Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Transfering land ownership to the states

This is a letter in today's paper written by a country commissioner in north Idaho. He makes some good points.


Reader Comment: Crash Course in Taking Back Public Lands
Jim Chmelik Idaho County Commisioner


Today�s federal ownership of federal lands is gutting Idaho and Democrat candidate Catherine Talkington wants us to believe that state ownership would be a disaster. I would like to present to you an education in reality.

Facts 101 � The state of Idaho makes money from the managed forest, the federal government loses money while trying to manage the federal lands. The federal system is broken. The federal forests are not healthy and are being devastated by costly fires of historical proportion; and while all this is happening, we are doing less logging and every day, more and more federal lands are locked out to local access for grazing and recreation.

Economics 201 � The free market perspective. We do not accept the premise that you cannot do something nor that we cannot afford it. And in the case of transferring public lands, we cannot afford not to. When 246,000 acres burned in Idaho County, the economic losses were real; 1.23 billion board feet of timber burned with a marketable value of $369 million. Twenty-five percent of this resource value would have been $92,500,000 to Idaho County to fund education, build schools, and run county government without any government transfer payments. Lost to our region and surrounding counties was nearly a billion dollars in economic activity.

Common Sense 301 � People would be put back to work, and working people pay property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, Medicare and Medicaid, unemployment and worker�s compensation taxes. However, more important than this, it would restore our pride and dignity in what was once some of the most prosperous communities in America. We could give back to our communities, our state and our country because we have jobs, not unemployment checks, food stamps and welfare.

Civics 101 (remedial) � We are asking to be treated the same as our eastern states. Check the historical records and you will find in the mid-1800s, the states of Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi and Missouri were as much as 90 percent federally owned. However, they knew their public lands history and refused to take �no� for an answer. South Dakota�s and North Dakota�s enabling language reads identical to Idaho�s Constitution, then why the difference in federal ownership. Hawaii was granted all its land at statehood, why the difference for us in the West? The historical records of the Purpose and Intent of Federal Land Ownership are well documented and, from time to time, we need to refresh the future with a review of the past.

Political History 101 � To ensure the federal government does not sell these lands is the very reason we need state ownership. The federal government is $17 trillion in debt, another with $125 trillion in unfunded liabilities. This cannot be sustained. And what are the assets backing up these mountains of debt? The asset of the Western states. Just in recoverable oil, natural gas and coal, we have an estimated $151 trillion in the West.

Business 301 and Governance 402 � As fast as our forests are dying and burning, there will not be any place left to recreate. The blind ideology of the current neo-environmentalist movement is leaving us an unmitigated disaster, and it shows no willingness to compromise. Past and current political leadership are eroding Idaho�s independence.

Rather than having a plan of action and vision, we are in a constant state of reaction. In the end, it is Idahoans who are paying dearly by not having control of its land and its destiny. I see nothing from the Democrat candidate, which offers to change that course. My friends, things do not change by themselves, they change when we change them.

Jim Chmelik of Cottonwood is an Idaho County Commissioner and serves as vice-chairman.

Great post Rock Chuck.
Our commissioners here in Okanogan County Wa have been looking at this very subject.
Thanks for bringing it up.
Roger

That's a scary thought. The Chinese buying the West from the Feds.

I do believe that land should probably be given back to the states...

But don't believe for a MINUTE that a good chunk of that land won't end up being transferred to political donors of governors or other major politicians. State level corruption is much easier to manage under the radar for things like land transfers.

Perhaps ownership should rest with the feds, but all management decisions and revenue belong to the states.

I was nearly hacked to pieces a few years ago here on the Campfire for suggesting that ALL Federal lands be deeded over to the states.
I was told that I was completely ignorant of how things were when it comes to all Federal lands. I also got more than a few PM's that made it clear that I was a stupid hick and should never breed again.
I'll reiterate the point that I made then. Everything that the Federal Government controls is not good for John Q.Citizen. They will twist everything that they can up so completely,that it will never be able to be unwound.
State Governments are closer to the citizens and that makes them more accountable.

At least a state official can be recalled. With the feds, these things are usually controlled by some political appointee who doesn't answer to anyone the people can control.

Well, I guess if you like things like they are in Texas and other states where there is little or no public land and you have to pay someone to go hunting on their land, then it would be a good deal for you. Within 5 years of transfer of Forest Service or BLM lands to the states, every acre of it will have been sold off to rich Californians and Chinese billionaires.

I LIKE my public lands and spend a LOT of time out there, would hate to see the whole western way of life go by the wayside.

I too have been attacted for pointing out Fed "ownership" is not constitutional. Welfare hunting is popular.

I (with a few friends) can lease 10,000 acres in Texas for what non-resident licenses cost me in Wyoming. Don't confuse high priced tourist trap hunts you find on the internet with reality.

A way with words, brother, a way with words.

They are only YOUR lands for as long as FEDS allow you on it. Climate is changing fast and there will be LOTS of YOUR lands that you will not be able to do anything on except eat granola.

Oregon for several years has been working trades to block state lands into entities that are at least manageable.

Long ago one section in every township was passed to the state and labeled as school sections. That was back in the homesteader days when Washington folks knew a family could be more than successful on 40 acres of land (later elevated to 160). Obviously they had never farmed 40 acres of rock receiving 12 inches of annual precip most falling in the winter.

One proposal in the state plan for a nearby block was was to lease exclusive hunting/fishing rights via competitive bid as a means of generating funds. That facet drew some rather brief and pointed comments and was not subsequently explored.

Oregon is about 50% public land, and I like it that way. Actually one of the reasons I came west. I've hunted/fished/camped to my full capacity for near 40 years out here and never had to seek permission.

I've been attacked here too for my views on land ownership. Federal ownership is worse than state ownership, but states shouldn't be in the business of owning land either. Land should be privately owned to the greatest extent possible, get governments out of it all together.

Welfare hunting IS popular, and when you say anything against it you might as well be trying to take an EBT card away from an Obama voter.

I've been up to my eyebrows in public lands issues as long as I can remember. As far as I am concerned, states (and believe it or not, tribes) do the best overall land-management job on their holdings -- at least FORESTED lands. The Feds did have it right for a while, but then the greens got ahold of it through litigation and urban blunt-force politics.
As far as I am concerned, the refuges, wildernesses and parks can stay federal (they are money pits), while the other multiple-use surface rights should be sold at FMV at net present value to the respective states.
The states can make a reasonable profit, continue to offer "welfare hunting" and open trespass, while allowing a diverse economy making money from vegetation management (logging trees where it makes sense to do so).

Exactly what is wrong for paying to hunt? I pay the taxes on my property. Do you think that if I stopped doing that,Edwards County would just tell me that I couldn't hunt on it any more? First off,you don't know if the states will sell any of it and second of all, you sound like an idiot. Yes,an idiot. Screaming fire in a crowded theater. THE RICH CHINESE CALIFORNIANS ARE NEVER GONNA LET ANYONE HUNT EVER AGAIN!!!
That's what you sound like.

If you think that the federal Government can better manage anything than the States can,in their own State,do a little more reading. And how do you know that the States will sell all of the land that will be returned to State control?
And the WELFARE barb probably stung just a little didn't it? Well, it should have because that's exactly what it is... WELFARE!!!
I really don't know how to address this without insulting you more than you already deserve but damn... Your whole western way of life will do nothing but improve if the Federal Government gets out of it. But you probably can't see that because you're an alarmist.

Well, I like public land that I can access and hunt. Call me an idiot.

Sigh. Another addlebrained blockhead off to "ignore".

You probably said it wrong.

Well, I wont pretend to know which is better. But....

In Ca, there is a ton of fed land I can access for just about anything. The Ca managed land, is slightly more regulated, and usually costs a bit to access, but you still can.

So I guess the answer lies in what exactly the states would do with it. If you could garuntee me that the usage wouldn't change, I'd say go for it. But I doubt that

Pirate, you can access it now, but if it stays federal, not for much longer. Even if it goes state, you have Jerry Brown and the commies in Sacto.
Just a matter of time. The Greens are spending hundreds of million suing and lobbying to turn it all back to wilderness or, as they really want, no-touchie, no huntie parks.
I have a feeling that Californistan and the Left Coast states just love the fed regime and the direction things are going (down fast), but further inland, a state turnover might be possible, and might actually turn out a good thing.
What we have now, stinks to the point where anything but the feds would be better.