Federal Public Lands Transfer 3 part series

First in the 3 part/3 Lee paper series on transfer of federal public lands to Montana

1. Helena Independent, Tom Kuglin
Proposal to transfer federal lands to state ownership divisive, and debated

2. Billings Gazette by Brett French
Expense of Montana takeover of federal lands difficult to define

3. Missoulian, Rob Chaney
Outdoors users doubt state takeover of federal land is right fix

Kat this will give another perspective of what the other side thinks. I'm surprised western watersheds hasn't weighed in on this yet.
http://www.thewildlifenews.com/2014/08/26/fatalflaw-wildfires/

Robert, I have been digging into economic reports for months and the picture is far from feasible, yet none of this info is even being addressed from the Stepford cookie cutter tranfer of Federal Public Lands drones. I submitted comments to the EQC on the SJ15 Work Group report. The document was extremely skewed. In addition to a number of statements concerning the economics, Public Trust, access, etc, I addressed some aspects of their draft report that I believe fell short in providing balanced information and our tax dollars paid for that.

• Your county surveys were biased to produce the results intended to promote the agenda that state management would be better, therefore promoting transfer of Federal Public Lands
• Information on Fuel load/fire was biased towards fire suppression or timber harvesting as an idea to preventing fires. I did not see information from Sam Fuhlendorf of the University of Oklahoma's academic papers, one of the experts on fire as a land management tool, including forests (Pyric Herbivory in Action on Boreal Rangelands) or other experts/organizations. Neither was there scientific data on the contribution of old growth forests to biological diversity. Also missing are the Congressional Reports and papers by Ross Gorte on the bogus hypothesis that logging reduces forest fires, wildlife management costs and climate change factors affecting forest fires.
• Biased information was also provided concerning the timber industry and revenue generated. Missing are reports such as Below Cost timber Sales by Ross Gorte and the fact that the majority of Montana is classified as Unprofitable and Highly Unprofitable with only a tiny corner of the northwest being classified as Profitable. From the Congressional Research Service, Historical Profit and Losses on National Forests, Montana consistently reports net financial losses (except Kootenai), the fact that with the Timber industry reports (Aug. 2014), "Demand is not showing an upward trajectory from new construction at this time...Unsold inventory is holding at a low level, albeit not as low as 2005."

I told them, "Not being paid to do a line by line refutation of this draft, I will simply state that I am disappointed with the focus on materials provided by the American Lands Council with an agenda to prepare the draft, rather than a balanced perspective of scientific data that would benefit all of Montana, not just a special interest group agenda."

I was digging into something last week, cant remember all the bloody rabbit trails or how I got there anymore, but stumbled on transfer of Fed Public Lands to cities and counties of Nevada. After I read through all the bills and such, not finding news articles or position papers on this from a "you cant have our federal public lands" perspective, I called a number of people the next day to find out their perspective. No one knew anything about it and asked for my links. One of the people I called was Travis Brunner at WWP. He said he was going to call their Nevada guy and check up on it. I posted the info in the last EMWH newsletter. Theres just so much of it going on and so few watch dogging with not nearly the monetary resources that the agenda people are working with.

Bills to sell Federal Public Lands to cities - this is how they will do it, piece by piece
H.R. 5205 - "That title would allow the city of Yerington to partner with Nevada Copper to acquire at fair market value approximately 12,500 acres of federal lands, which would be annexed into the city... That bill also includes a Title 4, the Fernley Economic Self-Determination Act, which would transfer certain federal lands to the city of Fernley." They also would sell land to the city of Carlin, Storey and Elko counties.
Nevada Copper Advances Lyon County Bill "The project is located near Yerington, Nevada, close to road, rail, and power infrastructure, and with all future water supply requirements met." The water is part of the bill.
Also on the transfer of Federal Public Lands in Nevada front
Nevada panel’s land control move killed
"The discussion of such a public lands transfer has received heightened interest since the recent cattle grazing dispute between Bunkerville rancher Cliven Bundy and the BLM.
But the effort to take over federal lands dates back to the Sagebrush Rebellion, a controversial movement involving public land use in the West during the 1970s and 1980s. Other Western states, including Utah, are pushing the lands transfer issue as well."

I doubt the Montana Republican platform plank to force the feds to cede federal public lands to the state really considered the backlash and the probable consequences.
With this proposal which would significantly reduce recreational opportunities and likely adversely affect tourism, it is ironic that the latest numbers paint an economic picture that supports even more outdoor opportunity and protection of Montana's special lands, most of which are federal public. Tourism and outdoor recreation brings $5.8 billion and 64,000 jobs to Montana, according to recent studies. That does not even consider the many strong companies and related jobs that are attracted to Montana by the outdoors. The Republican platform has previously been all about jobs and the economy, yet this fed land takeover clearly ignores the fastest growing segment of the economy here. Tourism is second only to agriculture and is expected to be the number one economic driver soon.
Unfortunately, once again a radical ideological small group has gained a chokehold and undue influence over the Montana legislature and the Republican party.

I wonder how many ranchers who currently hold grazing allotments like their current AUM price vs What the State of Montana charges?

Also I wonder how many ranchers want their current grazing allotment sold off the the highest bidder? Suppose such groups as the American Prairie Reserve would be interested in many of the surrounding lands if they went on the auction block? What do you think the Wilkes Bros. would pay to get the BLM lands within their property boundaries? What will cost to launch my boat at Fort Peck if it is sold off to the highest bidder?

It is a solution looking for a problem.

Nemont

Saw this on another site and wondered if it was true. Anybody know?

Something worth pointing out in the discussion of "Federal Lands", is the only provision in the US Constitution allowing the Feds to own land is:

1. 10 square miles for a capitol ( District of Columbia )

2. Locations for forts, arsenals, etc, with the permission of the State where the land is located.

There is NO authorization for parks, monuments, BLM, US Forest service lands, etc. Nothing gives the Feds the right to even own any land other than the two above.

Considering the number of cases the Supreme Court has ruled on regarding management of federal land I'm guessing there's a good chance what you posted is not the whole story. Just a guess...

roadhunter said:

Saw this on another site and wondered if it was true. Anybody know?

Something worth pointing out in the discussion of "Federal Lands", is the only provision in the US Constitution allowing the Feds to own land is:

1. 10 square miles for a capitol ( District of Columbia )

2. Locations for forts, arsenals, etc, with the permission of the State where the land is located.

There is NO authorization for parks, monuments, BLM, US Forest service lands, etc. Nothing gives the Feds the right to even own any land other than the two above.

Click to expand...

Article IV, Section3, Clause 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Upon researching it appears that the claim about 10 square miles and a few exceptions are actually part of the constitution. Interesting. learn something every day.

http://nesaranews.blogspot.com/2014/05/does-constitution-permit-federal.html

So does the constitution permit the federal government to own land? Yes it does, but there are very strict limitations. Our founding fathers were very specific concerning federal ownership and control of land. Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution gives the feds control of 10 square miles of Washington DC. It further states that land within the boundaries of a state may only be acquired if they first have the consent of the state legislature. The federal government is limited in it’s acquisition of land to four purposes, military forts, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings. Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the power to “own” millions of acres. The so called "public lands" that they currently control must be returned to the states.

http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/29869/

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/04/bundy-ranch-crisis-causes-us-ask-actually-owns-americas-land/

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/...QR2dGlkA1VJQzFfMQ--?qid=20071009192536AATn6y4

To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States. Any land within the district shall consist only of land owned by the Federal Government and all other privately owned or non-Federal public land shall be returned to the State that originally ceded the district. And to exercise like authority over all places purchased with the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful facilities and buildings. The Federal Government shall never own title to any real property which is not specifically authorized by this Constitution such as parks, forests, dams, waterways, and grazing areas without the consent of the State where same is located.

Article 1, Section 8, clause 17 gives the very specific methods by which the federal government may acquire land within a state (it must be purchased with consent of the legislature) as well as describe the ONLY land uses allowed by the federal government....that of building forts, arsenals, dock-yards and building useful for the running of government. This would mean that the Department of Interior controlling "public" lands for the purposes of grazing, recreation, mining, oil, gas and timber sales is in violation of the constitution

I'm guessing that you were posting at the same time as Nemont, despite your reputable sources.

Oak said:

I'm guessing that you were posting at the same time as Nemont, despite your reputable sources.

Click to expand...

Does the constitution count as a reputable source?

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;

"The U.S. Constitution addresses the relationship of the federal government to
lands. Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 — the Property Clause — gives Congress authority
over federal property generally, and the Supreme Court has described Congress’s
power to legislate under this Clause as “without limitation.” The equal footing
doctrine (based on language within Article IV, § 3, Clause 1), and found in state
enabling acts, provides new states with equality to the original states in terms of
constitutional rights, but has not been used successfully to force the divestment of
federal lands. The policy question of whether to acquire more, or to dispose of any
or all, federal lands is left to Congress to decide."

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/crsreports/crsdocuments/RL34267_12032007.pdf

If Supreme Court precedent and the Constitution don't matter then yeah, the Federal Government shouldn't own land. There's a reason that those who see Federal Land Ownership as unconstitutional have no legal ground to stand on, and thus never prevail in court.

Crap.

Alright, everyone not in the original 13 colonies report to NYC for reassignment. Folks in the Louisiana Purchase line up to the left, California/Mexico/Spain annexed states to the right.

Oak said:

I'm guessing that you were posting at the same time as Nemont, despite your reputable sources.

Click to expand...

Now that's funny.

roadhunter-Citizens For Balanced Use Posterboy said:

Nowhere in the constitution does it grant the federal government the power to “own” millions of acres. The so called "public lands" that they currently control must be returned to the states.

Click to expand...

Here's your sign...

Hey roadhunter...just a question.

If what you're claiming is true, that the Federal Government cant own land, then how did the Federal Government give title to FEDERAL lands to homesteaders? The Federal Government had to own it before they could dispose of it via the Homestead Act.

Who purchased Alaska from Russia? Santa Claus? Did Federal Money pay for the purchase? If the Federal Government bought it, how can the Feds not be the owner?

These wing-nut teabaggers that think the federal government cant own land, need to brush up on the law and Supreme Court cases...as well as take a crash course in common sense.

Roadhunter, did you send money to Ken Ivory?

BuzzH said:

Hey roadhunter...just a question.

If what you're claiming is true, that the Federal Government cant own land, then how did the Federal Government give title to FEDERAL lands to homesteaders? The Federal Government had to own it before they could dispose of it via the Homestead Act.

Who purchased Alaska from Russia? Santa Claus? Did Federal Money pay for the purchase? If the Federal Government bought it, how can the Feds not be the owner?

These wing-nut teabaggers that think the federal government cant own land, need to brush up on the law and Supreme Court cases...as well as take a crash course in common sense.

Roadhunter, did you send money to Ken Ivory?

Click to expand...

Buzz,

I was simply posting some info I ran across. I am not claiming anything. Read my post and you will see I made no comments on if this was right or wrong. Obviously that information seems to have fired you up.

No reason to go into your usual personal insults and trash talk. It's childish and unnecessary in this situation.

Have a great day.

Greenhorn said:

Here's your sign...

Click to expand...

That quote was not mine. It was from the article. Nice try though. BTW great contribution.

You really seem to enjoy belittling and insulting people.

Keep up the great work!

roadhunter,

Please point out how I insulted you on my previous post...also, could you answer any of the questions?

How much was your check to Ken Ivory?

One last bit of advice, maybe try fact checking your "sources of information that you ran across"...

WOW!

Have a great day.

I guess Jefferson didn't get the memo.