http://www.perc.org/articles/us-department-land-hoggingGood insight for those with enough thoughtfulness to get past the lothsome free places to hunt mentality.
DSC is already crying about this!!!
When the author used the welfare state of New Mexico as an example I knew it was BS.
The Federal Government should not own land.
The Federal Government should not own land.
I'd hate to see the wreckage if they didn't!
So, you trust the Federal Government more than your State?
I'll take management by the federal government over selling it off by state level hacks.
We'll do our best to keep the Federal Government more conservative than your State's.
I read somewhere, I think that it was in a BLM publication, that they spent $89.2M to manage 155M range/grazing acres in 2014, about $0.58 per acre. They earned $12.1M, about $0.08 per acre. So BLM's management cost tax payers about $0.50 per range/grazing acre, around $77M. Year after year after year, etc.
politicians are politicians, state level just seems to be easier to buy than federal.
The Fed or the states don't manage land as well as private owners - AS A RULE.
That said, the .gov folks own some very rough, hard to make produce (economically) property.
Folks back east should have some of their property taken (without promises being kept) - to see what has fired up many out here.
Maybe if Queens was seized by the Feds, some east of the Mississippi River could understand a little better.
Gov entities also don't pay into the coffers what private owners do - so the western states are at a disadvantage from the get-go.
I read somewhere, I think that it was in a BLM publication, that they spent $89.2M to manage 155M range/grazing acres in 2014, about $0.58 per acre. They earned $12.1M, about $0.08 per acre. So BLM's management cost tax payers about $0.50 per range/grazing acre, around $77M. Year after year after year, etc.
politicians are politicians, state level just seems to be easier to buy than federal.
Miracle of miracles, I actually agree with RL.
I reckon that's one of those things that's hard for Texans to understand. When we negotiated joining the United States, one of our most important requirements was that the Federal Government could not control land in the State that we didn't allow them to, with the exception of National Security reasons.
Most folks that have lived their loves near public land are going to see this issue thru much different eyes that those from the east that have not.
State's will sell large portions, it sure as I write this, Feds are going to find that more difficult.
I reckon that's one of those things that's hard for Texans to understand. When we negotiated joining the United States, one of our most important requirements was that the Federal Government could not control land in the State that we didn't allow them to, with the exception of National Security reasons.
That's to bad as you havn't a clue what we have here in the west.
Everyone says we should be more like Europe, disposing of public lands would be the quickest way to get there. Wouldn't take much for PETA and the HSUS to finish off hunting after that.
Colorado politicians would sell their mothers if there was a dollar in it for them. Been living here for 60 years and my take is it is one of the crookedest states around. Worse is that the ones in power are all pilgrims.
Being that most of the western US was purchased from other countries by the Federal government, excluding Tx which was it's own republic, Hawaii another one probably. It's a totally different issue.
Kent
I reckon that's one of those things that's hard for Texans to understand. When we negotiated joining the United States, one of our most important requirements was that the Federal Government could not control land in the State that we didn't allow them to, with the exception of National Security reasons.
That's to bad as you havn't a clue what we have here in the west.
I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've been there.
I've been watching natural resources and land ownership issues for a long time, partly professionally. I've picked academic brains extensively, read lots of studies, seen a lot of ground truth.
The Feds pretty much rank last when it comes to effective management. Law is a huge part of it, because the law gives the radical Greens so much power, so many chances to throw a monkeywrench in the gears, and no punishment for being wrong and stupid, which is most of the time.
State, tribal and private ownerships are all fairly close together in cost-effectiveness, to the point where all of them make a profit. Because the tribes are no-frill, they come in at lowest cost, and have incredibly high effectiveness IF they have competent land managers.
State and private land are about the same in terms of cost inputs.
The bottom line of all this is, the state land agencies probably are the best option for long-term use and public access at a reasonable or no charge. Montana's DNRC has a multiple-use, long-term mandate that even the Land Board can't ignore, and when you compare the overall condition of state versus private and federal, the state wins -- they are a little less aggressive than the tribes, but the state and the tribes both have a holistic approach that is very productive both economically and environmentally.
While some "sportsmen" groups have been showered with million in Green money, spent specifically to co-opt a bloc of gullible Fudds into being "green" -- the sick fact is, these same green funders are paralyzed with fear at the idea of having states able to ignore Beltway edicts or "national interests" based on what is urban/suburban ignorance of rural, flyover America.
Oregon is about 50% public land, and I love it. Step back about 50 years if one wants to see poor management of those federal lands.
I have no problem with the state of Az taking ownership of land management of the public trust... but management only within the boundaries of multiuse trust and not deeded with the ability to sell off.
Kent
Being that most of the western US was purchased from other countries by the Federal government, excluding Tx which was it's own republic, Hawaii another one probably. It's a totally different issue.
Kent
I guess I just don't understand the glamour of State controlled community property, but I also understand the fear of those who have never known anything else.
Fear? you're projecting your bias.
Kent
No, that's not what I mean. Fear of change. Everybody is afraid of the unknown. I keep hearing that anything other than the Federal Government controlling the land would be worse than anything else. That has NEVER been shown to be the case.
politicians are politicians, state level just seems to be easier to buy than federal.
100% truth.
State guys are a lot easier to deal with plus they are easier to find at payoff time. Cheaper, too.
What happened to your old avatar? It's much better than the new one. Bring her back.
So, you trust the Federal Government more than your State?
Yes, far more than these 2-bit crooked politicians. They would have it all in the hands of big money and closed off to the public completely.
We in essence would have a small Texas, where $6,000.00 hunting leases are where one can hunt.
No Thanks.
Let .gov pay equivalent property taxes to the state as I do, and my issues would be much less.
Then tell the easterners how much, and let's see the howl - as most easterners don't use our resources, personally.
The change happened in 1976 with the Federal land management act. That it needs to change again is obvious but will take a congressional act.
Which is what is being discussed here.
The land had to be acquired first before we can even have a discussion of who should controls it. The feds did it through purchase so the process goes through them.
If you read my link above you will see the history of the land and state acquisition. That the government screws up a necessary process is just business as usual.
Better decision makers will make us a better country... even in public trust lands... but that's obvious too.
Kent
I live in east Texas, There is approximately 1 million acres of public land (mostly National Forest) within two hours of me. Nobody goes there. It's far more enjoyable to control your own property. $6000 per year is what you would pay for a top end, south Texas, high fence operation with selective breeding and all amenities. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I can lease 90% of the properties in Texas for a year, with total control, for less that it cost for me to buy non-resident licenses in most western states.
Texas even charges you to hunt on public land.
High fence, selective breeding and amenities?
Sounds awesome.
High fence, selective breeding and amenities?
Sounds awesome.
Sounds like a brothel in Nevada!
Sycamore
I'm willing to accept my share of 54,000,000 acres of Az federal land reallocation based on years lived squared by 4 generations on each side of the family...
That'd be 3364 acres of prime elk country... ya'll are invited.
Kent
The (4) WMA's located on each of the (4) national forest in TX are administered by the state.
Considerig they were purchased in the great depression from failed cotton fields for $1/acre and replanted in pine, I don't see the big deal.
Also considering you run into old sawmill towns in the at least two of the wilderness areas that were designated in the Carter administration. Some wilderness area.
Pat is right, participation for most activities on the national forest in TX including hunting are almost non existent.
I did a 3 way trade between myself and the US Forest Servie and a private timber company so the USFS could get land in a more contiguous area. Some "sarcre" federal land.
I reckon that's one of those things that's hard for Texans to understand. When we negotiated joining the United States, one of our most important requirements was that the Federal Government could not control land in the State that we didn't allow them to, with the exception of National Security reasons.
Actually, that's pretty much the blueprint laid out by the U.S. Constitution for Federal Govt. land ownership for all of America.
It just isn't followed.
Texas even charges you to hunt on public land.
Why do you constantly make things up? There is a $40 permit (Type II) required to hunt Type II land, which is private land, leased to the State and a few highly managed "units", the rest has no charge. That's beside the point though, because most people won't go there.
So, you trust the Federal Government more than your State?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
politicians are politicians, state level just seems to be easier to buy than federal.
The lower down the political food chain the lower the price.
I live in east Texas, There is approximately 1 million acres of public land (mostly National Forest) within two hours of me. Nobody goes there. It's far more enjoyable to control your own property.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Has Government managed anything correctly.
It's federal management of the lands that's a failure.
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.
It's federal management of the lands that's a failure.
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.
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?
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.
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........
It's federal management of the lands that's a failure.
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?
Tell us your involvement, and how that would change if fail safes are in place for transfer to more localized management.
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.
It's federal management of the lands that's a failure.
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.
Corruption is a red herring and has nothing to do with this issue. If you think that states can't do a better job of managing what goes on inside their own borders than the federal government, you're an idiot.
The big problem as I see it would be funding the state management agencies without federal tax dollars.
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?
Denver, and Boulder? Come on, man!! Can you make a point without throwing in a red meat commie/pinko reference?
What I think is, if the state owns the land, then all of the citizens of the state get a say in how it's managed. That's how democracy works. If state tax dollars pay for management, then turning over the decision-making to locals does not seem to be a fair distribution of input. Should locals have more of a say-so than others? Possibly, but I'm not sure how to work that out.
If the majority of locals are ranchers, then putting them in the driver's seat would tend to favor ranchers at the expense of everyone else who's paying the bill. Not a good solution, and it'll never happen.
The big problem as I see it would be funding the state management agencies without federal tax dollars.
If a fair price was charged for the industries doing business on public lands, then the tax base problem takes care if itself.
Rather than having token "entitlements", if a fair commercial rate were charged, and those funds put into the local and state economy, no federal funds would be needed.
Again, I stress that there needs to be fail safes in place that keep the corrupt in check, and the best interest of public land served.
Those western states don't HAVE to be welfare states.
States would have to be allowed to manage for profit, the way the forest service did early on. FS used to be a support itself and add money to the treasury.
Kent
If you think that states can't do a better job of managing what goes on inside their own borders than the federal government, you're an idiot.
If only we could trust them. Rockinbar has some sound thoughts on local management I appreciate. I don't trust the feds, that's for sure, and I see the tide shifting in their management of federal land, but change has been slow up to now.
The problem with "management" of this public land, on the cash-starved state level, is that it probably requires development of the private ownership type to generate revenue. Without development what do you have? Without development, you have wild land. To generate income from wild land, you have to charge users to use it to keep it wild and "producing" financially.
So, you either lose the right to step foot on it at all because it goes private to raise development $$ for the state and stimulate the local building economy, or you get charged to use it, to raise $$ for the state. How is either of these attractive when the alternative is federally owned land available to all, from any state or even any nation, to use with few restrictions?
From a use standpoint, there is no comparison between federal and state ownership. From a cash cow standpoint, the states would clearly manipulate the land to produce cash better. The question you have to ask yourself is, is that what I want?
My answer is no, I want access and use over $$ from development and loss of land.
The "access and use" has to be the main priority.
Without development what do you have? Without development, you have wild land. To generate income from wild land, you have to charge users to use it to keep it wild and "producing" financially.
So, you either lose the right to step foot on it at all because it goes private to raise development $$ for the state and stimulate the local building economy, or you get charged to use it, to raise $$ for the state.
Not necessarily. I don't know about Oregon, but in CO, big game hunting, fishing, and backpacking on our public lands is a huge economic engine, especially for rural proprietors.
No way the state would do anything to kill that golden goose.
The big problem as I see it would be funding the state management agencies without federal tax dollars.
If a fair price was charged for the industries doing business on public lands, then the tax base problem takes care if itself.
Rather than having token "entitlements", if a fair commercial rate were charged, and those funds put into the local and state economy, no federal funds would be needed.
Again, I stress that there needs to be fail safes in place that keep the corrupt in check, and the best interest of public land served.
Those western states don't HAVE to be welfare states.
Failsafes are in place at the national level and look what they do in spite of them. That's what you don't understand, men are CORRUPT. If you transfer the land to the states MORE CORRUPT MEN will have access to it and control over it than ever before. Every single man that touches it has the potential to insert his bias and corruption on the decision making process. Keep bringing it lower and lower to the local level and you'll see more and more siphoned off for private use.
Remember, the Constitution is clear and concise, but look what lawyers, politicians, and judges do in spite of it. Don't think for a minute there aren't many many more corrupt people at the local level that would love to get their mitts on this public land. Dirty deals would be the rule, not the exception. And once gone, public land will never be regained from private hands.
Without development what do you have? Without development, you have wild land. To generate income from wild land, you have to charge users to use it to keep it wild and "producing" financially.
So, you either lose the right to step foot on it at all because it goes private to raise development $$ for the state and stimulate the local building economy, or you get charged to use it, to raise $$ for the state.
Not necessarily. I don't know about Oregon, but in CO, big game hunting, fishing, and backpacking on our public lands is a huge economic engine, especially for rural proprietors.
No way the state would do anything to kill that golden goose.
Liberal Oregonians would kill that goose just to watch it die, and laugh the whole time.
I sure don't have all the answers. Way smarter people than me need to figure that out.
But I do know that local input goes out the window with the system we have now. The system is rife with special interests that seek nothing more as a goal than to keep ALL of us out of, and off of public lands.
States would have to be allowed to manage for profit, the way the forest service did early on. FS used to be a support itself and add money to the treasury.
Kent
Have you looked at the forest circus budget?
Let's look at Arizona, tell me how grazing and timber would even offset fire fighting costs in the state, let alone make money.
Proper forestry results in far fewer forest fires. That's a fact.
It's a lot more complicated than that, now. The WUI in the new west is a whole new game, and only getting worse.
If it becomes state land, it will soon be controlled by the feds any way through things like the ESA - think sage grouse. Or how about the EPA and their clean air and water regs? They'll NEVER let go.
If it becomes state land, it will soon be controlled by the feds any way through things like the ESA - think sage grouse. Or how about the EPA and their clean air and water regs? They'll NEVER let go.
It'll be the worst of both worlds.
States would have to be allowed to manage for profit, the way the forest service did early on. FS used to be a support itself and add money to the treasury.
Kent
Have you looked at the forest circus budget?
Let's look at Arizona, tell me how grazing and timber would even offset fire fighting costs in the state, let alone make money.
Az...54,9000,000 federal land, 9,800,000 state, 8,800,000 private.
The state makes money on it's land, which is not closed to the public.
The feds have restricted grazing and logging to the point that creates mega fire environments.
Improved facility access fees such as lake ramps and campgrounds are a huge revenue here, plus copper mining.
Kent
Show me some $ figures.
And your fires won't be controlled by logging..
Not directed at anyone, but it seems like the one's critical of the way the lands are managed in the west are the one's not from the west. The one's that think a 40 acre hunting lease is what it's all about.
I could be wrong, but I doubt I am, it seems a lot like penis envy to hear an easterner call the west welfare hunting.
Yeah, I think there's plenty of dishonesty in the argument to make land in the west "profitable".
Men smarter than all of us procured it and made it available for use by all, from ANY state, long ago, and that is the value to not just westerners, but all Americans. Talk to most eastern sportsman and what's their dream? To hunt the west. So who's being short-sighted by wanting to change the west?
'Nuff said.
Show me some $ figures.
And your fires won't be controlled by logging..
Interesting... tell that to the folks that lost their logging jobs in northern az and then suffered through the Chedisky and Wallow mega fires recently.
A simplistic answer to your simplistic question of money... less revenue by eliminating logging and more expenditure due to mega fire fighting, equals red on the bottom line.
Kent
logging will not prevent fires in the scrub and chapparal communities. Cheat grass and the WUI make it a whole new world out there... Grazing and logging on your now state owned NF lands won't pay for it.
I could be wrong, but I doubt I am, it seems a lot like penis envy to hear an easterner call the west welfare hunting.
Or like liberals or socialists they think everyone should be and do like they do.
Envy is a evil thing
That article actually makes my point... especially since the people quoted want to just spend more instead of allowing the forests to be cleaned up and produce revenue at the same time.
Sandy Bahr, if she's for it it'll cost you money and a fight for your hunting heritage.
McCain and Flake wanting to throw money at the problem.
Funny...
Kent
logging will not prevent fires in the scrub and chapparal communities. Cheat grass and the WUI make it a whole new world out there... Grazing and logging on your now state owned NF lands won't pay for it.
The least amount of money is generated by logging and grazing leases. Which has been curtailed to very low levels. Which leave flammable fuels to build up.
Change one parameter and others change by percentage, that percentage can be positive or negative.
Logging reduces fire liability as does grazing, that's a fact, how much depends on how much is allowed.
Kent
There are Millions of acres of National Forest in Wisconsin being underutilized.The greenies will not let The Forest Service sell lumbering rights ,so we have mature hardwoods worth big bucks just rotting.There are less deer and grouse because there is no understory to support them.These are the areas that support huge White tail bucks when forested properly and open to hunting for anyone.Woods trails and roads are closed more every year to make the Sierra Club happy.Our land is being managed for the anti hunters and tree huggers who pay nothing to support it.State control would be far more favorable as the State has a Forest Service program ,that is the envy of many Big Woods States.In the County I live in Marinette, we have about half the land in the County,County owned.County Stewardship is great and our County land is great for Bird and deer hunting.Yes I would much prefer State ownership which pays for itself by bring in Revenue not being utilized now.
You haven't lived until you see a 200 square mile cheatgrass fire. There is no fix for cheat grass other than grazing. Even if grazing is allowed at a loss, it will likely make up for the loss with reduced fire fighting costs.
It's federal management of the lands that's a failure.
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.
Corruption is a red herring and has nothing to do with this issue. If you think that states can't do a better job of managing what goes on inside their own borders than the federal government, you're an idiot.
The big problem as I see it would be funding the state management agencies without federal tax dollars.
Excuse me but I live in MA, I have lived the horror of a State being run by idiots...
Unfortunately the issues created can't be fixed overnight, by the feds or the states. But the Forest nazies aren't going to do anything but keep spending more and pushing us off 'their' land.
If the state can have control to better manage and use less federal expenditures, then possibly the beast can be turned around and headed in a positive direction.
Kent
I live in east Texas, There is approximately 1 million acres of public land (mostly National Forest) within two hours of me. Nobody goes there. It's far more enjoyable to control your own property.
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.
You must be talking about the Davy Crockett National forest. Everything else is a couple of hundred miles northeast of Houston, which is the nearest (real) airport. That is another reason that few people go there.
I live in east Texas, There is approximately 1 million acres of public land (mostly National Forest) within two hours of me. Nobody goes there. It's far more enjoyable to control your own property. $6000 per year is what you would pay for a top end, south Texas, high fence operation with selective breeding and all amenities. Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I can lease 90% of the properties in Texas for a year, with total control, for less that it cost for me to buy non-resident licenses in most western states.
Pat,
We would essentially be locked out of any hunting soon after the State acquired the open lands. It would be sold off post-haste to big corporations for pennies. Our game is much sparser than in TX and about anywhere else in the USA, due to our being the driest State of all. We have a lot of open lands, but the key habitat is relatively small and concentrated at and near water. Many of those places were homesteaded long ago.
Without the open public lands we become out of State hunters somewhere else.
NV is not known for preserving open lands, and our politicians won't. Evidence Harry Reid and his ilk.
Same is true in Oregon. The liberals would love to have all that federal land for their personal playground, and they would too.
I'm all for private ownership.....PROVIDED it isn't hacked up by Realtors because if so....they'd build a housing project atop Pike's Peak!!
I'm all for private ownership.....PROVIDED it isn't hacked up by Realtors because if so....they'd build a housing project atop Pike's Peak!!
You'll see a sea of 20 acre "ranchetts" as far as the eye can see.
Goodbye open lands...goodbye hunting...goodbye to camping anywhere but government campgrounds all you sheeple.
logging will not prevent fires in the scrub and chapparal communities. Cheat grass and the WUI make it a whole new world out there... Grazing and logging on your now state owned NF lands won't pay for it.
The least amount of money is generated by logging and grazing leases. Which has been curtailed to very low levels. Which leave flammable fuels to build up.
Change one parameter and others change by percentage, that percentage can be positive or negative.
Logging reduces fire liability as does grazing, that's a fact, how much depends on how much is allowed.
Kent
Kent,
You and I would probably agree on a lot, if we met. I think we have a lot of similar experiences and backgrounds.
Natural Resource Management on public lands is subject to political, as well as management control.
One reason grazing brings in so little, is that grazing rates are set by Congress, which are beholden, in the West, to public land grazers and their supporters.
Logging, in Arizona, is a different cat, than a lot of places.
It might take 40-50 years to grow a tree big enough to harvest. No one can keep a set of roads open, or a sawmill going, on a 50 year rotation. And frankly, a 16 inch tree isn't worth waiting around for. Especially if it is way out in BF Egypt. Then it has to be hauled 50 miles to a small mill, to make a low value product, which then has to be hauled 150 miles to a market.
So the logging of the 80's, that you and I saw in Arizona, was a last gasp, the end of the "mining" of 200 year old trees.
Grazing prevents forest fires....NOT....small fires prevent BIG fires, grazing prevents small fires.
Small fires kill baby trees that create the ladder fuels, that get into the crowns and wipe out 100,000 acre swaths.
I agree that right now, in parts of Arizona, the pendulum has swung to the greens, in other parts it has swung back. In the White Mountains, the mill owners are asking congress to increase the harvest rates, so they can increase their profits, in the name of "jobs and economic development".
That is in a forest that has already lost 500,000 acres (estimate) from giant fires. (1/3 of the forest?) How long can they keep their cut up? 10 years? then what happens to the jobs?
When are the mill owners going to ask for a reduced Harvest for forest health? Never, same as the greenies never asking for an increased harvest in the overstocked parts.
Our job, as citizens and residents, as I see it, is to not jump on somebody elses bandwagon.
YMMV,
Sycamore
Excuse me but I live in MA, I have lived the horror of a State being run by idiots...
Therein lies the problem. As in MA, not public lands in the west.
Where I live in northeastern Calif, there is USFS land, BLM land and private land. Very little state land and some Rez ground. You can tell the private timber land from the FS just by looking at the forest. No comparison, the private forest ground is a hell of a lot healthier and holds more deer and elk. We had a fire just west of me, it burned both public and private. This fire was about 2 years ago. The private ground is cleaned up and replanted, the government ground is a fricken mess. I have a friend that is a forester for the USFS, he just pulls his hair out at the stupid stuff that goes on. He has been working on a timber sale on Lassen Creek, just east of me. Been working on it 3 years, he figures it will be another 3 before they can put it out to bid. Logging on federal ground is almost a thing of the past, thanks to Billy Clinton. They damn sure are trees left. Not sure if state would be any better, at least this state. Ed
I forgot to say that the private timber ground is open to the public to hunt and fish. I assume it will be till some dumbf##k screws that up. Ed
A private tree farm is nothing natural.
RL I wouldn't call it a tree farm, I guess it is cause they do harvest it. Lol the trees aren't planted in rows like they are in the south. These tree farms as you say are thousands of acres with rocks, bluffs, rimrocks, streams, meadows same as the FS land. The only difference is they are a hell of a lot healthier and that they house a hell of a lot more game. The FS is the largest employer in this county, I would venture to say that 20% of the traffic on the county roads are made by the FS or BLM. If they send 5 men out to do something they take 5 pickups. Collins Pine sends their crew in one crewcab. Ed
They don't replant single species, and use herbicides and fertilizers?
Single species of trees is about all that grows there anyway (ponderosa pine) they do plant bitter brush and mountain mahogany for the critters. Never seen them fertilize or spray. They don't plant western juniper, you guys call them cedars, as they are a fricken weed. ED
I know that Soper Wheeler in Yuba and Butte county plants whatever species grow native to their land. ED
No way do I want the public lands to wind up in the hands of a private anybody.. The private land holders have taken the land here from swamp, live oak forest and hardwood ridges to condominiums.
I have been roaming around on federal land in eastern MT for basically my entire life.
The country(BLM/CMR) is probably in better shape now than ever. At least in the last 20 or so years that I've been paying attention.
Why?
Lucky rains and proper grazing programs.
Thing that scares me is executive power, or whatever it's called.
One swipe of the pen and 'save' something and call it a monument.
(read the fine print on some of those 'deals'.....)
Exactly. Sell the land to people like you, or let you lease it from the State. The Federal Government is growing like concrete.
Big corporations aren't people, and that's where it will go.
Also, I bet I can't drive out to Sam's ranch, through his gates and fences and set up my deer camp.
Ever try to hunt on 20,000-100,000 acres of all 20-40 acre ranchettes?
How about hunting massive holes in the ground and scars that were once whole mountain ranges that are now mines? We have too much of that already.
This is what WILL happen if the Feds divest to States out west. Special interests and corporations have too much money and clout, Pat.
The West is vanishing too fast as it is.
I love sam like a bruddah, but for the prime land, he's going to be waaaay down the list of buyers if it came that time.
Mr. Rams, the frac brothers and Ted would be gobbling up Montana like a fat family at the golden corral.
Yes I do earn a good part of my check from folks like that, but I sure don't want to see them own the whole state.
No doubt.
It would be game over.
Impossible now to buy any decent sized acreage unless you have (major)outside money coming in. 20-30 years ago, maybe, but sure as hell not these days.
Those of us that understand the greed of men are all on the same page. Nobody likes or trusts the federal govt, but if the land is not in their control you can kiss it goodbye forever.
So we all agree that they can't run the post office, epa, irs, dot, nasa.....etc, but we want them to run the blm? Pass.
FWIW, most of Washington abd idaho are "tree farms" been harvested and replanted a few times. It's just forest to me.....unless I have to deal with the Forest circus.....then it's a pain in the butt.
Did you see the BLM budget numbers I posted?
They actually make money for the government.
I wish you guys the best. I just don't see how WANTING Obama, and his like, to control your destiny is the smart move.
Out.
That's a red herring, bro. It isn't wanting Obama.
It's knowing the history of the west, and what state politicians are capable of..
In this case the devil we know is better than the one waiting around the corner.
I love sam like a bruddah, but for the prime land, he's going to be waaaay down the list of buyers if it came that time.
Mr. Rams, the frac brothers and Ted would be gobbling up Montana like a fat family at the golden corral.
Yes I do earn a good part of my check from folks like that, but I sure don't want to see them own the whole state.
Not to mention Chinese billionaire(and others)s who are licking their lips right now getting ready to buy up your former hunting areas.
I really stake my dase on state that the feds. In the 80's they let the pine beetle not only wipe out national forest in East, TX thru inacation of not cutting a break line they wiped out 2 counties of pine timber and depressed the industry region wide because of it for a decade. Didn't want to spend the time and money to to cut the break on national forest property at a KNOWN pine beetle outbreak and by the time it escaped you couldn't cut a break wide enough it was 1/2 the county in a region where you could drive to withing 1/4 mile of every spot on flat land on the forest. They wind up losing over a million acres, which in the south is a pretty good chunk of land.
Not to mention this was NF land that had been purchased in the 30's and the agreement with the counties were they would give the counties 50$ of timber profits from cutting in exchange for removal from the tax rolls. Well they don't cut anymore, loblolly pine will grow to matuarity, die, and rot standing up because it's a fast growing species. That has become basically their plan. Let it die and rot in place rather than to cut and replant.
Loblolly pine doesn't live that long, 80 - 100 years at most. And they have it on a 120 year rotation when the industry is at 40 years tops now.
These are interesting matters without easy answers.
Freedom of access/use by the public always would be the big issue for me, no matter whether owned/managed by the Fed or the state. To insure such access and avoid profiteering, some smart and upright folks would need to control the terms of any such change and a state would have to step up and continue to do the right things. Would that happen? Probably in some states but not likely in all. My state would be questionable in that regard - we have seem some rotten politics at work.
A person's perspective may be conditioned by living in a National Forest and witnessing up close the attitudes and behaviors (not to mention other features) of the USFS folks and that bureaucracy, as well as the local BLM operations, and as well as the several other Fed and state departments/programs that "cooperate" with the Fed entities. This can be messy - and deleterious. Then - there are the deemed closures and restrictions, the big fires and all the behavior that comes with those, etc., etc.
Some local land is owned/run by the state and that seems well done - but I would not extend such an expectation to any big Fed land taken over by the state.
The problem I have with the blm is getting locked out of what has historically been public land here in Idaho and Washington. If the blm, which produces nothing except fines, fees, rules and regulations can make money by doing nothing, the state should be able to do the same.
If you are worried about it, impose a no sale on public land act....done deal.
The problem I have with the blm is getting locked out of what has historically been public land here in Idaho and Washington. If the blm, which produces nothing except fines, fees, rules and regulations can make money by doing nothing, the state should be able to do the same.
If you are worried about it, impose a no sale on public land act....done deal.
This has been discussed at length on several forums. It would only take another act or legal maneuver to reopen the state lands to sale.
I'm sure I have told the story of when I worked for the USFS in college during the summer. I was hired to go out and cruise timber and basically see what was happening in stands. The reason the silviculturist (the person whose job it is to set when timber sales are, thinnings, burns etc..) was he plead guilty to being part of a $400k timber theft ring or whatever you call it.
The judge ordered that he couldn't set foot on the national forest any longer. But the USFS didn't fire him. Instead they hired me to do his job for him while he sat in the office. They made him move to another national forest. So instead of driving 30 minutes east every day he drove 30 minutes west and didn't have to move. Knew the same people he was involved in with the timber theft etc....
Federal government at work.
No, that's not what I mean. Fear of change. Everybody is afraid of the unknown. I keep hearing that anything other than the Federal Government controlling the land would be worse than anything else. That has NEVER been shown to be the case.
The problem is, its not unknown. All we need to do is Look at Texas and see what will happen..No thanks.
You may dig leases,game farms,corn flingers,time slot hunting and all that glamour that comes with buying your hunt..We dont.
Some still like to put on a pair of boots and hunt vast acreage of land, without ranchets,different landowners and fences every mile.those that dont go to Texas.
The 8 western states are talking about creating a compact to deal with the land...and that scares me. As near as I can figure out, it will be like many of our federal agencies - run by unelected officials and not answerable to the people.
I'm fuzzy about what all this entails, but you can google 'interstate compact' for more info.
Some still like to put on a pair of boots and hunt vast acreage of land, without ranchets,different landowners and fences every mile.
Yup, and I'll be glad it's still there even when I can't hunt it any more.
Yeah, its great to turn off a highway and be able to drive 50 miles either east or west and not go through a private fence. I can't say just 'fence' because the FS and BLM do have fences for grazing allotments but we're free to cross them at any time.
Our Senator, Steve Daines, flip-flopped on this issue and was the deciding vote to help Murkowski's bill pass. I'm going to do everything I can to see that he is thrown out on his azz. A traitor to Montana and Montana Sportsmen.
So, you trust the Federal Government more than your State?
Yes, far more than these 2-bit crooked politicians. They would have it all in the hands of big money and closed off to the public completely.
We in essence would have a small Texas, where $6,000.00 hunting leases are where one can hunt.
No Thanks.
This is what I'm thinking. I can hunt, shoot and ride dirt bikes within 20 minutes of my house. The hunting isn't great but it's there. I have heard from Californians that move to Texas and are hard pressed to find any public land to shoot or hunt on.
Why comparisons of western states that have a huge amount of public land and "Texas" are made is beyond my scope of understanding.
If they decided to sell it ALL off, who, besides another country would have funds to buy vast expanses of land that cannot be developed and then subdivide it, fence it, and post it for trespass?
I think the question at hand is the MANAGEMENT of public lands. (Or the mis-management, as it seems to be in recent years.)
As stated early on, a system of checks and balances has to be initiated to insure the land cannot ever be sold, and access by the public remains irrevocable.
Panic and entitlement sure causes some folks to run off the road.
If they decided to sell it ALL off, who, besides another country would have funds to buy vast expanses of land that cannot be developed and then subdivide it, fence it, and post it for trespass?
Think Hollywood. It's full of very wealthy anti-hunting greenies. If the land was available, they have the cash to buy huge chunks and just close it off.
Obama can do that with the stroke of a pen.
"A National Monument in the United States is a protected area that is similar to a National Park, but can be created from any land owned or controlled by the federal government by proclamation of the President of the United States."
If they decided to sell it ALL off, who, besides another country would have funds to buy vast expanses of land that cannot be developed and then subdivide it, fence it, and post it for trespass?
Think Hollywood. It's full of very wealthy anti-hunting greenies. If the land was available, they have the cash to buy huge chunks and just close it off.
The liberals don't even need to buy it now to close it off and post it against public trespass...
They just petition Sally Jewell with the boundaries they want closed down, and her boss signs an executive order.
I am sure some would be bought by the greenies, at least it would cost them money, it doesn't now. Think monuments. I am sure Senator Reid would sell some to his Chinese friends, and I am sure some of you would lose your hunting spots. It is already happening thru out the west. There are millions of acres out there and I don't think they could get it sold. Some states like my home state would probably tie it up so you couldn't hunt, hell they are trying to get rid of the hunters now. I am not sure if I favor state control, I do know the feds have done a piss poor job of management. I see two sides of this coin as I am a hunter and also a cattleman and a would be logger. I am 69 years old so I am not going to get to damn excited about it. Ed
"On Friday, President Obama designated 350,000 acres of national forest just north of Los Angeles as the newest monument of his administration.
The San Gabriel Mountains National Monument extends across the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests, and will protect a watershed that serves as a source of water for one-third of Los Angeles’ population and a swath of outdoor space that’s crucial to the residents of Los Angeles County.
The designation of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument marks the 13th time that President Obama has used his authority to create or expand a national monument. Obama has created 12 monuments throughout the U.S., and expanded the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument to 490,000 square miles — six times its original size.
President George W. Bush used his monument-making power five times while he was in office, while President Bill Clinton created 19 monuments. According to the White House, however, President Obama has now used his powers under the Antiquities Act to protect more than 260 million acres of land and water, which is more than any other President since 1906."
National Monumnet status is what worries me the most....BUT
there are at least 3 kinds...
the Park Service kind, managed by the park Service, more or less under Park Service rules (no guns, no hunting, etc)
BLM National Monuments (these have hunting, grazing, etc, no new mining, I think)
Forest Service National Monuments, like San Gabriel mentioned above.
That one is brand new, and I am not sure what the new rules are, or how much they differ from what was in place before. That close to LA, maybe not much.
In the forest here around Flagstaff, there is a buffer around town, in state, private and FS land, where there is no shooting, and no firearms hunting (archery is open).
So the forest around LA, ( I think that monument was part of the Angles NF) might have had a bunch of restrictions on it before. I do not know, maybe someone from the area can chime in.
One thing I have seen monument status do is bring more people in. people want to go someplace "special" and monument status brings them in. Which is good for the tourist related businesses, not as good for me, looking to get away from people.
Sycamore
If nothing else, you guys have to realize that Obama and Jay Z are calling those shots over a bottle of Hennessy and a side of ribs.
![[Linked Image]](http://i.perezhilton.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/beyonce-jay-z-tina-knowles-attend-the-white-house-photos-01jpeg__oPt.jpg)
National Monumnet status is what worries me the most....BUT
there are at least 3 kinds...
the Park Service kind, managed by the park Service, more or less under Park Service rules (no guns, no hunting, etc)
BLM National Monuments (these have hunting, grazing, etc, no new mining, I think)
Forest Service National Monuments, like San Gabriel mentioned above.
That one is brand new, and I am not sure what the new rules are, or how much they differ from what was in place before. That close to LA, maybe not much.
In the forest here around Flagstaff, there is a buffer around town, in state, private and FS land, where there is no shooting, and no firearms hunting (archery is open).
So the forest around LA, ( I think that monument was part of the Angles NF) might have had a bunch of restrictions on it before. I do not know, maybe someone from the area can chime in.
One thing I have seen monument status do is bring more people in. people want to go someplace "special" and monument status brings them in. Which is good for the tourist related businesses, not as good for me, looking to get away from people.
Sycamore
Same restrictions as far as buffer zones go in the Angeles, no shooting within city limits, 1/4 mile of a structure. It is interesting that the National Monument does not include the entire Angeles. It stops at Mt. Baldy and basically stays in L.A.County. I also wonder what impact this will have on the designated Wilderness areas or if they stay the same.
When they made Brown's Canyon a national monument recently here in CO, the hue and cry about "being shut out" was deafening. From people unfamiliar with the monument designation.
USFS took over management, all current policies on hunting, grazing, and other uses were kept intact, and not only were existing roads kept, but new roads were not ruled out.
I love sam like a bruddah, but for the prime land, he's going to be waaaay down the list of buyers if it came that time.
Mr. Rams, the frac brothers and Ted would be gobbling up Montana like a fat family at the golden corral.
Yes I do earn a good part of my check from folks like that, but I sure don't want to see them own the whole state.
Not to mention Chinese billionaire(and others)s who are licking their lips right now getting ready to buy up your former hunting areas.
It's not just that they are salivating over. Think "snow pack". If they buy the areas where the snow pack falls, then they own that "hard asset" and can remove it before it thaws into the flowing water that other folks have rights/ownership in. It's called "prior appropriation" and hard asset mining.
When they made Brown's Canyon a national monument recently here in CO, the hue and cry about "being shut out" was deafening. From people unfamiliar with the monument designation.
USFS took over management, all current policies on hunting, grazing, and other uses were kept intact, and not only were existing roads kept, but new roads were not ruled out.
Don't try to make sense. It doesn't work here.
All those that want sell off, can expect to add a 0 plus to their western big game tags if it happens. You like private, high fences, and high dollar hunts. Go to Texas.
I thought colorado was texass..
At least during hunting season... (grin)
It only seems that way at first, then it seems like Wisconsin, NY and a few other places, but not CO what with the license plates and accents.
And then, it gets cold and snows at altitude and all three of us natives can get back to hunting.
![[Linked Image]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/US_federal_land.agencies.svg/1280px-US_federal_land.agencies.svg.png)