Giving Federal Land to the States | Fresh Tracks Weekly (Ep. 83)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 лют 2025
- This week, Randy and I are kicking off a series about public land transfer and how the same old ideas of selling and transferring public lands are popping back up.
We’ll revisit how Utah has been pushing the idea of transferring federal land to the state and how the Supreme Court recently shut them down. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case was certainly a win for public land advocates, but this idea and movement are not going away anytime soon.
So, Randy is going to break down the idea of land transfer topic by topic over the next few weeks.
Legislatures across the country are now in session, and there are plenty of good things that could benefit hunters and public land users, but there are also a LOT of bad bills that could make things worse for us.
In Montana, a hot-button bill that immediately raised eyebrows was one to prohibit the Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Commission from closing down rut hunting of mule deer within the state.
In Wyoming, a bipartisan bill has been filed that would make corner crossing legal across the entire state.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently rejected petitions from Montana and Wyoming to delist grizzly bears as threatened from the Endangered Species List.
In Oregon, the Army Corps of Engineers plans to draw down Detroit Lake by around 55 feet, essentially temporarily transforming the system back into a river to help juvenile salmon migrate downstream and more easily pass through the dam.
The National Elk Refuge is reevaluating its elk feeding program, where thousands of elk are concentrated and fed every year in northwestern Wyoming.
Join Fresh Tracks+ For Early Access - www.freshtrack...
GOHUNT Gear Shop - Promo code RANDY for 10% off in the gear shop. bit.ly/46Jp5EW
GOHUNT INSIDER Use promo code RANDY to get $50 of store credit when you sign up for goHUNT INSIDER. bit.ly/481yo46
Kenetrek Boots- Buy a pair of boots and get a free pair of gaiters when promo code RANDY is used at checkout. kenetrek.com/
Ollin Digiscoping System - Save 10% with promo code RANDY ollin.co/
Outdoor Class - Save 30% on your membership with promo code RANDY30. watch.outdoorc...
Elkhorn Coffee Roaster - Save 15% on orders over $30 with promo code RANDY. elkhorncoffeer...
Alpacka Raft - Save 10% on some pack rafts with promo code RANDY. alpackaraft.com/
MTN Tough - 30 Day Free Trial when using code RANDY. Be sure that monthly subscription plan is selected on the payment page.
lab.mtntough.co...
With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case now Utah is going to waste even more taxpayer money appealing. As a Utahn, I’ve yet to meet one single person that agrees with Utah’s ridiculous lawsuit.
History has clearly shown what happens when states are given ownership of federal lands- they become a source of revenue, with no corresponding reduction in taxes for the citizens. Simple research demonstrates this. Look at any "management" issue for the federal government related to these lands, and quickly see that fighting fires alone in the western states is measured in tens of millions; fire suppression efforts in the billions. The notion of states maintaining these lands as public and/or profitable is absurd. They will be sold off and privatized; no more access, no more federal government footing the bill, no more PILT funding, etc. They simply won't belong to the people any longer.
Great show but you need at least one episode on equity. In my state, both the state and federal land rents are a joke. I read a study on the federal land in my state and land rent a few years ago, and the federal land was being leased for about $1.65 and acre, when the land across the fence was being rented for $14 an acre. In the picture it showed how the range was in good shape on one side of the fence (federal), and the private looked like a pool table!! It is so bad that lessees pass those contracts down to their heirs, and they treat it like their own land. It is true that improvements are paid for by the lease holder (fences, water, etc), but the value of that land use is being totally ignored. Our state public lands commission does the same thing. On both the state and federal land the lessee often tries to put up no trespassing signs, fence ROW's and everything else to keep the public off "their" LEASED PUBLIC LAND!!
That gets address in the next few episodes in this topic.
If you look at aerial imagery around the south and northwest of Albuquerque you'll see a lot of neighborhood style roads bladed into the mesa with no houses anywhere. Just dirt roads and cul-de-sacs in the middle of nowhere. The problem here wasn't land availability, it was water. Had they been able to secure adequate water rights, they would have been able to complete these projects. If they start 'disposing' acres near and around some of these metro areas without accounting for water it won't do a damn thing to housing prices because they'll probably never get them built anyway
Another thing you may want to look into is the "land swaps" states are doing for expansion of a state project. In my state, they traded a city block of a brown zone (industrially polluted land), for 2, 1/4 sections of great game habitat far away from the city, so the could expand a state complex!
we're back baby
Old guy here. This started n the ‘60’s. Ted Trueblood led a successful campaign to stop it in Idaho. It is about greed, the people behind this want to develop as much as they can
Very good info and education. Thank you
Good job Randy, we can't let this happen
As the federal agencies get less effective, the arguments for transferring federal lands to the states will get stronger. As federal debt increases, debt holders (China) will want hard assets and push for ownership of federal lands. In my state, hunting is better on state owned lands than federal.
Agreed, I like the state managed land it is upsetting that we have to pay for public land access to the state and the fed, should only be the state.
Can't hunt on it if it's sold off.
As you point out, one of the problems with federal lands is that congress is not doing its job, in my few a large aspect of that is the chronic underfunding of the management agencies. Part of the problem there, is that a significant portion of the congress thinks that the only matrix by which to manage the land is whether it makes money and totally discounts the intrinsic values it provides, i.e., wildlife diversity, hunter/fisher and recreational use contributions to local economies, etc. And they totally discount the value that these lands provide to our mental wellbeing and connection to the natural world, things that you can't put a dollar figure on. I am deeply concerned with what looks to be happening with the incoming administrations bend on cutting funding, reducing the size of agencies and appointing unqualified folks to vital cabinet posts that oversee these lands. As funding is cut, the federal lands will be managed even worse which will amplify the cry to transfer them to the state. It seems like that plan is already happening. I hope I'm wrong!
States are already trying to limit non resident hunters, I can imagine more state control will make it dang near impossible for a non resident to draw a tag if states gain total control.
Really like these discussions
Michigan’s DNR attempted to clear over 1200 acres of forest to build solar panels.
Thanx
Great info.
Good stuff guys. Looking forward to learning more about this land grab. Its happening with Solar and wind turbines as well
At least that provides a resource for people and most of the time they are put on lands that have the least amount of wildlife and such to lose…keep on ya, Neanderthal. You probably think electric augers are shit too
I feel that Montana limiting conservation easements or Utah trying to privatize public land is for same reason. To address the housing crisis. NIMBYs like those in Bozeman will create such a crises that drastic measures will be necessary and wildlife will pay the price. The Montana nimby rally cry I hear on this show and meat eater “Cows not condos” comes to mind. Pure selfishness attitudes that will lead to lawmakers tossing up their hands in frustration and voting in favor of turning public/ protected lands into development to solve the crisis.
@watwudscoobydoo1770 wildlife and people who recreate on the land. You're spot on. This is currently happening west of St George Utah where they are hoping to develop world class climbing areas into housing. Destroying the unique rock, and access for climbers, mtn bikers, and hunters. Save Moe's Valley.
Well know what would help a housing crisis? Birth control and access to women’s health…it would lower our population numbers…but sitars Conservatives don’t want that shit
Thanks for this important info. But, unfortunately our public lands will become a commodity that will be sold/traded on wall street by Black Rock and the like. Same plan for the Amazon and other resource rich lands. Thanks WEF!
Maybe my thoughts are wrong. But I believe that the government should stop ensuring land to developers. I know that they let people build homes and businesses in the winter habitat for big game. Then the owners complain and here in Utah they hire sharpshooters to kill a certain amount of animals to keep them out of yards
There is No such Thing of National Forest in the Eastern Portion of The United States , They Call Them National Forest but They are Not ,They are Called Acquired Forests and they are more Restrictions on Them than there is on Fed Lands I Was Told By The Forest Service in Vermont That All of The National Forest in The Eastern US Have Been Sold, To Who,They Would Say Who Owns Them Now. Good Luck With What You are Trying to Achieve in The Western States
I'd be in favor of any land ownership arrangement that would result in a more balanced use of existing Federal lands in Oregon, but between our commie state government & the endangered species act, the prospect of any meaningful change seems remote.
Texas is almost all private, and most land east of Texas is private. Do these lands not get managed properly?
They likely do get managed well. Yet, they very unlikely to be open for public access. That’s the goal, manage Federal lands better and keep public land open to all of us.
@Fresh_Tracks My wife and I are public land DIY hunters, but wouldn't pay-to-access land be managed better?
@Fresh_Tracks The government has never done anything correctly!
If the land goes to the state, then maybe we can band together in coop type of entity to buy it. Then we can decide to keep it open for public access. I did something like this in Utah to preserve land for the offroad community.
@@OlafKilthaupay to play money will just line their pockets.
@@Hunter4Life. So, paying to hunt on private land is bad???
This issue with the Feds managing the Forests is that they are doing a very poor job managing the forests. A logging truck is rarely seen on Forest Service anymore. It was the loggers who built and maintained the roads on the Forest Service. The logged areas contained more wildlife than unlogged areas. Thinning the trees results in more feed for the deer and elk.
And logging is good for the economy. The states will likely do a better job managing the Forests.
Radical groups use the Equal Access to Justice Act to stop most land management
There is logging going on all over the national forests in Utah. Utah will do no better than the Feds at managing the land.
As resident of Alaska, I like you folks, but this is not your land. Most big game guides come from lower 48, take their money and don't use in Alaska. I usually like Fresh Tracks, but this Minnesotan has it wrong. And I get , he makes his money off of this, so its easy to see why he picks his side. How about vote your desires in your own state first, and not push agenda into states you dont live.
The federal government has very limited authority, and definitely no Constitutional authority, to own all the land they own. It rightfully belongs to the state. Don’t like what your state representatives are doing with the land? Then be more selective in whom you vote for.
It absolutely has the authority to own it. Read the Property Clause. It’s right there. The problem is that the land management agencies receive probably half the funding they really need to be successful. Right now the only real way both states and the Feds raise money is by exploiting the land, which also reduces access and strains water resources.
The guy who wrote much of the Constitution, Jefferson, bought the biggest chunk of land the Federal government ever acquired. The USSC, final arbiter of the Constitution, has made hundreds of decisions that would say your statement is wrong.
“Section 3, Clause 2 of Article IV empowers Congress to dispose of and regulate constitutionally acquired federal property.”
Dispose of being the keywords here.
They were to dispose of the land and give it to the state once that territory became a state.
If that were not so why is there so little federally owned land in the eastern states?
An age-old Republican behavior. Wake up folks!
The democrat public land advocacy crowd has privatized more elk than anything else. Over saturate public lands and turn it into a moonscape, then blame a republican landowner for hoarding elk or buying all the land. Glad they are, because if it was up to you guys our elk herd would look like pacific palisades.
You should wake up
Need to do more research as to why. It wasn’t to sell the land, it was to gain control because we continue to lose access to “public land” here in Utah
It’s to sell it. Utah isn’t going to do anything better than the Feds, so long as the ESA, EAJA, NEPA, and many other laws allow for litigation to stop management. Utah will get sued the same as the Feds. And if it can’t make a profit, Utah statute requires it be sold, which it would.
Exactly, It's not to sell like all the fear-mongering is suggesting, it's because the federal government is closing off-road after road after road on public land and the state wants to open them back up and manage them, this selling fear mongering is BS
@@KirtsAdventuresGet horses, closing down roads is good for wildlife. At least with federal lands we know they won't be sold off. You must not know how much state lands Utah has already sold off. It's the worst thing possible for the average public land hunter.
As a Utah who is watching the federal government closing road after road and limiting public access is infuriating, we are begging our representatives at Utah to take it over to open access back up, sorry but you guys have this incorrect
i think you need another point of view. utah is trying to save public lands from federal oversite. often decided by eastern bureaucrats wjth no knowledge of the lands thet are trying to close to all the public for no use including hunters.
U sure about that?
Utah wants the land so they can sell it off.
Utah is trying to appeal to its extreme fringe, ie GOP caucus attendees because it buys their votes for the current administration. It is politics at the cost of good management. Not to say that this is the only issue with land management in Utah but the tea leaves here are pretty easy to read.
Factually incorrect
Truly dishonorable for Utah’s “conservative” politicians to try and claim this case was about protecting our public lands in Utah! It is the polar opposite of that. Curtis and Lee and and Cox and the rest of them are trying to take control of BLM lands so they can sell them off to line their pockets at the expense of every hunter and public lands user in the state. Don’t let them fool you. This is an attempt to steal our public lands, nothing more!