Conservation groups push back on federal lands transfer idea

AP News
Posted: Apr 14, 2015 7:45 PM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — Stung by a recent vote in Congress, national conservation groups are mustering opposition to an increasing call from many western states to transfer federal lands to state control.

The U.S. Senate last month narrowly approved a budget amendment sponsored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that could set the stage for future legislation to sell or transfer federal lands to state or local governments.

"This amendment doesn't sell, transfer or exchange any piece of property," Murkowski said in a statement last week. "Any actual transfers or exchanges of land would still need to go through the regular order legislative process and be signed into law."

Murkowski emphasized that her amendment, which passed 51-49 with no Democratic support, would exempt lands within national parks, national preserves or national monuments from possible transfer.

In many western states, the federal government owns the bulk of land. Some people in state governments have yearned for years to bring those millions of acres under state control. They argue that western states are hamstrung compared to eastern counterparts by the relative lack of private lands for development and taxation.

Last week, the Alaska House of Representatives endorsed a measure that would call on the federal government to hand over huge swaths of federal land. State legislatures in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Wyoming have considered similar measures this year. Utah in 2012 passed a state law calling on the federal government to transfer federal lands to state ownership.

Wyoming Rep. Tim Stubson, R-Casper, supported a measure passed by the Legislature this year that puts up money for a study of how the state could administer new state lands. He said Tuesday that Wyoming lawmakers specified the state study would account for maintaining public access to lands that could be transferred from federal to state control.

Wyoming would benefit by having a more responsive, realistic approach to management, Stubson said.

"A management approach where you can actually talk to real people. I think that's the benefit that you have," he said.

For many conservation groups, the U.S. Senate vote means the notion of massive transfers of federal land to states can no longer be discounted simply as wishful thinking at the state level. Now, they say, it must be seen as a serious threat.

Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, which works to preserve public land access for hunters and anglers. said there was general consensus that the state initiatives calling on Congress to turn over federal lands were unconstitutional. Congress itself has authority to sell or transfer federal lands, he said.

"What we're talking about here is a whole other level of the sell-off idea, much broader and much more ambitious," Fosburgh said.

Kate Zimmerman, public lands policy director for the National Wildlife Federation in Colorado, said she believes most of the conservation community is concerned about the language in the Murkowski amendment, and that the Senate passed it by just one vote.

"The primary concern is that it sort of opens the door for consideration of the types of bills that have been floating around in the state legislatures, that demand the transfer of federal public lands to the states," Zimmerman said.

Hold The Damn Vote Already
Derek Hunter

John Horning, executive director of WildEarth Guardians, a group that commonly challenges federal land management agency actions in the West, said it's disturbing that a majority of senators think the idea has credibility.

"So I was disturbed, and discouraged," he said. "It clearly demonstrates that there's real momentum behind this movement to privatize public lands."

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., spoke against Murkowski's amendment on the Senate floor, saying it threatened citizen access to cherished hunting and fishing spots.

"I think what we're starting to see now, is the reaction to that, where very mainstream pragmatic sportsmen groups are stepping up and saying, 'hey, wait a minute, you're talking about the places that I hunt and fish, and you're only telling part of the story, and let's have a real conversation about this."

Heinrich said states including New Mexico and Nevada have already sold off much of their state lands and said that experience clearly points to what hunters and anglers can expect if federal lands are turned over to states.

"Those were all places where people used to be able to go as sportsmen and access those lands, and now are behind no-trespassing signs," he said.