Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Federal Lands in the West

What would happen if my state got a hold of Federal land?

This is all about money. The Federal Government is broke, hence it no longer wishes to pay for the costs associated with the land.

So, sell it, or give it to the states.

Little problem, the States are in even bigger financial trouble than the feds and they aren't going to spend any money on it either.

So the states then sell it to developers, which is the end game in all this, and then it pucked up forever.

Western states are not financially flush in most cases because of all the public lands on them that no tax base can be generated. The feds don't pay property taxes.

Your argument that states will sell the land is a basic one without much information about the income from state lands vs federal lands. Lands managed by the state are more profitable by far, and that lends to them being kept, not sold.

Another failsafe in the transfer would be to mandate that states cannot sell any transferred public lands.

There also needs to be verbiage in the legislation that mandates that the lands have to be made available for multiple use, and they cannot be closed.

There's lots to work out, but one thing is for sure... Federal ownership of public lands is a failed program in almost each and every facet.

If the states ever get ahold of federal land it'll be chopped up and given away to all the power brokers and their cronies, and what isn't given away will be sold or put into micro-managed public use plots with it's associated user fees and access restrictions. You'd see mini ranches pop up all over, little vacation getaways for the rich, famous, and powerful.
The liberal newspapers would proclaim what a windfall this is for the states people and of course the sportsman would be told how this would effectively multiply their opportunities. Next thing you know, little fences and gates would block access to your favorite hunting spot. There'd be a lawyer and his wife living on a mini ranchette right in the middle of dear old dads favorite deer hunting spot.

I could go on. Remember, land doesn't multiply, so every single crooked politician, lawyer, and judge from the top down that could get his hands on just one piece of land would be a loss forever. And of course they'd want the prime real estate, not some patch of scrub brush in Christmas Valley Oregon.

Federal management with it's problems at least ensures it doesn't end up in private hands like above. You guys that don't live in the west just keep hunting your little leases and leave us the hell alone out here!

Developers? Much if it has nothing to be developed. Yes, there are minerals, timber, and oil but the big issue is water. There are millions of acres here in Idaho that could be very good farmland but there's not nearly enough water to grow anything other than the current crop - sagebrush. Buyers would be big ranchers who can graze it but the profit margin would be too low for most of them to buy.
Even more of the land is lava beds, useful for not much of anything beyond it's current use.

OTOH, Idaho's legislature is predominately farmers and ranchers. It would put them in a perfect position to siphon off huge chunks of very cheap land.

Well, in the most important facet, it's not a failure. And that is, providing a place to hunt for people without thousands of dollars a year to pay for the privilege.

Numbers of hunters are down as a percent of the population from when you and I were young. The leading reason people give for quitting is not having a place to hunt. Selling off public plans will not help this, it'll only make it worse.

Fewer hunters means fewer voters who are pro-hunting, fewer gun owners and so forth. I can't see where that's a good thing, or where federal ownership of lands is a failure in keeping hunter and gun owner numbers as high as possible.

One of the basic tenets of the North American model of game management and distribution, and what sets us apart, is that everyone has an equal chance at out game. Privatize the land and that goes out the window.

What exactly is your ties to Public Lands?

You hunt it only?

What about ranching? Logging? Mining?

Hunt on state sections too?

Just what is it you want to stay the same? People footing the bill so that you can go hunting without cost a couple of long weekends a year?

Tell us your involvement, and how that would change if fail safes are in place for transfer to more localized management.

Another point I wish to add is that the Federal Government doesn't own the land, or anything else for that matter. The land is owned by the taxpayers of America and they alone should make any decisions regarding if anything needs to be done.

The land is less costly as is. Development not only leads to less open space it also leads to higher costs to the taxpayers. Development adds more debt to a community than it it contributes.

A private landowner certainly has the right to sell his land to developers but Government must obey the wishes of the land owners, and in this cases its the taxpayers of America that should decide what, if ANYTHING needs to be done.

The lower down the political food chain the lower the price.

I've lived in Texas twice, and I've hunted that land. The reason nobody goes there is, it's smack between DFW and Houston and so crowded with people that it's not worth hunting. That, and public land doesn't lend itself to permanent blinds and feeders.

A million acres for a state with the size and population of TX is almost the same as zero public land and it doesn't go far.

Don't try to compare the public land in Texas to what we have out west, the two are not comparable.

I totally agree with you about not selling ANY amount of public lands. Totally.

That needs to be a condition of transfer.

It's federal management of the lands that's a failure.

Yes, federal ownership does tend to subsidize certain activities by making them lower cost than what would happen with private markets.

Grazing comes to mind.

I prefer millions of acres of mismanaged land that I have access to over millions of well-managed private land that I can't step foot on.

They could put some mandate in there that says they can't sell it, but as soon as some financial "emergency" arises, they just pass a bill overriding the mandate.

Has Government managed anything correctly.

So, your idea would be to turn the land over to each state with that stipulation? That's not a bad idea on the face of it.

If there is anything more stupid and corrupt than Federal Politicians it's State Politicians...hands down.

Who advocating for "private markets"? Not me. I totally agree the land ought to kept public.

As far as ranching costs... I have experience in both public and private lands.

By the time you pay for the permit, and maintain and install infrastructure on public lands, plus pay the annual lease, you could outright own land in the private sector. Plus, you don't have to permit access to anyone you don't want on private property.

geez , many of you fellas have very little faith that the residents of your respective states could do the right thing managing public lands...instead you prefer having Fed.gov run your life

what you are going to end up with eventually is enviromental loons from the east and left coasts running your public land , and you locals will have NO access at all....

funny , many of the western states have quite a bit of public state owned land right now , they actually turn a profit in most cases and I haven't heard of any rush to sell it all to developers........

Turn over the ownership to the states, but the management of the lands to the more local governments.

As is the case in many states, the liberal inner cities control the vote, but the rural populace controls most of the land area. By far.

If management were kept local, then the rural counties control the land in the best interest of the locals there. That keeps the inner city liberals from dictating what activities you are allowed to do on public lands.

You think management of local public lands would be best served by letting the populace in Denver and Boulder dictate policy on public lands around Rifle, CO, or would it be better served by letting the folks in Rifle regulate their own back yard? And be held accountable by the populace of that county?

First off, don't put me on trial here. The certainty of abuse at the state level is never going to be written into the laws of the transfer from fed to state level management, but I Gauran F'n Tee you it'll happen in a huge way. Free land! Woohoo! Let's siphon off a few dozen chunks for our buddies while we take over this new windfall. You'd have to be a complete fool to think it'll happen any other way.

My family has lived in the west for generations. We've made our living off the land some, logging mostly. I won't apologize for the westerner that has worked his tail off for decades to provide for his family in a less "civilized" place than the boys back east "enjoy". You couldn't give most true westerners 1000 acres of anything "civilized" back east. We're the original pioneers, and we don't thrive in fishbowls. We explore and thrive on "what's over the next ridge". Went to Hawaii once. No thanks. I was bored in 4 days.

To live in the west means to put 30-40K miles a year on your rig, driving distances easterners rarely need to. We have less in the way of a developed support system, at least historically if not currently, so have to make do rather than have everything we want at our fingertips. We pay a price to live in solitude and want to be left alone. We don't trust the govt and we want to get as far away from it's influence as we possibly can. We live in the forest where we can enjoy nature, not cars, horns, sirens, and factories. We breathe clean air. We work the land to support ourselves, rather than create wealth by manipulating numbers or markets. We view civilization as untrustworthy, preferring instead to be as self reliant as possible.

If it was up to us, we'd be left alone. But, of course, in today's big money world, all the liberal-minded want is to tell everyone like us how to live, what to live with, and how we must change to be more like everything we hate. Unfortunately, historically they've been slowly gaining on us. Now, it's full blown in your face. Even on a conservative forum of sportsman like the fire we are ridiculed by liberal "thinkers" that practice their arrogance and superiority daily in their attempt s to overcome the world for everyone's edification and liberation.

Well, guess what? True westerners don't need or want saving. Save yourself if you need someone to worry about and leave us the hell alone.

Land in the west is not just a commodity, it's a way of life.