State governor oversight in National Forest?

[spike camp]

Can't say she got what she deserved if others that violated the law were released from jail.

Those that were released, didn’t blatantly violate a court ordered cease and desist during a global pandemic,.

 

[jmez]

They violated something or they wouldn't be in jail.

 

[5MilesBack]

The TX lady got exactly what she deserved.
She violated the law

There's a law against owning and operating your own business?? Since when?

 

[5MilesBack]

Pretty sure when the President declared a national emergency, public health, lots of things changed as far as our rights.

Why would it? The Constitution doesn't have a suspense clause in case of real emergencies, it exists BECAUSE the founding fathers knew what would happen in those trying times. That's why we have it. It's not a "nice to have" foundation for the nation UNTIL something happens, and then we can just use it as toilet paper until that emergency is over.

 

[mtnbiker208]

idaho just relaxed there 14 day quarantine for out of staters. alot of states did the quarantine for out of staters. you might actually check and see if it is still a requirement and what stage it goes away.

 

[spike camp]

There's a law against owning and operating your own business?? Since when?

She violated a countywide order, during a global pandemic and national emergency.
Pretty easy to comprehend, unless you’re playing the semantics game again.

 

[mtwarden]

Our governor is not banning anyone from federal lands; he has an enacted a 14 day quarantine for non-essential out fo state travelers- doesn't matter if you're headed to Costco or the Beartooths.

 

[WalterH]

The topic of land management "jurisdiction" is a very lengthy one filled with many exceptions and caveats to generally applicable concepts and principles. It is practically impossible to summarize briefly, and most of the general concepts won't be true everywhere.

The short version is, who is in charge of what on which hunk of land (state vs. federal) varies from state to state, and within each state based on which federal agencies manage which kind of land. To get an accurate answer, you really have to look at each chunk of federal land, whether it is managed by the NPS, BLM, USFS, USFWS, etc. and figure out what they are in charge of vs. what the state is in charge of. How's that for confusing.

This having been said, there are some principles and concepts that are generally true in most areas (most states) and I'll try to take at stab at summarizing those here.

If I was going to title this longwinded ramble it would probably be something like:

State vs. Federal Jurisdiction and Federally-managed Public Lands

This is my take and interpretation of course, and I am sure there are a number of things that I don't have quite right or understand fully, so take all below with a grain of salt.

First a couple of definitions so we are all speaking the same (or similar) language.

In the text that follows "state" generally refers to whatever local entity has jurisdiction over the non-federal lands in the area whether that is a state, county, municipality, borough, etc. Basically everyone but the feds.

With regard to the federal system, "law" refers to statutory laws and then the regulations promulgated under that statute, basically applicable rules, regs, etc. Most of what we are dealing with on federally-managed public lands are regulations that the managing agency has implemented based on their statutory authority. "Law" should specifically refer to a statute found in the United States Code (USC), where as regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). So again keeping it general, law here will refer to the rules we are supposed to follow wherever we are at.



In the world of federally-managed public lands, there are functionally three types of jurisdiction that the federal government has: 1) Exclusive, 2) Concurrent, 3) Proprietary.


Exclusive jurisdiction means the federal government has all management responsibility and authority and the state has functionally has none. This doesn't mean that state laws don't apply, they usually do, but only in instances where there is no governing federal law on the issue at hand. An example of that would be something like assault or other similar types of people vs. people crimes. Again generally the federal government doesn't have laws that deal with those types of specific people crimes, they leave that to individual states. In areas of exclusive jurisdiction, most federal agencies have the ability to adopt or assimilate and enforce state laws on federal public lands, and do so. Generally the state can take no enforcement actions on these federally-managed public lands.

Concurrent Jurisdiction means that both the state and the federal government have the authority to enforce their laws on the federally-managed public land. Again in areas of concurrent jurisdiction, the federal government has the ability to adopt or assimilate state laws, but again they must defer to federal laws if there is a conflict or existing federal law on point for a specific issue or offense. In areas of concurrent jurisdiction, state peace officers can enforce applicable state laws on federally-managed lands.

Proprietary jurisdiction is the most confusing of the lot and the type that varies the most from place to place. In essence, the federal land manager with proprietary jurisdiction will have the authority to enforce those federal laws that they are tasked with in their enabling legislation, but they will have no authority to enforce any state laws unless their officers are commissioned by the state, which is again common but not a rule by any means.

Regardless of the type of federal jurisdiction applicable to a chunk of federally-managed public land, generally state peace officers cannot enforce federal laws on federal lands unless they are cross-deputized by the federal agency that manages the land. That delegated authority is somewhat common as well, but also not a rule by any means.

So as I mentioned above, what authority a federal agency has is going to vary from place to play and also from agency to agency. Each federal agency is given their initial authority in what is generally referred to as their "enabling legislation," or in other words the act of congress that created the agency and the scope of that agencies responsibility. Quite often this initial authority or scope of responsibility is expanded and/or amended in the years and decades that follow the initial act. These responsibilities and this authority varies from agency to agency. The NPS came from the Organic Act, the BLM from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, USFWS from the Lacey Act, the USFS from the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, etc. Within these acts congress spelled out what the agency has the authority to do, and then it's generally up to the agency to implement regulations to carry out their assigned responsibilities.

Almost without exception, each of these agencies have the authority to close the public lands that they oversee with certain conditions and within certain parameters. Without exception (that I am aware of), states have no authority to regulate these closings and openings of federal public land.

That having been said, federal land managers, more often than not, work very closely with their state partners and try to mirror state and local guidance and policies on these issues. This is true in both emergent/crisis type environments, but also as part of routine business like hunting and fishing laws. In some places some federal agencies have the full and sole responsibility to manage fishing and hunting. Almost with no exceptions in these areas, the federal land manager chooses to adopt and apply state regulations for these things.

Getting back to the original question, does a governor or sheriff have the authority to open or close USFS lands, no. Only the USFS has the authority to do that. They may choose to mirror the state's policy and directives, but that is ultimately up to the USFS manager and their chain of command. Can a governor or sheriff implement laws and policies in the areas where they have authority that make it functionally impossible to legally access federal public lands? Sure, but their authority for opening and closing lands and access ends at the boundary between state and federally-managed land on that issue.

There is a misconception that federal land management agencies don't have any jurisdiction when it comes to fish, wildlife, hunting, or fishing, and that is not true although instances where there is conflict between states and feds in this arena are somewhat rare. Most federal agencies again either default or defer to state management, or adopt applicable state laws for hunting and fishing. There have been some recent examples of the feds not mirroring state laws with say the Yellowstone grizzlies and some state subsistence hunting and predator management regulations in Alaska. With regard to the latter, the NPS chose not to adopt, or rather specifically exclude several forms of taking bears and wolves that the state did allow. In essence the NPS said, state hunting regs apply on NPS lands where hunting is allowed, minus X, Y, and Z regs that conflict with our mandate to maintain healthy populations of wildlife, etc. That was and is still a contentious issue as you might imagine.

I am sure at this point most have glazed over or given up and I've muddied the waters more than cleared them.

In summary, state vs. federal jurisdiction on federally-managed public lands is rarely a situation of all and none. That is to say all of the power or jurisdiction over all issues is in one set of hands over the other. It is almost always a situation where both have some authority over certain things. The best thing we can do to wade through all of this confusing business and talk to our local land managers and enforcement officers to understand what the situation is locally and who is in charge of what.

I hope some of this is somewhat relevant and/or useful and apologies for the length.

 

[TBHasler]

That aligns with my thinking, but again, I don't have much legal or political experience. I wonder why no one has challenged this in Montana or how one would even go about challenging it?

Let’s see what happens in about 90 days...if their still trying to overstep their bounds come Sep, it’ll be challenged

 

[netman]

 

[TradAg02]

The topic of land management "jurisdiction" is a very lengthy one filled with many exceptions and caveats to generally applicable concepts and principles. It is practically impossible to summarize briefly, and most of the general concepts won't be true everywhere.

The short version is, who is in charge of what on which hunk of land (state vs. federal) varies from state to state, and within each state based on which federal agencies manage which kind of land. To get an accurate answer, you really have to look at each chunk of federal land, whether it is managed by the NPS, BLM, USFS, USFWS, etc. and figure out what they are in charge of vs. what the state is in charge of. How's that for confusing.

This having been said, there are some principles and concepts that are generally true in most areas (most states) and I'll try to take at stab at summarizing those here.

If I was going to title this longwinded ramble it would probably be something like:

State vs. Federal Jurisdiction and Federally-managed Public Lands

This is my take and interpretation of course, and I am sure there are a number of things that I don't have quite right or understand fully, so take all below with a grain of salt.

First a couple of definitions so we are all speaking the same (or similar) language.

In the text that follows "state" generally refers to whatever local entity has jurisdiction over the non-federal lands in the area whether that is a state, county, municipality, borough, etc. Basically everyone but the feds.

With regard to the federal system, "law" refers to statutory laws and then the regulations promulgated under that statute, basically applicable rules, regs, etc. Most of what we are dealing with on federally-managed public lands are regulations that the managing agency has implemented based on their statutory authority. "Law" should specifically refer to a statute found in the United States Code (USC), where as regulations are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). So again keeping it general, law here will refer to the rules we are supposed to follow wherever we are at.



In the world of federally-managed public lands, there are functionally three types of jurisdiction that the federal government has: 1) Exclusive, 2) Concurrent, 3) Proprietary.


Exclusive jurisdiction means the federal government has all management responsibility and authority and the state has functionally has none. This doesn't mean that state laws don't apply, they usually do, but only in instances where there is no governing federal law on the issue at hand. An example of that would be something like assault or other similar types of people vs. people crimes. Again generally the federal government doesn't have laws that deal with those types of specific people crimes, they leave that to individual states. In areas of exclusive jurisdiction, most federal agencies have the ability to adopt or assimilate and enforce state laws on federal public lands, and do so. Generally the state can take no enforcement actions on these federally-managed public lands.

Concurrent Jurisdiction means that both the state and the federal government have the authority to enforce their laws on the federally-managed public land. Again in areas of concurrent jurisdiction, the federal government has the ability to adopt or assimilate state laws, but again they must defer to federal laws if there is a conflict or existing federal law on point for a specific issue or offense. In areas of concurrent jurisdiction, state peace officers can enforce applicable state laws on federally-managed lands.

Proprietary jurisdiction is the most confusing of the lot and the type that varies the most from place to place. In essence, the federal land manager with proprietary jurisdiction will have the authority to enforce those federal laws that they are tasked with in their enabling legislation, but they will have no authority to enforce any state laws unless their officers are commissioned by the state, which is again common but not a rule by any means.

Regardless of the type of federal jurisdiction applicable to a chunk of federally-managed public land, generally state peace officers cannot enforce federal laws on federal lands unless they are cross-deputized by the federal agency that manages the land. That delegated authority is somewhat common as well, but also not a rule by any means.

So as I mentioned above, what authority a federal agency has is going to vary from place to play and also from agency to agency. Each federal agency is given their initial authority in what is generally referred to as their "enabling legislation," or in other words the act of congress that created the agency and the scope of that agencies responsibility. Quite often this initial authority or scope of responsibility is expanded and/or amended in the years and decades that follow the initial act. These responsibilities and this authority varies from agency to agency. The NPS came from the Organic Act, the BLM from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, USFWS from the Lacey Act, the USFS from the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act, etc. Within these acts congress spelled out what the agency has the authority to do, and then it's generally up to the agency to implement regulations to carry out their assigned responsibilities.

Almost without exception, each of these agencies have the authority to close the public lands that they oversee with certain conditions and within certain parameters. Without exception (that I am aware of), states have no authority to regulate these closings and openings of federal public land.

That having been said, federal land managers, more often than not, work very closely with their state partners and try to mirror state and local guidance and policies on these issues. This is true in both emergent/crisis type environments, but also as part of routine business like hunting and fishing laws. In some places some federal agencies have the full and sole responsibility to manage fishing and hunting. Almost with no exceptions in these areas, the federal land manager chooses to adopt and apply state regulations for these things.

Getting back to the original question, does a governor or sheriff have the authority to open or close USFS lands, no. Only the USFS has the authority to do that. They may choose to mirror the state's policy and directives, but that is ultimately up to the USFS manager and their chain of command. Can a governor or sheriff implement laws and policies in the areas where they have authority that make it functionally impossible to legally access federal public lands? Sure, but their authority for opening and closing lands and access ends at the boundary between state and federally-managed land on that issue.

There is a misconception that federal land management agencies don't have any jurisdiction when it comes to fish, wildlife, hunting, or fishing, and that is not true although instances where there is conflict between states and feds in this arena are somewhat rare. Most federal agencies again either default or defer to state management, or adopt applicable state laws for hunting and fishing. There have been some recent examples of the feds not mirroring state laws with say the Yellowstone grizzlies and some state subsistence hunting and predator management regulations in Alaska. With regard to the latter, the NPS chose not to adopt, or rather specifically exclude several forms of taking bears and wolves that the state did allow. In essence the NPS said, state hunting regs apply on NPS lands where hunting is allowed, minus X, Y, and Z regs that conflict with our mandate to maintain healthy populations of wildlife, etc. That was and is still a contentious issue as you might imagine.

I am sure at this point most have glazed over or given up and I've muddied the waters more than cleared them.

In summary, state vs. federal jurisdiction on federally-managed public lands is rarely a situation of all and none. That is to say all of the power or jurisdiction over all issues is in one set of hands over the other. It is almost always a situation where both have some authority over certain things. The best thing we can do to wade through all of this confusing business and talk to our local land managers and enforcement officers to understand what the situation is locally and who is in charge of what.

I hope some of this is somewhat relevant and/or useful and apologies for the length.

Thank you for taking the time to provide this well formed response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[5MilesBack]

She violated a countywide order, during a global pandemic and national emergency. Pretty easy to comprehend, unless you’re playing the semantics game again.

Ya, that pesky Constitution semantics game. You must mean the "order" from the King. Fortunately, we don't have Kings in America. Governors, mayors, and other individuals don't get to determine which businesses go bankrupt and which ones stay open......like pot shops.

Judge Napolitano explained it pretty well the other day. A Police State makes orders and laws that are a benefit to the government, whereas a Free State makes laws that are a benefit to the citizens. Keeping "The People" from their businesses and making a living is most definitely not a benefit to the people.

 

[lif]

The TX lady got exactly what she deserved.
She violated the law, got served with a cease and desist letter, and tore it up.
So, she was arrested for contempt and was fined 7k and spent a week in jail.
Good.

Maybe if folks showed up like those armed militia fools in Lansing, things would really get heated lol!

Hoping there ain’t too many citizens thinking like you. Follow the government’s rules like a good little sheep.

 

[5MilesBack]

Our governor is not banning anyone from federal lands; he has an enacted a 14 day quarantine for non-essential out fo state travelers- doesn't matter if you're headed to Costco or the Beartooths.

Unless they're lining them up at the border for 14 days, then I guess they can quarantine wherever their destination is.

 

[ManyBullets]

Why would it? The Constitution doesn't have a suspense clause in case of real emergencies, it exists BECAUSE the founding fathers knew what would happen in those trying times. That's why we have it. It's not a "nice to have" foundation for the nation UNTIL something happens, and then we can just use it as toilet paper until that emergency is over.

EXACTLY
It's not government's job to protect us from viruses. What they've done is take advantage of the situation to take more of our rights and freedoms.

Wisconsin supreme court just agreed with the above assessments. More states should follow.

 

[spike camp]

Hoping there ain’t too many citizens thinking like you. Follow the government’s rules like a good little sheep.

And how did that work out for the lady lol
Jailed and fined

Badda bing, done deal....next

 

[5MilesBack]

And how did that work out for the lady lol
Jailed and fined

Badda bing, done deal....next

Real Americans aren't afraid of the consequences for standing up for the Constitution, and many have even taken an oath to support and defend it against ALL enemies.....foreign and domestic. Heroes come in all forms when standing up for their rights, their freedoms, and their liberties that all come with being an American citizen. That's the bottom line........AT ALL COSTS.

 

[lif]

And how did that work out for the lady lol
Jailed and fined

Badda bing, done deal....next

baaahhhhh!!!

 

[trazerr]

I think we now know why some sheriffs had to issue statements to the public asking a select few to stop calling 911 because people were not wearing masks and maintaining 6ft....

 

[lif]

I think we now know why some sheriffs had to issue statements to the public asking a select few to stop calling 911 because people were not wearing masks and maintaining 6ft....

Snitches. Also very gross. I call those folks the governments monkeys.