of acres of BLM land that is not publicly accessible except by air) is not only putting gates on roads to public land, but allegedly hazed the elk off of public land onto their property. I suspect the same persons are also collecting money for damage to crops by elk. They have been ticketed for patrolling their fence lines to keep elk from leaving their property so hunters on public land could not shoot them. In addition they are currently rehabbing a good portion of BLM land where they missed the survey markers (not really, cuz no survey was done) and put their fence about 200 yards out onto public ground. Unfortunately they had to wait until hunting season to do it, so hunters have been advised to avoid the area so as not to endanger the workers that are out there. We can't count on private land owners to look out for public interest. Public lands are a great treasure that we need to protect.
Simple because they have to make their money on such a small portion of the land within its borders because the Federal government owns the rest. Unlike the majority of states. State budgets do not allow for it? apparently only in these few states because the rest manage almost all of the land within its borders, That also is more than likely because the Federal government owns most of the land in these states so the states are not able to utilize those land to generate more money for their budget, which they would be able to do if they had control of the land. I never understand how people can believe that HUMANS representing them at the federal level somehow are different than HUMANS representing them at the state level. Apparently I have far more faith in states than some of the rest of you. I trust that the people of WI and its local representatives are better at managing WI land than the Feds. I trust that MN people and their state representatives are better capable of managing their land than the Feds. I trust that Montana, Utah, Colorado people and state representatives are all better capable of managing their own state lands than the feds. Because Federal government has more conflicts because what is best for Montana or Utah may not be what is best for WI or MN. And the combined state doing what is best for their individual states will produce better results for the nation as a whole. Let states lease grazing to the ranchers and get that revenue rather than it going to the feds. Let the states charge fees, and manage and even sell land as it needs to generate the revenue needed to manage its lands. In the end, it all cost the same amount, whether the money is generated through the state or federal government is the difference. And if that means an out of state tag for me to hunt in MT will cost me more, fine I will pay it.
I work for local government. If you think they are better than federal, you are mistaken. I think any HUMAN who manages a piece of land outside of scientific research and fact is off. Hence, let those whom we already pay to manage the lands manage them in accordance with science. Better solution than selling it off. History shows that it's gonna be sold. Especially in a western state that's total population is less than Charlotte, NC or Atlanta, GA. So, no, states don't budget for it. Don't Hate While I Conservate – Ambitions of a Flunky. Just a hunter and angler attempting to answer the call of our Conservation Heritage in the 21st Century
Even if we did transfer the land to the states, they will spend the same amount of money and time fighting lawsuits by environmental groups and NIMBY's that keeps the federal government from balancing its budget on these lands. State politicians are bought just as easily as federal politicians. That is why Montana had laws prohibiting corporations from contributing to campaigns. Citizens United overturned those laws that history proves were necessary. I strongly support equitable use. On the other hand, it takes 80 years to grow a tree here in Montana that only takes 40 years to grow in Georgia. Gas and oil leases on public land? Yes, just pick up after yourself. Since the states don't have the resources to manage the resources (prices would have to increase significantly jus to break even) leave the lands in the the hands of the public.
Your argument about the states owning less land and not being able to generate enough money to manage it is a horrible arguing. If a state owns 10 acres it needs to manage 10 acres, if the state owns 10 million acres it needs to manage 10 million acres. If the states can't generate enough money on 10 acres to manage 10 acres, how are they going to generate enough money on 10 million acres to manage 10 million acres? Selling land is a one time source of money, and once that is run dry on the remaining land, they wont be able to pay for the land they didn't sell and be forced to git rid of that too. And your statement is false about the states manage most of the land within their borders. They manage the wildlife within their borders by setting the number of tags each year. The federal government pays for managing the land, forest fires and habitat protection. Your argument on who is better at managing land is also misleading. Until now in the conversion, I have used "manage" and "pay for" interchangeably, however they are not and that is my fault. You are right in that MN is better at managing land than the feds, but each state's offices of FS, FWS, BLM, and NPS are all run by people that live in that state, not the feds from DC. So in effect, the lands are being managed by each state, but paid for by the federal government. If the transfer went through, each state would have to manage and pay for the land. While they have the ability to manage it, they do not have the ability to pay for it, and thus, it will get sold to the highest bidder. Letting the states lease grazing or sell land are both forms of destruction to wildlife habitat, which means no more hunting. The only option there that is viable is charging fees, which they already do. But why is it unfair for a person to have to pay for every single program in this country that they do not use, except for public land that is for everyone to use? Why should I have to pay for California's interstates, food stamps, social security, medicare, obamacare, welfare, or subsidies that I do not use by products of? Why do I still have to pay for education in this country even though I graduated high school and don't have children in high school? Why can't I stop paying for that since I don't need it right now? I pay for all of these programs that I either never have used, or no longer use, so its only fair that everyone helps pay for the public lands that everyone can use. Just like it is my choice not to drive down an interstate in California while on medical insurance and maxing out my health care premiums while in highschool and on food stamps and receiving social security, it is everyone else's choice not to use the public lands. As Americans we all pay our share of everything, as is our civic duty. How is this so hard to understand?
Yes local government is better locally than federal. As for those who we pay to manage them and science, once the revenue is in the states hands they can pay those same people, and the science. I can guarantee you UW Wisconsin does lots of research for conservation and Management in WI and their information is more accurate for WI than what is done nationally. I and wager that research specific for MT will be more accurate when the scope is more tailored for the specific region.
Right, and the agencies that are managing the land are mostly scientific agencies and biologists, although they do get their hands tied with red tape every now and then. All they need is someone to pay for it, which the federal government is doing. I dare anyone to come up with 10 things that politicians managed and it got better.
I disagree that the states do not have the ability to pay for it, or more accurate don't have the potential to pay for it. Give them the ability to generate revenue from the land within its borders and the amount of money they have will drastically increase. They can't generate that now because the Feds own it. Also selling land is not a one time source, because once sold it continues to generate property taxes yearly so there is constant revenue source that they don't have today. As for the apples and oranges comparison with Interstates, education I look at much the same as better to be controlled at the state level. If it was up to me you would also have considerably less of your money going to pay for welfare, and subsidies but that is a different discussion.
Something else that shouldn't be. Just because federal government has been given such huge ranging control over almost everything does not mean it has to be that way. The federal government has so much of the country believing they know how to spend your money better than you do. Even if I;m giving up the same percentage of my income, I'd rather less go to the feds and more to my state where it can be used for my state better.
