Thread: 7 Answers to 7 Questions About the Nevada Rancher Situation from The Blaze

I think for the proponents who are now spread far and wide with 5 western states following Utah’s lead, and endorsements from the National Association of Counties and the National Republican Party they assume it is a done deal. That might be a little optimistic. However, the growing number of critics should not think that it is out of the question just because the federal agencies don’t think they have an obligation to move it along (we don’t have to, we’re the feds). I do however think that the current administration is taking this challenge seriously as they seem to be determined to create as many national monuments out west as they can. This would move land from the undesignated column to the designated column possibly taking those lands off the table for transfer.
This play is still very much in motion.

People need to get behind the transfer move now before Obama and buddies take alot of the land that could go back to states off the table for transfer, you can bet he is going full speed on that.

Transfer Lands to the States
A second reform approach would be to transfer federal lands to state and local governments. For parks and refuges where the large majority of visitors are in-state residents, it makes sense to transfer control to that state. Robert Nelson has suggested that national parks where more than three-quarters of the visitors are in-state should be transferred to that state.⁶⁷ Remember that Stephen Mather, the first director of the NPS, thought that the federal government ought to manage only parks that were of truly national significance, and the rest should be managed by state and local governments.
Economists Terry Anderson and Peter Hill have argued for reviving federalism in land management, noting that "the discipline of the bottom line is crucial to changing government land management. Unlike national agencies, state land managers do not have a bottomless trough from which to draw their budgets."⁶⁸ The advantages of reviving federalism in land ownership include better citizen monitoring of policy actions and more experimentation in policy solutions.
Robert Nelson has argued that state governments are more efficient land managers than the federal government. He says that "most western states would be capable of earning positive net revenues from BLM lands."⁶⁹ Many states manage their forests as trusts and dedicate some or all of their receipts from the sales of forest products to schools or other public institutions. That provides an incentive to generate a sustained yield over the long run from the resource.
There are other examples of the states managing public lands in an efficient manner with revenues covering costs. Before federal intervention in the mid-20th century, numerous states managed their hunting and fishing resources efficiently by charging user fees. The proceeds were reinvested in the resource, and the states earned net returns. Another example is that at least two states today—New Hampshire and Vermont—have park systems that are self-funded from user fees.⁷⁰
However, there may be drawbacks to simply transferring federal lands to state governments. The states won't be good stewards of land if their management is structured in the same bureaucratic way as federal land management currently is.⁷¹ Like federal land management, state land management can be inefficient and politically driven unless state agencies have incentives to optimize the net returns gained from land users. While transferring lands to the states would gain the decentralizing advantages of federalism, it wouldn't guarantee good stewardship of lands and resources.
Transfer Lands to Fiduciary Trusts
A third option discussed in a Cato Institute policy analysis would be to transfer federal lands to fiduciary trust organizations.⁷² The federal government would retain title to the lands, but trust managers would follow clearly defined missions as either market trusts or nonmarket trusts to either maximize net returns or to preserve and restore ecosystems or cultural resources. Fiduciary trusts are long-standing institutions in British and American common law.
The lands currently managed by BLM, NPS, and FWS could be subdivided into perhaps 100 or more different trust organizations across the country. Market trusts would oversee lands with marketable resources and seek to maximize net revenues while preserving the productive capacity of the land. Nonmarket trusts would be assigned those lands where the goal would be to preserve and restore natural ecosystems, historic structures, and cultural artifacts.
The trusts would be funded by user fees from grazing, recreation, timber harvesting, mining, and other activities currently taking place on federal lands. Nonmarket trusts could also rely on charitable contributions and grants from individuals, foundations, and other groups. Trusts would be governed in a democratic manner and would have numerous governance advantages over current federal land agencies.⁷³
Well-designed land trusts would be insulated from political pressures and self-funded. Trust managers could adjust their fees and charges to fair market value, whether for recreational use, timber sales, grazing, or other activities. A share of trust revenues could be dedicated to a separate fund to protect biodiversity and endangered species, or to achieve other goals written into trust charters.
A proposal by Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) would turn federal timberlands in western Oregon into trust organizations. Under the plan, the lands would be divided in two, with one half managed to emphasize wildlife and other environmental values and the other half managed for timber. A timber trust would manage the timber lands to maximize revenues for the counties that have historically received 50 percent of western Oregon BLM timber receipts. An environmental trust would manage the remaining lands.⁷⁴
Conclusions
Congress should move ahead with a combination of reforms to the Department of the Interior—privatization, transfers to state governments, and the establishment of fiduciary trusts.⁷⁵ Most BLM lands should be turned over to the states or privatized. Major national parks and wildlife refuges are good candidates to establish as fiduciary trusts. Parks such as Yellowstone and Yosemite, for example, could easily cover their costs through user charges. Smaller parks and refuges that are mainly visited by in-state residents should be transferred to those states.

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/...and-management

Nevada Becomes the 5th Western State to Explore the Transfer of Public Lands

Todd Wynn | June 6, 2013 | Add a comment


On June 4, 2013, Governor Brian Sandoval signed into law AB227—“Nevada Land Management Implementation Committee”—making Nevada the fifth western state to actively explore the transfer of public lands to western states. AB227 creates the Nevada Land Management Task Force, which will conduct a study addressing the transfer of public lands in the state.
This movement advocating for the transfer of western public lands began in Utah in 2012. Utah State Representative Ken Ivory introduced and Governor Gary Herbert signed into law HB148— “Transfer of Public Lands Act”—which has subsequently become ALEC model policy for other state legislators to use as an example.
Since the movement began in Utah, legislation has been popping up across the country:

• Idaho passed a resolution (HCR 21) commissioning a committee to ascertain the process for the state to acquire title to and control of public lands currently controlled by the federal government. In addition, Idaho passed a bill (HCR 22) that demands that the federal government transfer title to all of the public lands within Idaho’s borders directly to the State of Idaho.
• Montana passed a resolution (SJR 15) requesting an interim study evaluating the management of certain federal lands, assessing risks, and identifying solutions.
• Wyoming passed a bill (HB 22 that creates a task force to investigate possible legal recourses to compel the federal government to relinquish ownership and management of federal lands.
• Colorado introduced a bill (SB 13-142) that was aimed at forcing the federal government extinguish title to all agricultural public lands and transfer title to the state.
• The South Carolina Assembly passed a resolution (HR 3552) this year supporting the transfer of public lands to willing western states.
• New Mexico introduced a bill (HB292) that would have created a Public Lands Transfer Task Force which would have defined public lands to be transferred from the federal government to the state and developed a mechanism for the transfer of federal public land to the state.
• In the 2012 legislative session, Arizona passed (SB 1332) a transfer of public lands act only to have it vetoed by the Governor.

The federal government still controls more than 50 percent of all lands in the West. It controls less than five percent of the lands in Hawaii and all states east of Colorado. In 2014, expect more states to press this issue both in the East and the West as state legislators are likely to continue to work together through ALEC and other organizations in order to gain back their land.

http://www.americanlegislator.org/ne...-public-lands/

unsticked this discussion in gen disc.

W

http://www.alipac.us/f9/ranch-being-...heriff-301313/

All counties recognize the authority of their state.

All states recognize the authority of the federal government.

Some people don't get it.

RELATED


http://www.alipac.us/f9/sheriff-caug...r-feud-301345/

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

All counties recognize the authority of their state.

All states recognize the authority of the federal government.

Some people don't get it.

And that is the way it will always be, there will be those who never get it on countless levels. That is why every thing is disjointed. If people want things to change they need to take action and quit having tunnel vision.

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

unsticked this discussion in gen disc.

W

Thanks I was about to do it, I think the point of the thread has been made.