Transfer of Public Lands

[Bitterroot Bulls]

And so, without answers to the questions, you admit defeat.

I answered every one of your questions, and yet you do not answer mine. Not a single one from post 117.

I never said out of state people should have no say.. Never.

This is the crux of what you are arguing. State management of federal lands. Without federal management, out of state residents have no say. You must see this. There is no denying it.

Alas,

I concede this point to you: You have made up your mind, and it is clear no amount of reason will change it.

 

[okielite]

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.

Not true. I think states can do a better job in various areas. Big government is imply not efficient at doing anything so I have no idea why you are suggesting differently. I believe they will be able to manage the alnd with less employees, less legal fees, less maintenance costs, less equipment, less facilities, and that States will get fair market value for thing sliek grazing rights.

Grazing rights are a pefect example. I think that the people who graze should pay fair market value for thoise rights. So yes I want to see more profit but in this case the grazing and impact ont eh land will be the same. Do you really think it's a bad thing to get fair market value for grazing rights?

Timber is another example. Feds rarely are able to log an area. So they get no income from the resource. Then every year that resource catches on fire and the resource burns, wasting it. Then to top it of the feds basically use cash to put out the fires with federal fire crews, helicopters, and planes. Just a complete waste. So I think there is a way to manage the timber resource in a way to generate income from logging as well as helping to prevent and make it easier to contain fires not to mention spending less putting the fires out. So yes I think there is some room for improvement in how the timber resource is managed and I believe the state will be able to accomplish this better than the feds who have mismanaged the resource for decades. It's can't be any worse.

I can tell you that I have enjoyed some of the best hunting in my life on State land in Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas and Oklahoma. Some of the sate land in Wyoming is the best antelope and deer hunting around. I've lost count how many antelope I have found on those state school sections. So somehow they manage to make money with the land while also providing some great hunting. Have you ever hunted on state land in Wyoming?

 

[okielite]

And so, without answers to the questions, you admit defeat.

I answered every one of your questions, and yet you do not answer mine. Not a single one from post 117.



This is the crux of what you are arguing. State management of federal lands. Without federal management, out of state residents have no say. You must see this. There is no denying it.

Alas,

I concede this point to you: You have made up your mind, and it is clear no amount of reason will change it.

Not really. I answered your questions in #119. Yet another myth busted. Does it ever get old?

You avoided my questions earlier so did that mean you admitted defeat? LAffin. .

Admitting defeat= Yet another straw man tactic that you seem to think works. It doesn't' work and only makes you look bad.

So in reality you are the one avoiding answering my questions. Glad we got that straight


I don't think you are grasping the fact that out of state people make up the tourism industry in Wyoming. Out of state people will always have a say since they are ultimately the customer in this business model. They speak with their $ even if you dont listen to their voices. That is why I dont believe Wyoming will simply stop focusing on tourism and sell the land to developers like you are claiming. It simply makes no sense from that perspective as it would kill the states economy.

 

[packmule]

There's a happy medium to find somewhere. Don't want the state to turn into a club for the über wealthy, don't want it developed to the point it becomes Cali 2.0 and don't fully trust the Fed and its quirks (EPA, ESA, giving in to wolf/tree/bunny foo foo lovers). I'll still visit regardless, but more comfortable with a conservative leaning state having more control of its situation to benefit its majority.

With mineral extraction in play those isolated tracts are very valuable to put in pools with private and hwy frontage is valuable for development to draw in businesses with the lenient taxes.

Courts have also decided wildlife on fed land are property of the state to manage...thus the high NR fees and different treatment. State won't turn away NR money, they rely on it.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Not really. You avoided my questions earlier so did that mean you admitted defeat? LAffin.

Admitting defeat= Yet another straw man tactic that you seem to think works. It doesn't' work and only makes you look bad.


I don't think you are grasping the fact that out of state people make up the tourism industry in Wyoming. Out of state people will always have a say since they are ultimately the customer in this business model. They speak with their $ even if you dont listen to their voices. That is why I dont believe Wyoming will simply stop focusing on tourism and sell the land to developers like you are claiming. It simply makes no sense from that perspective as it would kill the states economy.

Please let me know what questions I did not answer. I went back and it looks like I gave answers to all questions asked, without constructing straw men.

If you have another question I would be glad to answer it. Please answer mine.

I grasp the tourism industry point. Tourism brings in dollars, which helps the state. Got it.

However, the point you can't seem to grasp is that extraction brings in MORE dollars than tourism. If the state is making economic decisions, then they would choose these higher extraction dollars over lower tourism dollars. That makes economic sense for the state, of course, but hurts hunters.

 

[okielite]

Please let me know what questions I did not answer. I went back and it looks like I gave answers to all questions asked, without constructing straw men.

If you have another question I would be glad to answer it. Please answer mine.

I grasp the tourism industry point. Tourism brings in dollars, which helps the state. Got it.

However, the point you can't seem to grasp is that extraction brings in MORE dollars than tourism. If the state is making economic decisions, then they would choose these higher extraction dollars over lower tourism dollars. That makes economic sense for the state, of course, but hurts hunters.

I did answer yours. I even showed you the post #. No idea why you think I didn't.

If you want to believe Wyoming is going to choose energy over tourism and sell off all the land if it is transferred to them so be it. You are entitled to your opinion, just like me. I personally don't see that happening. They are both too important to the states economy. IMO Wyoming knows how important the tourism industry is and quote frankly the fact that tourism is somewhat steady compared to the energy business it is a vital part of the states economy that so many small businesses and jobs are dependent on that they would never simply turn their back on them.

It's not like there are currently no energy operations on federal and state land at this point anyway so it is not like there is going to be a sudden change. It's already been going on for decades. There is no choice as you claim. Both are strong parts of the states economy and both will continue to be moving forward.

 

[okielite]

There's a happy medium to find somewhere. Don't want the state to turn into a club for the über wealthy, don't want it developed to the point it becomes Cali 2.0 and don't fully trust the Fed and its quirks (EPA, ESA, giving in to wolf/tree/bunny foo foo lovers). I'll still visit regardless, but more comfortable with a conservative leaning state having more control of its situation to benefit its majority.

With mineral extraction in play those isolated tracts are very valuable to put in pools with private and hwy frontage is valuable for development to draw in businesses with the lenient taxes.

Courts have also decided wildlife on fed land are property of the state to manage...thus the high NR fees and different treatment. State won't turn away NR money, they rely on it.

Very reasonable response.

Great point about the state already doing the wildlife management on federal land as well.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Well, we are going around in circles here, and I am ready to get off the ride.

I encourage every hunter that enjoys public lands to emphatically oppose this terrible idea. If this were to go through, I believe it would be the greatest tragedy to befall western hunting ever. Please be active and contact your representatives to keep public lands in public hands.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

Okielite,

We have debunked your two primary arguments:

Argument #1: The states won't sell land transferred to them. We have shown that most states have sold some of the state school land they obtained at statehood. Nevada, for example, has sold most of it.

Argument #2: The states will do a better job of managing the land than the federal government. We have shown that the for-profit land management model used by most states to manage their state land favors development, not recreation. This is not what most of us would call a better job.

Do you have any other arguments you can throw at us, or are we going to hear the same old, same old, over and over again?

 

[okielite]

Okielite,

We have debunked your two primary arguments:

Argument #1: The states won't sell land transferred to them. We have shown that most states have sold some of the state school land they obtained at statehood. Nevada, for example, has sold most of it.

Argument #2: The states will do a better job of managing the land than the federal government. We have shown that the for-profit land management model used by most states to manage their state land favors development, not recreation. This is not what most of us would call a better job.

Do you have any other arguments you can throw at us, or are we going to hear the same old, same old, over and over again?

You really need to try a new tactic. The only people using the same old argument are the people using half truths, gross exaggerations, and straw man tactics. "They will stop all camping" "they will sell all the land off" "states don't want tourist" bla, bla, bla. SSDD.

#1 It would be easy to prevent land from being sold by making that stipulation part of the transfer or by only transferring the management not the ownership. Bother are easily accomplished. Myth busted.

#2 If you think it is impossible that anyone could do a better job of managing the land then the federal government you are entitled to your opinion. I think the federal government is inefficient and wasteful and there are a number of things that could be improved which could put less of a burden on taxpayers. Getting fair price for grazing rights is one big one. I would like to see fair market value paid for the grazing rights, if you disagree you are entitled to your opinion. The feds will never get more than pennies on the dollar for those rights. If you are satisfied with that so be it. I am not. The feds get almost nothing for the timber resources they manage, and they spend a fortune fighting fires when the resource burns. If you are satisfied with that so be it, I am not. I think there is room for improvement.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

You really need to try a new tactic. The only people using the same old argument are the people using half truths, gross exaggerations, and straw man tactics. "They will stop all camping" "they will sell all the land off" "states don't want tourist" bla, bla, bla. SSDD.

#1 It would be easy to prevent land from being sold by making that stipulation part of the transfer or by only transferring the management not the ownership. Bother are easily accomplished. Myth busted.

#2 If you think it is impossible that anyone could do a better job of managing the land then the federal government you are entitled to your opinion. I think the federal government is inefficient and wasteful and there are a number of things that could be improved which could put less of a burden on taxpayers. Getting fair price for grazing rights is one big one. I would like to see fair market value paid for the grazing rights, if you disagree you are entitled to your opinion. The feds will never get more than pennies on the dollar for those rights. If you are satisfied with that so be it. I am not. The feds get almost nothing for the timber resources they manage, and they spend a fortune fighting fires when the resource burns. If you are satisfied with that so be it, I am not. I think there is room for improvement.

Thanks for answering my question! Now I know.

 

[highplainsdrifter]

The Wyoming Wildlife Federation will be hosting a reception for legislators and sportsmen at Little America in Cheyenne, at 6 pm, on Thursday, February 5th. This is an opportunity to talk to your legislators in an informal setting and let them know what you think about transferring federal lands to the state. If you are located close to Cheyenne, you may want to attend.

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Wish I could be there, HPD. There is also a rally at the Capitol building in Helena, MT on president's day 02/16 at noon for those in MT.

 

[ScottR]

Wish I could be as well.


Eastmans' Staff Digital Media Coordinator

 

[highplainsdrifter]

House bill HB0209 passed first reading in the House yesterday. It is up for second reading today. It requires only three readings, the last of which may be tomorrow. Then a conference committee will be formed to iron out the differences between the house bill (HB0209) and the senate bill (SB0056).

HB0209 calls for the transfer of federal lands to the state by December 31, 2017. It does not call for a study. The senate bill calls for a study before a decision is made. Therefore, it would appear that the senate bill is less imminent and less threatening than the house bill. On the other hand, the house bill in essence predetermines the outcome of the senate study. The house bill basically says: we don't need a study, we already know where we want to go. With one body of the legislature already stating their preference, how can a study be neutral and objective?

Folks the skids are greased for this to go through. Only massive disagreement from the state's recreationists will stop it. This is going down so fast, I am not sure there is time for people to become informed and mobilized. There is at least one ray of hope. Last night I received a random call from the Wyoming Wildlife Federation encouraging me to contact my elected officials about this. Apparently, they are doing a statewide call campaign. Thank you Wyoming Wildlife Federation!!!

Please contact the Wyoming House of Representatives and tell them to stop this madness!

 

[kiddwinner]

Trout Unlimited is also on the band wagon. They sent emails out last night to all members!

 

[go_deep]

The WYSA which is a group of 9 sportsman's groups in the state of Wyoming had their sportsman's reception last night in Cheyenne.

Gov Matt Mead announced that they will start a G&F taskforce to identify better ways to fund the G&F to allow them to do more.

After I talked with Matt about SF56, he said right off the bat that he didn't like how it was worded and in the end the state of Wyoming does not have the resources to manage all the federal land in the state boundary, but he did say if the federal government isn't going to manage the land or is going to entertain the idea of selling it he would like at least 5 years of state management to see if the state can do it cheaper and if the state can maintain the land better.

My take away I looked Matt straight in the face and he told me the state of Wyoming doesn't have the money to manage those lands, if the state/any state takes ownership either the federal government has to fund them to mange it or some will be sold.

I know this isn't exactly earth shattering news, but to me it's very clear rather than just wondering what might happen.

I strongly suggest you contract your state reps and voice your opinion on how you want are public land to stay public!

 

[highplainsdrifter]

I was also at the sportsman's reception in Cheyenne last night. Approximately 30 to 40 of the 90 legislators were in attendance, as was Governor Mead. I had an opportunity to tell the governor and several legislators that I am against the transfer of federal land. The typical response seemed to be; don't take this too seriously because it is on shaky legal grounds and the feds will never allow it.

I would feel much better if we could say the state does not want to do it, rather than hope the feds turn the state down. So I agree with go_deep, continue to contact your elected officials. I heard at the reception they are getting many calls and emails. Keep up the pressure.

By the way, I would like to clarify something I said earlier. The event last night was not sponsored just by the Wyoming Wildlife Federation but by the Wyoming Sportsmen's Alliance, of which the Wyoming Wildlife Federation is a part.

Thank you Wyoming Sportsmen's Alliance for this very useful event!

 

[Bitterroot Bulls]

Yikes!

That is a scary statement by Governor Mead.

So...


1. He doesn't know the wording of the bill.
2. He does know that the state can't afford it.
3. He wants a 5 year try anyway.

So what happens after the 5 years?

Then the legislators laugh off the idea because of its shaky legal ground. So they know it won't happen anyway, but are OK wasting Wyoming taxpayer money "studying" the issue? Doesn't sound like very good management of state resources to me.

HPD, you were right ... this is madness.

 

[ScottR]

What bothers me is wasting 100K to study something that is on shaky legal ground.