Land, no: Poll says Western voters oppose giving federal lands to states

Waterfowl stop at Cibola National Wildlife Refuge in La Paz County. A new poll claims that most Western voters would oppose proposals to shift federal lands, like Cibola, to state governments.

WASHINGTON — A majority of Westerners think public lands belong to the nation and should not be put in the hands of states, which they fear might not conserve those lands properly, a new poll claims.

The poll, released by the Center for American Progress, said that 52 percent of voters in eight Western states would oppose bills to transfer federal lands to the states.

“Privatization schemes would devastate outdoor traditions such as hunting and fishing that are among the pillars of Western culture and a thriving outdoor recreation economy,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., in a statement the center released with the poll results.

In a conference call to release the findings, Heinrich said the costs of states taking over federal land “could bankrupt some states.” States would have to sell some lands to recoup those costs of managing them, he said, taking them away from the public in the process.

But supporters of the movement have argued that giving states the right to manage public lands would actually lead to more revenue for states, through such opportunities as mining and logging operations.

Jim Burling is litigation director for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which supports private property rights. He questioned reliability of the center’s survey.

Based on the survey’s methodology, Burling said it appeared weighted toward suburban residents who visit public lands for recreation, and not toward people who rely on these lands to make a living.

He said that if the question was asked of ranchers, miners and others who have to deal with the federal government over operations on public lands, the poll likely would have had a different result.

“Most people do not have the day-to-day experience of dealing with the government,” said Burling.

The poll did show that 94 percent of those surveyed said they had a positive experience when visiting public lands. The poll was done in eight Southwestern states, but did not include Arizona.

The Arizona Legislature approved a bill in 2012 to transfer public lands to the state, but it was vetoed by Gov. Jan Brewer. In her veto message, Brewer cited several problems with the bill, including a lack of plans for the land, a negative fiscal impact, maintenance costs and the fact that it “appears to be in conflict or not reconcilable” with parts of the U.S. Constitution

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, said Thursday that he was not currently aware of any plans to revive the measure, which he called “absolutely illegal and unconstitutional.”

The sponsor of the 2012 legislation, Sen. Al Melvin, R-Tucson, was not available Thursday to comment.

Utah passed its own land-transfer bill in 2012, which gives the federal government until Dec. 31 of this year to hand over public lands in the state.

At this point, the federal government has shown no signs of relinquishing the land. If Utah lawmakers wanted to enforce the law, they would likely have to sue in federal court.

Burling, who has been following this type of legislation for 30 years, doubts that such a suit would go far.

“Quite frankly, if there was a good lawsuit to be brought, it would’ve been brought a long time ago,” he said.

Legal questions aside, Heinrich said there is a more important reason to keep the lands in federal hands.

“These lands belong to all of us, and it is imperative that we keep it that way,” his statement said.

(12) comments

djrefuesal

you did not ask me

mstyvaert

A Liberal Group with a slanted poll justifying why the government should tell us what we can and cannot do with both our state and private land.

ppetersen55

He who frames the question wins the debate.

cassie

I agree with you both! They also are planning more land grabs in the west. Let them try to take Central Park in NYC.

meadow

The people who make a living off of OUR public lands do not have any more rights than the rest of us. They aren't paying property taxes (as opposed to the the general tax revenue paid by all of us including the non-rural to administer and support these lands), don't have titles and do NOT have a private property right to graze, mine, drill and log. And the fees they do pay for these privileges are bargain basement cheap. It is worth noting that under state control, these fees would very likely rise substantially given how cash hungry most western states are. The Pacific Legal Foundation sounds like the only value they place on OUR land is to sell, cut, and quarter it away. But these lands, the forests, the streams, and the wildlife are the birthright of all Americans not just a select few who erroneously think they are hallowed above the rest of us and entitled to exploit what is not theirs alone.

trevhall93

Turning the lands over to the states does not equal privatization. It means they will be managed by those who are closer to them and have a vested interest. It should be local people who live and work in our rural communities/ natural resource based economies and not some person in Washington DC or their handlers in some environmental extremist group

trevhall93

Plus it is constitutional. How would a Democrat understand what is "unconstitutional or illegal." It amazes me that a person with such limited knowledge could raise to the position of House Minority Leader. If Mr. Campbell would do a little research he would find that this has been done before in our nations history and the federal lands were promised to the states when admitted to the union. The promise has yet to be fulfilled.

over the hill

Propaganda.

bedmdaz99

The administration has a fundamentally flawed view of what the government is supposed to do with the public lands that it holds in trust for all Americans. It views itself as somehow being the owner of these “assets” and is eager to make them available to its longtime friends in the oil, gas and mining industries.

dolphinpacific

It is easier to control a herd when it is fenced in... and I'm not talking about cows.

dolphinpacific

...and was this Poll taken in the city? The bigger the flock, the dumber the sheep.

wes alderson

Trev and dolphin may have a misdfonception.
We are talking about the STATE minority leader - not the Federal. And I believe the Utah Constituion was refered to - not the US Constittion. Correct me if i am wrong.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.