If I have my facts straight, Wyoming doesn't have a state income tax because mineral money taxes cover it...
Transfer of Public Lands
- Thread starter npaden
- Start date
Yep, mining is a good steward of our land... I think you nailed it Scott. In small state in population, with a bunch of money doled out to state legislators by business interests, is a disaster waiting to happen if given Fed. land to manage. Money corrupts all politics, it is much more likely to happen the smaller the political entity. Keep it Federal. No brainer. If you are strongly advocating against that, at least be honest and state your conflict of interest. You may not have one, but I suspect the odds are low.
ssliger
Very Active Member
I believe you are correct as well. People can say that Wyoming loves tourism all they want. Which most residents do enjoy the money tourism brings to our small communities. But most legislators like more money. But facts are facts. The money made on mineral extraction is 50 times higher than #2 tourism. That's why there is the language stating that the State has to retain a majority of the land for recreation. So Wyoming is 49% federal land. We could take over control and only have to keep 25% of that for recreation. Like I said before, yes Wyoming could keep the forest as recreational, but what about all the BLM land?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Transferring lands to the states is a first step towards privatization. Lands that can be industrialized for maximum profit will be retained. Other lands will be sold off to the highest-bidder. Every one of the eleven public lands states has sold off a portion of its original land grant. They are in the business of selling public lands. Utah has sold more than 50% of it's originally land grant. Nevada has sold 99.9%. And state lands are not managed for multiple use, they are managed to maximize profit. Hunting and wildlife habitat are multiple-uses...
Sign the petition and stop this horrible idea: www.sportsmensaccess.org
Sign the petition and stop this horrible idea: www.sportsmensaccess.org
I've been reading along since I started this post. I'm also amazed that western big game hunters can't seem to get united on this subject. I thought this would simply be a few posts saying, thanks for the links, I've sent in my thoughts on the subject. I guess I thought wrong.
We are already a tiny minority compared to the millions of tree stand sitting whitetail hunters and those are a minority compared to the non-hunting public. With the bulk of the Western states putting more and more restrictions on nonresident hunters the tiny minority is going to get even smaller until there aren't going to be very many people to care very much other than the mineral extractors and other users. The states have a long track record of selling land or implementing significant restrictions on it. As mentioned some states have essentially sold all of their public land transferred to them, others have "only" sold 50%. What is left is managed strictly on maximizing the revenue that can be generated.
As much as we like to complain about the USFS and BLM, they truly do manage for a diverse use of the land. They do allow some revenue producing activities (some would say not enough, some would say too much), but they also manage for recreational activities which is what very few states have shown a track record of doing. Sure there are a few state parks that allow recreational activities, but the vast majority of state lands in the west are more restrictive for camping and hunting than the federal lands that adjoin them.
I've signed the petitions and emailed my congressmen, but without a LOT more people doing the same we could be in trouble on this.
My 2 cents. Nathan
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
Nathan,
Western Hunters are actually pretty united on the issue. If you go back through the threads, you will see the vast majority of posters support keeping public lands public, and under Federal management. It is simply a vocal minority that are opposed. It is time for the silent majority to become the vocal majority, however.
okielite
Banned
I'll say it again. Wyoming does not want to kick all the campers, hunters, fisherman, tourists, etc.. out of the state. No idea why you guys seem to think that is the goal. It is not. All the data confirms that Wyoming wants tourists to come to the state. That is not suddenly going to change.
You guys can keep making ridiculous claims otherwise but without examples it's really doesn't mean much. Show some examples of states selling off large pieces of heavily used recreational property and you will have a great point. I've already shown examples of federal property being transferred to the state and the recreational opportunities actually increased and no land was sold. In fact the state purchased more adjacent land and leases other adjacent land for hunting and fishing recreation. Completely goes against all the ridiculous claims. Ft. Robinson State Park.
If you are concerned about states selling the land then dont' transfer the ownership or make it a stipulation that no land can be sold. I personally would not mind if the little pieces of landlocked federal land that had no access were sold so land with access could be purchased. If we can't use it really has no recreational value in the first place.
Ultimately I believe that states will do a better job of managing the land than the federal government. The state already sets units, season dates, fishing regulations, etc... on the federal land anyway so it's not nearly as big of a deal as you make it out to be.
okielite
Banned
Nathan,
Dont' be surprised. Do you really think letting people like Buzz speak about this makes people unite? People like him and the other people on HT are a perfect example of why so many Western hunters are alienated by the mainstream hunting community. These guys basically shoot themselves in the foot when they open their mouth. Because these same western hunters spend all year bashing how everyone lese hunts and then during times like this they want united support among hunters. Doesn't work like that. I know you have asked them what you could do to help and were basically told that you dont' matter because you are from Texas. That was a perfect example.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Okielite, you keep asking for examples of the state selling off large parcels of state land. The state is not likely to sell off large parcels, because there are not many large parcels of state land. At statehood, Wyoming was granted sections 16 and 36 in every township throughout the state. Therefore state school lands are scattered throughout the state in a checkerboard pattern, usually depicted in blue on a land ownership map. The State Land Board does sell some of these one mile square sections on a regular basis:
http://lands.wyo.gov/lands/transactions
They have been doing this since statehood, and will likely continue to do so. Who can say whether 100 years from now, most of it might be sold. People on this thread have indicated that other states have sold most of their state school land. As I have indicated previously, there is very little assure that the state wouldn't sell at least some federal land if they were to gain control.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
okielite,
It seems you are avoiding the questions now. In the MT thread, I provided an example of hunting land lost (BSL land deal). In additon to HPD's Wyoming list, here is a list of state trust lands sold in Utah:
https://secure.utah.gov/trustlands-sales/landSales-past.html
There are similar lists from MT, ID, etc. Are these not examples? Do they not count? Lots of state land has been sold into private ownership accross the West. This is not paranoia. This is not exaggeration. This is fact. I don't know where to draw the line on "heavily used," or who gets to decide where that line is, but my favorite public lands to hunt are not "heavily used," and it would be a travesty to lose them.
It doesn't matter if the states said lands couldn't be sold. They would have to change that when they couldn't afford to manage the land, which is universally accepted. They would HAVE to sell the land whether they wanted to or not. Most of the politicians pushing this have openly stated land sale IS an option.
You have tipped your hand when you say you are OK with some lands being sold. Wouldn't it be better for sportsmen and politicians to work towards accessing those landlocked public lands rather than selling them? There has been some good success in accessing these parcels in MT. Wouldn't it be better to keep as much public land as possible for future hunting generations? It is my experience that land "swaps" typically end up benefitting the developer, and not the hunting public (see BSL example from earlier).
From what I have seen in MT, and especially in my county, the state absolutely does a much, much WORSE job at managing public land than the Federal Agencies.
So here are my questions for you okielite:
1. Why are you posting about this issue, if you think only these states' residents should be making land management decisions?
2. How would states pay for the management of millions of acres of federal lands?
3. In what ways are Federal Agencies failing hunters in western states now?
4. You keep saying the states don't want to lose tourism dollars as the reason they will keep the lands. Consumptive uses are much for financially lucrative than tourism, so why wouldn't the states sell the lands for the money?
It seems you are avoiding the questions now. In the MT thread, I provided an example of hunting land lost (BSL land deal). In additon to HPD's Wyoming list, here is a list of state trust lands sold in Utah:
https://secure.utah.gov/trustlands-sales/landSales-past.html
There are similar lists from MT, ID, etc. Are these not examples? Do they not count? Lots of state land has been sold into private ownership accross the West. This is not paranoia. This is not exaggeration. This is fact. I don't know where to draw the line on "heavily used," or who gets to decide where that line is, but my favorite public lands to hunt are not "heavily used," and it would be a travesty to lose them.
It doesn't matter if the states said lands couldn't be sold. They would have to change that when they couldn't afford to manage the land, which is universally accepted. They would HAVE to sell the land whether they wanted to or not. Most of the politicians pushing this have openly stated land sale IS an option.
You have tipped your hand when you say you are OK with some lands being sold. Wouldn't it be better for sportsmen and politicians to work towards accessing those landlocked public lands rather than selling them? There has been some good success in accessing these parcels in MT. Wouldn't it be better to keep as much public land as possible for future hunting generations? It is my experience that land "swaps" typically end up benefitting the developer, and not the hunting public (see BSL example from earlier).
From what I have seen in MT, and especially in my county, the state absolutely does a much, much WORSE job at managing public land than the Federal Agencies.
So here are my questions for you okielite:
1. Why are you posting about this issue, if you think only these states' residents should be making land management decisions?
2. How would states pay for the management of millions of acres of federal lands?
3. In what ways are Federal Agencies failing hunters in western states now?
4. You keep saying the states don't want to lose tourism dollars as the reason they will keep the lands. Consumptive uses are much for financially lucrative than tourism, so why wouldn't the states sell the lands for the money?
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Okielite, here is some more information about sales of state trust land:
http://www.statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/nevada.html
According to this website, Nevada originally had 2.7 million acres of state trust land. They now have only 3,000 acres left. Utah has sold about half. Looks like Wyoming has sold about 17%.
http://www.statetrustlands.org/state-by-state/nevada.html
According to this website, Nevada originally had 2.7 million acres of state trust land. They now have only 3,000 acres left. Utah has sold about half. Looks like Wyoming has sold about 17%.
Point taken. And some folks won't let basic facts get in the way of their opinions, but it is still disturbing to see any opposition among fellow hunters when it seems like such a slam dunk issue.
okielite
Banned
Thanks for proving my point for me. I went to you link. Went to the most recent sale and saw 3 properties. 3 properties sold, all under 100 acres. I clicked on the first one and this is what I saw.
ACCESS: This parcel has no public access. The only access is across private land.
I have no problem with the state selling off little pieces of useless property that offer no public access. All those are is public funded private hunting for the surrounding private landowners. Why do you think we should keep piecs like that?
We have already established that there would need to be federal funding given to the state to manage the land. Why you keep pretending that someone is suggesting the land be transferred with no funding is simply another exaggeration people like you use. But I believe with better management and getting fair market for the resources that the cost to the taxpayer would be considerably less.
We have also established that there are simple ways to prevent the future sale of transferred land. Myth busted.
But I would support selling off small pieces of inaccessible land if there was no/little chance at getting access or if the property is so small that there would be little recreational value anyway. You can call it tipping my hat but in reality it's just common sense. 40 acre pieces of inaccessible land doesn't do any of us any good.
If you feel the state does a worse job at functioning than the federal government so be it. I prefer a smaller federal government and larger state and local government as they have a better idea of what's best for them than some agency based in Washington. When you get right down to it the federal government is not really good at anything.
I've already given you examples of states doing a great job of providing hunting recreation. All the walk in programs, state run WMA's and even places like Ft Robinson which used to be federal and was transferred to the state. I've also give you examples of the feds not getting fair market value for things like grazing rights or logging and even crap like the Bundy disaster. States would never let that happen. Since you are from MT do you know about the Texan who build his mansion on a public access rd. Do you really think the state would also that to happen like the feds did.
I'll give you another example of States doing a great job of managing land. This one will shock you. There is a federal NWR in Valentine, NE that is in desperate need of water control structure work. The feds can't pay for it. So the state is stepping in to pay for a conservation project on Federal land. Yes that is correct, the state is paying for a large conservation project on federal land. My guess is well over 1 million $. A perfect example of the state doing a better job of managing the land than the feds. The funny part is the fed just built a nice new headquarters (which rarely gets visitors) but they can't afford to manage the land they are in charge of. Pretty typical of the federal government.
1. Yes I think states and residents should have a say about what happens inside their borders. The government shutdown was a perfect example. South Dakota attempted to operate Mt Rushmore with state employees because they knew how important the tourism was for the states economy and didn't' want it to be closed down because it cost the state millions in tourism revenue.
2. The same way it is paid for now but with less federal $. States are more efficient which will cost less and will get closer to fair value for the resources which will generate additional income. Suddenly it costs taxpayers less. TIs' not as complicated as you make it out to be and quite frankly the state already does quite a bit of the management with things like setting units, season dates, tag #'s, fishing regulations, etc... They are already playing a role in the management of that land.
3. The feds do a terrible job of managing the land. The most recent examples of Durfee Hills in your state confirm this. Do you really think the BLM is handling that correctly? Do you think the Bundy disaster was handled correctly? I dont' think that a state would allow either of these things to happen. I just don't see any states letting people like Bundy graze animals for free for so many years and then end up looking like a bunch of idiots when the big showdown happened. Completely mismanaged by people who could care less if they got paid for the grazing rights. I also gave you an example of Valentine WMA being mismanaged to the point where they have a nice new headquarters building to stay in (even though they also still have the old headquarters which worked fine) but they can't afford to take care of the land they are in charge of because they wasted the money. Go look at some of the federal NWR's and you will be shocked how many people, faculties, and equipment is necessary to manage these fairly small pieces of land. Complete waste of tax dollars.
4. You didn't' even word this as a question but yes it is true that states work really hard to create tourism in the state. Western states like WY and MT even more so. To claim otherwise is simply ridiculous.
okielite
Banned
Nailed it. Tehse people are the onew running around with a ll sorts of ridiculous claims.
1. If states get the land they wont allow dispersed camping.
2. The states will not be given any federal money to mange the land so they will sell it off to mining, logging, energy, and real estate developers.
3. States dont' care about tourism, they will sell out to the energy business to stop all those tourist from coming to the state.
Talk about avoiding facts and using half truths and exaggerations to try and make a point.
1. The states have reasons for not allowing camping on school trust land and others. But they do allow camping in some areas so clearly they are not against camping. They simply have reasons for not allowing it on some property just like the feds have reasons for not allowing camping on some of their property.
2. Nobody is suggesting states do this with no federal assistance but if it can be done with less $ we can save tax payers some $ as well. So clearly the whole "states can't afford this" and "they will be forced to sell the land to mining, energy, and developers" is simply a straw man argument.
3. States like Wyoming and Montana depend on tourism for the states economy. Suggesting that states dont' care about tourism is simply another straw man argument. Tourism supports so many businesses and jobs in the state that they would never do something as drastic as some are suggesting. Simply not being realistic.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
okielite,
You did not answer question #1. Why are YOU commenting on these issues when YOU do not live in those states if YOU believe out of state people should not have a say? Please answer this directly.
#2: It would be taxation without representation to have federal taxpayers pay ANY AMOUNT for lands their representatives cannot have a say in management. Do YOU support such taxation without representation?
#3: How did BLM fail hunters in the Durfee Hills? Nobobdy here is arguing that Federal Agencies are perfect, or that every managment decision they make is the best one, or that states fail in every decision they make. We are arguing that when it comes to large portions of federal lands, federal management is the lesser of two evils, less susceptible to tidal changes in politics, and more fiscally sound. So instead of constructing an army of strawmen, get back to the issue at hand.
#4: You did not answer this question either. I am not saying the tourism industry does not generate state revinue. It does. I will rephrase: If money is the reason the state won't sell public lands, and they get MORE money from development, why would they choose the option that earns less money (tourism) over the option with more money (development/sales)?
You did not answer question #1. Why are YOU commenting on these issues when YOU do not live in those states if YOU believe out of state people should not have a say? Please answer this directly.
#2: It would be taxation without representation to have federal taxpayers pay ANY AMOUNT for lands their representatives cannot have a say in management. Do YOU support such taxation without representation?
#3: How did BLM fail hunters in the Durfee Hills? Nobobdy here is arguing that Federal Agencies are perfect, or that every managment decision they make is the best one, or that states fail in every decision they make. We are arguing that when it comes to large portions of federal lands, federal management is the lesser of two evils, less susceptible to tidal changes in politics, and more fiscally sound. So instead of constructing an army of strawmen, get back to the issue at hand.
#4: You did not answer this question either. I am not saying the tourism industry does not generate state revinue. It does. I will rephrase: If money is the reason the state won't sell public lands, and they get MORE money from development, why would they choose the option that earns less money (tourism) over the option with more money (development/sales)?
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
This is simply untrue. You keep saying this. This is exactly what they are proposing. You have the wrong fallacy by the way. What you meant was "Slippery Slope" rather than "Straw Man." Although it is not a slippery slope, because "management" and "funding" are inextricable.
okielite
Banned
I never said out of state people should have no say.. Never. Just another one of YOUR straw man arguments putting words into my mouth. YOU might think it is working but it'd not fooling anyone. People can see right through YOUR tactics.
States like Wyoming need to listen to out of state folks because that is who drives the tourism industry. Wyoming wants their money so they will work hard to keep the tourism dollars flowing into the state. Pretty simple concept.
That is what happens on these threads. Nobody answers any questions because in reality we all have our mind made up at this point. You did the same thing to me earlier when I asked you questions several times but you just avoided. So if you want to go back and answer mine go for it. I've tried to give you some responses which you completely avoided when I asked questions.
1. Back to your straw man argument. Seems to be a common tactic used by some people but it does not work. You really need to try something new as this tactic is worn out at this point. I never said any of what you claim and everyone can see that.
2. Maybe you should read more about the Durfee Hills if you want a better understanding of what happened there. Many Montana hunters claimed all sorts of things were going on over there. Hazing of animals, illegal fences, fences not on property lines, etc... Get back to us when you have done some research.
4. Again you dont' seem to have a grasp of what is going on. Selling land to developers does not support the state in the same way tourism does. So many businesses such as hotels, gas stations, bars, grocery stores, ski resorts, restaurants, etc rely on tourism to support them. Those business matter to the state. Those jobs matter to the state. No idea why you can't see what is so obvious.
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
okielite,
You keep saying the states could do a better job of managing federal lands. Earlier when we pushed you for a definition of better, you said "more profitable". I think that is true and that is a problem. Most state land in Wyoming is state school land that was granted to the state at statehood. The specific purpose of the grant was to support public instruction. The goal is to manage the land for-profit with the funds going to education. Many politicians endorse this traditional for-profit management model. It is practical. It focuses on making money. It is similar to the model they use in their business, farm or ranch. It is a model that would likely be extended to the management of newly acquired federal land. The problem is that most recreational activities can’t compete in a for-profit management model. It may annoy the heck out of some people that the federal government doesn’t manage lands with an exclusive focus on profit, but that is actually good for recreationists.
You keep saying the states could do a better job of managing federal lands. Earlier when we pushed you for a definition of better, you said "more profitable". I think that is true and that is a problem. Most state land in Wyoming is state school land that was granted to the state at statehood. The specific purpose of the grant was to support public instruction. The goal is to manage the land for-profit with the funds going to education. Many politicians endorse this traditional for-profit management model. It is practical. It focuses on making money. It is similar to the model they use in their business, farm or ranch. It is a model that would likely be extended to the management of newly acquired federal land. The problem is that most recreational activities can’t compete in a for-profit management model. It may annoy the heck out of some people that the federal government doesn’t manage lands with an exclusive focus on profit, but that is actually good for recreationists.