I apologize for one remark. This is something I feel very strongly about and should temper myself. It's also something that I find myself dis aligned politically from politicians that in other ways I agree with. I found I have to temper my distaste for our government in general on this issue because like it or not that is where the framework for the North American model of conservation through use is currently established.
I'm in utah and I don't support the Feds controlling so much of the land. Just because it's nice to have access doesn't change my belief.
It's a scary issue that keeps coming up. I don't think a lot of hunters understand what would happen once this land is sold off. You see a hint of the outcome with the stream access issues going on in some western states. The wealthy are buying up spots and trying to deny legal access to great trout fishing streams. What do you think will happen with hunting lands? The govt isn't doing the best job but there's a lot of things preventing them from even trying to manage it. Having said all of that, this was set aside for a reason and once it transfers, you might as well say goodbye to hunting. Especially western hunting.
Stream access opposition has a lot to do with hordes of ignorant jerks destroying property and leaving messes. Imagine buying your dream property only to and have scores of people feeling entitled to free access of your land, destroying fences, leaving gates open and littering. I've seen it in action. As for saying goodbye to hunting... really? Illinois has like only 3% public land and that doesn't keep it from being a popular hunting destination. Will it change things? Will there be challenges? Of course. That doesn't mean it's wrong.
While I agree with some of what you say, other than Shawnee National Forest its harder each year to have a place to hunt. Unless you own land or have close farm family friends, leasing and outfitting in even Illinois is getting more prevalent each year. But thats another subject.
I am from Wisconsin, and hunt private land here. That being said, I WANT to hunt out west, and I understand what kind of insane threat this is to ALL hunters. THE biggest threat to hunting as we know it is hunter recruitment. The biggest reason people quit hunting is because they lose access to hunting land. One thing that needs to be understood is that if the "transfer" would go through, it does not mean your state would still allow it to be hunted on. It would be put into the state's trust land, which in a state like Colorado, you cannot hunt, hike, bike, fish, camp or look for birds on. I believe that would be about 3 million acres that you, or me, or your brother, sister, uncle, etc, can't hunt for elk, and we know that Colorado has the highest percent of non resident elk hunters every year. I'll plug Randy Newberg again. And scratch that plug of his forum. I don't want some of these people going and polluting the good atmosphere over there
How about Nevada? Sure, lots of desert, not much money to be had on natural resources. So the 2.1 million acres they received at statehood, got auctioned, sold and divided and became the Las Vegas Strip. How many acres of that 2.1 million does the state still have? At most (no official number can be found) 35,000 acres. Out of 2.1 MILLION!
First off, I will begin by saying that I work in the energy development/extraction industry. That being said, it is not a slam dunk for oil and gas companies to get drilling permits (APD's) and drill wherever and whenever they want. When staking a well on federal lands, there is a process that needs to be followed according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and BLM's Onshore Orders. This process involves a lot of leg work and paper work to ensure that the enviroment as a whole will not be compromised according to the BLM's surface management plan, which includes everyone's use - backpacking, hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, site seeing, star gazing, bike trail riding, cultural appreciation (archaeology), you name it. If the area of interest to drill a well compromises what is seen to be a burden on the general use of the land, you stake the well elsewhere and you start over. This process can take up to a year to get done and the APD approved. The USFS has a similar approach and procedure but a little different as USFS is not public land, but heritage land. The state is a different story. Nine times out of ten the well is staked and the APD approved within 2 to 4 weeks. Thank goodness there is more federal lands in the west than state. Since I work for an E&P company (at least today anyway but with $20 per barrel oil on the horizon, who knows about tomorrow), I know how greedy CEO's are when there is a good oil and gas price. It's "drill baby, drill" to capture large profits. If it were all state land, the night skies would be lit up by drilling rigs and a constant, non-stop supply of oilfield traffic on the roads we hunt on. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand and support this industry, it's efforts, and benefits to society but at the same time as a hunter and outdoors guy, I'm between a rock and a hard place. You need to be prudent with how you conduct business in all aspects. Complete control or ownership of public lands by a state is not necessarily a good thing. The ability to for the federal government at a whim to designate thousands to millions of acres a national monument is not necessarily a good thing either. It's a double edged sword for sure.
Kind of dealing with public lands issue. Who knows if he actually means it but nice to see it brought up. Has any other candidate spoken up about it? If I'm not mistaken, Rand Paul was for the sell of public lands at one point. Q&A: Donald Trump on Guns, Hunting, and Conservation | Field & Stream
You mean the guy that everyone try's to marginalized and discount is on the right side of another vital issue? Say it's ain't so....
Rand Paul and Cruz have both been open in the past about supporting the transfer of Federal lands Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
You nailed it. And yet, here we are on a huge hunting website and very few people care to even read the thread Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It's a non issue or most hunters. Outside of their realm and scope. One day they wake up and sadly many won't even understand what they lost. Also don't discount that many hunters fall lock step with the Republican Party. They assume if a republican endorsed an idea then its correct. This thinking is systemic across the board and not limited to hunters. If you can't look at things issue by issue and realize that sometimes you might have to disagree with your party, then your just as much of part of the American political problem as the politicians. The value of wild lands, public access, clean air and water goes so far beyond the dollars and cents argument. We can't look at everything in life and feel it has to pay its own way or its not a value. We should be thankful for the foresight of the men that set aside these lands, their understanding the were building and persevering part of the American experience. We should be looking for way to expand on idea rather then destroy it. If there is a management problem then fix the problem don't pass it along and hope it disappears. This fight is just as much about preserving an idea. The idea that this country's freedom, and part of that freedom is public land belongs to all of us. It's a God given right and not a line item on a corporate balance sheet.
Wired to Hunt just put out a great podcast about this issue. Mark talks to Randy Newberg, which is a man who spends more time in the trenches than most. Newberg said it best. I am of the hunting and fishing party. You won't get my vote if you don't side with the outdoors and conservation.
I refuse to let this thread die and fade into the abyss. Nearly 1400 views. Hopefully we are at least turning some gears and not talking in circles
The is as pressing an issue as we as sportsmen will see in our time. Take the time and effort to look into this issue and i really think you will come away with a better understanding of what we all stand to loose .
