I thought the BWCA community may be interested in this article.

Wherever one stands on the feds/states spectrum, it is obvious that those lands do represent value. (In fact, many conservationists argue in the other direction: for extended recognition of economic value under terms like "ecosystem services", and I think they make a good point). So, the rules overwrite seems pretty disingenuous to me.

What makes me shake my head is when Utah representative Rob Bishop says the federally owned land is effectively worthless, even though federally owned lands take in 2 billion dollars in royalties, employ 6.1 million people, and contributes over 600 billion dollars annually to the national budget.

Yet with one change of the rules, bam! all that money and jobs are in flux, and that's not even touching the idea of the possible environmental damage that may manifest from this law change.

I don't get it.

I think it is worth noting that the nominee for Secretary of the Interior is firmly opposed to disposing of federal lands and even drafted legislation to that effect while in the House. So, that point of view will be represented in the Cabinet.

There is many Sportsmen groups,along with environmental groups from various states organizing to stop the give away of Federal land.

quote jcavenagh: "I thought the BWCA community may be interested in this article."

That article is poorly written and devalue is really a disingenuous term in regards to the "congressional rule change" that occurred recently. Under the old rules, during a land transfer, congress had to accommodate any loss of "income" caused due to the transfer by either a budget cut or an increase in some other revenue stream. Now they do not have to do this. The "value" of the land was never written in to the parliamentary rules. Of course the value should be considered when debate occurs over any land transfer and any economic impacts would surely be considered then.

As I mentioned, the linked article has little to do with the rule change that occurred. The $646B in economic stimulus they claim the Federal lands create as well as any jobs are information that should carry weight during debate, but the rules never mentioned that they had to be.

My problem with the rule change is that it simply makes it easier for congress to continue to not do their job and balance the budget. But hey, $20T in the red tells us that is not a priority.

Here is an article that explains this as well as points out that the new administration is against Federal Land being "given away".

The Washington Post

This is an interesting topic (Federal Land) that I have pondered a lot. I am all for preserving places like the BWCA, but why is this resource any safer in the hands of the Federal Government as oppose to State Government? Would local ownership by the State of Minnesota and oversight by any number of individuals on this web site be necessarily a bad thing? Who are the people that oversee the BWCA?

quote IceColdGold: "This is an interesting topic (Federal Land) that I have pondered a lot. I am all for preserving places like the BWCA, but why is this resource any safer in the hands of the Federal Government as oppose to State Government? Would local ownership by the State of Minnesota and oversight by any number of individuals on this web site be necessarily a bad thing? Who are the people that oversee the BWCA?"

I guess it depends on what you see as part of our American heritage. Minnesota would probably do a good job managing the BWCA as wilderness (it would NOT have 40 years ago). In fact, as the area is rather unique and the only real wilderness east of the Rockies, we could probably make a killing by charging non-residents twenty bucks per night (or more) to camp there and high license fees to fish there.

On the other hand, some state would sell off their public lands to the highest bidder. Wisconsin could sell off the Apostle Islands and make them a rich man's paradise.

quote IceColdGold: "This is an interesting topic (Federal Land) that I have pondered a lot. I am all for preserving places like the BWCA, but why is this resource any safer in the hands of the Federal Government as oppose to State Government?

I think MN would do a pretty good of managing their lands.
However many states would not have the budget to manage a mass infusion of public lands transferred from the Feds, due to the cost managing those lands, and could easily sell off their public lands to off-set that cost, as apposed to the US, which would take an act of congress, then signed by the president to sell or transfer federal lands.

Here is an example of why one may not like the way Arizona manages their public lands, which requires a 15 dollar yearly permit to camp on these lands. "I know that is cheap, but I worked for the BLM in neighboring New Mexico and Arizona was very restrictive on what you could do on state land compared to MN."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do I need a permit to go on State Trust land for recreation purposes and how do I obtain a recreational permit?

Answer
Arizona State Trust lands are not "public lands", as are Federal lands under the management of the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management. Federal "public lands" are managed for the benefit and use of the public, while State Trust lands are managed for the benefit of 13 Trust beneficiaries, which include the public schools and prisons. The Land Department's trust management responsibilities include requiring a permit or lease and charging a fee for use of Trust land. Exceptions to this requirement are licensed hunters and fishers, actively pursuing game or fish, in-season, and certain archaeological activities permitted by the Arizona State Museum.

A ‘Recreational Use Permit’ is temporary and revocable and does not permit commercial, competitive or group events. Lands leased for agriculture, mining, commercial, or military purposes are not open to recreational use. Other State Trust Lands may be closed to some or all recreational uses due to hazardous conditions, dust abatement, in coordination with the Arizona Game & Fish Department or based on certain State, County or Local laws or ordinances.

Recreational Permit allows the signatory limited privileges to use State Trust Land for some recreation. Recreation under this permit is limited to hiking, horseback riding, picnics, bicycling, photography, sightseeing, and bird watching. Camping is restricted to no more than 14 days per year. Off-Highway Vehicular travel on State Trust Land is not permitted without proper licensing.

The holder of an Arizona State Land Department (ASLD) Recreation Permit (Permittee) shall respect the land, the rights and improvements of other authorized users, and exercise appropriate discretion to protect native plants, cultural and historic sites and the environment. Permittee shall stay on existing and designated roads and trails. Permittee shall comply with all Federal, State, County, and Municipal laws and ordinances, while on State Trust Land.

The Permittee shall not use State Trust Land that is closed by the State Land Commissioner. The Permittee shall not: disrupt plant and wildlife on, blaze trails across, visit historic and prehistoric archeological sites on, or remove natural products from State Trust Land. The Permittee shall not cause any refuse or allow any other foreign objects to be deposited on State Trust Land. The Permittee shall not discharge a firearm on State Trust Land, except pursuant to lawful and licensed hunting.

Arizona State Land

It is much better for the BWCA to be in Federal control. It also is millions of dollars that flow from the Federal level to Minnesota to run it. Also like all Federal land it belongs to all of us.
Minnesota has a very nice mix with many State Forest and millions of acres of County run Tax Forfeit land,along with the federal land. I think that is good you get a wide variety of techniques and it may prevent all management being a all or none policy.
By having a Federal policy we can look nationwide and try to preserve a wide range of ecosystems.

quote jcavenagh: "I thought the BWCA community may be interested in this article."

Good article James. Food for thought, certainly.

Can any one of you who think the federal government should own lands except for a few very specific reasons . Point to where they get that authority to do so in the constitution.

I see no authority to own parks national forest or BLM lands.

quote riverrunner: "Can any one of you who think the federal government should own lands except for a few very specific reasons . Point to where they get that authority to do so in the constitution.

I see no authority to own parks national forest or BLM lands. "

I think that question could be brought forth in this political forum, although one may not receive a logical answer.
Politics and the BWCAW

I see no authority that says they can not.
Talk to Teddy Roosevelt my main man,he thought we have a right to them.


The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2


The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States....
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2


The primary constitutional authority for the management and control of this vast real-estate empire is the Property Clause.

The narrowest conception, which can be called the proprietary theory, maintains that the Property Clause simply allows Congress to act as an ordinary owner of land. It can set policy regarding whether such lands will be sold or retained and, if they are retained, who may enter these lands and for what purposes. Under this conception, the clause confers no political sovereignty over federal landholdings. Unless one of the enumerated powers of Article I applies, such as the power to raise armies or establish a post office, political sovereignty over federal lands remains with the several states in which the land is located.

quote riverrunner: "Can any one of you who think the federal government should own lands except for a few very specific reasons . Point to where they get that authority to do so in the constitution.

I see no authority to own parks national forest or BLM lands. "

in addition to previous post:
when the federal government beat the hell out of the confederate states, it pretty much put the states rights question to bed

An Update.

Excellent.

I see more and more legislative bills and public land,at least what still is public land will or the potential is we will lose much of it or it will be changed forever. There is a bill before congress now talking of allowing oil wells to be drilled in many of our parks out west. A Congressman from Utah has talked about this for decades.
Time for all to be informed and active where you see fit or it is justified.