Public Lands Rally - September 27th

[Ben Lamb]

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2014/09/25/hunters-plan-rally-soul-state/16237429/

Hunters plan rally for ‘soul of our state’

Hunters and anglers in Montana plan to protest efforts by some state and national lawmakers to transfer federal lands to state management during a rally Saturday at the state Capitol.

“We’re trying to raise awareness of how important it is for Montana to keep public lands in public hands and ultimately squelch any movement to do otherwise,” said Land Tawney, the executive director of the Backcountry Hunters and Anglers.

Tawney sees efforts to transfer federal land to states as a smokescreen for the sale of public land because states can’t afford to manage the large number of federal acres.

I take exception to Senator Fielder's comments about the public's opposition to her out-of-state, extremist agenda. We've done the analysis and on a good year, Montana taxpayers would be on the hook for $350 million more in government spending, thousands of new government jobs and the proponents of this ponzi-scheme have yet to identify a clear path to improving access or forest health. All of their expert testimony has indicated that the best thing to do with the land when the state gets it is to sell it off.

We don't want more taxes and less access. We want public lands.

Noon, tomorrow at the Capitol. The Bus schedule is in the link. First 300 folks who RSVP get a free #keepitpublic t-shirt from BHA.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Saturday was rainy, nasty day. The forecast called for at least .5 inch of rain. Around 11 o'clock, we were getting worried that the weather would dampen the enthusiasm and turnout would be low.

Over 300 people turned out and stood in the rain for a couple of hours rallying in support of public lands, and against the poorly thought out efforts to steal our American Birthright. Volunteers from the Montana Wildlife Federation Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Russell Country Sportsmen, Montana Wilderness Association, Montana Backcountry Horsemen and many other groups and individuals showed up to help. Senator Tester, former Secretary of State Bob Brown and TNC's Mary Hollow all did great at the podium.

The Podium: It was one of the few details that got overlooked. When Bob Brown asked about it, I got those deer in the headlights look. After a quick scramble and trying to get security to let us drag one outside (to no avail), one of the volunteers from the Anaconda Sportsmen's Club magiclly appeared with a podium and a rather nonchalant attitude about where it came from. I didn't press the issue. God bless Anaconda.

It was a pretty good day. Thanks to all of the Hunter Talker's who showed up. I didn't get a chance to talk with a lot of folks, but I did see a lot of tell-tale signs, nods of the head and hearty handshakes and smiles.

Well done Montana!

 

[RobG]

With two homecoming games and hunting season I didn't think you could pull it off, but well done Ben!

 

[Ben Lamb]

With two homecoming games and hunting season I didn't think you could pull it off, but well done Ben!

We did share the lawn with 3 guys who were warning everyone about chemtrails, so we counted them as well.

 

[MThuntr]

We did share the lawn with 3 guys who were warning everyone about chemtrails, so we counted them as well.

I though they added a little flavor to the crowd but I also noticed they left relatively early. One guy tried to get in front of the TV camera but I don't think they filmed him.

 

[Big Fin]

Great job, guys. Wish I could have been there. Thanks to those who gave up a day of hunting and stood in the rain to protect our public lands.

Anyone who thinks selling public lands, or transferring Federal lands to the states, is a good idea, probably won't like what follows.

People who want states to take over the public lands, here are a couple examples of what they have in store for you.

In Colorado, you can't hunt State Trust Lands. So if you support state control of Federal lands, you can cross off hunting access to 23 million acres, just in Colorado.

In New Mexico and Wyoming, you cannot camp on state lands. So, if you support transfer of Federal lands to the states, you can forget about your backpack hunts on those lands. You can't camp there, so how you gonna hunt those backcountry areas? Not feasible to hike in six hours each morning and back out six hours that evening, only to repeat the process every day.

In Montana, hunters can only camp on state lands for two days and you must camp within 300 yards of the nearest access point. So much for my backcountry hunts. The mule deer I shot last year and the mountain goat hunt we did this year were both backpack hunts deep in the backcountry. Those hunts would all be down the tubes if Montana controlled the Federal lands.​

Those are just a couple quick examples of how hunters will be screwed over by state take over of these Federal lands.

Yeah, we all have frustrations over Federal management, but those privateers who are using this frustration for their own personal ideologies have no answers to the questions that impact hunters, anglers, hikers, campers. These "sell the public land" promoters are merely opportunists who see frustration as the opening to employ their takeover tactics.

Those who think transferring Federal lands to the states is a solution, answer me these questions:

Q: How will the states manage the lands any better, when the majority of gridlock on Federal lands is due to complications of the Endangered Species Act?

A: The states won't do it any better. They will also be subject to the ESA. When the lawsuits mount and the states do not have the resources to continue the court battles associated with proposed management action, this will then be used as the reason for which the lands should be sold.

Q: How will states tell ag producers that your current AUM for public grazing will go from $1.35 per AUM on Federal lands, to $10+ per AUM on State lands?

A: They won't. They will probably lower the AUM price on state lands. And these now-state managed lands will be just as unprofitable for grazing as they are in Federal hands. Or, ranchers on these lands will see a 7X increase in their grazing fees.

Q: How will states pay for the huge costs of fire control on these lands, when they currently are asking the Feds to pay those costs?

A: They won't pay the cost. They will either sell the lands to cover the cost, or they will keep asking the Feds to pay the costs.
​

Those are just a few of the questions the privateers ignore and deflect. They know they have a shallow argument and hope the voters swallow the sound bite without digesting the consequences.

These privateers operate on the fringe; the territory of big egos and small ideas. They represent very few; mostly the donors who are writing checks with the intention of realizing a great return on their "political investment."

Make no mistake, these privateers intend to disinherit you of your American birthright - the greatest public lands legacy in the world. If we let them, we get to answer to our children and grandchildren as to why we let them down.

If you are a politician promoting this effort to lay the pipe to Americans; to steal this birthright from our children consider yourself forewarned. We're coming after you.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I though they added a little flavor to the crowd but I also noticed they left relatively early. One guy tried to get in front of the TV camera but I don't think they filmed him.

The anti-public land guys? Yeah, they left as soon as they were asked to sign the sportsman's pledge. Funny how that happened.

 

[roadhunter]

Q: How will states tell ag producers that your current AUM for public grazing will go from $1.35 per AUM on Federal lands, to $10+ per AUM on State lands?

A: They won't. They will probably lower the AUM price on state lands. And these now-state managed lands will be just as unprofitable for grazing as they are in Federal hands. Or, ranchers on these lands will see a 7X increase in their grazing fees.

QUOTE]


I find it strange that you think getting fair market value for grazing rights is a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea to get fair market value for grazing rights instead of basically giving the grazing rights away for pennies on the dollar like the feds are doing? Seems like getting fair price for the grazing rights is a good thing IMO.

Why would that state lower the AUM on state lands if they were put in charge? Do you have any example's of this happening? I think the Bundy case is a good example of how poor of a job our federal government does managing our public land. Basically giving away grazing for many years. States like Wyoming actually make $ with their state lands. They dont' do that by charging less than what the feds are already basically giving away.
http://statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/wyoming.html

Are you trying to make us believe the feds are doing a good job of managing the grazing rights they are in charge of by selling them for pennies on the dollar?

Most business people would consider that type of management a complete failure.

 

[RobG]

It doesn't really matter Roadhunter... either they will jack up the rancher's fees so Montana ranchers will be impacted, or they keep them the same and lower the price of existing leases so all Montana taxpayers will get screwed. In other words, lose/lose.

As far as state's being better managers being better that is a bunch of crap. They are under the thumb of the local industries in addition to the legislature. The latter being openly hostile to what most of the people on this forum hold important for wildlife management and the former buying off the legislature so they are openly hostile... I realize you have a different idea of what proper management is, but don't pretend it helps hunting because it doesn't.

 

[roadhunter]

It doesn't really matter Roadhunter... either they will jack up the rancher's fees so Montana ranchers will be impacted, or they keep them the same and lower the price of existing leases so all Montana taxpayers will get screwed. In other words, lose/lose.

As far as state's being better managers being better that is a bunch of crap. They are under the thumb of the local industries in addition to the legislature. The latter being openly hostile to what most of the people on this forum hold important for wildlife management and the former buying off the legislature so they are openly hostile... I realize you have a different idea of what proper management is, but don't pretend it helps hunting because it doesn't.

I didn't say anything about hunting. I asked why Fin thought it was a bad idea to charge fair market value for grazing rights.

As far as hunting I hunt state land all the time in various states and have enjoyed it. In fact just got back from hunting some state land in KS that is managed really well. Heading down to hunt another piece of state land in NE this weekend that I ran across doing a bid for a Ducks Unlimited conservation project on that piece of state land. And will probably be meeting up with some friends in Wyoming on Wednesday to go hunt some state land and some walk-in land that the state was kind enough to pay the landowner for so I can go hunt. I enjoy the recreational opportunities that states provide for me. I don't get the feeling that they want to sell off all their land and stop all outdoor recreation in their state, I get the feeling that they want me to come to their state and hunt, fish, etc... So that is exactly what I do.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Q: How will states tell ag producers that your current AUM for public grazing will go from $1.35 per AUM on Federal lands, to $10+ per AUM on State lands?

A: They won't. They will probably lower the AUM price on state lands. And these now-state managed lands will be just as unprofitable for grazing as they are in Federal hands. Or, ranchers on these lands will see a 7X increase in their grazing fees.

QUOTE]


I find it strange that you think getting fair market value for grazing rights is a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea to get fair market value for grazing rights instead of basically giving the grazing rights away for pennies on the dollar like the feds are doing? Seems like getting fair price for the grazing rights is a good thing IMO.

Why would that state lower the AUM on state lands if they were put in charge? Do you have any example's of this happening? I think the Bundy case is a good example of how poor of a job our federal government does managing our public land. Basically giving away grazing for many years. States like Wyoming actually make $ with their state lands. They dont' do that by charging less than what the feds are already basically giving away.
http://statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/wyoming.html

Are you trying to make us believe the feds are doing a good job of managing the grazing rights they are in charge of by selling them for pennies on the dollar?

Most business people would consider that type of management a complete failure.

You cannot camp on state lands in Wyoming, you can also be excluded from the land by request of the lessee. You sure you want to tout WY's management of state lands as a model to be reproduced?

 

[roadhunter]

You cannot camp on state lands in Wyoming, you can also be excluded from the land by request of the lessee. You sure you want to tout WY's management of state lands as a model to be reproduced?

Ben, I asked why it was a bad thing to get fair market value for grazing rights as Fin indicated it was. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you think the federal government does a good job with what it currently charges for grazing rights? Would you be opposed to charging fair market value for grazing rights on that land?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, I asked why it was a bad thing to get fair market value for grazing rights as Fin indicated it was. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you think the federal government does a good job with what it currently charges for grazing rights? Would you be opposed to charging fair market value for grazing rights on that land?

I think the fed has been hamstrung on all land management decisions by people looking to create problems rather than actually manage lands. That includes the serial litigants as much as it does Congress, who refuses to properly fund the agencies.

Should we charge more for grazing on public lands? In some places yes, in others no. It depends on the resource and the value of the grazing land.

You are only looking at one economic aspect of public land grazing:cost to administer. You need to look at the entire economic picture that includes a return on investment. If those lands grazed at $1.35 an AUM help increase the GDP of a county or area by over $10 million, is subsidized grazing worth it?

You said the states manage their land better than the fed. I suppose that's true if you only think about the fast buck, and not the long term health and economy of the regions in question.

 

[Big Fin]

I find it strange that you think getting fair market value for grazing rights is a bad idea. Why is it a bad idea to get fair market value for grazing rights instead of basically giving the grazing rights away for pennies on the dollar like the feds are doing? Seems like getting fair price for the grazing rights is a good thing IMO.

Why would that state lower the AUM on state lands if they were put in charge? Do you have any example's of this happening? I think the Bundy case is a good example of how poor of a job our federal government does managing our public land. Basically giving away grazing for many years. States like Wyoming actually make $ with their state lands. They dont' do that by charging less than what the feds are already basically giving away.
http://statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/wyoming.html


Are you trying to make us believe the feds are doing a good job of managing the grazing rights they are in charge of by selling them for pennies on the dollar?

Most business people would consider that type of management a complete failure.

I find it strange that you drew the conclusion that I was saying the grazing fees should be reduced.

My point is that the same people who will complain that the Federal managers are not maximizing the return on Federal lands are the same people who will change the rules when the state takes control and reduce the fees to what they were in Federal hands.

That is a small example of the hypocrisy of these promoters. Mark my words, if ever this idea were to become reality, one of the first steps would be to reduce state grazing rates to the low levels currently charged by the Feds, proving this is not about effective management of the lands, rather being handed the keys to the vault of favors to dole out to those to whom you owe political debts.

 

[roadhunter]

So today lesson is that if states get control of federal land the following will happen.
1. You will no longer be able to backcountry hunt because of camping regulations
2. You will be forced to walk 6 miles in to hunt every day because of camping regulations
3. You won't be allowed to camp at all
4. You won't be allowed to hunt at all
5. All public land will be sold off and public recreation will be lost forever
6. It's a good thing for the federal government to charge pennies on the dollar instead of fair market value for grazing rights.
7. Feds charging only 1.35 AUM actually does so much to contribute to the GDP of a region that it is completely necessary to continue this poor business practice of giving away grazing rights to help the people of this great nation.
8. The federal government must continue selling grazing rights at this substantially reduced price to help with the long term health and economy of the region.
9 . States can't improve anything the federal government is doing because the federal government does such a great job of managing land that is could never be equaled by any state. Any state who tries to manage land will fail miserably because of costs, firefighting, lawsuits, etc that they will be forced to sell it off.
10. Anything that has to do with taking land from federal control to state control is intended to disinherit you of your American birthright.
12. If we allow states to control this land , we get to answer to our children and grandchildren as to why we let them down.
13. If you think that there are ways to improve the current land management practices and would like to try and improve the current situation this is nothing but another effort to lay the pipe to Americans; to steal this birthright from our children consider yourself forewarned. We're coming after you.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

 

[Ben Lamb]

So today lesson is that if states get control of federal land the following will happen.
1. You will no longer be able to backcountry hunt because of camping regulations
2. You will be forced to walk 6 miles in to hunt every day because of camping regulations
3. You won't be allowed to camp at all
4. You won't be allowed to hunt at all
5. All public land will be sold off and public recreation will be lost forever
6. It's a good thing for the federal government to charge pennies on the dollar instead of fair market value for grazing rights.
7. Feds charging only 1.35 AUM actually does so much to contribute to the GDP of a region that it is completely necessary to continue this poor business practice of giving away grazing rights to help the people of this great nation.
8. The federal government must continue selling grazing rights at this substantially reduced price to help with the long term health and economy of the region.
9 . States can't improve anything the federal government is doing because the federal government does such a great job of managing land that is could never be equaled by any state. Any state who tries to manage land will fail miserably because of costs, firefighting, lawsuits, etc that they will be forced to sell it off.
10. Anything that has to do with taking land from federal control to state control is intended to disinherit you of your American birthright.
12. If we allow states to control this land , we get to answer to our children and grandchildren as to why we let them down.
13. If you think that there are ways to improve the current land management practices and would like to try and improve the current situation this is nothing but another effort to lay the pipe to Americans; to steal this birthright from our children consider yourself forewarned. We're coming after you.

Sounds pretty reasonable.

I loved your work in Iraq. Glad to see you landing on your feet after the fall of Saddam.

 

[roadhunter]

I loved your work in Iraq. Glad to see you landing on your feet after the fall of Saddam.

You contributed greatly to that list. Thanks for teaching me so much about how giving wealthy ranchers cheap federal grazing leases increases GDP and helps the health and economy of a region.

Does giving the Wilks Brothers a cheap federal grazing lease really do all that? That is exactly what you are trying to tell us. LOL.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's a pro tip: If you have to distort and lie in order to make a point, maybe you should give up.

Beer's on me.

 

[roadhunter]

Here's a pro tip: If you have to distort and lie in order to make a point, maybe you should give up.

Beer's on me.

Nice try Ben. But here are your exact quotes.

You need to look at the entire economic picture that includes a return on investment. If those lands grazed at $1.35 an AUM help increase the GDP of a county or area by over $10 million, is subsidized grazing worth it?

You said the states manage their land better than the fed. I suppose that's true if you only think about the fast buck, and not the long term health and economy of the regions in question.

No distorting or Lying at all. You explained how giving wealthy ranchers cheap federal grazing increased GDP and helps the long term health and economy of the region. Your words, not mine. Thanks for teaching me how the Wilks brothers are helping out the Montana economy by accepting reduced priced grazing contracts with the federal government. I can't imagine how bad the economy and GDP in Montana would suffer if these billionaires didn't' get this reduced priced grazing handout from the feds. LOL.

Do you realize how ridiculous your argument is? Makes about as much sense as Fin telling us how bad it would be to charge fair market value for federal grazing rights. There is nothing wrong with charging fair market value for grazing rights, nothing. We should be demanding that they do get fair market value for grazing rights but folks like yourself seem to think that giving away those rights for pennies on the dollar is a good thing.

 

[Big Fin]

...... Makes about as much sense as Fin telling us how bad it would be to charge fair market value for federal grazing rights.....

And show me where I said it would be bad to charge fair market value for grazing rights? In past discussions, comments were made of your reading comprehension. Show me where I said what you attribute to me and dispell the reading comprehension notion. Or, run the risk of confirming those comments. My money is on the latter.