Keep Public Lands in Public Hands

A

Abbeyroad

Member
Please contact your legislators to voice opposition to turning over Federal Lands to the States. History has shown us that States don't do a very good job of retaining those lands - Federal Lands are here for us and our children, and our grandchildren. State lands can be sold and/or closed to the public for many reasons. There are some folks who are licking their chops at the thought of privatizing public lands. Please voice your desire to continue to enjoy camping, hunting, fishing,hiking, etc. on our public lands - the crown jewel of our recreational community.
 
As the years go by, these public lands, are going to become more, and more important.Look at these fancy, uppity , pheasant hunting ranches popping up all over the place.Gready outfitters everywhere? That's the way pheasant hunting is headed.
 
I totally agree with this ! All of us sportsmen, hunters, fishermen, nature lovers and bird watchers need to send our congressional representatives an email and text message by the end of this January. There can be plenty mischief afoot unless WE watch our public lands like Hawks protecting their nest !
 
I agree that Public lands should remain open to the Public. Can State land be sold down there, or is it leased out for 100yr terms for example? Not that it makes a difference, I'm just curious.
 
When you live on public land in the West, your outlook on this issue begins to change because you can see, visually how poor the Feds are at managing OUR, not THEIR land. I live on an access road for 7500 acres of National Forest and see the absurd way the Feds manage this land, everyday. I will give just a couple examples.

1. Several years ago we were in a bad drought and, partially due to gross mismanagement of mountain pine beetles, the inability to manage them in the Black Elk Wilderness due to a law that states no motorized tools, and tree huggers forcing environmental impact statements on every little timber sale, we were in bad shape. Well, the Feds let a contract to log the 7500 acres behind my house. The logs were cut, skidded and piled at landings. Then the contractor was busted for using illegal alien labor. Those piles are still at the landings, rotten. They Feds would not even allow firewood collectors to salvage the wood, they would write you up for cutting wood from "their" piles. Now, someday they will have to pay someone to burn them down, along with the wildlife that has inhabited them for years.

2. My rancher friend has a lease on the Buffalo Gap Natl Grassland that borders his ranch. During the off-season, his bulls broke out and were on the grassland, no big deal. well, instead of going miles back to his house to saddle up, he used his four-wheeler to run the bulls back into his pasture, A Federal cop happened to see this and wrote him up for illegal off-roading, as you can only ride on established trails and can't go cross-country.

3. I saw Federal cops arrest a guy for illegal possession of alcohol because he toted a six pack from his car to his canoe. The crime was that you can't possess alcohol at the boat ramp, although it's perfectly legal once it is in your boat.

4. Back in 2006, under Bush, a "off-road management plan" was enacted. Basically this law says you can't leave an established trail and that trail must be specced for the vehicle you are operating. Sounds great not having people running around willy nilly tearing up the forest. And their is some logic to this. However, as it turns out, what they did was force everyone onto a very few trails which are now eroded all the way to the solid rock volcanic formations, not a flake of dirt left on them. As part of this new policy, they mandated a $25/yr off-road access decal for every vehicle. That's fine, I don't mind paying my share, but they did not mandate that same decal for bicyclists, or hikers, they contribute nothing to forest management, yet they always have the ear of the Feds when they are bitching about people who do use off-road vehicles. Even though it's technically illegal, they allow bicyclist to build new trails anywhere they want, no one has ever been cited for building illegal bicycle trails, but just get caught doing the same thing on your dirt bike and the outcome is entirely different.

5. The Feds constantly bitch that they get no help from the forest user community regarding maintaining trailheads, trails and other facilities. Well, we have to maintain our dirt bike trails ourselves, and we have to do it on the down low as they will break it off in your ass if they catch you cutting a fallen tree from the trail without your hardhat, eye protection, ear protection, saw chaps, etc, and National forest certification to run a chain saw. I know the bicyclists do the same thing because I see them doing it. This is the Feds penalizing folks for trying to do good, and alienating us with their talking-down.

5. Although I am in favor of the Feds not being able to sell land, the outcome of that is not always palatable. What they do is trade land with private owners to try to make the forest more contiguous. I have seen them trade worthless land for land that was then sold on the open market for millions, for development.

I could go on and on. I am not saying you folks who are 100% in the camp of the Federal Government are wrong, just that you may not be seeing what I see while living in the middle of it.
 
I appreciate your willingness to consider my input. A couple more issue I can relate:

Just in the last week, President Obama arbitrarily grabbed nearly two million acres of Utah land at Bear's Ears and another spot that escapes me right now. He did this on his own, with absolutely no input from the people of Utah who will be most affected. this will, no doubt cause heartaches related to off-road access, grazing, primitive camping, etc. It may well be that what he did was right, but if so, the people would back his play, not be victimized by it.

On my Forest Service access road they shut the gate December 15th until May 15 to protect wildlife on winter range. Well, cat season starts Christmas Day. Cats do a lot more damage to our wintering wildlife than any Jeep putting down the trail. Now you can't legally run trails to pickup fresh tracks, you have to cover dozens of miles on foot. But, they leave the gate down the road open, that gate ties in with my trail. Now people go in on that road and end up on the backside of the locked gate behind my house. Now they have a choice, backtrack 7 miles, or find a way past the gate. A couple years ago when walking dogs, I caught some kids with their winch hooked to the gate, ready to just pull it out of the ground. I chewed their asses, then showed them how to get past the gate. It pissed me off, but I understand their frustration and they were setup my poor management of the Feds who would never bother to partner with GFP to allow access for this critical management of mountain lions.

Also, right now, the State is asking to take control of a part of Spearfish Canyon and making it a State park. I have not decided if I am in favor of this, or not. but the people who are against it are against it because the State would charge a yearly access fee. Well, every damn federal campground, boat ramp, or swimming area charges an access fee, in addition to the fact that you already paid for management through your taxes, but if you actually want to use the resource, you have to pay again. I am thinking it may be better for the state to manage it.
 
I agree with a few of your points Rancho, but also living in the middle of it, I see that the sometimes thuddy bureaucracy of the Feds trumps the greed and shortsightedness of certain factions of the private sector. It's dang tough to manage land for the wide variety of interests that utilize them. I'd say they do pretty well considering how many hands are in the cookie jar, including my own. It ain't perfect by any means, but I want my grandkids to be able to grouse about how the Feds bungle stuff sometimes, because it will mean they still have access to that land.
 
Abbeyroad said:
I agree with a few of your points Rancho, but also living in the middle of it, I see that the sometimes thuddy bureaucracy of the Feds trumps the greed and shortsightedness of certain factions of the private sector. It's dang tough to manage land for the wide variety of interests that utilize them. I'd say they do pretty well considering how many hands are in the cookie jar, including my own. It ain't perfect by any means, but I want my grandkids to be able to grouse about how the Feds bungle stuff sometimes, because it will mean they still have access to that land.
Click to expand...

Your point assumes that, because it is not in the hands of the Feds, it's in the hands of greedy private business interests, that's simply not the case.
 
I guess another point I might make is that the Feds can sell public land if they want to. I don't think they generally do, but they can.

There is land in the West that is not especially unique or scenic, although it's all cool in it's own way, but it could be better managed in private ownership. The sale of it, contingent on public access, within reason, and the government retaining mineral rights, wouldn't be the end of the World, considering the National debt, and all. I'm not talking about selling Yellowstone National Park, but where there is a section of pasture land on the National Grassland that is landlocked by private land and the public has no access to it anyway, why not put it on the tax rolls by selling it to the rancher, perhaps with the caveat that he allow public access? Win Win situation.
 
Since it's below zero, and football sucks, I would also add that, in SD, I can't recall a significant controversy over the State selling land, they do it, but it hasn't been a problem. On the other hand, if You take a look at SDGFP, their focus has been much more on acquiring land than in selling it. Here is a link to their updated policy on land acquisitions, dated July, 2016. I think that just because of your participation on this forum, and the title of this thread, you won't find much to bitch about. Their has been controversy over purchases, but damn, they have bought some kickass properties in the Southern Black Hills that were in private ownership and therefore off-limits. Now, you have a damn good chance of killing a huge bull on those previously in-accessible ranches. In fact, it's harder to get a tag than it is to kill a trophy bull elk.

http://gfp.sd.gov/land-acquisition.pdf
 
Last edited:
My question is, why are western states burdened with being the "playground of the country"? Personally, I would like to see the feds sell of some of the BLM holding they have that are already completely encircled by private ground. Hell, the Federal govt....who of course knows what is best for us, could then use the power of imminent domain to purchase lands along the California coast that have been decimated by construction, re-generating it back to the way it was 200 years ago, while their at it, began a reintroduction of bears and wolves that once thrived there.
 
I appreciate some of the points made here. The simple truth is that state controlled lands are far more vulnerable than federally owned lands in terms of long-term public access. State lands can be, and often are closed to the public for a variety of reasons. You are right Rancho - Federal lands are very rarely sold. That is a good thing for long-term public access, which is what this thread is about. I'm sure that some of the land I access for chukar and antelope hunting would not be considered particularly 'unique and scenic' by many casual observers, but to me, it is extremely valuable. My state (Wyoming) could definitely considered a playground for the country (Yellowstone, Tetons, Hunting, fishing, etc.) which speaks to the value of these places and resources. Access is everything. If we keep out-of-state folks off the land, we keep ourselves off as well. If we lose that access, average Joe sportsmen like us might as well hang it up. And again this is a long-term issue. Once public lands are gone, they are gone, period. I doubt that if, in my lifetime, my state would sell off all of its lands were they to fall under state control. But trickle out they most certainly would, and I care about not only my access, but the access of future generations of sportsmen.
I do not assume that if land is not federally controlled that it lies in the hands of greedy private interests. I only wanted to point out that turning lands over to the states increases the vulnerability of those lands, particularly where private interests have more local/statewide political influence.
I agree that public lands that are inaccessible to the public are frustrating. Some of this has to do with self-serving laws put into place to keep the public out. "Corner-hopping', for example, is illegal in my state, and I believe in Montana too. This practice involves stepping from one piece of public ground into another, where they meet at the corner of a section. GPS has made this a relatively easy thing to do. However, in Wyoming, landowner laws state that, not only does the landowner own the land, but he/she also owns the airspace above that land, effectively creating a trespass zone force-field!!! So it is impossible to corner-hop without trespassing through private 'airspace.' Frustrating. Much of my state is checkerboarded so I contend with this issue all the time.
There are so many reasons why sportsmen need to stand together. Access is a biggie! Let's make sure we all have places to roam, hunt and fish for the long haul. Thanks for listening, and for supporting public lands!!!
 
I don't know of much that the federal government does well. I would rather trust the state. I can talk to our governor face to face and make my point. It is much harder to do that at the federal level.
 
Abbeyroad said:
I appreciate some of the points made here. The simple truth is that state controlled lands are far more vulnerable than federally owned lands in terms of long-term public access. State lands can be, and often are closed to the public for a variety of reasons.

That has not proven to be the case in SD. The amount of publically accessible land on the prairies of SD has increased exponentially since I was a kid. The State of SD is mostly responsible for that. Here is an example:

A little-known fact is that when someone defaults on an FHA loan, the Feds have to offer that land to other govt agencies at cost, prior to putting it on the open market. I can take you to an area South of I-90 and just East of the river where SDGFP has purchased some of the best pheasant habitat in SD. And I'm not talking about 40 acres, I am talking thousands of acres of prime habitat. If GFP had not made these purchases, those lands would be exposed to ditch-to-ditch tilling, with no public access. This is a rare opportunity where the Feds, working with the State, provide quality access for all of us.

You won't find a stronger proponent of public land, both State and Federal, than I, but looking at it objectively, the Feds are not great managers of our public lands, too many people twisting in the political winds. Too many people making decisions based on their East Coast Harvard intellect without a connection to the land like the locals have.
Click to expand...
 
Montana Husker said:
My question is, why are western states burdened with being the "playground of the country"? Personally, I would like to see the feds sell of some of the BLM holding they have that are already completely encircled by private ground. Hell, the Federal govt....who of course knows what is best for us, could then use the power of imminent domain to purchase lands along the California coast that have been decimated by construction, re-generating it back to the way it was 200 years ago, while their at it, began a reintroduction of bears and wolves that once thrived there.
Click to expand...

I think we are tasked with being the Country's playground simply due to the fact that we have these incredible lands and sights, as well as something they don't have back East, elbow room. I don't mind sharing, it's how I make a living. What I see happening is people coming here from areas like CA, they left there to escape excessive regulation, taxes, etc, but they then say things like "Well, that's not how they do it in California".
 
There is an important distinction between 'publically accessible' and public land. Awesome programs like walk-ins etc. have opened thousands of acres to sportsmen, but these are subject to landowner participation. While they are important and often high-quality solutions to hunter access, they can and do go away. My favorite walk-in area in NE was withdrawn last year and planted to wheat. However, I appreciate state agencies working to provide easements for access very, very much, but again, public access to private lands is by nature a temporary yet vital answer to access in states like SD where 95% of the land is privately owned.
 
Government land purchases are inherently political. If GFP buys a piece of re-possessed FHA land, for instance, the adjacent land owner is pissed because he wanted to buy it cheap and add it to his portfolio. The county assessor is pissed because you just took land from the tax rolls. All the local landowners are pissed because they know they are going to have to deal with people hanging around their area that weren't around before, then you have people who don't care if you have a place to hunt, or not. They don't think the State should be in the business of purchasing land, at all, and accuse the State of some kind of Socialist takeover of private lands. If it were just up to us it would be easy beans.

I can only speak for SD but have seen no indication of a desire to cash-in on any of the properties they have purchased. The old ranches they bought in the Southern Black Hills are worth tens of millions for development. The State left them as working ranches and provided access to large pieces of land that you could only look at with the spotting scope before.
 
One other point I will make regarding the Feds "protecting" our public lands. In 2006 under the Bush Admin. all managers of federal Lands were tasked with making a new "off-road" travel management plan. This was enacted in several different ways, in several different Western states. In the Black Hills what it meant that, prior to 06, if it didn't say "no off-road travel", you could go there. In 06 it became just the opposite. Now, if the trail isn't marked FOR off-road travel, and marked for your specific vehicle, it is illegal to be there. This policy, by it's very nature reduced off-road access by 90%. I am not in favor of people destroying fragile habitat, which was/is happening. But the result of this has been that everyone has been forced to drive around in circles, on loop trails, round and round and round. Those trails are now worn down to solid rock. Now, the antis point at those trails and say "See, we told you that if we "gave" you this land, you would ruin it". I am beginning to think, just as with Obamacare, that the plan was to let off-roaders destroy the area, then point to it as a reason that the Feds should take control entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top