Alabama Loses More Than 19,000 Acres of Public Hunting Land

Don't see much about this issue in the south but thought I'd share this.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/state-loses-more-19000-acres-public-hunting-land


And here's a post from last year about the loss of hunting access on the Boykin WMA and another 17,000 acres.

http://www.al.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2015/08/alabama_hunters_lose_17725-acr.html

Ouch! That hurts. I wish I knew enough about Alabama to comment in an educated manner. That much land lost to hunting access is a big hit in a state without the amount of public hunting options we have out west.

Yea, when you live in states (eastern) that have 10x the population, but 10x less public land (no exact figures of course) than that of most western states, yea it does hurt.

Coming to a state near you. Next time someone tells you the federally held public lands should be transferred to the states because the states would do a better job of managing them, point them toward Alabama as a an example.

Like many states, Alabama is in terrible shape financially, mostly because it is in terrible shape politically. (Just take a look at the corruption trial underway at this moment involving the diversion of funds to private clients of the Alabama House Speaker.) Our state parks are owned by the state, but our Legislature has been raiding the Alabama State Parks budget for years to meet shortfalls in other areas, and our parks have suffered because of it.
Our state parks are actually quite nice, but most of them break even financially in a good year. Gulf State Park, on the Gulf of Mexico coast; Oak Mountain State Park, south of Birmingham; and Guntersville State Park, east of Huntsville, are the only ones that make any profit, and they usually carry the rest of the parks. Through lots of hard work, the conservation community in Alabama has succeeded in bringing to vote an amendment which would protect state park funding, but we have to wait until November to see if the public will support it.

Outside of the State Park system, we have Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) which are part state owned land, some federal, and some private. Alabama has been fortunate to have a few cooperative private landowners who have allowed the public to use their land in the WMA system. These two large tracts mentioned in the OP (Scotch and Boykin) were primarily, or perhaps exclusively, large tracts of private land. Obviously, these were not public land like BLM or USFS land or even state lands, but they are examples of what will likely occur if our federally held public lands are "transferred."

The WMAs are funded through the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (ADCNR), which is also responsible for the state parks. The ADCNR enters agreements with private landowners for use of the tracts for hunting and/or fishing, and sometimes other recreational pursuits, in exchange for maintenance and other remuneration. Because of Alabama's funding issues, the maintenance and other costs paid by the state for these privately owned WMAs are viewed by many in power as a burden with few rewards forcing them to forego pet projects through which they have much more to gain.

Some of the private landowners, either corporate or individual, see the direction the state is headed and have decided they have had enough. The maintenance and good PR was all they were getting out of the deal. In addition, Scotch Timber blames the withdrawal of the land on "endangered species listings," which probably means they are going to clear cut the entire tract as soon as possible, which would be difficult with the public running around all over the place, in hopes of avoiding years of lawsuits. I expect we will lose more WMA land in the coming years.

The state is broke and cannot afford what we have. Like most states, Alabama can and does sell state owned public land, see http://www.outdooralabama.com/state-land-sales-and-leasing-program. Expect to see more land on the surplus sale list in the future.

While the tracts mentioned above were never publicly owned, they are good examples of the likely outcome of the eventual sale of state lands to private entities: perhaps some initial cooperation and generosity, then the hard reality of liabilities, cost, and foregone income. This is a recipe for no trespassing signs and a lost heritage.

Unfortunately, this is not just about being able to have a good time in the woods. It will mean hungry children and an increase in poaching. Alabama's WMAs provide meat on the table for many of Alabama's poor, and some of us middle class folks too. Faced with the possibility of starving children, No Trespassing signs have little importance. Night hunting will increase and so will accidents and arguments. When we talk to people about why these public lands are so important to us, we need to be sure to mention these sad consequences lest people think we have our own interests in mind above all others.

The good news is Alabama has other WMAs. I have hunted several and enjoy them immensely. I just hope my grandchildren get to enjoy them and the rest of the land we own out west. If they do not, it will not be because I did not fight for them.

Thanks, Cheaha. That clearly depicts the potential loss of public lands and public access through the evolution of fiscal concerns and political manipulation of land management, resulting in losses likely never to be recovered. The unintended consequences of increased trespassing and poaching problems are not often considered in such discussions, but you make some important points.

I hope the people of Alabama can support the efforts to fund the state parks and other state lands in order to keep them available and viable for recreation and enjoyment for the public.

Wow, looking around that site, there is a lot of state land that is being leased for exclusive hunting rights.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/hunting-lease-bid-notices

Interesting to see how each state looks at the revenue and recreation aspects of the lands they own. I suspect there is a history and culture that would explain the manner in which it has evolved in Alabama, and maybe neighboring states.

I do not know the history behind leasing of state lands in Alabama, but I know it has been going on my entire life. I suppose I prefer it to the sale of the land, but I am not crazy about the idea either.

While the notion of the state leasing exclusive hunting rights to public property is troubling to me, I also benefit from the lease of state lands in the Gulf and Mobile Bay for natural gas extraction. The royalties fund our Forever Wild Land Trust program, which funds the acquisition of land throughout the state for conservation.

Forever Wild is a great program, but it is also a target of special interests every single year. Last year the Legislature tried to wrest control of Forever Wild from the Forever Wild Land Trust Board, which has exclusive authority over the funds. If the Legislature had been successful the fund would have been disemboweled while a few pockets were lined. Unfortunately, the attacks will continue as long as there is money involved. I don't think that is a problem unique to Alabama.

I have no doubt, after the sale of "less desirable" land, exclusive leases, like the one proposed in Idaho recently and by routine in Alabama, will become the norm if the states control the now federally held public lands.

How much do you think the Missouri Breaks would bring in? How about Shining Rock in North Carolina? How about Unit 10 in Arizona? More than any average American could afford, that's for sure.

And, if you really want to get riled up about the potential for a totally messed up situation, just take a look at what they did with snapper fishing!

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2016/01/kingpins_of_the_gulf_make_mill.html

Oh, it could get really bad.

Brewer_Hunter said:

Don't see much about this issue in the south but thought I'd share this.

http://www.outdooralabama.com/state-loses-more-19000-acres-public-hunting-land


And here's a post from last year about the loss of hunting access on the Boykin WMA and another 17,000 acres.

http://www.al.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2015/08/alabama_hunters_lose_17725-acr.html

Click to expand...

In the first link, am I correct in reading that the 19k acres in question were privately owned by Scotch Land management and that they were leasing it to the state, but due to Federal reasons they are removing it from the state system? What endangered critter(s) did they find?

That also appears to be the same case in the 17k acres held by the Tensaw company?

Is this being compared to actual Federal land ownership being transferred to a State?

It sucks to lose this kinds of access, but seems to be apples and oranges when it comes to a land swap.

From what I could find it's the Black Pinesnake being listed as threatened as a reason for the closing.

I live in north Alabama and spend a good deal of time on WMAs and other public land for both hunting and recreation so it's a bit worrisome to see this happening. Makes me worry if my son will have the same opportunities I've had for hunting and just having land to hike and camp.

Also, thanks to everyone for their comments.

Yes, as I stated in my post, the land in question is private, not public. My comparison was not intended to imply there was any federal land involved. I also don't want to imply any criticism of the private landowners for making their decision. They have a right to do what they wish with their property and their years of accommodation are appreciated. But, I did want to provide an example of what is likely to happen if public land was sold to private entities. The federal system is the only way to assure all American citizens' interest in the property is protected. Some many not like the federal government for what ever reason, but it is the only option for unified ownership and decision making.

Cheaha said:

Coming to a state near you. Next time someone tells you the federally held public lands should be transferred to the states because the states would do a better job of managing them, point them toward Alabama as a an example.<snip>

Click to expand...

Cheaha said:

Yes, as I stated in my post, the land in question is private, not public.<snip>

Click to expand...

You stated in your first post about Federal lands...