Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

dave54 wrote:

BoonHauler wrote:
...The whole FS MVUM is of great concern to me. I can't standby and watch the continued shuttering of our public land with the Feds doing most of the shuttering...

The origin of the MVUM started with the Blue Ribbon Coalition. They approached Chief of the Forest Service Jack Thomas back in the early 90s. Their concern was the proliferation of OHVs was so overwhelming the BRC wanted to be involved in the inevitable regulation rather than waiting for courts and the environmentalists to force something unpalatable upon them. The Sierra Club later joined the process after the BRC got the ball rolling. The Sierra Club and others tried to hijack the MVUM and get stricter regulations, including banning boondocking, but the FS and BRC maintained control of the process and for the most part have some pretty reasonable regulations (IMHO). I am sure you agree something needed to be done, as the forests and public lands were being torn apart by the sheer volume of OHVs running amok with no controls.

Wow, I had no idea the BRC was involved in the birth of the Travel Management Plan.

I'm seeing way too much access to our National Forests being shut due to this mandate. It's of great concern to me. We should all be working together to slow if not halt the continued loss of access under this plan.

Very, very concerned.

HPD says :: "It is easy to bash what is behind door #1 (the current federal management system) and jump to choose door #2 (state management). But if you choose state management and the states are forced to sell much of the land, then you will have MANY MORE restrictions because private property owners likely will not readily allow outdoor recreation. I will take and fight for door #1, even with its flaws."

Right on target: If we open door number two, the lands will suffer. We need that federal dog in the fight that we know, and has no 'for profit' agenda forcing sale or lease of the lands to cover the costs to manage.

Regardless of how we look at it, fiscally, the feds charge everyone a small fee that actually manages the forest lands and watershed. IF we put that burden on a state with a lot of wilderness, and only that state must manage it, it will have no revenue from other states that have less wilderness, but use the lands. The states have no where to go except internal taxes to fund it, whereas the feds spread the management costs over a larger revenue base - an entire country not just a state.

Putting that burden on an individual state will never work.

BoonHauler wrote:
Dave 54 and Len's last two posts are right on target!..... and again, my hat's off too the both of you.

The point I'd like to get across here is that we're losing public land to recreate on. I myself am an OHV advocate and I've become very concerned as to the amount of public land that's being shuttered to public access viva environmental or fiscal concern.

The whole FS MVUM is of great concern to me. I can't standby and watch the continued shuttering of our public land with the Feds doing most of the shuttering.

Highplains, you continue to bash the Bundy's and the Sagebrush Rebellion in general when if fact the Bundy's were being rousted from their ranch for a Chinese Green Engery deal that Harry Reid was brokering

The Feds are far from perfect but you continue to tell us the States are the problem and I just can't get there. The Feds (Forest Service, BLM, Fish & Game, etc) need to have their closure and Law Enforcement actions severely curtailed.

I agree. The feds are far from perfect. The trend is to put more restrictions on uses such as ATVing, especially in states that have a vocal "environmental" population. This gets my goat, because I like ATVing (and some other things the enviros don't like).

I never said the states are the problem with federal land management. I did say, and strongly believe, that the states WILL NOT be able afford to manage millions of acres of federal lands if transfer takes place. In Wyoming alone, transfer proponents want 25 million acres transferred.

This point about not being able to afford it, is a very important one. It is the reason why the push to transfer is so dangerous. The feds use more of a conservation management model where profit is secondary (like it or not). The states don't have the luxury of ignoring profit, especially when large acreages and large dollar amounts are involved. They WILL manage using a for-profit management model. When they realize that a large percentage of the transferred acres are not profitable, they will be forced to do something about it, especially when competing forces in the appropriation process are demanding more funding then there is revenue. When I worked for the legislature, I staffed too many Appropriation Committee meetings to believe otherwise. Again, I hope everyone will read this paragraph several times, because this is the heart of the problem with transferring federal lands to the states.

It is easy to bash what is behind door #1 (the current federal management system) and jump to choose door #2 (state management). But if you choose state management and the states are forced to sell much of the land, then you will have MANY MORE restrictions because private property owners likely will not readily allow outdoor recreation. I will take and fight for door #1, even with its flaws.

Highplainsdrifter:

The Congressional Research Service is a government sponsored think tank attached to the Library of Congress. Their reports have no legal standing and are basically opinion pieces providing what CRS considers relevant background information and analysis on issues submitted to them from Congress.
Officially non-partisan, but their reports tend to lean left. In the link you provided they omitted several federal circuit court rulings on land ownership issues. Since the rulings mostly favored their conclusions, I do not know why they omitted them. It would have strengthened their argument. As written, their argument is weak.

The examples you provided only show that in the past some states have sold or mismanaged their lands. This does not support the conclusion that all states will do the same in the future. California and Oregon, for example, have done stellar jobs with their state forests, and Oregon state parks receive rave reviews (CA state parks less so, but that is another thread...).

BoonHauler wrote:
...The whole FS MVUM is of great concern to me. I can't standby and watch the continued shuttering of our public land with the Feds doing most of the shuttering...

The origin of the MVUM started with the Blue Ribbon Coalition. They approached Chief of the Forest Service Jack Thomas back in the early 90s. Their concern was the proliferation of OHVs was so overwhelming the BRC wanted to be involved in the inevitable regulation rather than waiting for courts and the environmentalists to force something unpalatable upon them. The Sierra Club later joined the process after the BRC got the ball rolling. The Sierra Club and others tried to hijack the MVUM and get stricter regulations, including banning boondocking, but the FS and BRC maintained control of the process and for the most part have some pretty reasonable regulations (IMHO). I am sure you agree something needed to be done, as the forests and public lands were being torn apart by the sheer volume of OHVs running amok with no controls.

Dave 54 and Len's last two posts are right on target!..... and again, my hat's off too the both of you.

The point I'd like to get across here is that we're losing public land to recreate on. I myself am an OHV advocate and I've become very concerned as to the amount of public land that's being shuttered to public access viva environmental or fiscal concern.

The whole FS MVUM is of great concern to me. I can't standby and watch the continued shuttering of our public land with the Feds doing most of the shuttering.

Highplains, you continue to bash the Bundy's and the Sagebrush Rebellion in general when if fact the Bundy's were being rousted from their ranch for a Chinese Green Engery deal that Harry Reid was brokering

The Feds are far from perfect but you continue to tell us the States are the problem and I just can't get there. The Feds (Forest Service, BLM, Fish & Game, etc) need to have their closure and Law Enforcement actions severely curtailed.

hpd wrote:
Even so, a few of you continue to bash the feds. Yes, I know it is popular. Here's the deal: I am NOT defending the feds. They are a long ways from perfect. I AM defending our federal lands, because I know what will happen to them if the feds lose control.

I am surprised that on a public lands boondocking thread there are several people against federal land ownership. So I have a question for you: If our public lands disappear, where do you think you are going to boondock? The KOA?

While I still contend that such ownership is unconstitutional, I am not categorically opposed to Federal ownership, I just want them to return to their original mission to work with and for the miners, loggers, ranchers, and recreational users. I believe that that is what the ranchers and Shoshone want also; they want the government to honor the original agreements.

monkey44 wrote:
Lensatic :: unfortunately, you stated you'd turn my post on its head, but then failed to do it.

I didn’t mean to imply that I would refute it, just that there was a flip-side to your example.

LS

dave54 wrote:

highplainsdrifter wrote:
I have presented some factual information on this thread debunking the myth that it is illegal for the feds to own/manage federal land. I have also posted some convincing evidence (and stated my opinion based on experience) that if the states get control, they will have to overdevelop and/or sell much of the land because they will be "compelled" to use a for-profit management model...

No, you did not. You offered a link to an opinion piece that does not address the underlying issue -- the original constitutionality of the laws cited in the article. You get partial credit in your argument because federal courts have already ruled the feds can own land; the article did not cite the court rulings.

In the second part you offered only anecdotal accounts of how some states manage land. I offered other examples where states have managed the land very well and in the public interest. The blanket statement all states will sell them off is not supported.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am retired from the Forest Service and do not support giving all federal lands back to the states. I do support giving local government (counties, local communities) a greater voice in the management. The 'federal ownership, local control' model has been advocated back to the 19th century, and was the premise upon which the Forest Service was created, and later the BLM. It is not a liberal/conservative division, as democratic presdential candidates Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 had federal ownership local control as part of their platforms. Now the republican candidates are adopting the issue ( or a variation of it).

We saw in the recent Forest Service MVUM process how the environmental industry tried to hijack the OHV issue and ban boondocking. Fortunately, their attemps failed. FS managers are not all indifferent bureaucrats or wacko tree huggers. Most support boondocking and multiple use, improving the resources while supporting local communities. Unfortunately, their hands often get tied by well intentioned but badly written laws, and contradictory ever-changing court decision. Narrow twisted legal logic usually trumps good sound science based resource management.

I have provided two sources debunking the claim that the feds can't legally own land. One of those I posted awhile back so I will post it again. It is a report written by the Congressional Research Service. Pretty definitive if you ask me.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34273.pdf

I also provided a link to show what states have done with their state school land grants. Some of those states such as Nevada have sold most of their school lands. Utah has sold half.

http://www.statetrustlands.org/

Glad to hear you do not support giving federal lands back to the states! I also would not object to giving the states more say about management as long as the land stays in federal ownership and is managed for multiple use. Therefore, we seem to be mostly on the same side of the issue. So, why are you arguing with me?

highplainsdrifter wrote:
I have presented some factual information on this thread debunking the myth that it is illegal for the feds to own/manage federal land. I have also posted some convincing evidence (and stated my opinion based on experience) that if the states get control, they will have to overdevelop and/or sell much of the land because they will be "compelled" to use a for-profit management model...

No, you did not. You offered a link to an opinion piece that does not address the underlying issue -- the original constitutionality of the laws cited in the article. You get partial credit in your argument because federal courts have already ruled the feds can own land; the article did not cite the court rulings.

In the second part you offered only anecdotal accounts of how some states manage land. I offered other examples where states have managed the land very well and in the public interest. The blanket statement all states will sell them off is not supported.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am retired from the Forest Service and do not support giving all federal lands back to the states. I do support giving local government (counties, local communities) a greater voice in the management. The 'federal ownership, local control' model has been advocated back to the 19th century, and was the premise upon which the Forest Service was created, and later the BLM. It is not a liberal/conservative division, as democratic presdential candidates Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 had federal ownership local control as part of their platforms. Now the republican candidates are adopting the issue ( or a variation of it).

We saw in the recent Forest Service MVUM process how the environmental industry tried to hijack the OHV issue and ban boondocking. Fortunately, their attemps failed. FS managers are not all indifferent bureaucrats or wacko tree huggers. Most support boondocking and multiple use, improving the resources while supporting local communities. Unfortunately, their hands often get tied by well intentioned but badly written laws, and contradictory ever-changing court decision. Narrow twisted legal logic usually trumps good sound science based resource management.

Lensatic :: unfortunately, you stated you'd turn my post on its head, but then failed to do it. When we lose the land, even if it's less well managed than we'd like, it's gone forever.

That means water abuse, such as occurs thru the Owen's Valley Project and the Everglades in Florida will kill life as we know it on this planet. Taking water from one area and using it in another area does not create more water, it just forces the watershed to produce more water in order to support the original ecosystem, which it cannot do ...

What do you suggest we do once the watershed disappears and deforests the lands - how will we recycle carbon dioxide into oxygen. Protecting those forests and ecosystems effects every life form on this planet.