Transfer federal public lands to the state.

[Tek-Hunter]

http://m.yourwestvalley.com/valleyandstate/article_0e652970-d7da-11e4-8982-73a3671382e7.html?mode=jqm

[MT_Sourdough]

This is what I have been talking about. When the states take control of our public lands, most will go up for sale to the highest bidder. They want us to think that we'll have increased access. The only ones that will have access are those with substantial economic backing. Get use to the term "Stakeholder". Once it's private, you can bet your bottom dollar that it's going to be graced with "NO TRESPASSING" signs.

[Red Sparky]

Something along the lines like this came up this year here in NM. Luckily it got buried in committee and was never voted on. I agree if it ever comes under state jurisdiction access will be lost. I don't trust the Fed's but I trust the state less.

[AverageJoe]

The land will be lost with the feds owning it as well. It is a lose lose situation for the common man. The rich landowners dont want you hunting their land unless you pay, feds want hunting banned and turning land into monuments or natl parks, state will sell to highest bidder bit by bit til it is all gone.

[AverageJoe]

If the state has ownership maybe the sportsmen could come together and buy up the land with terms/contract that it never be closed to hunting etc. thats the only good possibility i see in regards to hunting continuing for future generations

[MT_Sourdough]

I understand the slippery slope from National Monument to National Park, but in the case of the Grande Canyon, we are about to open up limited hunting in the park for bison.

The problem is, there are designs on a "Mall of America" sorta mall built on the south side and a small town to increase from 500 to 4500 people to staff the mall. Plus with the global market for uranium being outrageous, the rims are slated to be turned into uranium mines.

That's just one piece of the overall picture. Basically, anybody with money that says I want this or that, instantly becomes a stakeholder.

As bad as this may sound, we are probably lucky that the current legislation is a rider on a budget bill that is more of a political stunt and will not likely make it past Obama veto stamp. I am not totally sure on that, but I am hoping. For the future, they are trying to pave the way to end the legacy and heritage of the West. It makes me very mad and depressed.

[Red Sparky]

How long have the national forest and BLM land been owned by the Fed's? Yes there has been some mismanagement but for the most part it has been good. The Valles Caldera here just went under National Park management but is kept open to hunting. Will see how long that last, maybe not long maybe forever. The difference is there is a board of trustees for the Valles Caldera, not one agency. Now the state land we have here goes to the highest bidder. Land that is open one year is closed due to a new lease where other, less hunting desirable, state land is opened up. Or it can be checker boarded where there is no access to it. So I don't trust either form of government but I do trust the fed's more than our state. Here I think our G&F said there were about 160,000 applicants for tags. So that is a voice of 160,000 but if the land is kept under Federal agencies that is all 50 states so a voice of millions of outdoorsmen and women. Much harder to close public land.

 

The flip side is you have millions who want a say in how to manage the land. I do not live in AZ but I did voice my opinion on the poll to stop the Grand Canyon from being put under a different land manager. I thought it would hurt hunters in your state and me if I ever put in to hunt there. I will start applying now to hopefully have a tag in 30 years. If the Grand Canyon was under state control I would not have the opportunity to do that. So I am only basing my opinions on my state government and not any other states.

 

What we, as hunters, need to do is follow what Colorado has done on it's PR campaign. I read about it in the last edition of Bugle and it sounds great. I think Michigan or Minnesota is trying to follow it with the re-listing of the wolf as an endangered species. PETA, HSUS, etc. need to put the money to helping wildlife instead of waging war against hunting. They won't do it so we need to show the average person what will happen to "all the little animals in the woods" without hunters and fishermen and women. We pay for all the outdoor resources under something called the Pittman/Robertson act. How much money has any "animal rights" group put forward to rebuild the habitat for the animals? Time to go on the offensive rather than the defensive.

[Coach]

I'm just getting into reading the proposal here. Fill in the details if I'm missing something but it looks like we have two choices. The Feds take it over and designate it how they want, or the state takes it over and does what they want. The feds are looking to close off access to protect it, the state is looking to sell it private interest. I don't see an upside in either scenario for anyone who doesn't have a stake in the game. We lose, no matter what way it goes.

[MT_Sourdough]

Please inform me where there is evidence demonstrating interests from the feds to reduce access? I haven't seen anything but conjecture to that point. In fact the feds are passing bills to open up The Grande Canyon to hunting the bison. As I have said, everybody who is pushing the eliminating public lands are trying to suggest that the govt is trying to make our public lands inaccessible. I am capable of walking, so the only thing that is inaccessible to me is everything behind "NO TRESPASSING" signs. No, the inaccessible argument is a political ploy.

 

As far as the Pittman/Robertson Act is concerned, the interesting story on that subject is how the Arizona Game and Fish sent out a notice on it's e-mail list saying the "administration" was trying to redirect those funds towards deficit reduction. The Notice did acknowledge that the language was part of the "Budget Control Act". The Budget control act was authored by Paul Ryan, not the Administration. So right before the election, they sent out misleading information.

Do no start entertaining the idea that I am a Liberal or a Dem either, I am the guy in the middle getting assaulted by both sides.

[Alpinebullwinkle]

"I am capable of walking"

 

MT just remember that while you may be "very capable now" you will get older eventually, and your tether will shorten with time. There are many older, younger, and also handicapped outdoor enthusiasts that have lost significant access to our national forest treasures due to road closures in recent years and special land designations. That spells discrimination in my book........ in many ways.

[Red Sparky]

Coach--The way it was proposed here, unless I read it wrong, was the state wanted to take over all the Federal land that is already under Federal control. Something about designation under the constitution and if the land did not fall under that the state wanted to manage the land. I think we could do other things that would be more beneficial to our state.

 

Mt__Sourdough....... I hear you on being in the middle being assaulted from both sides.

 

Alpinebullwinkle.....You bring up some interesting points. I have been in places where there are so many roads all you see is does and forkies, very few elk, no lions or bears. Idiots from the city going up for "week end getaways" and throwing trash wherever they want due to the easy access. How does the TMP discriminate when they only close a few roads and not all? I am all for access for disabled hunters. Do you think if the habitat was improved by less roads there might be more animals, and better quality, to give a better opportunity for disabled hunters? If you want to talk about discrimination then let's talk about a TMP that closes a road to trucks, jeeps, and 4X4's but leaves it open to quads and atvs. If you going to close it close it to all motor vehicle traffic.

[Alpinebullwinkle]

Gents let me explain where I am coming from in a little more detail (and facts). Admittedly my comments are more focused on unit #27 which I am most familiar with, live in, and have enjoyed for over 45 years. The TMP effort was initially kicked off for our area by the USFS in 2007. I attended every public meeting possible to share my input in the process. The TMP effort was interrupted by the devastating Wallow Fire of 2011, and has still not been fully implemented. Every year though for the last 10 years or so, more and more secondary roads mysteriously have been closed. When I have challenged the USFS on some of the more impactful closures they claim I must have missed the public meeting they had in advance of the closure. Also, in those early public TMP meetings, the USFS shared a proposal they claimed was "backed by the general population" that would close 85-90% of the existing roads in Unit #27. This is FACT because I still have copies of the USFS map proposals on my walls!! Unit #27 already has a significant % or road less real estate when you consider the Bear Wallow Wilderness and Blue Primitive areas which are massive in acreage. When I challenged the USFS on these proposed road closures I explained my family had been enjoying fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing (among other things) for over 40 years on those roads they were proposing to close. Their response was they were logging roads that were not NEPA approved, even though many of them had been highly improved with gravel. They said we had been enjoying those roads with the public for all that time "unauthorized", making us feel like criminals! It is very clear to our family that the hidden agenda of our current USFS leadership is to protect all the forest assets by simply prohibiting the public of normal access. By doing so though, it also restricts the USFS from responsibly managing their forests. Years ago the USFS used to do many physical projects that enhanced our National Forest assets. These included constructing dirt and trick tanks to provide water for wildlife. Many of our smaller streams were dammed up to provide water holes for enhanced fishing habitat. These man-made barriers also allowed the fish to survive drought or severe winter years. Unfortunately our National Forests are now under leadership with a different agenda, one that focuses more on studies, and less interested in physical actions that would improve our National Forests. There are literally hundreds (maybe thousands) of dirt water tanks that have completely filled up with the runoff/erosion from the Wallow Fire. Without access roads these critical sources of water for our wildlife will never be restored. Yes I do feel the proposed road closures would be discriminatory to many human classes. Maybe even more important though, these significant road closures will prevent the USFS from efficiently doing their job! I sure wish we could return to the former days when the USFS had high integrity and managed our resources responsibly.

 

The Alpine District Forest Ranger has been recently relocated to an assignment back east. Hopefully the new replacement will be more responsive to our local needs, and we can realize positive progress for the benefit of our National Forest treasures......... and also for the general public to enjoy responsibly. Sorry for the rant, but you probably noticed a little bit of passion on this issue, and concern for the current direction by our USFS leadership.

[Flingingarrowsbro]

People worried about Federal land being transferred to State really shouldn't be worried. The State does sell land to private interests, yes. But they only sell parcels that are in Phoenix (or Tucson) or very close proximity and sell them for ridiculous amounts of money. The State will not and has not sold state land where all of you hunt. And boy trust me, people have tried, especially in the northern part of the state. If I had to pick for the feds to manage our land or the state, I would pick the state without blinking an eye.

[Havasuhunter]

As little as I trust the Feds, I believe that is where public land should stay. Same rules and regs on public land across the country is better for hunters than 50 different sets of rules. I truly believe many states would sell off that land when given the chance to collect property tax and other revenue. Feds don't collect property tax and it's a much bigger bureaucracy, which in this case is actually good.