Thanks for the effort on this, Randy. I live in the northeast and can say it is almost too late for us. I understand the obvious differences between the northeast and western states. That is not my point. Your videos and messages need broader distribution and there needs to be a sense of urgency to protect that land in the states of which you speak. My state of residence considers a conveyance bill every spring. This would allow the state to sell land to developers, municipalities, etc. The bill is written so that is could easily pass unnoticed. Please keep pushing the message.
Great info there Randy.........Stuff happening here in Nfld, Canada now too with the land, where govt is selling lots of it around the ponds and waterways.........guess it's the price we pay.....too much development for me!
I'm fairly new to this debate so bear with me. I wonder how difficult it would be to change the no-camping rule. Is it a regulation that's dictated by the State Lands Director, or is it law that would have to be amended/rescinded by the state legislature? There are good and bad points to both regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, I'm just curious if it could be done in the event of federal-to-state transfers.
These are statutes, and sometimes State Constitution language, that would have to be changed. Statute can be changed by the legislature, Constitution usually by ballot initiative. Many in the west have tried to change some of the state statutes regarding recreation on State Lands, with very poor results to show for the effort. Thanks for watching.
Agreed. Pretty much how we hunt it, also. I wish the western states did not have all of these funky rules for their State Trust Lands, as it relates to hunting and recreation. Hopefully people knowing how these rules are will help them make a more informed decision.
last I checked Wyoming made it illegal for non resident licensed hunters to access "wilderness" areas. So experienced hunters are already locked out of some federal pubic land. I'd say transfer the wilderness areas as an experiment.
Randy let me start off by saying I love your shows, and commend you for hunting public land (rather than the usual "feed lot" television) and the conservation efforts that you do. I realize that the position of the backcountry hunters and anglers is to keep these lands in the hands of the federal government. It does seem a contradiction though that in the instance of wolves and game, you think the states should be managing these animals and not the feds, yet when it comes to land it should be the feds in charge and not the states.let me start by saying I live and hunt in nevada where (as you know, public land is very important to us, as a matter of fact I have only ever asked permission to hunt private land in nevada once in my life, and was denied.) public land is critical to my lifestyle. I also work in the mining industry where as you can imagine the BLM is not always our friend. As hunters we fight for maintaining access every year. You make the point that these public lands are "safer" in the hands of the feds, but in our case the feds sell thousands of acres every year (as a matter of fact at least in Nevada all one needs to do is bring up public land for auction to buy it, if it's not reserved for something else and you're the high bid, it's yours) as well as restricting access to areas previously open for generations. the feds, in our case, don't seem to be the quality stewards that you seem to think they are, at least not in Nevada. While I certainly understand your position on the states aquiring and possibly selling off the land if they get in a bind. A LEGITIMATE fear. The way I look at it is that if Nevada operates these lands then the hunters of Nevada make up a large voice, and voting populace, where as the hunters of Nevada make up a very small voice in the ears of the federal government, specially when you have a president that is not afraid to write edict with his pen and phone regardless of what congress has to say. My point is why not give control to the states where the voice of the "locals" may actually get heard. In this video you point out that Wyoming state lands can not be camped on and that is why BLM land should not be transfered. My argument is that the people of Wyoming could band together and have that law changed fairly easily, were as if the BLM decides tomorrow that we can no longer camp on public land then there would be very little that any group of outdoorsmen could do about it besides elect a president with public lands as a priority (considering the current environment Im sure you can see how difficult that could be) for many years I have considered joining the backcountry hunters and anglers, my ideals align very closely with theirs, but I have never understood their premise that it is easier to affect the federal governments views than it is to affect the views of your local and state governments. Certainly individual states WILL missmanage their lands if they are transfered back to the states, but at least locals would be able to make a difference through voting, protesting, whatever. The way I see it, is if the BLM starts to missmanage our public lands, there is very little that anyone could do to change their mind. The BLM does not have to answer to the people, like local politicians do.
I get that question often, Matt. This might be a very long answer. As for my support of State Trustee over wildlife, that stems from our Constitution, which says the states are granted all rights not given to the Federal government or others. The US Supreme Court has ruled states are to hold wildlife in trust for the citizens of their state. Not US citizens, but citizens of the state. That is one of many reasons why I support state trustee of wildlife. The other reasons are that it is the system that has evolved over the last 100+ years. As for my dislike of this notion called State Transfer, my reasons are many. Not sure where to even start. First, it will do noting to improve land management. All the same issues, concerns, litigation, costs, etc that the BLM or USFS currently incurs is going to just be handed over to the states as their problem. The states cannot afford those costs. The states will be litigated to no end, just as the BLM and USFS are, when a management action is controversial. I am tired of the smoke and mirrors. I want Congress to get off their duff and do what they are supposed to do - pass laws, policy, and budgets and allow these lands to be managed better. Everything that frustrates us about Federal land management can be fixed by Congress. But, they refuse to do the hard work. So, they come up with these kind of hair-brained schemes. States excel at disposing of public lands. While going to college at UNR, I took a year of NV history. NV sold over 90% of their State Lands. If you ever want some interesting reading about state-level corruption, the history of State Land disposal in NV is a classic. But it is not just NV; all the western states have been selling lots of land. Your state of NV has very little State Trust Land remaining after the politicians sold most of it (3,000+ acres remain). If you go to states with millions of acres of State Trust Lands, they have some really bad rules as it relates to hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, hiking, camping. All of those activities are heavily restricted, and many of them are completely disallowed on some State Trust Lands. I don't want current Federal Lands that I can hunt, shoot, fish, camp, hike to be handed over to State Land Boards that would not allow me to do those activities. The Federal management is not the text book of how to do it. But, every Federal level issue could be changed by Congress. There is no need to transfer lands to states that want to sell it or states that will restrict the things we can currently do on Federal lands. What is needed is for us to hold Congress accountable to get the work done. One final thought, currently every American citizen is an quasi-owner of Federal lands, by virtue of being a citizen. If these lands were transferred to State Land Boards, how does that reconcile with the majority of Americans who do not live in one of these western states. I wish there was an easy solution. There is not. Congress has neglected these lands for 30+ years. It is going to take a lot of work to get them back to better management. Transferring the lands to the states does nothing. I call State Transfer a "head fake." Thanks for watching and thanks for the well thought out question.
Thank you for a well thought out answer. I still think it would be easier as citizens of a state to sway one state senator's opinion as opposed to all 535 congress members. I will concede to you though that a single state entrusted with the land has more of a chance to run off the tracks and make a stupid decision. it truly is a lose lose situation for us sportsmen
Matt Donovan mr Donovan you would not have to look far to find where your thinking isn’t always right.Just look across your state line to California where in over 50 years of voting on any conservation or water issue did anything go the way local northern Ca sportsmen would want it.There is getting to be more and more young liberals running the state from heavily populated areas that can’t be outvoted
I have little trust in either of them. The idea of handing lands to State Land Boards, along with all the costs/liabilities/backlogs, is not going to solve a single problem we find in land management, and only serves to reduce the ability of hunters, hikers, campers, shooters, to use those lands when held by State Land Boards. So far, not a single advocate for State Transfer has been able to tell me how State Transfer will solve any of the frustrations we have in land management. If Congress would get off their duff and not be negligent in their work, they could change every single law that negatively impacts land management. But, they refuse to do so. Congress is "The Feds" and Congress is the problem.
Randy FIRED UP!!!
Thanks for the effort on this, Randy. I live in the northeast and can say it is almost too late for us. I understand the obvious differences between the northeast and western states. That is not my point. Your videos and messages need broader distribution and there needs to be a sense of urgency to protect that land in the states of which you speak. My state of residence considers a conveyance bill every spring. This would allow the state to sell land to developers, municipalities, etc. The bill is written so that is could easily pass unnoticed. Please keep pushing the message.
Stay vigilant, Mark. The interest policy makes have in public access is only as loud as the public access advocates make their voice. Best to you.
Soon we won't have any land to hunt. This is scary.
Great info there Randy.........Stuff happening here in Nfld, Canada now too with the land, where govt is selling lots of it around the ponds and waterways.........guess it's the price we pay.....too much development for me!
Bummer. I hope you can turn the tide on that trend,
I'm still new to hunting the north central Montana area and so far I've seen more state and private land than anything up here
That would be correct.
I'm fairly new to this debate so bear with me. I wonder how difficult it would be to change the no-camping rule. Is it a regulation that's dictated by the State Lands Director, or is it law that would have to be amended/rescinded by the state legislature? There are good and bad points to both regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, I'm just curious if it could be done in the event of federal-to-state transfers.
These are statutes, and sometimes State Constitution language, that would have to be changed. Statute can be changed by the legislature, Constitution usually by ballot initiative. Many in the west have tried to change some of the state statutes regarding recreation on State Lands, with very poor results to show for the effort. Thanks for watching.
Wyoming is absolutely beautiful, but I stay out for 2-3 weeks at a time so if camping goes so do I 😞
Agreed. Pretty much how we hunt it, also. I wish the western states did not have all of these funky rules for their State Trust Lands, as it relates to hunting and recreation. Hopefully people knowing how these rules are will help them make a more informed decision.
last I checked Wyoming made it illegal for non resident licensed hunters to access "wilderness" areas. So experienced hunters are already locked out of some federal pubic land. I'd say transfer the wilderness areas as an experiment.
how do you always draw so many tags.
By applying in every state for every species. Good luck to you.
thanks I'm fourteen and trying to apply for as many things as I can so I can hopefully get an elk tag this year again
Randy let me start off by saying I love your shows, and commend you for hunting public land (rather than the usual "feed lot" television) and the conservation efforts that you do. I realize that the position of the backcountry hunters and anglers is to keep these lands in the hands of the federal government. It does seem a contradiction though that in the instance of wolves and game, you think the states should be managing these animals and not the feds, yet when it comes to land it should be the feds in charge and not the states.let me start by saying I live and hunt in nevada where (as you know, public land is very important to us, as a matter of fact I have only ever asked permission to hunt private land in nevada once in my life, and was denied.) public land is critical to my lifestyle. I also work in the mining industry where as you can imagine the BLM is not always our friend. As hunters we fight for maintaining access every year. You make the point that these public lands are "safer" in the hands of the feds, but in our case the feds sell thousands of acres every year (as a matter of fact at least in Nevada all one needs to do is bring up public land for auction to buy it, if it's not reserved for something else and you're the high bid, it's yours) as well as restricting access to areas previously open for generations. the feds, in our case, don't seem to be the quality stewards that you seem to think they are, at least not in Nevada. While I certainly understand your position on the states aquiring and possibly selling off the land if they get in a bind. A LEGITIMATE fear. The way I look at it is that if Nevada operates these lands then the hunters of Nevada make up a large voice, and voting populace, where as the hunters of Nevada make up a very small voice in the ears of the federal government, specially when you have a president that is not afraid to write edict with his pen and phone regardless of what congress has to say. My point is why not give control to the states where the voice of the "locals" may actually get heard. In this video you point out that Wyoming state lands can not be camped on and that is why BLM land should not be transfered. My argument is that the people of Wyoming could band together and have that law changed fairly easily, were as if the BLM decides tomorrow that we can no longer camp on public land then there would be very little that any group of outdoorsmen could do about it besides elect a president with public lands as a priority (considering the current environment Im sure you can see how difficult that could be) for many years I have considered joining the backcountry hunters and anglers, my ideals align very closely with theirs, but I have never understood their premise that it is easier to affect the federal governments views than it is to affect the views of your local and state governments. Certainly individual states WILL missmanage their lands if they are transfered back to the states, but at least locals would be able to make a difference through voting, protesting, whatever. The way I see it, is if the BLM starts to missmanage our public lands, there is very little that anyone could do to change their mind. The BLM does not have to answer to the people, like local politicians do.
I get that question often, Matt. This might be a very long answer. As for my support of State Trustee over wildlife, that stems from our Constitution, which says the states are granted all rights not given to the Federal government or others. The US Supreme Court has ruled states are to hold wildlife in trust for the citizens of their state. Not US citizens, but citizens of the state. That is one of many reasons why I support state trustee of wildlife. The other reasons are that it is the system that has evolved over the last 100+ years.
As for my dislike of this notion called State Transfer, my reasons are many. Not sure where to even start. First, it will do noting to improve land management. All the same issues, concerns, litigation, costs, etc that the BLM or USFS currently incurs is going to just be handed over to the states as their problem. The states cannot afford those costs. The states will be litigated to no end, just as the BLM and USFS are, when a management action is controversial.
I am tired of the smoke and mirrors. I want Congress to get off their duff and do what they are supposed to do - pass laws, policy, and budgets and allow these lands to be managed better. Everything that frustrates us about Federal land management can be fixed by Congress. But, they refuse to do the hard work. So, they come up with these kind of hair-brained schemes.
States excel at disposing of public lands. While going to college at UNR, I took a year of NV history. NV sold over 90% of their State Lands. If you ever want some interesting reading about state-level corruption, the history of State Land disposal in NV is a classic. But it is not just NV; all the western states have been selling lots of land.
Your state of NV has very little State Trust Land remaining after the politicians sold most of it (3,000+ acres remain). If you go to states with millions of acres of State Trust Lands, they have some really bad rules as it relates to hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, hiking, camping. All of those activities are heavily restricted, and many of them are completely disallowed on some State Trust Lands. I don't want current Federal Lands that I can hunt, shoot, fish, camp, hike to be handed over to State Land Boards that would not allow me to do those activities.
The Federal management is not the text book of how to do it. But, every Federal level issue could be changed by Congress. There is no need to transfer lands to states that want to sell it or states that will restrict the things we can currently do on Federal lands. What is needed is for us to hold Congress accountable to get the work done.
One final thought, currently every American citizen is an quasi-owner of Federal lands, by virtue of being a citizen. If these lands were transferred to State Land Boards, how does that reconcile with the majority of Americans who do not live in one of these western states.
I wish there was an easy solution. There is not. Congress has neglected these lands for 30+ years. It is going to take a lot of work to get them back to better management. Transferring the lands to the states does nothing. I call State Transfer a "head fake."
Thanks for watching and thanks for the well thought out question.
Thank you for a well thought out answer. I still think it would be easier as citizens of a state to sway one state senator's opinion as opposed to all 535 congress members. I will concede to you though that a single state entrusted with the land has more of a chance to run off the tracks and make a stupid decision. it truly is a lose lose situation for us sportsmen
Matt Donovan mr Donovan you would not have to look far to find where your thinking isn’t always right.Just look across your state line to California where in over 50 years of voting on any conservation or water issue did anything go the way local northern Ca sportsmen would want it.There is getting to be more and more young liberals running the state from heavily populated areas that can’t be outvoted
You trust the federal government more than you do the state? I trust the federal government less than almost anyone or anything.
I have little trust in either of them. The idea of handing lands to State Land Boards, along with all the costs/liabilities/backlogs, is not going to solve a single problem we find in land management, and only serves to reduce the ability of hunters, hikers, campers, shooters, to use those lands when held by State Land Boards. So far, not a single advocate for State Transfer has been able to tell me how State Transfer will solve any of the frustrations we have in land management. If Congress would get off their duff and not be negligent in their work, they could change every single law that negatively impacts land management. But, they refuse to do so. Congress is "The Feds" and Congress is the problem.