• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

OT, let's move this discussion to a new thread....

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
So, what you are saying OT, is that Montana is being Federally subsidized by Federal Taxpayers, from the rest of the Country?

Why couldn't Montana afford to manage the land, that is now federally owned?

Are you guys "Welfare Queens" in Montana?

Sounds like a Socialized system to me?

Aren't you guys in the middle of a BIG oil boom, in Montana?



As a few of the candidates said- Montana gets a lot of income off federal "public" lands- not only in the cattle/timber raised on them but the hunting, fishing, and recreationists tourist monies...

Do you think Montana gets 100% of what the Feds. charge? Or is there a bit lost for the Fed. bureaucracy. What stops Montana from charging the same amount, and reducing costs?

As far as our county- which has a large percentage of federal lands that pay no taxes-- without the federal governments PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) funds- the local and county governments would have a tough time operating.... And if the state took over- that federal money would no longer be coming in- but remember that payment is not only for ranchers/lessee's but the public of the country that come to this area as tourists and folks recreating ...

If they are not Federal lands anymore, would the users be paying federal taxes? "Payment in Lieu of taxes? Think about that one for a bit.

Out here on the prairie- yes I think the state could manage the land.... Like I said- it would probably take a big raise in state grazing rates to cover the lost PILT money's....Over in the national forests- not so sure... One fire year could bankrupt the state...

"In lieu of taxes" again, which means subsidization, by other states, or that the Feds. get use of all, or most of your money and they give a portion back.

Oil boom- yes on the edge of it... Mostly in eastern Montana now- and only now is our Governor talking of allowing some money to trickle down to this part of the state (we would be better off in ND) or if we had local sales taxes like ND... local governments getting both the benefits and the expenses of it right now until the local infrastructure gets built up...

So, what you are saying is that Montana would be better off, if they were combined with ND, so as to take advantage of the "boom", in ND, or if you had a sales tax to pay your own way?

Countries work much better when everyone pays their own way. Do you think the Feds. subsidize cattle ranchers in Alberta?

Is that something to criticize?

How do ranchers gain the opportunity to graze cattle on Provincial/Federal lands, here in Alberta?

We have no sales tax, like Montana, and do not mooch off the province next to us, like you want to do?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I just don't understand how you think Montana is paying for all these benefits themselves, while the money is changing hands, and bureaucracies, a couple times, and how that is not being subsidized?

Same amount of money, from state taxpayers, correct?

OT, if you get a mortgage through your local bank, which has to get it through a National bank, which gets it through an international bank, how much is that process costing the end user?

For some reason, you have a hate on for Big Banks, but have no problem with big government, which works in much the same way...middle men.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rosendale calls for transferring federal lands to state

April 18, 2014 6:02 pm • By CHARLES S. JOHNSON Gazette State Bureau

HELENA — Republican U.S. House candidate Matt Rosendale is proposing that the federal government transfer Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in Montana to the state to manage and control.

Federal lands make up 35 percent of Montana.

“The U.S. Constitution clearly defines the purpose for the federal government to retain land for post offices, batteries and things like that,” Rosendale said. “There is no call in the Constitution for the federal government to own national forests or BLM land and just to manage those additional lands."

Both Congress and the Legislature would have to approve his proposal. Rosendale, a Republican state senator from Glendive, said he’s been working on the idea with the American Lands Council, a group in South Jordan, Utah.

Rosendale’s proposal wouldn’t affect Glacier National Park or other National Park Service lands or Indian reservations or national monuments.

The Forest Service now manages 19.1 million acres in Montana, while the BLM manages 8.3 million acres, plus 47.2 million subsurface acres here, according to the agencies.

“If we were able to manage and control those lands, we would be able to generate much more economic-development opportunities,” Rosendale said. “We would be able to harvest a lot of that timber, we’d be able to acquire the minerals that are located in those areas and once again utilize the economic opportunities that are located in there.”

He said the federal government is losing money managing federal lands in states. The federal government is denying access for recreation, compromising air quality by not allowing logging, which leads to forest fires, and hurts fisheries as well.

“It’s economically unfriendly, environmentally unfriendly and adverse to the Constitution,” he said.

But Nick Gevock, outreach director for the Montana Wildlife Federation, adamantly opposed the idea.

“This isn’t personal, but getting to the policy, I think it’s a horrible idea,” Gevock said. “Montana has a $5.8 billion annual outdoor industry and these federal lands are absolutely essential to that. These are the places where Montanans hunt and fish and hike and ski and go wildlife watching, and that is essential to the quality of life here.”

Gevock also predicted that if the state took over the federal lands, Montana would have to sell off large swaths of land to private landowners in order to pay for firefighting costs.

“We couldn’t afford to manage these lands,” Gevock said. “It would be a budget buster for the state of Montana. Once those lands are in private hands, they are off-limits, or they very well could be.”


In response to these concerns, Rosendale said, “I don’t believe the lands would need to be sold to the private sector. If the state did believe it, that would (be) the citizens of Montana doing it, not someone 2,200 miles away."

He said he’s confident the transfer will spur economic growth for the state through added revenue that could be realized from development of the lands.

The Forest Service had the equivalent of 1,570 full-time employees in Montana as of 2012, not counting the Missoula Fire Lab and the Missoula Tech Development Center. The BLM had 571 full-time equivalent employees combined in Montana, and North and South Dakota in 2012.

Rosendale said he believes the state would need to hire far fewer employees to manage these lands and is confident the many more private-sector jobs would be created.

Gevock said the federal employees whose jobs may be lost if the lands are transferred “are members of their communities and taxpayers themselves.”

He said the BLM as a federal agency returns $4 to the U.S. Treasury for every $1 it spends.

The Montana Wildlife Federation official also predicted that ranchers would experience a sharp increase in grazing rates if the federal lands are transferred.

“We should be honest with our cattle producers that there will be sharp increases in grazing rates,” Gevock said. “Market rates are well over $20 an AUM (animal unit month). They pay $1.35 an AUM to the BLM.”



Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/rosendale-calls-for-transferring-federal-lands-to-state/article_4ae4e88a-0d20-55db-95ec-72fb88fd1d20.html#ixzz2zZcMXLfL

As far as your Sagebrush Rebellion-- this fellow isn't getting the greatest of support locally with ranchers or sportsmen-except for a few anti all federal government folks... The majority of the ranchers I've seen locally comment on this is they support local and state government having much more input into how federal lands are operated- but don't want the state in total control/take total liability for them....And I don't think some would like to see the increase in grazing fees that the state is being pressured to make...In 2011 they raised the fees to around $10 an AUM (in comparison to BLM which is approximately $1.40 AUM) - but there is a lot of pressure from state residents to raise them to match private lease rates which are going as high as $50 an AUM, to allay some of the property tax rates...
In our area since so much of State owned land is interspersed with Federal land the BLM works closely with the management on state land...

Other candidates react to land-transfer idea

April 18, 2014 8:51 pm • Gazette State Bureau


HELENA — Here are comments from other candidates for the U.S. House on a proposal by Republican Matt Rosendale to transfer certain federal lands to the state:

State Sen. Elsie Arntzen, a Republican from Billings: “I would like to see Montana be in much more control, yes. But I think you need to have a more detailed, in-depth plan on how you’re going to work with counties on PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes). Federal lands are not being taken care of to the best extent possible.” Montana local governments last year received $26.5 million in PILT payments from the federal government to compensate counties for lost property tax revenue from the lands.

Former Public Service Commissioner John Driscoll, a Democrat from Helena: “People better take that proposal seriously. I’m not for it. If I had anything to say about it, we better get our act together.” He said Montanans need to organize to preserve what they have.

John Lewis, a Democrat from Helena: “The devil is in the details, but in general, transferring all federal lands to the states is not a realistic or responsible solution that would not guarantee that Montanans have a greater say in the land use designations that affect them and their businesses.” Lewis said he fears such a transfer could raise taxes on Montanans when the state takes over the job of fighting wildfires and managing roads, bridges, trails and campsites and the financial obligations.

Former state Sen. Corey Stapleton, a Republican from Billings: “Yes, I would support looking at how you would do it. I don’t know how you would be able to do it. I support the idea. The feds haven’t proved to be good stewards at all. … I think Montanans could solve it better than the blowhards in Washington, D.C.”

Drew Turiano, a Republican from Helena: “I support that. I think the federal government owns a lot of land. It should be our prerogative to do what we want.” He said if the state wants to drill for oil, manage the forests or mine the federal lands, it should be the state’s prerogative, he said.

Former state Sen. Ryan Zinke, a Republican from Whitefish: “I think his plan is not well thought out. At the end of the day, I think you have to do a cost-benefit analysis and be very careful. I do believe that Montana can manage its land probably better. Montana does get a buck forty back from the federal government. You have to remember there is a liability, too. ... So you’re saying we’re going to get in and say America can’t manage its land anymore. I fundamentally disagree. We need to put the (federal) bureaucracy and overreach back in the box.”


Read more: http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/other-candidates-react-to-land-transfer-idea/article_9416bad4-d521-5317-8f21-aa5d93e85820.html#ixzz2zZeky9Xo

Like I said- I'm not sure how the funding goes for the central and western parts of the state with Forest Service land... We don't have any-- but I do agree with Zinke and some of the others that there is a lot of things to look at- the first being the Taylor Grazing Act... If the state gains possession of the land- do they have to honor the Federal commitments in the Taylor grazing act- or will the be able to lease/or sell it to the highest bidder.... :???:

As I also said before- with the large pastures interspersed with deeded, state, and federal land- I think BLM/Feds have done a fair job in our area of building dams, cross fencing, trying to control sage and noxious weeds, firefighting, building roads, recreational areas, boat ramps, etc..- which I'm not sure the state could do without raising grazing and use fees...

I do believe the Federal government should take note on and allow the local and state governments much more input into their policy's and planning-- but right now I'm not convinced that just turning federal land over to the state or selling it is the best answer... Much more planning needs to be done... Just too many unanswered questions....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
the state would be able to honour any and all previous agreements...how difficult is that to comprehend.

If they don't, then the electorate would most likely not accept.

And I don't think some would like to see the increase in grazing fees that the state is being pressured to make...In 2011 they raised the fees to around $10 an AUM (in comparison to BLM which is approximately $1.40 AUM)

Are they, the state lands, better managed at $10, over the BLM land? Input costs on BLM land versus state? How do they compare. Sounds like a guy like Leanin H does quite a bit of fencing for the difference.

Demand a certain management level at that price, or purchase the BLM grazing. Or why not put it up for auction every year and practice some "true capitalism"?

Is that possible, to allow more efficient cattle ranchers to bid on the BLM permits, or have they been owned by families for decades?

There are lots of possibilities.

Are you not the one that usually criticizes others for not wanting to "progress" and always being stuck in the "dark ages"... :wink:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
the state would be able to honour any and all previous agreements...how difficult is that to comprehend.

If they don't, then the electorate would most likely not accept.

And I don't think some would like to see the increase in grazing fees that the state is being pressured to make...In 2011 they raised the fees to around $10 an AUM (in comparison to BLM which is approximately $1.40 AUM)

Are they, the state lands, better managed at $10, over the BLM land? Input costs on BLM land versus state? How do they compare. Sounds like a guy like Leanin H does quite a bit of fencing for the difference.

Demand a certain management level at that price, or purchase the BLM grazing. Or why not put it up for auction every year and practice some "true capitalism"?

Is that possible, to allow more efficient cattle ranchers to bid on the BLM permits, or have they been owned by families for decades?

There are lots of possibilities.

Are you not the one that usually criticizes others for not wanting to "progress" and always being stuck in the "dark ages"... :wink:

It wouldn't bother me to "progress"- but I'm not so sure how many of those with grazing leases would be wanting to see the raise in the fees... There is still a lot of pressure on the State land board to come back in a couple of years and put the state grazing fees closer to those on private land (approximately $30-50).... And every year there are more non-ranchers in the state supporting that then their are ranchers opposing it... Guess who eventually will win out...
Or how those with leases would like to compete against the greenies/bunny hugger international groups that seem to have way more financing than any ranchers anymore when it comes to buying up land and leases...

Like I said- I don't have a dog in this hunt- as the only BLM rights are because I own deeded land in the middle of a pasture interspersed with State and Federal land... I could always just fence it and then not need to fool with AUM's...(Its also the chunk that the oil companies have released continually since the 1950's :wink: )...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
It wouldn't bother me to "progress"- but I'm not so sure how many of those with grazing leases would be wanting to see the raise in the fees...

Maybe just let them know how much of a "welfare queen" they are, like you have no problem doing here on Ranchers...you seem like such a smooth talker, able to influence others, for sure.

Maybe the state could set aside land for agriculture use...by protecting a turtle or something, and outlawing commercial development, like Nevada has. :wink:

It's not like the environmentalists are determining where cattle are grazed, or where pipelines are allowed in Montana, with their campaign $, is it?

Libertarian, are you?
 
Top