Public Lands in Public Hands Live Chat!

[packmule]

If you click on that Texas link and go from Region to Region, you'll see a lot of the land up for sale is private property and there is very little acerage of substance for sale in the entire state.

Feds are trying to buy in Tx to increase the Big Thicket National Corridor and majority of state land has been donated or is in trusts held by the University of Texas and Texas A&M University and funds off drilling the properties funneled into the public education fund for those 2 school systems (which is low 9 figures annually now, but has been happening since the early 1900s). Some has been donated to conservation groups to keep reservoirs from being built.

Some of the land donated to the state schools or state agencies to escape estate taxes is sold off in auctions. 2 years ago a family member bought a place that was donated to a state school, it was a tract that finally allowed land access to thousands of acres of public land and it went on the market quick. This all happened without public knowledge.

 

[okielite]

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.

I simply don't follow your argument. The money is there as the land is currently managed. The transaction could be as complicated or as simple as they want to make it. If we can manage it more efficiently we will save money. That is the point.

I'm not concerned with finding employment for all the lazy government employees. If they really want to work they can go to North Dakota and get a job anytime they want one. Finding a job is a personal problem we are all faced with.

So since you think that transferring the land is a terrible idea that would never work what is your suggestion to improve the situation?

 

[okielite]

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.

Um the examples you showed had nothing to do with large pieces of recreational property. Trying to compare a .25 acre lot that the state received because of delinquent taxes has no similarities to what we are discussing. Did you look at the links? Clearly that state does not want to own a bunch of small pieces of property that offer no recreational value so they sell them. Unfortunately that does not prove your point about states selling the land off if it was transferred to them. My guess is most states have a similar program to get rid of these types of property.

If you could provide examples where states were selling off large pieces of recreational land you would have a point. Please feel free to provide some examples if you want to continue the discussion. I've already provided plenty of examples to confirm my side of the discussion.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

This whole debate is really conjecture on both sides. One side says the land will be sold and the other says there would be no reason to sell it and it would be cheaper by having it under individual state management. Right now a lot of state laws would probably need to be changed and as long as Congress at the Federal level has to approve significant Federal land sales and it remains deadlocked with no party majority I doubt things will change. I know a little bit about land sales and swaps because a friend and I both appealed a tentative land swap in Wyoming between a rancher and the BLM. We lost at the local level and went through all the hoops and won an appeal at the Federal Judge level of the BLM in DC. However, the state BLM manager knowingly violated the law and signed off on the deed exchange while the appeal was in process. The Judge sent a letter castigating him for doing that, but then also sent us a letter apologizing for the violation and stated that our only recourse was to file an expensive appeal at the Federal level in DC that would have cost a fortune because he could not reverse the transaction at his level. Within a year or two the BLM manager in Cheyenne died a very excruciating death from cancer and it reminded me of an old saying that my Dad always had in that what goes around comes around. I'm pretty sure he got money under the table from the rancher to do what he did and I don't have little doubt that he was also involved in a very shady deal with the same millionaire rancher several years before that when they exchanged several thousand acres of land that the G&F even sent a letter to the BLM asking them not to because it wasn't landlocked BLM property and was a fantastic hunting and fishing property. Now I look over that land from a high point on what is left and see hundreds of elk that I could be hunting if it wasn't for that shady deal being made. I guess what I'm getting at is to be careful what you wish for because it may come back to bite you in the butt!

 

[trkytrack2]

First I'd read on the guy. I'm as conservative as they come, but he fell off the turnip truck.

Unbelievable, but if you want to become a big wig in Wyoming, the best way to succeed is to bad mouth the Feds. Wyomingites HATE FEDS WITH A PASSION.

 

[libidilatimmy]

I simply don't follow your argument. The money is there as the land is currently managed. The transaction could be as complicated or as simple as they want to make it. If we can manage it more efficiently we will save money. That is the point.

I'm not concerned with finding employment for all the lazy government employees. If they really want to work they can go to North Dakota and get a job anytime they want one. Finding a job is a personal problem we are all faced with.

So since you think that transferring the land is a terrible idea that would never work what is your suggestion to improve the situation?

If the money is currently there now, then what is the reason for the sale that is currently proposed? My partial solution to this problem is to reel in the EPA to allow for more timber and energy leases to get executed providing more revenue. You argue that the states could absorb such costs but the examples you provide hardly compare to the vast areas that we're talking about. The reason you don't see any large properties on the links I provided is that the states want to divide the larger tracts up into more affordable pieces for quicker sale and higher profits. If you look closer, there were some larger pieces broken out into 20-80 acre portions.

 

[Againstthewind]

^^ I think that is right on the money. ^^ Its the same way private ranches are being sold, subdivided in to smaller tracts for quick sales. Which kindof sucks, but that is life. I don't see where the money would come from either. The state parks charge $5 a day if you don't have the yearly pass deal. That is crazy and it is $10 or $15 or even $20 to camp, that includes improved campgrounds in the NF and they are still not making any money. Those 20k acre state parks and even Fort Robinson are pretty small. There are lots of ranches bigger than that, even just over the hill in Harrison. Land sales aside, I still don't see how it would be feasible for Wyoming to take over federal lands. I have been trying to keep an open mind and read through everything, but the departments are not built that way right now. There are some good government employees, too. I agree there is a lot of waste and improvements could be made, but it might be easier to work within the current system. I see a lot of people that try to reinvent the wheel because they see a way to improve things, but a lot of times they end up making the same mistakes other people have already made and learned from. Other states might be in a different position, though. I am not one of the 9000 that signed the secession petition by the way. Well, dead horse beating accomplished!

 

[packmule]

Where will the water & housing come from for energy development. Also important to note the majority of revenue created will leave the state.

 

[libidilatimmy]

Where will the water & housing come from for energy development. Also important to note the majority of revenue created will leave the state.

The revenue I speak of would be royalties which gets divided up between federal and, in a round about way, state governments. If there is a need for housing and/or infrastructure it always gets built even if the funding comes from private industry. I'm not suggesting we open the flood gates letting companies rape and pillage our resources, but they could loosen things up a little more, especially logging.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

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.

Okielite, If you read the part of the statute that is in italics you will see that the statute does not prohibit the sale of state land. It simply requires the majority vote of the state land board. That does not provide much protection against the sale of state land. Sorry you missed my point. I will speak more slowly next time.

 

[packmule]

The revenue I speak of would be royalties which gets divided up between federal and, in a round about way, state governments. If there is a need for housing and/or infrastructure it always gets built even if the funding comes from private industry. I'm not suggesting we open the flood gates letting companies rape and pillage our resources, but they could loosen things up a little more, especially logging.

It takes quite the consumption of resources with no guarantee of royalty amounts, the companies could pull out and go elsewhere while keeping wells at a minimum to hold leases. (Have seriously seen a .39 royalty check....technically it wasn't worth the stamp) the municipalities always have a habit of spending/budgeting for that money before they get it, just like some individuals who've had producing wells but don't really have a pot to tinkle in bc they've already burned through the money.

Logging it also tricky bc you can't just flood the market without it being counterproductive.

 

[Againstthewind]

Have you been to Gillette lately Packmule? I am not sure where they think they have the money for this new sports "stadium", but we built it, hopefully the $ comes along, too. They either built it on rumors of a new boom or they know something I don't.

Sorry for all the posts today. It was slow at work and this was interesting.

 

[packmule]

I've been to Gillette Stadium. It's probably been 5 years since I've gone through Gillette, WY though. Maybe they're banking on a bunch of excess tax revenue from the cattle market.

 

[libidilatimmy]

It takes quite the consumption of resources with no guarantee of royalty amounts, the companies could pull out and go elsewhere while keeping wells at a minimum to hold leases. (Have seriously seen a .39 royalty check....technically it wasn't worth the stamp) the municipalities always have a habit of spending/budgeting for that money before they get it, just like some individuals who've had producing wells but don't really have a pot to tinkle in bc they've already burned through the money.

Logging it also tricky bc you can't just flood the market without it being counterproductive.

I agree, making more leases available is not a end solution, but it would help. A complex problem will take complex solutions to resolve.

 

[packmule]

Yes it will, so it's one of those things to not dive off into.

For logging, a corporation out of Oregon has millions of acres of prime timber land along the Gulf Coast and it's been a somewhat recent transaction that they're still paying for (and cutting like crazy to make pmts). There are sawmills everywhere down here and they can cut here, mill and ship to the NW cheaper than it can be done in the NW. What the NW might have are saw logs that are 40'+ with minimum 16" centers. Those as piers are a requirement now in many places for beach houses to get insured.

 

[okielite]

If the money is currently there now, then what is the reason for the sale that is currently proposed? My partial solution to this problem is to reel in the EPA to allow for more timber and energy leases to get executed providing more revenue. You argue that the states could absorb such costs but the examples you provide hardly compare to the vast areas that we're talking about. The reason you don't see any large properties on the links I provided is that the states want to divide the larger tracts up into more affordable pieces for quicker sale and higher profits. If you look closer, there were some larger pieces broken out into 20-80 acre portions.

To put the land back in the hands of those states who have more at stake, cut costs, improve management, be more efficient, save tax dollars, shrink the federal government, etc.... Do you remember when the gov shutdown was going on? The state of South Dakota tried to operate Mt Rushmore on their own because they knew that if Mt Rushmore was closed it was bad for the state. It made me realize how the states might be better at running things in their state versus a large federal government management that has a 1 size fits all approach and is simply not efficient.

I never argued that states could simply absorb the costs, never. They would still require federal funding but it would be less than what is currently spent. There might be ways to increase revenue by getting fair value for grazing leases and increased logging activity which would provide income. We agree on the logging activity. I personally believe that if states owned the land it would be easier for them to do things like logging without all the gov red tape and lawsuits.

The reason you don't see any large properties on the links you provided is because you are dealing with a bunch of non recreational properties that have nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing. As TG pointed out some of the property on the Texas site was private. Most are less than an acre lots and some are even measured in square feet. . The state has no need to own property like this as it serves no purpose to the people it the state. You need to find some actual examples of states selling large pieces of recreational land if you want to make a point that makes sense. I've already given examples of land that was given to the state and the state did a great job of managing it and keeping it open for recreational activities, FT Robinson State Park. We have already established that Wyoming has laws that prevent it from selling state recreational land so clearly laws can be written to prevent the scenario you are trying to scare people into believing is true.

 

[okielite]

Okielite, If you read the part of the statute that is in italics you will see that the statute does not prohibit the sale of state land. It simply requires the majority vote of the state land board. That does not provide much protection against the sale of state land. Sorry you missed my point. I will speak more slowly next time.

Obviously that was put in place to prevent what you are talking about from happening. So can you give us any examples of the land board voting to sell off large pieces of recreational property? Any?

You keep trying to scare us into believing that something is going to happen but you can't give an example where is has actually happened. Discussion is going nowhere at this point. Please find an example to back up your point so we can continue or we might as well just stop as you aren't backing up your side of the argument with any proof.

 

[libidilatimmy]

http://lands.wyo.gov/lands/transactions

Here, you'll find a school section plus 200 acres totaling 850 acres in Natrona county that is currently going through the approval process for sale. It doesn't have a boat ramp, bathroom, or camping spots on it so I bet this won't count either.

 

[okielite]

http://lands.wyo.gov/lands/transactions

Here, you'll find a school section plus 200 acres totaling 850 acres in Natrona county that is currently going through the approval process for sale. It doesn't have a boat ramp, bathroom, or camping spots on it so I bet this won't count either.

Look. You know darn well the examples you gave before had nothing to do with this. Stop with all the whining and get real.

After digging through that info it appears the land is zoned residential and ag and is just outside of Casper off the highway. They also outline why the piece of property does not meet their needs including minimal income potential and no public access or recreational value. If you read through the info it is quote apparent why they are selling the land. All this proves is that the state will get rid of pieces of property that dont' offer public access or recreational value and use the money to buy property that meets those requirements. If anything it shows how the state of Wyoming is looking to improve public access and increase recreational opportunities on it's land not that it want to get rid of accessible land that offers recreational opportunities. Actually proves my point and not yours.

Here is their quote.

As noted above the subject parcels are relatively small, surrounded by private land, and offers no recreational opportunities. Sale of the parcels would offer the opportunity for the state to acquire lands that would enhance public recreational access.

 

[Againstthewind]

http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/interior/reforming-federal-land-management

Here is a potential compromise, maybe. It concludes that some lands should be transferred to the state, some in trusts, and some going to private. The only problems I see are that the state could still mismanage BLM and NF lands and be politically charged (Wyoming might swing to the opposite side of the political spectrum and be even less eco-friendly which is not really good either). Also if the transition could still be subsidized by the feds, which may or may not be likely, it might be a good option. I am just still worried about losing billions of dollars and going through a real rough patch while things are worked out with any transfer. That seems like it was the reason that these reforms and transfers haven't worked in the past. Maybe it could be different this time.

Seedskeedee in SW Wyoming is a really important spot for migrating birds, and I would hate to lose those types of places with state control if they decided they couldn't afford it. I doubt that Seedskeedee supports itself. When I have gone there I was the only one in the whole place for days it seemed like. Maybe that would be a good trust land option for a specific trust, but how would someone decide which places need protection trusts, which can be strip mined, etc. Lib is right, its super complicated.

Still slow today, sorry. It is kindof nice having a little break, I was getting tired. Now you guys have to put up with me, neenerneener