Public Lands...

AT Hiker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
10,079
Location
Clarksville, Tennessee
May no longer be in good hands. Reportedly the BLM has a new appointed director and his track record is not good, especially if you believe federal public lands play a important role in wildlife conservation.
As it stands now, the newly appointed acting director is a lawyer who has dedicated his practice to promoting the transfer and sell of federal public lands. Ironic really, as he uses terms such as tyranny to describe our government and has written books with titles “fighting bureaucracy”...now he is the acting director of a government agency?????

With The Bureau of Land Management supposedly moving headquarters out of Washington DC and to Colorado and the newly appointed director, who lives and works in Colorado, makes this smells of rogue sewage.

The former BLM director had this to say “If I wanted to dismantle an agency, this would be my playbook,”

I just hope President Trump steps up and follows through with his many promises to protect hunters, wildlife and public lands. He really needs to nominate a director and allow the Senate to confirm them. You know, instead of letting bureaucrats run the show.
I will be contacting my Senator and expressing my concerns, I hope some of you will consider doing the same.

https://www.outsideonline.com/2400333/b ... blic-lands








Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

lightsareout

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
1,947
Location
Montana
Got this info from BHA this morning. Time to make some calls. Everyone should call and raise your concerns, mailing and web forms are just lost in the noise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

AT Hiker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
10,079
Location
Clarksville, Tennessee
Andy S.":2ibk8ekm said:
This article is along the same lines. It appears the Fossil Fuel industry is trying to milk every last drop.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/06/26/c ... blic-land/

[emoji20]

Good thing my family just visited the area on the Sangre De Cristos. At least my daughter has a picture of the dunes and snow peaks without oil rigs photo bombing it.
914c8379da6aba465c4812962893c53c.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Omega

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
2,507
Location
Clarksville, TN
Pendley ran a law firm in Colorado called the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which advocates for the transfer of federal lands to states. Land transfer, as the movement is known, argues that states should take control of public lands within their borders.

It’s a concept that on its surface sounds like a common sense local-management arrangement that would work in benefit of the people who live near these places. In actuality, it’s often a front intended to conceal mechanisms that would force the sale of the land after its transfer to the states, while removing public input from its management. “The Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold,” Pendley wrote in an opinion piece for The National Review in 2016.
Ok, maybe I'm a bit slow here but how does transferring responsibility of State land back to the State force it's sale? On the face of it, I feel the state should control it's own land unless said land has been made into a Federal Reserve of some sort. The Federal Government has way too much control of many western lands, with little to no access for the public onto said land. I do feel that position should have oversight though, and the Feds need to make sure that the States become good stewards of that land, not just sell it to private companies, but some of these states have little to no control of land within their own borders.

Just take a look at what the Feds have
iu
 

AT Hiker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
10,079
Location
Clarksville, Tennessee
Omega,

I will try to be short and to the point however the issue with federal lands is rather complex.

If lands are transferred to states it would be a disaster. For one, they are not anywhere near financially capable of taking on the task, therefore that’s when they would be sold off. A short term gain for a lifetime of loss (history proves this).
Fires happen and states simply cannot afford to fight them.

Access will shrink even more. Look at Colorado. Most state lands are highly restricted vs their BLM counterparts that are essentially open to anyone at anytime. Wyoming lands allow hunting, fishing and hiking for the most part but prohibit camping.

As for access. That’s largely due to states selling off portions to private landowners which allows them to “lock up” our federal lands. We pay for them while they enjoy them. Access is one of those items that can and is being addressed, albeit with little momentum.

Way back when the states took over the lands for statehood they chose NOT to take the now federal lands, as most that land had little to zero quality livestock grazing, very arid and simply not wanted.

Federal lands are important to many wildlife migrations and wintering grounds. Transfer and/or oil exploration will greatly impact those wildlife. Essentially hitting the point of no return on sustained hunting of certain species in certain areas.

After years of having discussions with hunters that have never hunted Western public lands I’ve determined it is basically a foreign concept. It’s easy to turn to politics and sway with our political party to the right. However, a few vocal Rs in the West are pro land transfer. It’s a pathetic use of a political ploy to sway conservationist. We do have some Rs that are pro public land and so far our POTUS says he is too.

If you have never hunted, fished or spent some quality time on those Western public lands it’s difficult to describe. If you have utilized them and feel like we should transfer them then we are at a stale mate.

I will borrow and paraphrase this quote...”I cannot think of another group that straddles the line between left and right as hunters....the left wants your guns and the right wants your public land...as hunters we need both”

I agree mostly with that and sadly we usually cannot leave our vote to those issues...which most of us end of voting R based on other issues.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TNGunsmoke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
4,877
Location
Jackson,TN
I think the problem is, the states out there don't have enough tax revenue to oversee and take care of the current federal lands if they were to take possession of them. Some of them would then have to be leased out or sold to pay for the upkeep that is done on them, forestry officers to monitor for wildfires, park rangers for some of them, road maintenance for areas that have roads, and maintenance to all manner of other things associated with them. Field and Stream magazine did a pretty good article on it a couple of years ago. Bottom line is for the states, it'll be all about the money. And you can follow the trail of money, and the public lands loss to private hands for various purposes through out history.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/keep-pub ... lic-hands/
 

AT Hiker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
10,079
Location
Clarksville, Tennessee
Bambi Buster":eeiu4vb2 said:
In regard to stewardship of public lands, the only entity I trust less than the Federal government is any state government.

This is where I would insert the Morgan Freeman meme. [emoji115]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TNGunsmoke

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
4,877
Location
Jackson,TN
AT Hiker":37qef1zk said:
Bambi Buster":37qef1zk said:
In regard to stewardship of public lands, the only entity I trust less than the Federal government is any state government.

This is where I would insert the Morgan Freeman meme. [emoji115]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yep.
 

MUP

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
79,548
Location
Just North of Chatt-town
With regards to fires and other disaster declarations, couldn't the states request federal assistance, much like other natural disasters, hurricanes for instance? I'm just throwing this out bc I don't understand the reasoning either way actually, why federal land is "federal" in the first place, and not state owned, and how it became "federal" to start with, assuming it was "state" owned to begin with? Was the PR Act used to fund states programs to facilitate wildlife restoration and support to the states, or was it an avenue to have states become more federally dependant?
 

Omega

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2018
Messages
2,507
Location
Clarksville, TN
TNGunsmoke":3hxba18f said:
I think the problem is, the states out there don't have enough tax revenue to oversee and take care of the current federal lands if they were to take possession of them. Some of them would then have to be leased out or sold to pay for the upkeep that is done on them, forestry officers to monitor for wildfires, park rangers for some of them, road maintenance for areas that have roads, and maintenance to all manner of other things associated with them. Field and Stream magazine did a pretty good article on it a couple of years ago. Bottom line is for the states, it'll be all about the money. And you can follow the trail of money, and the public lands loss to private hands for various purposes through out history.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/keep-pub ... lic-hands/
That is a great article, sure puts it in prospective. I grew up in Colorado, hunting and fishing on public and private land. I did notice many tracts of land, though I don't know if it was public or private, get sold and high fences go up. The fences pretty much cut you off from land on the other side, unless you had a way around. I would watch large herds of elk run along the fence from across the river knowing I could not get to them. Back then, there was a bunch of state land that was open to the public, and some Fed land too but I haven't been back in years.
 

AT Hiker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
10,079
Location
Clarksville, Tennessee
Essentially most of it, if not all, was never state land. The feds gave the states the land and what they didn’t want the feds kept. Teddy came along and said, “hey, we are killing our wildlife and environment so let’s preserve it for future generations...”

That’s not how it all played out but fairly accurate.

As for states calling in for federal assistance...that completely defeats the logic of land transfer (although other agendas are in disguise). Although you make a excellent point but the agency that fights the fires are the same agencies that attempt to mange the land.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TheLBLman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2002
Messages
30,312
Location
Knoxville-Dover-Union City, TN
AT Hiker":2msg1v3p said:
Essentially most of it, if not all, was never state land. The feds gave the states the land and what they didn’t want the feds kept. Teddy came along and said, “hey, we are killing our wildlife and environment so let’s preserve it for future generations...”

That’s not how it all played out but fairly accurate.
Generally the case with most Western federal lands,
but not necessarily the case with most Eastern federal lands.

Most of the federal lands East of the Mississippi River were taken from the States by the federal government via eminent domain.

However, both east & west of the Mississippi River
the majority of the federally owned lands today were in fact land masses generally considered less desirable by most people residing in those states.

A good example here in Tennessee would be the Smokey Mountain National Park.
It was a tough place to reside and make a living, so relatively few people lived there.
When the feds took it over by eminent domain, there was relatively little resistance.

This contrasts with many western federal lands for which the western states never owned in the first place.
Many large tracts were simply never deeded out to any state or private ownership (unlike eastern tracts).

Much of our "disconnect" on the federal lands issues may stem from whether we've experienced more eastern or western federal lands experiences.

It's a totally different world between the eastern National Wildlife Refuges, National Parks, and western BLM lands.
BLM lands are comparatively "hunter friendly", whereas much of the federally controlled land in the east is not.
 

bigbonner

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2019
Messages
148
Omega":3pcha71v said:
Pendley ran a law firm in Colorado called the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which advocates for the transfer of federal lands to states. Land transfer, as the movement is known, argues that states should take control of public lands within their borders.

It’s a concept that on its surface sounds like a common sense local-management arrangement that would work in benefit of the people who live near these places. In actuality, it’s often a front intended to conceal mechanisms that would force the sale of the land after its transfer to the states, while removing public input from its management. “The Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold,” Pendley wrote in an opinion piece for The National Review in 2016.
Ok, maybe I'm a bit slow here but how does transferring responsibility of State land back to the State force it's sale? On the face of it, I feel the state should control it's own land unless said land has been made into a Federal Reserve of some sort. The Federal Government has way too much control of many western lands, with little to no access for the public onto said land. I do feel that position should have oversight though, and the Feds need to make sure that the States become good stewards of that land, not just sell it to private companies, but some of these states have little to no control of land within their own borders.

Just take a look at what the Feds have
iu
did not know there was this much public land out there . If states get their hands on that land then states might sell it off to private owners.
 

WTM

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Oct 16, 2008
Messages
10,322
Location
Birdsong Creek, Holladay side
bigbonner":dwsaqfbc said:
Omega":dwsaqfbc said:
Pendley ran a law firm in Colorado called the Mountain States Legal Foundation, which advocates for the transfer of federal lands to states. Land transfer, as the movement is known, argues that states should take control of public lands within their borders.

It’s a concept that on its surface sounds like a common sense local-management arrangement that would work in benefit of the people who live near these places. In actuality, it’s often a front intended to conceal mechanisms that would force the sale of the land after its transfer to the states, while removing public input from its management. “The Founding Fathers intended all lands owned by the federal government to be sold,” Pendley wrote in an opinion piece for The National Review in 2016.
Ok, maybe I'm a bit slow here but how does transferring responsibility of State land back to the State force it's sale? On the face of it, I feel the state should control it's own land unless said land has been made into a Federal Reserve of some sort. The Federal Government has way too much control of many western lands, with little to no access for the public onto said land. I do feel that position should have oversight though, and the Feds need to make sure that the States become good stewards of that land, not just sell it to private companies, but some of these states have little to no control of land within their own borders.

Just take a look at what the Feds have
iu
did not know there was this much public land out there . If states get their hands on that land then states might sell it off to private owners.

yep and TVA is federal land, free to use. it wasnt that long ago that Zach Womp wanted to get his hands on it to sell to developers.
 

AT Hiker

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
10,079
Location
Clarksville, Tennessee
bigbonner":3lpp92cm said:
did not know there was this much public land out there . If states get their hands on that land then states might sell it off to private owners.

I may be mistaken but that map might include military bases as well, in addition to other federal lands closed to access.

Regardless, your correct. States will sell it off, they simply cannot afford to maintain it. Historically speaking the states were given this land, known as “state school lands” or varying descriptions. The states sold these lands to generate money, what’s left is now leased out to generate income. That’s just how it works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

TheLBLman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2002
Messages
30,312
Location
Knoxville-Dover-Union City, TN
WTM":26994o5k said:
yep and TVA is federal land, free to use.
it wasnt that long ago that Zach Womp wanted to get his hands on it to sell to developers.
True on both counts.

Interestingly, unlike most Western federal lands,
TVA lands HAD BEEN OWNED mostly by individuals and the State of TN BEFORE the feds confiscated those lands, mostly back in just the 1930's & 1940's, although LBL was confiscated in the 1960's.

Much of the TVA acreages were confiscated to make lakes, and much of this land (not under water) acreage now is relatively small borders around these lakes.

The "Land Between the Lakes" was a bit of an anomaly with TVA's eminent domain take-over.
This land was "taken", not because it was needed to impound Kentucky Lake & Lake Barkley,
but more because "they could" with relatively little resistance from the relatively few people living there.

TVA controlled LBL until fairly recently,
when it's ownership was transferred more directly to the federal government and is now "managed" by the U.S. Forest Service.

I'm not sure what the "ownership trail" has been for the "Big South Fork National Recreation Area", but BSF and LBL are two very "unique" federal lands designations in that they were both declared as "National Recreation Areas",
rather than a "National Park", or a "National Forest", or a "National Wildlife Refuge", etc.

As to who controls and what activities are permitted,
the federal control can be very different (much based on the actual land's "designation")
as compared to a Tennessee State Park, such as Natchez Trace State Park,
and/or large tracts owned by the State of Tennessee, such as the Catoosa Wildlife Management Area.
 

Bambi Buster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
20,206
Location
Middle Tennessee
MUP":1n3fm93h said:
.... I don't understand the reasoning either way actually, why federal land is "federal" in the first place, and not state owned, and how it became "federal" to start with, assuming it was "state" owned to begin with?.....

In very few instances, at least where western lands are involved, was it "state owned to begin with." See the Louisiana Purchase and the Mexican War/Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Proponents of divestiture sometimes use the phrase, "give it back to the states," which is at best inaccurate and misleading.


https://www.history.com/topics/mexican- ... pe-hidalgo
 

Latest posts

Top