Public Lands in Public Hands Live Chat!

[okielite]

I agree with a lot of what libidilatimmy has said. I was doing the math while he was posting, and if you take out Yellowstone, Grand Teton and the Wind River Indian Reservation, its about 600%. That is a huge boost of lands that need managed and one of the simplest solutions is selling some off. Its hard to find good employees and adding 6x the number of employees would be a lot. Lib. is also right that most of the state lands (6% of total state lands) are trust lands (school sections) which are 1 in every 36 section I think which is about 3%, so 1/2 of Wyoming state lands are stuck right in the middle of something else, either BLM or private. The other 3% is probably in a similar situation. The majority of these trust lands are set up to get mineral royalties, so they are really managed by someone else. Wyoming is not set up to take over federal land management. Maybe if it was a baby step process that was funded by mineral royalties, it might work, I don't know. Sometimes it is frustrating to have federal lands that are subject to policies made by people who don't seem to have a good handle on the multi-use that these lands could have, and I think were originally supposed to have, but I think water rights are a good example of why the federal goverment should have a say in managing these lands. If Wyoming were to manage the water that starts in our mountains and what not, the reservoirs would probably always be full and we would have bumper hay crops, but Nebraska would suffer for it, if only because they would have to pay more for it, so we would have to pay more for corn. Utah and California and Colorado couldn't grow as much fruit, so I would have scurvy, it would be a bad deal. Montana wheat would even suffer because the Yellowstone has roots in Wyoming, too. I am getting out there again, I had better call it good, but I agree there have been some good points.

Actually the employees would be easy to hire. They already live in these areas and already manage the land for the feds. By hiring the best people from the federal government the transition would be much easier. So you cut the # of people it takes to manage the land by 50% and drop all the dead weight employees and federal government waste. You cut out some of the ridiculous requirements the federal government are required to do by transferring the land to the state and suddenly you can manage the same piece of land for much less per acre and keep the public use similar to what it currently is. Then go in and get fair market value for the grazing, ag, and mineral leases. There are ways to improve how the feds manage land.

 

[libidilatimmy]

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/landsale/ParcelListWithMaps.aspx?KeywordFlag=1&LandUseClass=3&ParcelStatus='P','A','Z'&SearchType=Pub

Michigan does frequent land sales as well. I agree that some of the parcels would have little to no value from a recreational stand point. Although, it is state owned land that they don't want to spend the time or resources to manage and are trying to produce revenue from the acreage by it's sale. How the properties were acquired by the state, whether by tax lien, donation, etc., is really inconsequential since they stand to profit from the sale.

I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed.

 

[okielite]

If you knew half as much as you think you do, you'd know the current Wyoming statutes expressly forbid the sale of the public land by the State Land Board without going through a ton of red tape that at the present time would never fly if/when it went before the State Legislature! Also, as was stated in more than one previous post, the land we're talking about is not in large tracts that would come close to tracts of BLM or NF lands. Take a look at the maps to see how things are spread out all over the state. You won't see the shade of blue that designates state lands in very big tracts like you do the yellow for BLM and green for NF lands.

Cool off. No reason to start insulting peoples intelligence or get angry. I think you must have gotten confused about who said what. I'm not the one claiming Wyoming would sell off land if it could. That was the guy who claims he worked for the state for 30 years (you would think he might know about the statutes you mentioned). Thanks for confirming that Wyoming has laws in place to prevent the sale of state owned land. Obviously things can be done to prevent the land from being sold if it was transferred to the state.

As far as large tracts I've already given some examples in Wyoming. There is a nice piece of state land north of Manville that I have hunted in. Really nice. Also some of the state parks are quite large. I've also given examples of land in other states like FT Robinson which was federal land that was transferred to the state and the state has done a great job of managing it for outdoor recreation. Obviously states can manage land.

 

[Againstthewind]

http://wyofile.com/gregory_nickerson/wyoming-where-independent-people-rely-on-federal-funds/
This was a good article I thought.

 

[ScottR]

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/landsale/ParcelListWithMaps.aspx?KeywordFlag=1&LandUseClass=3&ParcelStatus='P','A','Z'&SearchType=Pub

Michigan does frequent land sales as well. I agree that some of the parcels would have little to no value from a recreational stand point. Although, it is state owned land that they don't want to spend the time or resources to manage and are trying to produce revenue from the acreage by it's sale. How the properties were acquired by the state, whether by tax lien, donation, etc., is really inconsequential since they stand to profit from the sale.

I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed.

The problem with selling the low value pieces is that in turn the list gets shorter of what is owned by state. If we sell from the bottom of the list eventually the list reaches the untouchables.

 

[okielite]

If you look at those pieces of land in Michigan they seem more like land that was owned because of delinquent tax payments or other means. They dont' look like large pieces of recreational property to me. I dont' think that really proves that states would sell off large pieces of land if it was transferred to them. It simply proves that states have no interest in small pieces of land acquired through things like not paying taxes and that land/lots such as that will be sold off, which makes perfect sense.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Sorry if you took it as an insult and I'm not angry, but you keep coming up with baseless statements that are incorrect and easily debunked. State Parks are one thing that already benefits the entire population and the biggest share of them don't allow hunting, so there would be no reason to sell what is making money and being enjoyed by a vast majority of residents and many NRs. I thought we were talking about wild lands, rather than land like parks where many already have an expensive infrastructure that would make no sense in selling it off. You keep saying a nice piece of land here and a nice piece of land there, but the majority are not considered big chunks of land like we're talking about. It sounds like what you are calling big is a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things. What we're gettin at is the way things are set up now the entire country is putting money into these Federal lands, regardless of whether we agree or disagree as to the proper management of them. Given that, where would you propose that the money would come from when a state such as Nevada that doesn't have a pot to piss in took over the vast Federal lands and there was a year of vast fires like is becoming more and more common every year. That would break that state in a month unless you can tell us where
all the money would come from without borrowing to the hilt for our great grandchildren to pay off or selling off a bunch of it off.

 

[libidilatimmy]

The problem with selling the low value pieces is that in turn the list gets shorter of what is owned by state. If we sell from the bottom of the list eventually the list reaches the untouchables.

Agreed.....

 

[Againstthewind]

I am glad that Fort Robinson was mentioned in a positive light. My in-laws are part of the management there and we "honey mooned" there. Cool place.

 

[okielite]

Sorry if you took it as an insult and I'm not angry, but you keep coming up with baseless statements that are incorrect and easily debunked. State Parks are one thing that already benefits the entire population and the biggest share of them don't allow hunting, so there would be no reason to sell what is making money and being enjoyed by a vast majority of residents and many NRs. I thought we were talking about wild lands, rather than land like parks where many already have an expensive infrastructure that would make no sense in selling it off. You keep saying a nice piece of land here and a nice piece of land there, but the majority are not considered big chunks of land like we're talking about. It sounds like what you are calling big is a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things. What we're gettin at is the way things are set up now the entire country is putting money into these Federal lands, regardless of whether we agree or disagree as to the proper management of them. Given that, where would you propose that the money would come from when a state such as Nevada that doesn't have a pot to piss in took over the vast Federal lands and there was a year of vast fires like is becoming more and more common every year. That would break that state in a month unless you can tell us where
all the money would come from without borrowing to the hilt for our great grandchildren to pay off or selling off a bunch of it off.

Has nothing to do with me taking it as an insult. It was an insult. Here is your exact quote. If you knew half as much as you think you do, Don't be surprised when you get a negative reaction when you say something like that to someone.

You don't know who I am but I know who you are. In fact I've communicated with you via PM on another site.

Baseless statements that are incorrect? Feel free to point them out.

You can hunt in the state parks I mentioned. I know there are tags for Curt Gowdy and you can hunt a good part of Glendo. You can also hunt Ft Robinson St park which I used as an example. So clearly my examples allow hunting.

The piece of land North of Manville looks like it covers appx 50 sq miles. Obviously a nice piece of property that holds deer, elk, antelope, etc..
Ft Robinson is appx 22k acres and Packsaddle WMA in Oklahoma is about 20k acres.
Obviously I have given examples of states managing larger pieces of land for public use including hunting.

Obviously there would still need to be some federal $ to assist the states in doing this but I have no doubt that there are ways to manage that land more efficiently with less $. That is how you help slow down the debt we are creating for out kids, cut costs.

Again please point out what I said that was incorrect, and baseless. I have given you examples of everything I talked about so far and have not insulted you in any way shape or form and plan on keeping it that way.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Has nothing to do with me taking it as an insult. It was an insult. Here is your exact quote. If you knew half as much as you think you do, Don't be surprised when you get a negative reaction when you say something like that to someone.

You don't know who I am but I know who you are. In fact I've communicated with you via PM on another site.

Baseless statements that are incorrect? Feel free to point them out.

You can hunt in the state parks I mentioned. I know there are tags for Curt Gowdy and you can hunt a good part of Glendo. You can also hunt Ft Robinson St park which I used as an example. So clearly my examples allow hunting.

The piece of land North of Manville looks like it covers appx 50 sq miles. Obviously a nice piece of property that holds deer, elk, antelope, etc..
Ft Robinson is appx 22k acres and Packsaddle WMA in Oklahoma is about 20k acres.
Obviously I have given examples of states managing larger pieces of land for public use including hunting.

Obviously there would still need to be some federal $ to assist the states in doing this but I have no doubt that there are ways to manage that land more efficiently with less $. That is how you help slow down the debt we are creating for out kids, cut costs.

Again please point out what I said that was incorrect, and baseless. I have given you examples of everything I talked about so far and have not insulted you in any way shape or form and plan on keeping it that way.

That last one was my attempt at an apology, but I guess it didn't come out right either! In fact the initial post would not have remained up there as sooon as I read what I had said and if there was an edit button on this Forum it would have been taken off because it was not proper. However, at this time there isn't and I had no way to correct or delete it! I also do know who you are even though you are using another name on here and we've talked about hunting together out in your area a couple times on that other site! You also know from there that I can get carried away at times in a debate, so again I'm sorry for my indiscretion and let's move on! My hunting comments about Parks was not meant specifically for Wyoming, but for all states that I thought we were talking about and not just Wyoming. The main baseless statement I was referring to is the fact you didn't know the State Land Board has certain parameters it has to stay within as far as land usage and sales in Wyoming. The monies they get every year and will continue to get through their oversight of the state lands the way Wyoming set it up will last forever and certainly be more than what they could get in a one time fire sale if things were changed in the future. If the Legislature ever gained a majority that had the land sale philosophy, IMHO the state would be in deep dodo. Peace Bro!

 

[libidilatimmy]

You can hunt in the state parks I mentioned. I know there are tags for Curt Gowdy and you can hunt a good part of Glendo. You can also hunt Ft Robinson St park which I used as an example. So clearly my examples allow hunting.

The piece of land North of Manville looks like it covers appx 50 sq miles. Obviously a nice piece of property that holds deer, elk, antelope, etc..
Ft Robinson is appx 22k acres and Packsaddle WMA in Oklahoma is about 20k acres.
Obviously I have given examples of states managing larger pieces of land for public use including hunting.

The ranch the State owns North of Manville that you mention is under Game & Fish control (if I remember correctly, but could be wrong) meaning that the cost of maintaining the property is partially funded by license fees and partially funded by any grazing or farming leases that are in place. This is the case with almost all of the larger acreages that the state has title to other than the State Parks and most of the State Parks now charge fees for use as their revenue. The State actually doesn't own most of the State Parks anyway since most of them are on reservoirs and owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Game & Fish is currently scrambling to find ways to balance their budget and the same goes for the State Parks showing that the State is having a hard time making ends meet on this front in it's current situation. If the State can't find the financial means, with help coming from the Feds mind you, to meet the current demands for maintenance of properties it currently owns, where are the funds going to come from if that number is multiplied by 5 or 6 times? Are we going to put in toll booths every 5 miles on all of the FS and BLM roads to pay for road maintenance? Who's going to pay for construction of the toll booths?

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Cool off. No reason to start insulting peoples intelligence or get angry. I think you must have gotten confused about who said what. I'm not the one claiming Wyoming would sell off land if it could. That was the guy who claims he worked for the state for 30 years (you would think he might know about the statutes you mentioned). Thanks for confirming that Wyoming has laws in place to prevent the sale of state owned land. Obviously things can be done to prevent the land from being sold if it was transferred to the state.

As far as large tracts I've already given some examples in Wyoming. There is a nice piece of state land north of Manville that I have hunted in. Really nice. Also some of the state parks are quite large. I've also given examples of land in other states like FT Robinson which was federal land that was transferred to the state and the state has done a great job of managing it for outdoor recreation. Obviously states can manage land.

okielite, I never said there are no rules/laws governing the disposal of state land. W.S. 36-9-101 grants authority to the State Land Board to sell land: "The board of land commissioners may at any time direct the sale of state lands subject to any lease thereof. Subject to criteria established by the board, any person may request that a parcel of state land be considered for sale by the board, but such lands shall only be nominated for sale by a majority vote of the board." Please see the statute for further details.

My point is that the laws/rules do not provide the protection against sale that is provided by federal ownership.

I ask you again to provide information about your apparent extensive knowledge of Wyoming government. Information about my background is provided in my profile. No more BS, let's hear why you are more qualified to say what is best for Wyoming than many of the Wyoming people that have posted on this form. Without some background information, your credibility is lacking.

 

[okielite]

The ranch the State owns North of Manville that you mention is under Game & Fish control (if I remember correctly, but could be wrong) meaning that the cost of maintaining the property is partially funded by license fees and partially funded by any grazing or farming leases that are in place. This is the case with almost all of the larger acreages that the state has title to other than the State Parks and most of the State Parks now charge fees for use as their revenue. The State actually doesn't own most of the State Parks anyway since most of them are on reservoirs and owned by the Bureau of Reclamation. The Game & Fish is currently scrambling to find ways to balance their budget and the same goes for the State Parks showing that the State is having a hard time making ends meet on this front in it's current situation. If the State can't find the financial means, with help coming from the Feds mind you, to meet the current demands for maintenance of properties it currently owns, where are the funds going to come from if that number is multiplied by 5 or 6 times? Are we going to put in toll booths every 5 miles on all of the FS and BLM roads to pay for road maintenance? Who's going to pay for construction of the toll booths?

The ranch is listed as state land but I dont' know if there are some other considerations.

As far as the other stuff in your post please try to be realistic. toll booths every 5 miles? C-mon man.

The money would come from the same place it comes from now, the difference is that we would use less of it to manage the same land. Dont' you think its possible that there are ways to operate more efficiently than the federal government?

I watch the USFS office and employees in my area pretty closely and its' amazing how many people they have and how little they actually do to manage a couple hundred thousand acres in this area. I could walk in and cut half the jobs and the person doing the recreating on the land would never know the difference.

 

[okielite]

That last one was my attempt at an apology, but I guess it didn't come out right either! In fact the initial post would not have remained up there as sooon as I read what I had said and if there was an edit button on this Forum it would have been taken off because it was not proper. However, at this time there isn't and I had no way to correct or delete it! I also do know who you are even though you are using another name on here and we've talked about hunting together out in your area a couple times on that other site! You also know from there that I can get carried away at times in a debate, so again I'm sorry for my indiscretion and let's move on! My hunting comments about Parks was not meant specifically for Wyoming, but for all states that I thought we were talking about and not just Wyoming. The main baseless statement I was referring to is the fact you didn't know the State Land Board has certain parameters it has to stay within as far as land usage and sales in Wyoming. The monies they get every year and will continue to get through their oversight of the state lands the way Wyoming set it up will last forever and certainly be more than what they could get in a one time fire sale if things were changed in the future. If the Legislature ever gained a majority that had the land sale philosophy, IMHO the state would be in deep dodo. Peace Bro!

No worried TG. Sounds like you remember our conversations as well. There are some things this forum needs to improve with navigating and things like editing posts but I'm sure they will get it straightened out soon.

Apology accepted. I also can get carried away so I try my best not to.

You are correct that many state parks dont' allow hunting but there are many that do. I'm heading down to Kansas to visit a state park in a few weeks, they allow hunting. I actually think I told you about that place on HT, holds some great mulies. In fact it's not far from where Guy shot his 200+ inch mulie with a muzzleloader many years ago.

You are correct that I did not know about the state statute that prohibits selling of land. To be clear I never said that they would sell it either. Wyoming spends a lot of money leasing private land to increase public access. There is no reason to believe they want to sell all the public land in the state IMO as it has never happened in the past, there are laws that prohibit it from happening now, and it is not in the states best interest to sell off the land.

I agree and hope that Wyoming would never sell off it's public land. Hopefully they will never do that as it would have so many negative effects on the state.

 

[ScottR]

Glad you two made up, I was about to play referee.

 

[okielite]

okielite, I never said there are no rules/laws governing the disposal of state land. W.S. 36-9-101 grants authority to the State Land Board to sell land: "The board of land commissioners may at any time direct the sale of state lands subject to any lease thereof. Subject to criteria established by the board, any person may request that a parcel of state land be considered for sale by the board, but such lands shall only be nominated for sale by a majority vote of the board." Please see the statute for further details.

My point is that the laws/rules do not provide the protection against sale that is provided by federal ownership.

I ask you again to provide information about your apparent extensive knowledge of Wyoming government. Information about my background is provided in my profile. No more BS, let's hear why you are more qualified to say what is best for Wyoming than many of the Wyoming people that have posted on this form. Without some background information, your credibility is lacking.

So you claim to have 30 years of experience in Wyoming and know the state laws well but then you turn around and tell us that if the land was transferred to Wyoming that they would sell it all? Makes no sense as laws prohibit what you describe from happening in the first place.

Basically in a transfer there would need to be some rules like the land can't be sold and the use can't change drastically.

You still never answered my question in post 129. At this point you keep telling me I am wrong and you want to compare our background/resume but you can't even provide 1 example of a state selling off a large piece of recreational property like you claimed would happen. Yet I've provided specific examples of everything I discussed and you have not even provided 1 example for your side of the argument.

There is a credibility issue but it's not with me. Try proving your point with examples instead of simply telling me I'm wrong and waving your resume around. You will be taken much more seriously if you do so.

 

[libidilatimmy]

The ranch is listed as state land but I dont' know if there are some other considerations.

As far as the other stuff in your post please try to be realistic. toll booths every 5 miles? C-mon man.

The money would come from the same place it comes from now, the difference is that we would use less of it to manage the same land. Dont' you think its possible that there are ways to operate more efficiently than the federal government?

I watch the USFS office and employees in my area pretty closely and its' amazing how many people they have and how little they actually do to manage a couple hundred thousand acres in this area. I could walk in and cut half the jobs and the person doing the recreating on the land would never know the difference.

Realistically, the money isn't there now to manage these lands that are the point of discussion, and with all of the stipulations that the Feds would most likely set forth if any such transaction were to be made could quite possibly end up being more of a financial burden than when the Feds controlled the land. Sure, there are more efficient ways to do all things when it comes to government, but when you walk in and terminate half of the workforce in the FS and they can't find any jobs and file for unemployment, you and I are still paying for their meals through taxes, same as before. Additionally, the Feds would most certainly not allocate the same amount of funding towards these lands since the root of the problem is financial burdening the State further.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

Glad you two made up, I was about to play referee.

LOL! Get that dang delete button on here so I can make correction, as it's all your fault, LOL!!!

 

[libidilatimmy]

So you claim to have 30 years of experience in Wyoming and know the state laws well but then you turn around and tell us that if the land was transferred to Wyoming that they would sell it all? Makes no sense as laws prohibit what you describe from happening in the first place.

Basically in a transfer there would need to be some rules like the land can't be sold and the use can't change drastically.

You still never answered my question in post 129. At this point you keep telling me I am wrong and you want to compare our background/resume but you can't even provide 1 example of a state selling off a large piece of recreational property like you claimed would happen. Yet I've provided specific examples of everything I discussed and you have not even provided 1 example for your side of the argument.

There is a credibility issue but it's not with me. Try proving your point with examples instead of simply telling me I'm wrong and waving your resume around. You will be taken much more seriously if you do so.

Easy now, let's keep it civil. You were provided with examples of state's selling land, but you chose that they didn't count for whatever reason.