False Allegations Get Left-Wing Attack Watchdog Group Nowhere.

By ZACHARY MATSON TODAY’S News-Herald |

Allegations of fraud against the president of the American Lands Council don’t have Mohave County reconsidering its $5,000 membership in the organization, a pair of supervisors said Monday.

Ken Ivory, a Utah state lawmaker and president of the lands council, came under scrutiny last week after a left-leaning nonprofit accused him of “an illegal scheme to defraud local government officials out of taxpayer funds.”

The lands council advocates for transferring federal land to state and local control and is primarily funded by the membership dues of county and municipal governments.

A Washington D.C.-based nonprofit advocacy group, Campaign for Accountability, filed complaints with western state attorneys general, including in Arizona. The complaint alleges that Ivory used the American Lands Council to enrich himself and his wife, who receive the majority of the council’s funding.

The group raised more than $200,000 in 2013 from its membership dues and contributions, according to tax filings. Ivory was paid $95,000 and his wife was paid nearly $20,000 by the lands council that year. Ivory is the group’s president and chief spokesperson while his wife is a communications director.

Mohave County supervisors said they knew of the complaint but weren’t worried about its substance.

Supervisor Hildy Angius said she wasn’t concerned by any of the allegations against Ivory. In fact, Angius was in Washington on Monday meeting with members of Arizona’s congressional delegation about the transfer of public lands and brought Ivory along with her.

“We are proud to be a part of the American Lands Council, now more than ever,” Angius said.

Moreover, Angius said she took offense to the portrayal of elected county officials in the complaint, which refers to “unsuspecting Arizona officials.” The county knew what they were paying for, she said, and feels strongly about the importance of moving federal land toward local control.

“They must be very scared of (Ivory) and his message of freedom for the people of the West and their fight against the tyranny of federal government to be going after him in such a petty manner,” Angius said.

Ivory defended himself and went on the offensive against the group that filed the complaints during a webcast interview with the Salt Lake City Tribune last week. He said the complaints were a “political stunt” and questioned where the group’s own funding comes from.

He said as the lands council grew larger the share of its budget that his salary represented would shrink.

“I’ve been hired to do a job,” Ivory said. “I understand that in America we still appreciate that ethic of ‘a day’s pay for a day’s work.’”

Supervisor Buster Johnson said while he “wasn’t overly enthusiastic” about the county joining the council in the first place, he voted in favor of it as a sign of support to his fellow supervisors and county commissioners in Utah as well.

“I don’t see it as a major expenditure and obviously we will keep an eye on it to see how it works,” Johnson said. “I have faith in my Utah counterparts, and I’ve heard no complaints about how (the lands council) is run.”

For more about Ken Ivory and the American Lands Council visit americanlandscouncil.org

For more about the groups that oppose the Public Lands Transfer movement visit greendecoys.com

FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST KEN IVORY AND THE AMERICAN LANDS COUNCIL

Groups Opposing a Transfer of Public Lands Sink To New Low.

This week a slanderous attack was levied against American Lands Council (ALC) President Ken Ivory by a mysterious new group seeking to derail our mission of transferring federal public lands to willing states. In an orchestrated publicity stunt, the group filed consumer complaints alleging that ALC’s efforts to discuss with and educate the public about state control of public land is somehow, “fraudulent.” Ironically they allege this while simultaneously issuing a press release touting unfounded and inaccurate claims about Ken Ivory, ALC and our supporters.

“There are those who would like to silence our organization and deny the public the opportunity to discuss critical issues regarding ownership and management of public lands.” said Kane County, UT Commissioner Doug Heaton who is a founding member of the American Lands Council. “The economic, legal, and environmental case for transferring public lands to the states is so strong that hundreds of elected officials have joined our efforts to improve access, health, and productivity on public lands through local control, and nearly every state in the west has introduced transfer of public lands related legislation. Some states have called for the transfer and others are studying it. Even eastern states are coming on board.”

Recently, key members of Congress formed a “Federal Land Action Group” to map out a path for transferring federal land to willing states, noting, “The federal government has been a lousy landlord for western states and we simply think the states can do better.”

The American Lands Council was established in 2012 by County Commissioners and State Legislators who share the goal of achieving more thoughtful, accountable, and locally driven stewardship to improve public access, environmental health, and economic productivity on public lands.

As for the personal attacks on Ivory, Heaton surmised, “That is the low road the opposition seems to prefer, but it’s nothing more than another deceptive publicity stunt. Ken Ivory is a man of impeccable integrity, an unfailing advocate of liberty, and a brilliant legal mind. We are blessed to have him leading this effort because better management of our public lands truly will benefit our counties, states, and our nation as whole.”

Ivory brushed it off as “desperate bullying.”

“These types of organizations have just destroyed Western public lands through this kind of litigation and bullying tactics,” he said. “They’re so afraid of the success that the transfer of public lands movement is having that they’re stooping to these kinds of bullying tactics because they can’t tolerate basic political debate.”

Ivory successfully sponsored Utah’s Transfer of Public Lands Act which passed into law in 2012. The policy has garnered endorsements from the National Association of Counties and a variety of state and local governments, as well as other organizations who have studied the issue.

Find out more about the these groups at greendecoys.com

Find out the truth about the Transfer of Public Lands movement at americanlandscouncil.org

It’s time for the federal government to trust states with their own public lands

Late last month the Senate passed a non-binding budget resolution that encourages the selling or transfer of federal lands to state and local governments. With a Republican Congress, the longstanding question over federal management of public lands is resurfacing once again with renewed urgency.
The federal government owns large parts of the forests, deserts, and other rural areas of the American West—in total around half of all the land in the Rocky Mountain and Pacific Coast states. Roughly 30% of federal lands are made up of wilderness and national parks, while the rest are used for timber harvesting, grazing, energy leasing, and recreation.
This pervasive federal presence is a product of policies championed at the turn of the 20th century.

Throughout the nineteenth century, however, the government aggressively disposed of its land holdings to private landowners and state governments, seeking to advance economic development and the pursuit of “manifest destiny.” It was in the period from 1890 to 1920 that American Progressives successfully argued that these lands would be more expertly managed in federal hands.
After more than 100 years of experience, we now know otherwise, that these lands would be better under state or private management. It’s a lesson I learned well during almost two decades at the Department of the Interior working as a policy analyst in the Office of the Secretary.
Instead of much greater efficiency, the research conducted by myself and others has shown that federal management turned out to be wasteful—typical of many government-owned enterprises around the world over the course of the 20th century—as well as detrimental to the land itself.
High costs, poor return

Federal “multiple-use” lands (excluding national parks and other special use lands) averaged $7.2 billion in costs per year from 2009 to 2013, according to a recent report from the Property and Environmental Research Center (PERC), a non-profit think tank that seeks market solutions to environmental problems. At the same time they brought in just $5.3 billion in revenues (mostly royalties from oil, gas and coal leases in a few energy rich states).
Over the same period, similar state-owned lands returned $14.5 for every dollar spent on management while achieving comparable or better land results in areas such as the use of forest and range land resources.
Because public land costs are such a tiny part of the immense federal budget, the issue seldom receives close scrutiny, relieving pressure on the government to manage its lands more efficiently. And since all taxpayers bear the costs, states themselves have little incentive to put pressure on federal managers to raise revenues or reduce expenses.
Layers of red tape

Even if they wanted to, it would be difficult for federal land managers to bring their expert skills to bear. Over the years, layer upon layer of requirements for environmental impact statements, land use plans, and other regulatory and procedural steps have created a suffocating burden of red tape.
In 2002 in The Process Predicament, the US Forest Service begged for relief, declaring that “unfortunately, the Forest Service operates within a statutory, regulatory and administrative framework that has kept the agency from effectively addressing rapid declines in forest health.”
Poorly managed western forests, for example, had become overstocked with large volumes of “excess fuels.” From the 1980s on-wards, these dead trees and limbs increasingly erupted into large, environmentally damaging conflagrations, requiring billions of dollars to be spent annually on forest fire suppression.
Beyond the executive branch, federal courts have also gotten more involved in public land use, drastically increasing their role since the 1970s and now often dictating even local management details. For example, federal judges have blocked many specific timber sales in the West, for example, to protect biodiversity.
The wasted energy opportunity

The United States has been experiencing an energy revolution in recent years owing to new methods of extracting oil and gas from shale. Because of the cumbersome federal land bureaucracy, the lack of incentives and other constraints, however, this revolution has largely bypassed the public lands.
Charles Merrill, a professor at Columbia law school, noted in the Case Western Reserve Law Review in 2013 that in “looking at a map of the United States where fracking activity is underway, and comparing it to a map showing areas of land and associated mineral rights that are controlled by the federal government,” one finds that “there is very little overlap”—and not due to any lack of oil and gas shale resources in the West.
None of this is news, admittedly. At public land conferences since the early 1990s, economists, political scientists, retired federal managers and other professionals have lamented the “dysfunctional” public land system. Yet, little has changed over that period. This is partly a consequence of the increasing partisanship and other dysfunctions that have afflicted many other areas of federal policy making and administration.
It is also, however, a result of the deep ambivalence felt by many Westerners about reducing the federal presence. The large flows of “wasted” federal money also represent an important economic asset for the rural West. Perhaps the truest statement ever made with respect to their attitudes towards the public lands is that westerners want the federal government to “go away and give us more money.”
Growing Western anger

The federal government, however, has not gone away. With the level of Western frustration growing, and the federal government increasingly strapped for funds to send to the West, pressure for change has mounted in recent years. Western states are now threatened, for example, with the designation of the sage grouse as an endangered species, an action that would put many millions of acres of Western rangeland under tight federal control.
In 2014, Utah conducted a comprehensive study of the implications of transferring ordinary public lands and their federal management costs and revenues to the state. The study showed that if Utah had replicated federal management practices in 2013, the state would have incurred $117 million in net additional costs.
Projecting these results across the full West, the fiscal benefits to the federal government could exceed $1 billion per year for transferring ordinary public lands—predominantly used for timber harvesting, livestock grazing, and hiking, hunting, fishing, and other state and local recreational use, along with highly profitable energy leasing—to state ownership. National parks, wilderness areas, and the other most valuable nationally owned lands would remain in federal hands.
Western states need to decide: do they want the federal government to go away or do they want the federal money?
If the West were to decide to assume greater control of its lands, states would not only be able to improve the quality of management but also do it at much lower costs—and earn much higher net revenues—than the federal government.
This would be possible in part because they would be free of federal judicial micro-management and the many rules and regulatory entanglements that have made effective federal management of the public lands so difficult for more than 20 years.
It’s time the US turned the page on the era of federal ownership of public lands and resumed transferring land to the states in order to raise more revenue and improve its management.

This post originally appeared at The Conversation.

FEDERAL GOV. WANTS TO SELL EXCESS AND UNUSED FEDERAL LAND TO FUND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Apr 22 2015 WASHINGTON, D.C.–This week, Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced H.R. 1931 the American Land Act. This bill would require the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest System to open up about 1/3 of its land over five years for sale to the American people. The federal government currently owns 27% of the total land in the United States. This land is larger than the countries of France, Spain, Germany, Poland, Italy, United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium put together. The proceeds from the sales–potentially billions–would be directly deposited into the Highway Trust Fund, making an investment in our transportation infrastructure. “It is time for the federal government to let Americans own American land. The government cannot afford its massive estate; we need to give up some of our assets to pay for desperately needed infrastructure projects”, said Poe. “Allowing Americans to buy American land would provide a way to generate new revenue without new taxes, create new jobs and stimulate economic growth. Transferring ownership of natural resources to the public would also be a more efficient way to utilize our natural assets. This is common sense.” The bill does not authorize the sale of land owned by the National Park Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Forest Service is mismanaging our public lands!

A movement is afoot to transfer federally managed public lands to the states. Environmentalists characterize it as a right-wing land seizure that would allow our public spaces to be trashed by greedy exploiters, such as rogue miners, off-road vehicle abusers and other deleterious actors.

In reality, it is pure Americana. People from both sides of the political divide have concluded that our federal land managers have so mismanaged our public properties that they should be replaced. A bill in the last New Mexico legislative session called for a committee to study the possible transfer of federal lands to state control. The bill was tabled but will return next year. Transfer bills are advancing in Arizona and Idaho. Related legislation has been approved in Utah and the U.S. Senate.

The U.S. Forest Service is an example of federal mismanagement. After more than a century of USFS oversight, it is observably clear that the vast majority of our western forests are either burned-out hulks – a result of devastating wildfire fueled by overgrowth – or tinderboxes awaiting a spark.

The USFS created this situation in the early 1990s when it began to reduce timber harvesting while simultaneously resuming the suppression of wildfires. Properly structured timber harvesting programs as well as the allowance of fires are both sustainable forest management techniques. But for 25 years we have had essentially neither. The USFS’s publicly-funded forest thinning efforts and prescribed burns are so feeble relative to the magnitude of the problem that they are almost pointless.

The mismanagement problem includes economics as well as access issues. The Property and Environment Research Center, an environmental think tank in Montana, recently studied the economic performance of federally managed lands in four western states, including New Mexico. It found that while these states earn an average of $14.51 for every dollar they spend on their state lands, the feds lose 27 cents. On average the states earn many times more than the feds for similar activities; seven times more on timber and energy development, 35 times more on grazing, and 25 times more on recreation. In New Mexico, the potential lost revenue is over $800 million. The report is found at www.perc.org/DividedLands.

Meanwhile, the Bureau of Land Management and USFS have been restricting motorized access on public lands. Certainly, all of our public lands require protection from abuse, such as willy-nilly off-road travel or destructive logging.

In the mid-2000s the USFS initiated the Travel Management program, which was designed to close useless or redundant roads. But it was taken too far. The Santa Fe National Forest, for example, had identified numerous TM closure options, including some reasonable ones. But in 2012, Santa Fe officials implemented the most extreme TM option, closing nearly two-thirds of all forest roads, many of which had been used for generations by ranchers, hunters, anglers and forest-product gatherers.

The mobility-limited community, the fastest growing forest user group, was hit hard. This group comprises seniors, wounded veterans, disabled or infirm people, paraplegics and others who need a standard motor vehicle to access and enjoy their public lands. While hikers now claim exclusive use of areas they previously shared with other citizens, almost every mobility-limited user can cite at least one traditional area that is now closed to them.

When the federal government treats folks with disrespect, it engenders deep-seated resentment from across the political spectrum. Many offended people are speaking to their political representatives.

The transfer of federal lands to states is but one of several possible solutions to the mismanagement problem. In 2013, Robert Nelson, a University of Maryland professor, proposed the concept of “charter forests,” in which localities would use federal funds to manage adjacent public lands. In 2012 the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships formally proposed public-private arrangements as another approach.

We should expect a high standard of performance from our public-land managers. And if they fail to perform, they should expect to be replaced.

By Dave Menicucci / Registered N.m. Hunt And Fish Guide
PUBLISHED: Monday, April 20, 2015 at 12:02 am

Forest Fires! Turns Out They’re Bad For You.

Currently, the U. S. Forest Service in Arizona is developing a forest restoration initiative that calls for substantially increasing prescribed burns of up to a million acres over a 20-year period in just four forests in Arizona. This increase in prescribed burns is significant, as the project will be used as a template for other U.S. forests. The following information will reinforce the importance to health of finding safer alternatives for forest management.

New modeling efforts by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration indicate that each year, wildfires emit a total of 1.5 to 2.5 million tons of particulate matter.  This is more than is emitted by better-known sources of PM such as fuel combustion, industrial processes and transportation.  This smoke poses a danger for everyone, but is particularly hazardous to children and the elderly. Approximately 80 to 90 percent of wood smoke particles are 2.5 microns or smaller, and EPA studies show that the tiny dagger-shaped particles are particularly harmful to children since they are able to go deep into a child’s lungs. Other particles pass through the lungs into the blood stream, attacking vital organs.

An article by the American Thoracic Society found that with an increase of 10 micrograms per cubic meter of particles over two years, the risk of dying was increased by 32% for people with diabetes, 28% for people with COPD, asthma and pneumonia, 27% for people with congestive heart failure and 22% for people with inflammatory diseases.

PM is not only emitted at higher levels during wildfire episodes, but is also much more toxic to the lungs, according to a 2008 study by University of California’s department of pulmonary and critical care medicine.  It noted, “The lungs of mice when exposed to the wildfire PM 10-2.5 or PM 2.5 showed significant damage, as measured by histologic evaluation of inflammatory cell influx or by relative europhile or total protein count of lung lavage fluid” and that “toxicity was manifested as increased europhiles and protein in lung lavage and by histologic indicators of increased cell influx and edema in the lung.”  The study concluded that wildfire PM contains chemical substances toxic to the lungs, even causing cell death.

A California study measured cellular toxicity with two standard tests of oxidative stress, dithiothreitil (DDT) assay and a macrophage reactive oxygen species (ROS) assay. The particles collected during a wildfire showed nearly five times more DDT activity compared to a non-wildfire time period.

Besides fine particulate matter, smoke from wildfires and prescribed burns contains volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, ozone, numerous other toxins and literally thousands of chemicals.  One particularly troubling toxin released in forest fire smoke is mercury. Scientists estimate that fires in the continental U.S. and Alaska release 44 metric tons of mercury into the atmosphere every year.  In a 2001 study, researchers collected foliage and ground litter samples from seven forests across the continental United States. These samples were set alight at a U.S. Forest Service fires laboratory, where sensors detected large amounts of mercury. The samples released 94 to 99% of all the mercury stored in the foliage, and “All the coniferous and deciduous samples contained mercury at levels ranging from 14 to 71 nanograms per gram of fuel.”

Mercury is dangerous when it ends up in waterways, where it can transform into methyl mercury and move up the food chain, becoming more concentrated. Mercury causes its greatest damages to unborn fetuses and newborns, including developmental defects, reduced IQ, mental retardation, learning disabilities, behavioral problems and chronic neurological diseases. Already, Arizona lakes such as Roosevelt, Tonto Creek, Soldier Lake and Upper and Lower Lake Mary post  mercury warnings that fish are not safe for consumption. A study found that forest fires near Durango, Colorado could be responsible for unlocking the mercury trapped beneath the soil in the San Juan National Forest and allowing it to wash into the Vallecito Reservoir.

Based on the increasing likelihood of wildfires, increasing temperatures and drought, and given the hazards from PM and other substances released during a prescribed burn or a forest fire, alternatives to prescribed burns need to be sought and implemented. Safer alternatives include logging, fire breaks, chipping, thinning, and goat or cattle grazing.  Implementation of these techniques will help provide cleaner air and better health for ourselves and our forests. 

Why would they lie about who really wants to keep public lands public?

Opponents of state management of federal public lands continue down a road paved with misinformation. It’s blatant, and it’s disgusting, but it’s actually a good sign because it means they have no facts to support their position.

Senate Bill 215 introduced earlier this year by Senator Fielder, R -Thompson Falls would have prohibited the sale of any public land that may be transferred from the federal government to the state. Unbelievably the same groups that oppose state based management (claiming we’ll “sell it all off”) stood in direct opposition of the bill that would prohibit such sales. Watch this 2 minute video clip from the official hearing to see for yourself who’s really trying to keep public lands public and who is not:

VIDEO CLIP – SENATE BILL NO. 215 A BILL FOR AN ACT ENTITLED: “AN ACT PROHIBITING FUTURE SALES OF LAND GRANTED OR TRANFERED TO THE STATE

Why would Montana Wildlife Federation, Audubon, and Wilderness Association stand in opposition to a law that would keep public lands public? What are their real motives? And where are they getting all the money for those billboards, TV ads, and busses that bring hundreds of people to every state capitol for their so called “keep it public” rallies?

We must ask ourselves “who is really looking out for our best interests?” I say those who are honest about the issues are our best bet for creating the kind of state we can leave to our children. By the way, you can fact check the actual text of SB 215 here: SB 215

If you favor improved access, health, and productivity on our public lands, sign the petition and help us spread the word! It’s time we tell the Wildlife Federation, Audubon, Nature Conservancy, Wilderness Association, Back Country Hunters and Anglers, and Democratic Party to stop the deception. Montanans deserve facts, not fiction.

The Great Puppet Show in the West:

Helena: Across the West, lawmakers are considering the costs and benefits of moving public land management from the federal government to the state. While the debate stirs passions, a new analysis provides some sobering figures on the economic gains that states stand to make.

The Montana-based Property and Environment Research Center released an analysis this month demonstrating that under current management, the federal government loses billions of dollars a year on land management. For every dollar spent, the feds only recoup 73 cents in revenue.

Meanwhile, PERC’s analysis found that areas under state land trust management in Arizona, Idaho, Montana and New Mexico are managed profitably, with states bringing in $14.51 for every dollar spent.

In other words, states can make money handily, while the federal government’s management is resulting in an increasing national debt. Given Congress’s demonstrated inability to reliably fund programs that provide stability to rural communities (such as Payment in Lieu of Taxes and Secure Rural Schools), allowing states to manage public lands is certainly worth considering.

The debate over management of public lands has understandably stirred passion. But it’s also brought out political trickery.

Out-of-state radical environmentalists are dumping resources into opposing state land management. Environmentalists don’t want states to have control. Why? Because states tend to be friendlier to things like energy development than the Obama administration, and the groups ideologically oppose affordable energy and other development projects.

However, knowing their anti-gun or anti-energy agendas would not be well-received in many Western states that are politically purple or red, they’re camouflaging their efforts by manipulating the more politically conservative sportsman community through groups like Trout Unlimited, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

These groups claim to represent sportsmen when discussing land use, energy and other policy issues. But they really ought to be called “Green Decoys.”

They have been active across the West, holding public lands demonstrations at state capitol buildings in several states in order to mobilize hunters and anglers to protest any changes to the management of public lands.

These environmentalist-funded sportsman groups claim their goal is to protect access to these public lands for those who wish to hunt and fish, but a quick look at their “dark money” financial backers makes their true motive clear: To lock away land from being utilized for economic growth and jobs.

Trout Unlimited (TU) was founded as an association of fly fishermen but has molted into a big fish in the pond of environmentalist money. Since 2008, TU has received tens of millions from groups like the Hewlett Foundation, the Packard Foundation and the Wyss Foundation (funded by a foreign billionaire) — funders of other far-left anti-gun and anti-energy groups.

When looking at Backcountry Hunters and Anglers’ (BHA) funding sources, meanwhile, it’s easy to forget the group has anything to do with hunting and angling at all. Its major donor is the Western Conservation Foundation, which in addition to giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to BHA, has also given handsomely over the years to radical environmentalists, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Earthjustice (the self-proclaimed “law firm of the environment”).

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP), meanwhile, is on the sidelines for the Second Amendment despite claiming to support hunting. When pressed on gun rights issues, TRCP couldn’t offer a stance. “Very simply, others know far more than we do about the Second Amendment,” TRCP’s CEO stated. The organization’s non-stance is even stranger given that a portion of every sale of firearms and ammunition is earmarked for conservation programs — but it starts to make a little more sense when the fact is considered that TRCP has received $150,000 from the Joyce Foundation, which funds anti-gun and environmentalist causes.

Whatever one thinks about land management policy, Montana stakeholders should make the decision based on what’s best for the state. That means tuning out the out-of-state money that’s putting on a puppet show.

https://www.greendecoys.com/

Written by Will Coggin, the director of research for the Environmental Policy Alliance.

If All Of The States Were Equal At Their Creation … Why Are The Western States Treated Differently?

The Promises are the Same:

The promise of the federal government to “extinguish title” (transfer title) to the public lands is the same to all newly created states – both east and West of Colorado. The U.S. Supreme Court refers to these statehood contracts (Enabling Acts) as “trusts,” “solemn compacts,” and “bi-lateral agreements” to be performed “in a timely fashion. You can see the western states’ enabling acts compared to those of states east of Colorado on the page “What’s happening in my state“.

IF ALL OF THE STATES WERE EQUAL AT THEIR CREATION …

WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

– It’s clear that the difference didn’t stem from when the states were created (e.g. OK-1907 and CA-1850, or ND-1889 and ID-1890).

– The difference didn’t stem from the terms of transfer in their Enabling Acts because those are materially the same. Further evidence of this can be found here.

SO, WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

For nearly 200 years, Congress recognized its duty to dispose of the public lands. It wasn’t until 1976 that Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) unilaterally declaring that it was their new “policy to retain these lands in federal ownership.”

However, in 2009, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously declared that Congress doesn’t have the authority to unilaterally change “the uniquely sovereign character” of a state’s admission into the Union, particularly “where virtually all of a state’s public lands are a stake.” Hawaii v. OHA. There should not be a difference.

It’s Been Done before:

One of the common myths that are thrown out in regards to the Transfer of Public Lands is that nothing like this has been done before in the history of our country. This is simply untrue.

As much as 90% of all lands in Illinois and Missouri (and AL, LA, AR, IN, FL, etc.) were federally controlled for decades! With so much land under federal control, these States persistently argued they could not:

• adequately fund education,
• grow their economies, or
• responsibly manage their abundant resources.

They banded together, refused to be silent or take “NO” for an answer, and compelled Congress to transfer title to their lands. In 1959, Congress granted directly to the State of Hawaii (the last and western-most State) “the United States’ title to all the public lands … within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii, title to which is held by the United States immediately prior to its admission into the Union.”

DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?

Today, similar states with large amounts of federally controlled multiple-use lands  are methodically loosing access to those lands, the health of those lands is deteriorating at an astounding pace, and we are struggling to be productive and grow our economies.

Now we need to band together once again as united states, refuse to be silent or take “NO” for an answer, and compel Congress to transfer title to the multi-use lands in the west to state and local control.

The Only Solution Big Enough:

The Transfer of Public Lands is the Only Solution Big Enough to ensure access, health, and productivity on our public lands. In addition to this, the Transfer of Public Lands is also the Only Solution Big Enough to:

• Adequately Fund Education
• Better Care for the Environment
• Grow the Economy: both Locally and Nationally
• Gain Some Sense of Energy Independence

For most western states, federal funds comprise the single largest source of state revenues – 30-50% of most States’ revenues are federally sourced according to “A Study of Key
Dependency Measures for the 50 States”( CliftonLarsonAllen, LLP). However, the U.S. Government Accountability Office regularly remarks that federal finances are “unsustainable.” Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen warned that the national debt “is the greatest threat to national security.”

As stated by U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski in a recent discussion on the future of the PILT and SRS programs in the Senate Natural Resources Committee “The federal government is
broke here. We can’t continue to pay counties to not utilize the lands within their
boundaries. … You need to be able to access the resources that are on your lands. We either need to utilize our federal lands to generate the revenue and the jobs for our rural communities or we should divest the federal government of those lands and let the states or the counties, or boroughs manage them.”

NATIONAL FORESTS: Senators seek solutions for ‘broken’ timber program

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Published: Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Congress should pass legislation streamlining logging and restoration projects on national forests to create rural jobs and reduce wildfire risks, logging officials told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee yesterday. But a top Obama administration official said the Forest Service lacks the staff to significantly increase forestry work as more of its resources get siphoned off to fight wildfires in a hotter and drier West. There was broad agreement at yesterday’s hearing that the Forest Service needs to increase the amount of timber cut on national forests but little consensus on how to do that. The hearing on “management reforms to improve forest health and socioeconomic opportunities” aimed to inform Congress as key Western lawmakers explore legislation to overhaul the Forest Service’s timber program. “This is not just about wildfire suppression costs affecting budgets,” said Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). “The management structure itself is broken, strangled by an endless maze of process requirements and without clear direction or sense of how to prioritize work that is necessary to achieve real, measurable gains on the ground.” Murkowski blasted federal laws and regulations that have created “a minefield of litigation opportunity some have been only too eager to exploit.” Duane Vaagen, president of Vaagen Brothers Lumber Inc., in Colville, Wash., testified on behalf of the American Forest Resource Council and the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, two of the nation’s largest logging advocacy groups. He said the number of lumber mills in the West has fallen from 700 to roughly 120 over the past three decades.  He recommended that Congress establish timber trusts in areas suitable for logging and that it clarify that “timber management is the primary objective on this relatively small portion of the National Forest System, not one use among many.” Congress should streamline the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act in these areas and dedicate a portion of timber revenues to help expedite future NEPA and ESA reviews, he said. Another timber industry witness, Brian Brown of Alcan Forest Products in Alaska, said federal forestry policy is deterring investment in the United States. “Federal timber policy increasingly forces us to look to [British Columbia] for our operational investment future,” he said. Robert Bonnie, the Agriculture Department’s undersecretary for natural resources and the environment, acknowledged that “we need to get more work done,” but he warned that the Forest Service has fewer staff members available to prepare timber projects. Since 1998, national forest system staff has been reduced by over one-third as the cost and complexity of wildfire fighting has risen, Bonnie said. Wildfire seasons are now 78 days longer than in the 1970s, possibly due to rising spring and summer temperatures and the timing of snowmelt, he said. Timber harvests on national forests have increased 18 percent since 2008, he said. The pace of forestry work “is not a matter of will; it is a matter of capacity,” he said, noting that wildfire budgeting is “crippling the agency.” Bonnie urged the committee to pass a bipartisan proposal to allow some wildfires to be funded outside the Forest Service budget, which would allow more resources to be invested in forestry work. With the West Coast facing drought and historically low snowpack levels, Bonnie said the agency is anticipating a “very active” fire season in 2015. It expects to have to spend $1.12 billion fighting fires, which is about $100 million more than it was appropriated for fiscal 2015, he said. Bonnie touted the Forest Service’s Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program, which provides long-term funding to larger-scale projects that are informed by diverse stakeholders and science. “To be sure, these collaborative approaches are not a panacea,” Bonnie said, but with “patience and commitment,” they are paying dividends. Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington, the committee’s top Democrat, said national forests are “in pretty bad shape” after a century of wildfire suppression and tens of millions of acres affected by pine beetles. She said it is important to determine the extent to which forest conditions are related to lack of management compared to a changing climate. In addition to better management policies, forest restoration will depend heavily on how much funding the Forest Service receives and the extent to which there are markets for lower-value timber such as for cross-laminated timber and wood pellets, she said. Senate Republicans said management reforms are still a key step. Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said that later this spring, he will be introducing an updated version ofS. 1966, which he introduced last Congress, which would require the Forest Service to log or thin at least 7.5 million acres of national forests within the next 15 years using expedited NEPA and ESA reviews. “The agency is guilty of malpractice,” Barrasso said. “If we’re going to save our forests, Congress must direct and mandate results and outcomes.” Vaagen said his industry is not expecting harvest levels to return to historic highs in the 1980s of more than 12 billion board feet, but “somewhere in the neighborhood of 6.2 billion” would be reasonable, he said. Republicans and industry leaders have supported national management quotas, but Democrats and environmentalists have historically only supported such provisions on much smaller scales.