Has anyone else heard much about this?

https://wyofile.com/wyoming-backs-utahs-quest-to-seize-blm-land-may-want-other-fed-property/

MeatEater has a recent podcast episode and, for as serious as this sounds for the loss of public lands, I’m surprised I’m not hearing anything about it.

By all accounts if the politicians in Utah were to successfully transfer the BLM lands into state ownership it would set the precedent for transfer of all Federal land in the country. The most likely outcome is that the land would be sold off to private ownership and every U.S. citizen would lose access to hundreds of millions of acres, let alone the ecosystem services these lands provide.

That is a little scary. I like to see things managed at a state level, but states do have a habit of getting money hungry and selling off land to the highest bidder

Ultimately this would make a bunch of investors and developers very rich.
Utah population is growing leaps and bounds.
Sad day if it happens.

I've talked to the forest service and the Blm and they say land swaps are only allowed if it benefits the public ...

Unless maybe $$$$$$$$ back door deal

Who decides if it benefits the public?????
We know who owns the State of Utah and they are already scary rich. Richer than most could comprehend. What about the people who already own the grazing rights or mineral rights to federal land?

Money talks

What's it called when the government owns the means of production?

Or giving it to the Natives like they are doing here.

....also lots of state ground in idaho is posted no tresspass

I haven’t seen any state land posted in Idaho. Where do you see this? A lot of State land here is intermixed with BLM land.

Lots of Federal land is one of the things that makes Utah great for outdoorsmen. Always a place to hunt, trap, fish or just get away. The circle I run with is totally against it. I'm sure developers are licking their chops.

The argument is that these BLM lands are “unappropriated”, which in this context I think means that they aren’t serving some specific purpose, like Forest Service or Park Service. What’s insane is that these guys are arguing that the Feds are holding up these lands and preventing people from utilizing them, whereas BLM land is essentially the least restrictive of all public grounds. You can drive ANYWHERE you want for Pete sake.

Again, I’ve got a vague understanding of the legal side of it, but I’ve got a full understanding that this is simply a massive land grab. I’m hoping Teddy Roosevelt rises from the dead to prevent this from going through.

Is there a lot of buzz about this in Utah? And does it seem likely they’re going to pull this off?

Want land to stay under Federal control? Be careful what you wish for!

In Alaska, the feds have gotten into the habit of disregarding the state's management prerogative and simply closing off great expanses of "public" land to hunting. In my opinion and experience, we are much better as hunters and trappers, with state land ownership and wildlife management.

Pete

Western states are shutting down hunting now. First it was trapping on "public" land. I dont think it matters whether its sold off or not. Forest service has closed tons of roads. Grazing rights are cut every year. Not even legal to pick up dead limbs off the ground, remove them from the forest for firewood. The urbanization of our country is spelling the end of our way of life. Our descendants are not going to hunt trap fish camp and wander around the way we have.

I believe the founders believed in turning Federal real estate into productive private property.

Too much

It's a tough call, because land has become so expensive that most people can't own much of it. Public land is good for the future of hunting because a lot of people have no where else to hunt and this is especially true for youngsters who want to hunt but don't grow up in a family that has land to hunt. Public land is good for the future of hunting and trapping. However, with the stroke of a pen, the Federal government could end all hunting and fishing on federal land by catering to the antis. Would that be more likely if it was in state hands? Well, it depends on the state.

There is no easy answer to this issue.

X2

When USFW bring wolves to your State whose land do they release them on?

Utah has a higher percent of land owned by the feds than Alaska.
63 (33,000,000 acres) vs 60 (222,000,000 acres).

In WI the feds own only 5%. 1,800,000 acres.

TX for as large a state as it is has less than 2% owned by the feds. just over 3,000,000 acres.

I total understand Utah's wanting to get the land away from the feds.
I would support Utah getting the land from the feds, keeping the best of it for parks, etc and selling off the rest.

How can you even hunt, trap or fish in WI with so little federal land?

I have said for years that public land, as we enjoy it today, will go by the wayside. Our Great grandkids, or possibly even our Grandkids, will see the day when the public lands will be made available for private ownership to appease the masses. My county is around 65% public ground. It is a luxury laid out for anyone with the ability to use it. I am hoping that day never comes, but I honestly know better......the powers-that-be, in the future, will find a way to destroy our vast public land holdings and do it while telling us it is for our own good, yet the monies will be made by special interest entities. Just like it always has been. Nothing new here to see.

I didn't realize that Texas is considered "large"

Well, we can trap on public lands here. Too many roads now on the forest - they need to close some down so folks are not driving all over the place. Makes the hunting much better without roads all over the place.
Hunting- it's great on public lands in Wyoming, they even allow hunting in one National Park and Federal wildlife refuges.
Yes we have to pay $20 for 4 cords of firewood we are allowed to cut, just go price some cut wood locally and see if that is expensive or not.
Cattle graze all over the forest too, many folks think way too many at that.

Where are these things happening? Sounds like states' issues not the feds.

Corpse of Engineers ain't no better! I've lost several chunks of Gov land to privateers!

I don’t understand how anyone who enjoys trapping, hunting, and fishing could possibly support a land transfer that will almost certainly result in the land being sold off and privatized?

Boil it down, that’s less opportunity for outdoorsmen and women. As opportunity diminishes, so does interest and participation in these activities. Especially as a trapper, where numbers are already dwindling and our rights to enjoy trapping are constantly being attacked, I would expect everybody to be up in arms.

I used to work for a Federal land management agency, and I agree they’ve got a whacky approach at times. But I’ve never ever considered more land for me to enjoy as a bad thing. And I darn sure don’t have an issue with some roads being closed. That’s less pressure on an area and that always results in better hunting, fishing, trapping.

Not gonna lie, I’m astounded some of you guys don’t take issue with this. This is simply an act of greed that will lead to further destruction of the activities we love.

Its almost gone now

Wytex, I love WY. Have trapped your state a bunch. Look at other states with gobs of BLM and Forrest. Yes it is states doing it. Will happen in WY too. I would have laughed at and derided anyone who told me what the future in CO would be.

Musk says we can support a much bigger population of humans. I think he is right. Does not mean its a good thing. It is inevitable that WY will fill up with people too. Urbanization is the enemy. Huge population growth is causing it.

Its going to happen.

The only thing hindering a mass exodus to MT ID and WY is winter. In UT its the religious cult.

Trump said he’s going to sell off fed land to the highest bid by developers to develop 10-15 new cities.

Hunting would only improve if we sold off that little federal land. Same could be said about the state land. I have yet to see a government agency take care of the land better than private party

Were homesteaders developers?

Merry Christmas and may God bless you Brother Clifton.

Not WI but, I've done a lifetime of hunting, fishing & trapping. Started in the 1950's and still doing it. To the best of my knowledge, i have never hunted, fished or trapped on federal land except for one year on a military base in OK. Only privately owned land for the past 15 years. I only do Maine now:

Key points about federal land in Maine:
Percentage: 1.06%
Acreage: Approximately 209,735 acres
Ranking: Maine ranks 43rd in the nation for federal land ownership

Did lots of PA back in the day, no federal.
The federal government owns 2.2% of Pennsylvania's land, or 622,160 acres out of the state's total of 28.8 million acres. The U.S. Forest Service owns the majority of federal land in Pennsylvania

Only if you have lots of money to either buy the land or pay the people who do buy it for access. Privatization will make it just like Europe, where hunting is only available for the priviliged few. . . or poachers, which is a respected pastime there simply because there is no legal way for the common man to have access to hunting.

Big difference between East & West when it comes to H, T & F on private land. I've been doing it for more than sixty years in the east. All on state- or privately-owned land. I have never asked for permission. Still doing more than 60 days a year, all on private land, and I do not need to ask for permission.

Hunting wouldn’t improve for anybody when they lost access and the land became developed. Do you hunt in a cul de sac or a strip mall?

Your experience and access is different from a LOT of people who share the same passions as you. You know what’s great about federal lands? You could go to hundreds of millions of acres, more acreage than the entire state you live in, without having to ask anybody permission.

Do you have a quote?

Would only take 26 million acres to pay off the national debt. Then they could start all over.

I know a few Europeons that hunt and fish in Europe. Most are probably middle class.

Good for those few people. I know 370 million people that have uninhibited access to hundreds of millions of acres of land. They’re from all classes and can hunt, fish, trap, hike, kayak, canoe, gain mineral and grazing rights, benefit from clean air and water, and the list goes on.

I’d absolutely hate to see the U.S. turn into Europe. What about you?

Sell off CA CO NM and AZ public land to pay off the national debt I would get behind it. They are effectively shut off to me anyway.

Eliminating that debt would do wonders for the value of the dollar.

I agree. I would hate to see people embrace socialism like they do in Europe. Seems the battle has been lost.

I guess we better sell our roads and all public school buildings then.

Exactly right Pete. Look at the refuge on the Kenai. I have a home right beside it and have to drive a very long way to get access, then fight the crowds.

39% is owned by State, County, fed and corporate that allows public use.

On top of that there is always getting permission from private owners.

I find that with the right approach its not hard to get use of private lands.

Most often if your denied its cause of previous other Hunters/trappers/fisherman that have abused the trust, hard to rebuild that trust.

Hunting/fishing/trapping is always better on private lands.

Until the last year or so I payed for access to private land for fishing. Access was sold to anyone who wanted to pay so I wasn't the only one.
Cost was Approx $200/yr.
It gave me access to several miles of river, below the private land there was public access.
The crowds were about the same.
Only difference was the type of people you'd run into and have to deal with.
Public land had all the slobs, snaggers, litterbugs and inconsiderate people.
Private land was not at all like the public.
People on the private were much more freindly, you'd get to know them and exchange fishing reports and info.
They had a higher ethic when it came to fishing.

Well worth the $200 to fish there.
The fishing wasn't any better but the people were.
I fished both places regularly, maybe 30-50 times/yr.

I'll bet that almost all of you that would complain about paying $200 to fish and unlimited amount have many places they could cut $200 from their yearly budget.

I don't have any issue with land owners charging for access.
I allow access to my land to one person for hunting, no charge.

Well thank the Good Lord for bad weather and the church.

$200 and up a day in Wy. and MT.

At one time didn't the government give land grants to settlers and allow claims to allow ownership? The Government tried to get people on land to establish populations correct? Why would we not want to take land out of government ownership and get it in the peoples hands thus creating more tax base, and private land ownership. Cannot make more land but we can get more people of which we have way more people today on land as owners. I understand the selfish perspective of wanting access but it would benefit our country with 333 million people to open more land up to settlers.

If the States win in SCOTUS on this issue, and the States are given title, I am pretty sure they will not sell the land to private interests. These States already have a lot of State land and aren't selling it, it is still staying in the public domain. I'm sure it would stay that way.

Alaska is hurting financially and I know of a couple instances just in the last few years where they’ve clearcut state land and sold it off to private ownership. So I’m pretty sure they could do whatever they want with it. In the case of Utah, I’d bet it will end up in Mormon hands faster than you can blink.

But beyond that, and the reason for my concern, this would set the precedent for all Federal lands being opened up to transferring to state ownership. Say what you want, but in the interest of wildlife populations, habitat connectivity, recreational access, ecosystem services, management funding, etc, I’m happy to see it stay under Federal management.

Water is the main factor in limiting the development of more land in the desert of the west.
Most of Wyoming has less than 10" of anual precipitation. Our major water sheds are shared with other states down stream. Development of public land would be somthing that would force some extremely restricted use of natural resources. Private land is almost always managed better than public. This would effect most of the larger ranches that have had grazing leases for generations. And I'm sure the price of beef and lamb would increase greatly. As far as more tax revenues. We would be better of cutting the fat in our Gubment. .
Get rid of the Government waist program.

https://www.land.com/property/40-acres-in-Sweetwater-County-Wyoming/20180004/

The reason almost all BLM is BLM is because there was no way to homestead it. Forest and BLM are pretty marginal.

If we’re talking sage flats and prairies, which is mostly what I’ve seen of BLM land, then you’re still talking about a very biodiverse ecosystem. It can make for excellent hunting and trapping, and I’d hate to see that taken away from my fellow outdoorsmen.

Thanks for the explanations of the type of land and water issues with it.

Me too. The reality is though states are doing just that. If federal land is sold to pay the national debt in states that have limited/banned/reduced, hunting trapping fishing camping foraging then what is there to lose??????????????????????????

Assuming buyers can be found. if it takes a section to feed 3-4 cow calf pairs, or more, how much commercial value does it have? Some forest is valuable for timber but any bets on whether condition of sale is no timber harvest? My guess is states want the land with no federal compensation. Any money from sales going to the state.

Because people gifted lands would just sell them at first chance, eventually, like now, only people owning land would be those that sacrificed something.

Where are you getting this idea that the sale would go towards paying off national debt? I’d bet that land would sell for pennies on the dollar and not a single penny would go towards our $30 trillion+ in debt. The estimate is $500/acre and I hate to inform you, but we don’t have 60 BILLION acres of land to sell.

BLM is the least restrictive of all federal lands and currently affords all of those opportunities, however limited by the ecosystem.

Would you support foreign countries buying that land? Or a Mormon cult? I have a feeling they’re most likely to land it but, hey, at least they’ll shave a few million off our skyrocketing national debt.

i dont care who buys land I have been tossed off of.

And of course lock you out of it.

500 an acre ? Even the common man could buy some.

Sounds to me like you’d give up the liberty of public land for the temporary safety of less national debt.

Go west young man go west. Bring traps and guns. Go to CO NM AZ CA and find out how much liberty you still have. Its obvious you dont have a clue whats been stolen from you.

I’ve lived in Alaska and Montana. Harvested a lot of critters in those states and enjoyed the heck out of the vast expanses of those public lands. I’ve worked fires in several other western states.

No doubt some of those states you mention have limited access for various reasons. More people mixing with the landscape will only bring more complexities. Doesn’t mean we should sell our traps and guns and give up.

https://images.app.goo.gl/U8KX1jdht5PLLbZT9
The problem that people in the west have against Federal ownership is that the Bureaucrats and politicians in washington DC are "managing" the natutal resources in places like Nevada which is about 90% owned by the Feds. It was never intended to work this way.
I can assure you, if the States get these millions of acres, it will not go into private ownership. There might be a little more development of some of, ski areas, etc., but that wss the original idea, multiple use for economic development.

For any activity to take place on Federal lands, for better or for worse, there’s a NEPA process. This gives people a say in what activities can take place where so it’s not necessarily just up to bureaucrats. Of course it’s not a perfect process and I recognize that in some instances the state is better off managing some of these lands. Heck, Federal land is sold or swapped all the time. Typically to improve access, habitat congruency, or management opportunities. But never on the proposed scale.

I would just encourage that people listen to the MeatEater podcast that I mentioned previously. This issue is more about the door that will be opened if these Utah BLM lands are allowed to be sold and what it means for all Federally owned lands in the future. In a world where our common interests are always under attack I don’t believe this is an outcome we want to see.

They're going to get their butts handed to them in court AGAIN for like the 50th time on this. They signed off any claims to these lands when they became a state. How conveniently they never bring that up. Not once, but twice they gave up any future ownership of said lands. I won't beat around the bush, the LDS church and their cronies in the statehouse are driving this movement. Follow the money. They want to turn the whole state into the Deseret ranch

Common man would never get the chance. These lands would be sold before the public ever got a whiff of them being available

Lol, you named off 4 Democrat controlled states. Well done.

They gave the state of Nevada several million acres. They sold off every bit of it. It would take someone from Washington to think making this private is a good idea. Sorry, but this am idiotic idea every time it gets mentioned. You think it's hard to find places to go now, wait till the LDS church, China, and Blackrock own everything. Then get back to us about how free this country is.

There's not a single western state that could manage the federal land within their borders any better than the feds do, and that's not setting the bar very high. First fire season would destroy their budget, feds will laugh and say good luck. Those lands will be sold at the drop of a hat, access denied, and the things you enjoy now will be nothing but distant memories. It's far from a perfect system now, but it's better than any ideas this idiots in Utah could ever possibly come up with.

Sneaky, I'm one of those Utah idiots and I couldn't agree more. Well said Sir.

I can't speak for Utah, but the State of Alaska sold me two peices of State land and amazingly one ten acre parcel for 500 an acre. I even hunt and trap them.

Hey Sneaky, ask huntetd and trappers in Alaska how they feel about the Feds managing most of Alaska.

If the state those federal acres are in does not want you to trap hunt or fish guess what? If those acres are sold in the communist states of CA AZ NM CO, we only stand to gain. Some of you need to start with the first post and get caught up.

What’s the issue up there? I know lots of folks who enjoy the endless amounts of land up there, myself included

I'm guessing most folks who live in States without a lot of Federal land probably aren't aware of some of the issues.

In Alaska and other States the Feds try to control wildlife management on "their" lands. The Feds, because they get their direction from D.C. won't allow the State to do predator control and other wildlife management practices. The Feds say who can and who can't hunt or trap on Federal lands.

If you want to build a trapping cabin on Federal lands they will burn it down, yet you can get a permit to build one on State lands.

The State is much easier to work with; the Feds impossible.

The number one reason why the Feds should not own large amount of land (other than military reservations) is because it is unconstitutional.

Kind of a blurry map, but the green is Feds, yellow is native, and orange is State. Jimmy Carter under pressure from environmental extremists put most of that green land into National Parks and Preserves which greatly restricted or eliminated hunting and trapping.
https://images.app.goo.gl/mJheuTqLuKa46AQF8

I wonder how the Humane Society of the U.S. feels about this issue?