Keep Public Lands in Public Hands

ranchodeluxe said:
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.
Click to expand...
That off road travel thing has happened in Montana. It's bogus, and very restricting, but it keeps the hicks, and poachers out of elk habitat during part of the year.
 
One thing I did find in researching this issue is that GFP does pay property tax on it's public access properties, but not on it's administrative holdings. I stand corrected on that.
 
There is an interesting and extremely informative thread on versatiledogs.com in the general discussion forum on this issue for anyone who would like to hear more. Some very well-informed people are contributing to that discussion so take a gander! Cheers!
AR
 
As was previously said, anything the government does, be it local, state, or federal, is going to be political, because at the end of the day the decisions are being made by people who probably have a different opinion then you do. I'm more in favor of the federal government holding the land, not because they'll manage it better, but because with the amount of bureaucracy involved in getting anything done you're less likely to see things change quickly and it makes the lands less susceptible to local disputes or agendas like in WI where you have a governor dismantling the states environmental legacy.
 
Here in Wisconsin, we're not dismantling any environmental legacy, we're putting idle state lands back to work, under management. For years, much like on federal lands, the state hasn't accomplished their own goals in managing their lands. Their plans were developed by resource professionals, not some greedy capitalist. State Forests are actually managing timber again and those harvests insure sustainability of the resource and improve habitat for many wildlife species. Old, dying forests have the least amount of wildlife diversity. Managing timber improves the health of the forest, meaning they are less susceptible to fire and diseases. Timber revenues go back into the programs, lessening burden on taxpayers.

Unlike the east, where in many places cutting timber is considered bad, we have good grouse and woodcock populations because we clearcut aspen. Aspen regenerates by root sprouts and the new growth requires full sunlight to grow. The resulting young Aspen stands provide habitat for grouse, woodcock, deer and many other wildlife species.

The State is also managing timber on our federal lands under Good Neighbor Authority and as a result our national forests are putting out more timber. We still grow more trees than is harvested or dies. Our resource is renewable.

The government owns over half the land in this country and much of it is mis-managed. How much more land does the government need? Now don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for the public lands and the access to quality hunting they provide. But how much is enough? I know people who work for the government whose job is to buy land. They're buying land all the time. Also, in cooperation with private groups they're buying development easements on large tracts, thus protecting them from development.

We have a State forestry program that is the envy of much of the rest of the country and we're making progress. We're proud of our legacy here and we're fortunate to have a governor that realizes that the resource is better being managed than loved to death.
 
Ranger Rick said:
Here in Wisconsin, we're not dismantling any environmental legacy, we're putting idle state lands back to work, under management. For years, much like on federal lands, the state hasn't accomplished their own goals in managing their lands. Their plans were developed by resource professionals, not some greedy capitalist. State Forests are actually managing timber again and those harvests insure sustainability of the resource and improve habitat for many wildlife species. Old, dying forests have the least amount of wildlife diversity. Managing timber improves the health of the forest, meaning they are less susceptible to fire and diseases. Timber revenues go back into the programs, lessening burden on taxpayers.

Unlike the east, where in many places cutting timber is considered bad, we have good grouse and woodcock populations because we clearcut aspen. Aspen regenerates by root sprouts and the new growth requires full sunlight to grow. The resulting young Aspen stands provide habitat for grouse, woodcock, deer and many other wildlife species.

The State is also managing timber on our federal lands under Good Neighbor Authority and as a result our national forests are putting out more timber. We still grow more trees than is harvested or dies. Our resource is renewable.

The government owns over half the land in this country and much of it is mis-managed. How much more land does the government need? Now don't get me wrong, I'm thankful for the public lands and the access to quality hunting they provide. But how much is enough? I know people who work for the government whose job is to buy land. They're buying land all the time. Also, in cooperation with private groups they're buying development easements on large tracts, thus protecting them from development.

We have a State forestry program that is the envy of much of the rest of the country and we're making progress. We're proud of our legacy here and we're fortunate to have a governor that realizes that the resource is better being managed than loved to death.
Click to expand...

That is a well written response. Sounds like good management going on in Wisconsin.
 
Here is a good article on elk overpopulation in Wind Cave National Park, which shares a border with Custer State Park. Their is no regulated hunting in the National Park, of course, so they have tried lots of methods of management. Relocation to the State Park, allowing migration onto private land, etc. This isn't in the article but the new park manager came in and stated, right away that sportsman can't hunt, or shoot well-enough to be an asset in management. He thought they should use paid "sharpshooters". I sent him an email and dared him to give me 20 tags and just watch how fast those elk are swinging from the Farmhand. Now, they just had this recruitment drive for volunteers who can pack 70 lbs and hike 10 miles. This park is totally accessible, on foot or horseback, And seldom requires a hike of more than a few miles. Over at the State park, they have my buddie's number, they call him if someone needs an elk packed out. He volunteered his services for this project, the Feds had a half-dozen reasons they wouldn't his horses,or anyone else's, ranging from they aren't "proven",(how long have folks been pack tripping for elk)? to they may injure someone at the Government's liability, Have to use certified weed-free hay, etc, etc,. This article kind of shows the difference in ability of State governments to act quickly, when the Feds always find a way to muck it up.


http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/lo...cle_e2c3d58a-9346-53ec-941b-1494014ae5f6.html
 
Last edited:
Rancho,

I doubt anyone would argue that the Feds are better at wildlife management than the states. But there is a very sound argument that public lands are safer in the Feds hands (in the sense that they'll remain public). The federal government has more financial elasticity, but states cannot absorb a deficit like the federal government can, and that means state owned public land is more likely ti be turned into a liquid asset.
 
Yes, the Feds are good at owning land, and bad at managing it. They constantly make more and more of that land off-limits, they own it and you can't use it. For purposes of our discussion, the vast majority of public access land in SD that holds upland birds is State land. If the Feds are such great landowners, doesn't it make sense that they take control of those lands before the State can sell them? If voters, at their state level, allow their State to sell them out, well that's their problem, perhaps a civics lesson would be in-order. I don't see it happening here. There is a 50,000 acre State Park just South of me the developers would love to get their hands on.

I just can't be convinced that the Feds need to own 640 million acres of land, all of which creates no tax revenue for the States. All the land in the West is cool just for the elbow room if nothing else, but one of the reasons the Feds own so much land is that a lot of it was not sustainable on the kind of acreage you could get under the Homestead Act. People tried to work it, failed, and ownership reverted back to the Government. Our Natl Grasslands were created from that land. There are a lot of these small parcels, adjacent to private ranches that are landlocked by private land, so you can't access it anyway. Nowadays we can develop water resources so a lot of those lands are usable and the water that the rancher puts in helps all living creatures. It makes sense to me to sell those lands at market value, keep the mineral rights and let the rancher manage it.
 
You keep coming back to SD, but the discussion is bigger than one state out of 50. And I doubt anyone is suggesting that land be sold from state to the federal government. And if the state did sell those lands, it is not always put up for a vote.

It seems your issue is with how the land is managed but not the ownership itself. If a business has a poor manager, the first step by the owner is to find a new one, not sell the business.
 
But SD is a good example of a State that has a significant amount of Federal, State and private land. As you go West, the amount owned by the Feds gets much larger on a percentage basis, until you get to Nevada where the Feds own 85% of the State so the issues just get more pronounced. Imagine the sovereignty issues Nevada has to deal with. The State is being managed by educated idiots over 2000 miles away. That's how you end up with starving horses and ranchers being squeezed after being there for generations, building the fencing, water assets, etc.

But would it not make sense, if that land is in jeopardy of exploitation, for the Feds to take ownership and protect it from us?
 
Rancho, for a guy who is supposedly for keeping federal lands in federal hands (or are you?), you sure seem to have a lot to say against that idea. I agree that from a management perspective, the Feds could often do better, but at minimum, those lands remain in public hands. When they are transferred to the states (who do tend to manage them more effectively), they are at risk for being sold off much more easily. This has repeated itself time and time again. I hope that we can grouse about mismanaged Federal lands for many, many years to come, because that will mean that they are still in Federal hands - a good thing from a long-term access standpoint.
 
Abbeyroad said:
Rancho, for a guy who is supposedly for keeping federal lands in federal hands (or are you?), you sure seem to have a lot to say against that idea. I agree that from a management perspective, the Feds could often do better, but at minimum, those lands remain in public hands. When they are transferred to the states (who do tend to manage them more effectively), they are at risk for being sold off much more easily. This has repeated itself time and time again. I hope that we can grouse about mismanaged Federal lands for many, many years to come, because that will mean that they are still in Federal hands - a good thing from a long-term access standpoint.
Click to expand...

In my hunts in MT NE WY SD ND & MN states I've hunted both fed & state lands in in my experience the state lands are managed a hell of a lot better for more species then fed lands I've hunted mostly NTL Forrest & BLM lands out in them states in ND army corps land fed run...

In MN SD & NE all I've seen done to manage fed lands is logging on state lands I've seen most every type of wildlife management practices implemented
 
Last edited:
Abbeyroad said:
Rancho, for a guy who is supposedly for keeping federal lands in federal hands (or are you?), you sure seem to have a lot to say against that idea. I agree that from a management perspective, the Feds could often do better, but at minimum, those lands remain in public hands. When they are transferred to the states (who do tend to manage them more effectively), they are at risk for being sold off much more easily. This has repeated itself time and time again. I hope that we can grouse about mismanaged Federal lands for many, many years to come, because that will mean that they are still in Federal hands - a good thing from a long-term access standpoint.
Click to expand...

Is there a pattern of public land being transferred from Federal ownership to the States, then sold by those States? Under what circumstances? Which States are doing it? I suspect there may be some administrative type facilities where this happens. It would have to be happening in the West, because there is little Federal land East of the Mississippi. You would think folks would be raising hell about it? I don't see it in SD.

I disagree with the statement about being good for long-term access. It may be good for long term control, but access to Federal land has been, and is being, greatly reduced. 90% of the 1.1 million acre BHNF became off-limits to off-road travel when the 06 travel became law.


So, the criteria is simply that the land stay Federally-owned? No matter how poorly managed? No matter how restrictive the Feds become regarding access? No matter how hardcore the anti-access looneys get? Just be happy the Feds have it? Even if you can't use it for anything? How much sense does that make?

If the Feds were managing all the land the State of SD manages for wildlife, and public access, we would be having a very different conversation, right now.

The saving grace of Federal land ownership is that it is written into law the land be managed for multiple use. So if one faction wants access restricted, in theory, they have to change the law. In reality, liberal activists interact with liberal, un-elected bureaucrats, who then make the rules as they go along. I can't get an email returned from the Black Hills National Forest, for any reason. I have my buddy submit my inquiries. He gets a reply, in short order. The difference? They know he is a Sierra Club member. When I send a text, or email to SD GFP, I get an answer, right now.
 
Hi Rancho,

Your statement that off-road travel has been greatly restricted on the BHNF is true - the forest service has cut back on OFF-ROAD usage (translation: drive your 4-wheeler/ORV wherever the heck you want) significantly. However, this has NOTHING to do with accessing that land. It's just that now you can no longer tear the crap out of most of it with your ORV. That's a drag for folks who like to recreate that way. What you don't mention is that, legally, ORVs have ACCESS (there's that word again! :) ) to thousands upon thousands of miles of roads where they CAN take their vehicles on National Forest land, including on the BHNF. Banning ORVs from off-roading across the forest does not equal restricting access. It does mean restricting activities though. However, I can still hunt, fish, hike, and camp on National Forests to my heart's content. Which I do. :) If you live out east or in the midwest, please come to Colorado or Wyoming or any other western state with these resources, and spend some time in these beautiful, publicly-owned places. They are national treasures that need to be experienced to really be appreciated. You can come up and camp for free (dispersed camping) or pay $10/night to use an established campground. Totally worth it.
 
We have roughly 25 million acres of USFS land out east, about a seventh of that out west. We don't have as much topography as out west but beautiful forest to recreate in none the less. There is a greater movement on public lands tonrestrict some activities that can be detrimental to the land. State lands purchased with federal funds like PR do have some restrictions on how land can be managed or what activities are allowed on them.

Down fall with federal lands is it is basically cookie cutter management that covers the whole system and those anti's that on the other side of the country can do impact the management going on in eastern forest or visa versa. Couple that with the very liberal 9th district court that rules in their favor virtually every time they have great impact on the management and activities of our federal lands. This has been the case for USFS lands which I'm familiar. We can have an impact as forest develop their 10 yr management plans, take the time to provide input on the plans and as they become contested request intervener status and this allows you to be part of the resolution process for any or all of the plan you do not like or that is being contested by the anti's. Unfortunately these 10 yr plans are contested and not always implemented and then a new plan is created, very inefficient process.
 
Bears Ears and Cedar Mesa in Utah: last year we camped, hiked and spent a wonderful time with our whole family which includes the dog... this year no dogs allowed on hiking trails in the newly protected Obama preserve. Every area business in small town Utah have posters "no bears ear national monument". Protect it, hide it and keep the public from recreating. Here's our Federal protection for 'public' lands... needless to say our "family" was not able to enjoy our public lands.
 
Not being able to bring the dog, or being able to bring the dog but not incorporate it the way you want to does suck, but it doesn't keep the public from recreating nor does it keep people from enjoying.

Now I'm not saying the feds do a good job managing the land, clearly a one size fits all approach doesn't work, but the way I see it you basically have three options:
1. spend the money to build and maintain the ability to manage the land the way it needs to be.
2. turn the lands over to the states, many of whom don't have the resources to manage the lands, and potentially watch as the lands get sold off for mining/logging or some other region
3. continue as is

The Parting Shots piece from the latest issue of Gun Dog kind of touches on this subject. The author talks about one of his favorite grouse and woodcock habitats that he had found years before, had been going to ever since for hunting and had trained 4 dogs at. He had been to this location the previous autumn, but what he found on his first visit that spring was that it had been logged, fenced, and turned into feed plots for hogs and cattle. The author doesn't mention if this was public/private land or who owned it, but it's this type of destruction that people are trying to avoid, regardless of if that person is a hunter or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top