And there is this concerning the transfer of federal lands:
The story about the Wilkes’ purchase has taken on a life of its own. Opponents to the transfer or sale of public lands are using the closures as Exhibit A of what can happen if lands that are traditionally open to the public go into private hands. But it’s the way the story affects snowmobilers, four-wheelers, loggers and hunters such as Wolfinger that has given this story legs, as well as the Wilkses’ unwillingness to talk to anyone about their actions or their plans.
As I have mentioned before, for instance here, there is a solution to this:
These lands can be transferred to the states with a guarantee the public will always have access for hunting and other forms of recreation.And here:
How's that? Its called a reverter clause. You find these in federal land transfers all the time. For instance see the disposal of federal lands under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act. All of these contain a reverter clause which states if the lands no longer are serving the purposes for which it was transferred the lands then revert back to the federal government.
You would simply need language in the transfer legislation requiring they remain open for hunting and recreation and that would be binding on the state or any subsequent owner. Violations would result in the lands reverting to the feds.
So if public access is the only objection to the transfer of these lands, that is easily handled...
The only transfer issue brought up in this column is these lands might wind up in private hands. Personally, I would like to see a clean transfer to the states, where the local needs and concerns can influence the highest and best use of the resource. However, if there is a legitimate concern for maintaining public access to certain parcels or areas, you simply place a reverter clause in the transfer instrument. If the state or private owner doesn't, in this case, maintain public access, the land reverts back to the feds. Reverter clauses already exist in law, such as the Recreation & Public Purposes Act, so that language could be easily adapted for public access. In other words, the one issue they raise can be easily resolved.Some just don't believe me, or refuse to discuss a reverter clause. For those here is the language from the Recreation & Public Purposes Act.
The Secretary of the Interior upon application filed by a
duly qualified applicant under section 869–1 of this title may, in the
manner prescribed by sections 869 to 869–4 of this title, dispose of any public
lands to a State, Territory, county, municipality, or other State, Territorial,
or Federal instrumentality or political subdivision for any public purposes, or
to a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit association for any recreational or any
public purpose consistent with its articles of incorporation or other creating
authority. Before the land may be disposed of under sections 869 to 869–4 of
this title it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the land
is to be used for an established or definitely proposed project, that the land
involved is not of national significance nor more than is reasonably necessary
for the proposed use, and that for proposals of over 640 acres comprehensive
land use plans and zoning regulations applicable to the area in which the
public lands to be disposed of are located have been adopted by the appropriate
State or local authority.
The Airplane and Airport Act grants similar legislative disposal authority to the FAA and a reverter clause under that Act is defined by the GSA as:
So if their are special parcels where public access should be allowed, that is easily accomplished with a reverter clause.
One other observation. Look again at the language in the Recreation & Public Purposes Act and notice all the steps the non-federal entity must go through, one of which is having a local plan adopted before the transfer. And compare that to the Antiquities Act, where the President can transfer millions of acres from multiple-use to restricted-use, with no hearings or notice, and the feds adopt a plan after the transfer.
The Airplane and Airport Act grants similar legislative disposal authority to the FAA and a reverter clause under that Act is defined by the GSA as:
Right of Reverter.
The
instrument of conveyance from the federal government must
specify the right
to have property interest revert to a federal agency and title revest in the
United
States. This right
extends only to the title, right of possession, or other rights vested in the
United
States at the time
the federal government transferred the property described in the instrument to
the grantee. The
right may be exercised only at the option of the United States – with or
without
the cooperation of
a grantee – against all or part of the property in question.
So if their are special parcels where public access should be allowed, that is easily accomplished with a reverter clause.
One other observation. Look again at the language in the Recreation & Public Purposes Act and notice all the steps the non-federal entity must go through, one of which is having a local plan adopted before the transfer. And compare that to the Antiquities Act, where the President can transfer millions of acres from multiple-use to restricted-use, with no hearings or notice, and the feds adopt a plan after the transfer.
4 comments:
In New Mexico the Monticello Box was closed after another wealthy Texas rancher bought surrounding ranches. Then advertised it as trophy deer/elk hunting and 4wd ranch as selling points, the same ones used to petition the counties to close the road.
The Sierra and Socorro County road through it was closed that historically had been a NM state highway before it was turned over to the counties.
It accessed two state sections of public land.
Plus the scenic drive connecting Hwy 52 to Monticello and I-25.
This is not the way to unify Americans behind ranchers. It is divisive. It pits us against each other. All groups of back country uses: hunters, anglers, hikers,4x4's, horse-back, etc.
At a time when we all need to hang together to defend our Rights against government over-reach by EPA, ACE, ESA, gun grabbers, we're under attack from every direction, you name it. I hate to see this happen and the individuals doing it should take a long look in the mirror, or I guess they really don't care about which way their country goes, just their own mealy mouth little world.
Divide the Indians, the Blacks, the Caucasians, the Asians from each other.
Divide the religions.
Divide the gun owners and target shooters from hunters.
Divide bow hunters from firearms hunters.
Divide them all from "Ranchers".
When it comes to preserving our Rights and Property Rights there is so many rules to do so that nobody helps each other anymore. "It's not my problem."
You know it Bud! Divide and conquer.
It's gonna get worse. Now that Plum Creek has been bought by Weyerhaeuser, it's a safe bet that PCL's former core base, now pretty much mowed of its ability to generate cash, is going to go on the block for sale, with the hope that LWCF funds will buy it for the feds at a crazy stupid price well above any rational Net Present Value.
And the Wilks brothers? They can afford it, can afford to turn Idaho into Texas.
Well I hope I see either of them out here on the trail. I didn't see any orange paint or signs... #HANGTHEWILKSBROTHERS
Post a Comment