The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: federal land
Party Lines Don’t Apply In Fights Over Western Land

Party Lines Don’t Apply In Fights Over Western Land

By Eric M. Johnson

Every time Dean Finnerty sees the locked neon-yellow gate and “No Trespassing” sign deep in Oregon’s Elliott State Forest, he bristles at the growing movement to transfer federally owned land to U.S. states.

The 52-year-old conservationist and lifelong political conservative worries that cash-strapped states that acquire such land will ultimately be forced to sell to private companies only to extract oil, gas and timber.

He is one of many conservative outdoors enthusiasts to join liberal environmentalists in opposing such transfers.

They stand against business interests and conservative states’ rights advocates who argue that handing the land to states will unleash its economic potential.

Finnerty likes to hunt bear and elk on public land in Oregon with his five sons. But their outings were curtailed two years ago when the state, which had acquired the land from the federal government, in turn sold some of it to logging companies.

“When the federal government owned these lands they were better equipped to keep and maintain them,” said Finnerty, who keeps a handgun in his truck in case he encounters a mountain lion. “The idea that we could lose these federal public lands is not acceptable.”

Finnerty and his fellow sportsmen, many of them conservatives who instinctively oppose big government, are petitioning lawmakers, writing opinion columns and staging protests at state capitols. They fear losing access to prime hunting and fishing lands if states take control.

They have won backing from dozens of trade groups and companies, including fishing rod makers Orvis Corp and Sage and gun manufacturer Remington.

‘ABSURD … ABSENTEE OWNERSHIP’

Their protest is at odds not just with anti-federalists such as the armed militiamen who seized control of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon earlier this year, but also many in the Republican Party mainstream.

Republicans last month officially embraced federal-to-state land transfers for the first time in their party platform, saying it is “absurd” that so much land is under Washington’s “absentee ownership.”

The ideological standoff marks a new front in the “Sagebrush Rebellion,” the decades-old fight over land-use in the U.S. West.

At stake is control of roughly 640 million acres of federally owned land, more than one-fourth of the U.S. land mass, most of which falls across a dozen Western states, according to the Congressional Research Service. here

For a graphic of federal land ownership across the United States, click here:tmsnrt.rs/2b8CKe1

Supporters say transfers could be lucrative. Oil and gas reserves on federal lands could generate $12.2 billion annually over the next decade, supporting more than 87,000 jobs, a 2013 University of Wyoming study estimated. goo.gl/7Mm8KY

More than 30 bills pushing for federal land transfers were introduced in Western states in 2015, according to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which opposes transfers. More than a dozen have been filed this year, said the Center for Western Priorities, another opponent.

Wyoming, Idaho, Arizona and Nevada have passed bills to study the issue.

Utah went further in 2012, demanding millions of acres of federal land and authorizing a lawsuit if that did not occur by 2014. Utah has not sued yet.

MONEY AND MANPOWER

John Ruple, a University of Utah professor of public land law, said the state has no legal case and the U.S. Congress controls such transfers.

Karla Jones of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of conservative lawmakers and business leaders who have ushered virtually identical land-transfer legislation through several state legislatures, hopes a new Congress after November’s election will support the push.

“The federal government does the exact same thing the states do. It leases land to the extractive industries,” she said. “The big difference is the U.S. generally loses money.”

But those fighting for the status quo, including Finnerty, say states lack the money and staffing to enforce the law across massive tracts of rugged, remote terrain.

There has been no wholesale transfer of federal tracts in decades, though small transfers are common.

Oregon received the Elliott State Forest from the U.S. government in a 1930 land transfer, hoping to fund schools through timber sales and investments. But it sold thousands of acres to logging companies in 2014 after revenues plunged.

Next year, Oregon hopes to fetch more than $220 million for the remaining 82,500 acres.

“This is a coordinated, multiyear campaign to take away our federal public lands, which are an American birthright,” said Whit Fosburgh, president of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

(Reporting by Eric M. Johnson in the Elliott State Forest, Oregon; Editing by Ben Klayman and Jonathan Oatis)

Photo: Avid hunter and angler Dean Finnerty, 52, of Scottsburg, Oregon, stares at a locked gate on a logging road through which for years he would hunt black bear and elk before the land was sold and he lost access inside the Elliott State Forest in southwest Oregon, U.S. on July 27, 2016.  REUTERS/Eric Johnson

Armed Protesters Occupy U.S. Wildlife Headquarters In Oregon

Armed Protesters Occupy U.S. Wildlife Headquarters In Oregon

By Kevin Murphy

(Reuters) – A group of self-styled militiamen occupied the headquarters of a U.S. wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon in a standoff with authorities, officials and local media reports said on Sunday, in the latest dispute over federal land use in the West.

The occupation, which began on Saturday followed a march in Burns, a small city about 50 miles (80 km) north of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, to protest the incarceration of ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son, Steven Hammond. The two were convicted in 2012 of setting fires on public land to protect their property from wildfires.

A federal court had ordered the Hammonds to be returned to prison after ruling their original sentences were insufficient.

An unknown number of protesters were occupying the refuge’s headquarters building in Princeton on Sunday, according to Jason Holm, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. No employees were in the building, he said in a statement.

Militia leaders said as many as 100 supporters were with them at the refuge, according to the Portland Oregonian newspaper.

Leaders of the occupation include Ammon Bundy, the son of Cliven Bundy, owner of a ranch in Nevada where his family staged an armed protest against the Bureau of Land Management in April 2014, local media reported. The agency had sought to seize Bundy’s cattle after he refused to pay grazing fees. Federal agents finally backed down, citing safety concerns, and returned hundreds of cattle to Bundy.

Bundy and his brother Ryan were among of the Hammonds inside the refuge building, according to a report in the Oregonian.

“We want the government to abide by the Constitution … and to play by the rules,” Ammon Bundy told CNN in a phone interview on Sunday. Bundy said some of the occupiers were armed.

“We have no intention of using force or being aggressive or going on the offense, but just as all people have the right to defend themselves, that’s exactly what that meant — means.”

On Saturday, Bundy told the Oregonian, “We’re planning on staying here for years, absolutely.”

Federal and state authorities have not said how they planned to respond to the occupation.

“We will continue to monitor the situation for additional developments,” Fish and Wildlife spokesman Holm said in the statement. He did not immediately return a phone call seeking further details. No one answered a call to the phone number of the refuge.

The refuge is in Harney County in a rural area of southeast Oregon, about 305 miles (490 km) southeast of Portland in the arid high desert of the eastern part of the state.

In a statement issued late on Saturday, Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward said multiple agencies were trying to resolve the issue and he advised caution.

“For the time being, please stay away from that area,” Ward said. “Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation.”

“The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds,” the Oregonian quoted Ammon Bundy as saying, in a reference to the wildlife refuge’s headquarters.

“This is not a decision we’ve made at the last minute,” Bundy added, calling on other militiamen to join them.

Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, encompassing 292 square miles (75,628 hectares), was established in 1908 by President Theodore Roosevelt as a breeding ground for greater sandhill cranes and other native birds. The headquarters compound includes a visitor center, a museum and the refuge office.

(Reporting by Kevin Murphy in Kansas City; Additional reporting by Alana Wise; Editing by Jonathan Oatis)

Ammon Bundy, son of rancher Cliven Bundy, talks about being tasered in Bunkerville, Nevada, April 11, 2014. REUTERS/Jim Urquhart  

States Find Their Voice On Federal Land Use

States Find Their Voice On Federal Land Use

By Rebecca Beitsch, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — It’s a battle long fought, but seldom won: States want to gain control of federal land within their borders.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the U.S. Forest Service, and other federal agencies control vast swaths of the land in some Western states, as much as 80 percent in Nevada. But local residents are often frustrated with federal policies governing preservation, recreation or natural resource development. In particular, many question the federal government’s commitment to preventing natural disasters like forest fires.

When states do manage to recapture federal land, it tends to be smaller parcels the federal government cuts loose for a specific purpose, such as building a road or an airport. Occasionally Washington will sell a parcel that is surrounded by private property or serves no public purpose.

In 2015, all 11 Western states considered measures calling for the transfer of federal land to state control. But only a handful of bills passed, and none resulted in a transfer of land.

Those long odds, and a reluctance to spend state money on land management, have spurred some states to try a different approach. Instead of taking on the federal government in a futile fight for ownership, they are arming counties with money and expertise to help them convince federal officials to hew more closely to residents’ interests.

Colorado is one of the states at the forefront of this new approach. This year, state lawmakers there approved $1 million in grants for counties that want to influence federal land use decisions. County leaders can use the money to hire consultants to evaluate data, provide scientific research or attend BLM coordination meetings. The law authorizing the grants also requires state agencies to provide additional expertise and assistance to counties when they ask for it.

Democratic state Rep. KC Becker, a former attorney for the BLM, said many county leaders in Colorado don’t realize how much influence they can have with federal officials. She pointed to a “consistency provision” in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, a 1976 law governing BLM oversight of public land, which requires management that conforms, at least generally, to what local leaders want.

Becker and her Republican co-sponsor, Rep. Bob Rankin, said they wrote the bill to promote cooperation, rather than confrontation, with the federal government.

“Some people just want a takeover, but a lot of those state laws are more symbolic. I don’t want to make a point, I want to make a difference,” Becker said.

Rankin said the grants are useful to counties even in cases where local leaders are fundamentally opposed to federal policy. He pointed to oil drilling as an example. “Say they’re discussing the impact of a new drilling permit. Maybe the county is for it or maybe they’re against it, but they can have a consultant for the process,” he said. Rankin said the outside help can be used to better understand the process, provide outside analysis, and help draft county responses to federal proposals.

The first grant awarded under the Colorado program was for just under $25,000 to Gunnison County, home of the Gunnison sage-grouse.

The county is challenging the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision to place the bird on the federal endangered species list, arguing that its own conservation efforts on private land are sufficient.

The wildlife service’s designation also has prompted the BLM to make some changes. The agency is proposing amendments to the management plans covering the Gunnison sage-grouse habitat in multiple counties near the Utah-Colorado border.

Jim Cochran, the wildlife conservation coordinator for Gunnison County, said even as the lawsuit proceeds, the county is using the grant money to hire outside experts to track the 11 proposed amendments, which would likely effect grazing and recreation on public land.

Cochran, a wildlife biologist, said soil and range conservation experts are analyzing how land and soil is affected by animal and recreational use and are helping the county draft responses to the BLM proposals using that analysis.

“We’re partners in many things. But they’re federal, and we’re local, and we have different constituents,” Cochran said. “We’re working with them, but we’re very much concerned about protecting our interests.”

The BLM said its processes are meant to encourage public involvement.

“The BLM supports state and local efforts to engage with the BLM,” the agency said in a statement.

Utah is using multiple methods to get what it wants from federal land managers.

The state has not abandoned its attempt to get federal land into state hands. A 2012 state law called on the federal government to transfer to the state all public land that is not designated as a national park or wilderness area or owned by Native American tribes — about 30 million acres in total, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. State Rep. Ken Ivory, a Republican, said because the federal government did not comply with the 2012 law, the state has set aside $4 million for a lawsuit challenging federal control of the land and is assembling a legal team.

But at the same time, the state is pursuing other avenues to get what it wants. This year the state passed a law requiring every county in the state to develop a resource management plan.

State Senate Republican Majority Leader Ralph Okerlund, who sponsored the legislation, said the new requirement not only helps create a statewide plan, but it also prepares counties to deal with the federal government and argue that federal plans should be consistent with theirs.

Some Utah counties have long coordinated with the federal government on land issues, but other areas that are more sparsely populated never had the money to develop thorough plans.

The state office of public land policy could serve as a resource for interested counties, but the onus is now on counties to have a plan in place — and the state will cover half the cost.

Mike Worthen, the natural resource management specialist for Iron County, said not all counties are aware of how involved they can be in the federal planning process or of government regulations requiring consistency. He said it’s important for counties to have a plan in place before any federal level changes are proposed.

“Otherwise they falter when they don’t have an adequate county resource plan to explain what they want, and then they have nothing to fall back on when the federal government comes back with a proposal,” Worthen said.

Okerlund said counties should generally have a vision for the land within their boundaries, but requiring the plans helps them make decisions about how land and natural resources should be used before the federal government does.

“Local governments ought to be involved in the process, but to do that they need a plan that shows how the resources in their jurisdiction are important to them and how to use them,” he said.

Photo: States want to gain control of federal land within their borders. (Chris Adams/MCT)