Transfer of Public Lands
- Thread starter npaden
- Start date
Ilovethewest
Active Member
Just emailed all the members on the appropriations committee. Did what I could.
What is the average joe to do these days? Demi's are against guns, too cozy with environmental groups, too anti-business and are not fans of hunting in general, and never met a tax they didn't like...........................and repubs care only about rich men and big money interests and would turn hunting into a rich man only game, and would sell their own mother for dog food if they would profit from it.....so selling off public lands is nothing to them. And little guys are just tools to be used to fatten their pockets.
No party represents the common man anymore. Our country is in sad shape.
Just gotta keep on keeping on I guess.
What is the average joe to do these days? Demi's are against guns, too cozy with environmental groups, too anti-business and are not fans of hunting in general, and never met a tax they didn't like...........................and repubs care only about rich men and big money interests and would turn hunting into a rich man only game, and would sell their own mother for dog food if they would profit from it.....so selling off public lands is nothing to them. And little guys are just tools to be used to fatten their pockets.
No party represents the common man anymore. Our country is in sad shape.
Just gotta keep on keeping on I guess.
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
SF0056 (the study bill) has passed out of the House Appropriations Committee on a 7 to 0 vote. Quite disappointing! It will now go to the full House for three readings. I encourage you to email the members of the House.
Realistically, I think that the best chance to kill the study now lies with the governor. The governor has the power to do a line item veto. So he can veto portions of the bill or he can veto the entire bill or he can veto just the funding. If this moves through the House as I expect it will, we will then need to lobby the governor.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Today, thinking that the land transfer study bill might become law, I decided to look into one area the study might examine: property taxes.
Federal lands in Wyoming do not pay a property tax. Instead they pay a Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILT) which is a rough equivalent of a property tax.
http://www.doi.gov/pilt/index.cfm
In 2014, Wyoming counties received $27 million in PILT payments. Some of the largest payments went to Natrona County ($3.5 million), Sweetwater County ($3.3 million), and Fremont County ($2.6 million).
If federal lands are transferred to the state, PILT payments to the counties would stop (assuming the federal government is smart enough to stop paying for lands they no longer own). The state does not pay property tax (or an In Lieu of Tax payment) on any of their property. Therefore, the counties would lose a $27 million dollar per year source of revenue.
I wonder how many county commissioners realize they would lose their PILT payments if federal lands were transferred to the state? So far, the only county commission (that I am aware of) that has come out against the transfer and the study is the Sweetwater County Commission.
Federal lands in Wyoming do not pay a property tax. Instead they pay a Payment In Lieu of Tax (PILT) which is a rough equivalent of a property tax.
http://www.doi.gov/pilt/index.cfm
In 2014, Wyoming counties received $27 million in PILT payments. Some of the largest payments went to Natrona County ($3.5 million), Sweetwater County ($3.3 million), and Fremont County ($2.6 million).
If federal lands are transferred to the state, PILT payments to the counties would stop (assuming the federal government is smart enough to stop paying for lands they no longer own). The state does not pay property tax (or an In Lieu of Tax payment) on any of their property. Therefore, the counties would lose a $27 million dollar per year source of revenue.
I wonder how many county commissioners realize they would lose their PILT payments if federal lands were transferred to the state? So far, the only county commission (that I am aware of) that has come out against the transfer and the study is the Sweetwater County Commission.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Last night I sent an email to all members of the Wyoming House of Representatives objecting to SF0056 (the study bill). I have already received a response from Representative Marti Halverson representing parts of Lincoln, Teton and Sublette counties. It is a lengthy response (much longer than my email to her). It is too long for the 10,000 character limit allowed by this forum, so I have broken it into two halves (two posts) It appears to be a previously prepared response rather addressing my specific email. For example, I never said anything about "kool-aid". Here is the first half of what she had to say:
SF 56 is an effort to determine whether or not Wyoming will benefit from managing the land currently held by the federal government. HB 209 does, indeed, call for the federal government to transfer its lands to Wyoming. HB 209 preserves ALL existing rights – hiking, hunting, fishing, grazing, mining, easements, etc. – and, further, ensures no net loss of public land, due to an amendment I supported.
I support the study of the possibility of transferring or managing the federally owned lands of Wyoming to the states, because I think an extensive study, conducted in Wyoming by Wyomingites, may help persuade those who are neutral or against the idea. I further support the actual transfer of 42% of Wyoming land to Wyoming. I have listened to both sides of this issue for several years and have landed on the side of transfer, complete with mineral and grazing rights. The government’s land offer in 1918 was rejected by Wyoming because it reserved the mineral rights to the US government, not to the state.
If it is working out for 32 other states, why wouldn’t it work for Wyoming? Why is it that the transfer of public lands is OK for 32 states but not OK for Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico or Nevada? Why is it “extreme” for Wyoming to want what other states have?
East of Colorado, the federal government controls less than 5% of the land. Our neighbor, Nebraska controls 99% of its land.
Hawaii sued the federal government for its lands and won.
Consider the efforts in Canada. It took years of planning, but last April the Crown transferred lands to the government of the Northwest Territories. See the story of this smooth transition (in which, by the way, all federal employees became Territory employees, doing the same jobs they did for the Crown): http://devolution.gov.nt.ca
I hear the fear that we will “sell Yellowstone to the Koch brothers.” (From the 1872 act, signed by President Grant creating Yellowstone Park: “ . . . is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people; . . .”)
There is NO incentive for Wyoming to sell public lands it might acquire. 95% of the proceeds would have to go to the federal government with the remaining 5% directed to a state school account. This is in our enabling acts. Nowhere else have the states sold their public land. Why would Wyoming?
On the other hand, because of the formula above, the federal government does, indeed, have every incentive to sell its public land as its debt interest alone approaches $300 billion per year.
Seem farfetched? Consider the case of Ecuador, which could not meet its debt payments to China: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/28/ecuador-to-sell-china-more-than-three-million-hextarces-of-pristine-amazonian-rainforest-for-oil-development/
The forced, disgraceful sale in Ecuador reflects how China has used debt to pressure countries, including the United States. Continuing to borrow 50¢ of every dollar the federal government spends to (mis)manage their lands brings us closer to a terrible brink.
Here in Wyoming, millions are spent on Conservation Easements. Last year, we tried to promote public access on CEs to which the State of Wyoming has contributed financially. Our thought was, “As long as the state is putting money into a CE, shouldn’t the people of Wyoming have access to that land?” Do you support this? Often, the beneficiaries of these easements cut off previously offered access, whether to favorite fishing spots, hunt areas or riding trails.
I read that the groups opposing HB209 are generally also against energy and agriculture. I infer, from reading the emails, that their goal is to turn the state of Wyoming into one, big national park.
Newly acquired state land will still be “public” land. Nothing in Wyoming’s acquiring title would change that. No other state has cut off access to land it acquired from the federal government. Why would Wyoming?
As a matter of fact, access to public land will improve. Currently, the federal government shuts off access in some areas for no other reason than they can no longer afford to manage it. Often, they cut off access because of the threat to the public of falling, dead trees, as was the testimony of the USFS at a meeting in Cheyenne recently. Sometimes, access is cut off simply because the federal government decided that human presence is unwanted for some reason or other.
See below for second half of response.
SF 56 is an effort to determine whether or not Wyoming will benefit from managing the land currently held by the federal government. HB 209 does, indeed, call for the federal government to transfer its lands to Wyoming. HB 209 preserves ALL existing rights – hiking, hunting, fishing, grazing, mining, easements, etc. – and, further, ensures no net loss of public land, due to an amendment I supported.
I support the study of the possibility of transferring or managing the federally owned lands of Wyoming to the states, because I think an extensive study, conducted in Wyoming by Wyomingites, may help persuade those who are neutral or against the idea. I further support the actual transfer of 42% of Wyoming land to Wyoming. I have listened to both sides of this issue for several years and have landed on the side of transfer, complete with mineral and grazing rights. The government’s land offer in 1918 was rejected by Wyoming because it reserved the mineral rights to the US government, not to the state.
If it is working out for 32 other states, why wouldn’t it work for Wyoming? Why is it that the transfer of public lands is OK for 32 states but not OK for Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico or Nevada? Why is it “extreme” for Wyoming to want what other states have?
East of Colorado, the federal government controls less than 5% of the land. Our neighbor, Nebraska controls 99% of its land.
Hawaii sued the federal government for its lands and won.
Consider the efforts in Canada. It took years of planning, but last April the Crown transferred lands to the government of the Northwest Territories. See the story of this smooth transition (in which, by the way, all federal employees became Territory employees, doing the same jobs they did for the Crown): http://devolution.gov.nt.ca
I hear the fear that we will “sell Yellowstone to the Koch brothers.” (From the 1872 act, signed by President Grant creating Yellowstone Park: “ . . . is hereby reserved and withdrawn from settlement, occupancy, or sale under the laws of the United States, and dedicated and set apart as a public park or pleasuring ground for the benefit and enjoyment of the people; . . .”)
There is NO incentive for Wyoming to sell public lands it might acquire. 95% of the proceeds would have to go to the federal government with the remaining 5% directed to a state school account. This is in our enabling acts. Nowhere else have the states sold their public land. Why would Wyoming?
On the other hand, because of the formula above, the federal government does, indeed, have every incentive to sell its public land as its debt interest alone approaches $300 billion per year.
Seem farfetched? Consider the case of Ecuador, which could not meet its debt payments to China: http://jonathanturley.org/2013/03/28/ecuador-to-sell-china-more-than-three-million-hextarces-of-pristine-amazonian-rainforest-for-oil-development/
The forced, disgraceful sale in Ecuador reflects how China has used debt to pressure countries, including the United States. Continuing to borrow 50¢ of every dollar the federal government spends to (mis)manage their lands brings us closer to a terrible brink.
Here in Wyoming, millions are spent on Conservation Easements. Last year, we tried to promote public access on CEs to which the State of Wyoming has contributed financially. Our thought was, “As long as the state is putting money into a CE, shouldn’t the people of Wyoming have access to that land?” Do you support this? Often, the beneficiaries of these easements cut off previously offered access, whether to favorite fishing spots, hunt areas or riding trails.
I read that the groups opposing HB209 are generally also against energy and agriculture. I infer, from reading the emails, that their goal is to turn the state of Wyoming into one, big national park.
Newly acquired state land will still be “public” land. Nothing in Wyoming’s acquiring title would change that. No other state has cut off access to land it acquired from the federal government. Why would Wyoming?
As a matter of fact, access to public land will improve. Currently, the federal government shuts off access in some areas for no other reason than they can no longer afford to manage it. Often, they cut off access because of the threat to the public of falling, dead trees, as was the testimony of the USFS at a meeting in Cheyenne recently. Sometimes, access is cut off simply because the federal government decided that human presence is unwanted for some reason or other.
See below for second half of response.
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Here is the second half of Representative Halverson's response:
At this rate, there is a much greater chance that the federal government will limit access than the state will.
Access to public lands is vital for proper management, economic activity and public enjoyment, yet the federal government is actively RESTRICTING access routes and prohibiting multiple uses of tens of millions of acres of public land across the West.
According to the Sutherland Institute, with assistance from Dr. Tim Considine, an economist at the University of Wyoming, on average over 12 Western states, the federal government loses 62¢ per acre it manages; states earn over $6 per acre.
And, that is how we can “afford” to manage the land.
Whether it is energy, minerals, timber, agriculture, tourism, hunting, fishing or recreation, public lands offer vast economic opportunities that, when managed wisely, can significantly improve the economy, and the lands, of Wyoming.
Under increasing federal control, western county commissioners are reporting that the greatest export from their once vibrant communities is their children.
In Oregon, vast tracts of state-owned forests are leased to paper, pulp and timber companies – excellent forest stewards. Nice income to the state, and beautiful, healthy habitats for our wildlife and for recreating. This is not to say Wyoming will follow this path - just pointing it out.
No state has yet "seized" its federal lands, nor is seizure necessary. Prior to 1976, federal lands were ceded to the states east of Colorado as part of the exact same enabling act stipulations as Wyoming's (and, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and other Western sates).
The Wyoming Constitution, Article 21, Section 26 states: “that the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof . . . AND THAT UNTIL THE TITLE THERETO SHALL HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY THE UNITED STATES, THE SAME SHALL BE AND REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES, and no taxes shall be imposed by the States on lands or property therein, belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use.”
(Notice, “subject to the disposition” – see Ecuador, above.)
You may argue that you do not wish for the US to extinguish its title. I would ask you, how many other provisions of our Constitution would you change?
In 1976, the US congress passed FLPMA – unilaterally stopping the transfers of its lands to the states. In exchange, the federal government promised PILT payments to the counties in which non-taxable federal land existed. These PILT payments are dwindling. Wyoming counties used to share over $25 million - now we are down to $14 million as the federal government struggles with overwhelming debt.
(Perhaps, had the Seventeenth Amendment not been in place, FLPMA would never have passed and we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. But, I digress.)
In 2000, the US Forest Service promised us SRS (“secure rural schools”, for schools and roads) money - that is entirely gone now. (Although, current negotiations look good for getting at least some SRS money. But now we have to fight for what was promised.)
Continued federal control of 72% of Lincoln County, 76% of Sublette County, 97% of Teton County, 80% of Park County, etc. is costing us millions of dollars a year as the feds, struggling with their own budget challenges, renege on the FLPMA pledges.
Park County receives $13.08 per taxable acre in property taxes, yet only 49¢ in PILT payments per “public” federal acre. http://www.naco.org/legislation/Pages/PILT.aspx
Wyoming’s schools, roads, public safety, and other state and local responsibilities such as search & rescue and emergency medical services, are feeling the squeeze as federal, purely discretionary subsidies come under pressure and we are not allowed to benefit due to federal policies.
PILT monies that are not borrowed are funded largely by states east of Colorado – and they are becoming aware, and resentful, of these subsidies.
$700 million in Abandoned Mine Land funding is gone. The state finally had to bear down and pick up the tab for closing and reclaiming abandoned mine sites.
Wyoming is being short-changed on the Federal Mineral Royalties due us. The formula has gone down to 48% for the state, 52% for the federal government. And, as with SRS money, we are fighting for what is due to us.
Continuing this string of broken funding promises can only result in a state income tax. Which may be pocket change for the “haves” among us, but for the working middle class of this state it will be devastating.
US management of forests is poor, you must admit. The Bridger-Teton. Medicine Bow and Shoshone forests are unhealthy. We are in an era of catastrophic forest fires due to mismanaged, dangerously high fuel loads. A healthy forest will have 80 trees per acre. There are forests in the West that have a very unhealthy 400 trees per acre. Wildlife, much less trees, cannot thrive in those forests.
Every year, failed federal forest policies send more than six million acres, on average, of national forests up in smoke, polluting our air and water, killing millions of animals and placing communities at extreme risk. Proper management, which the USFS can no longer afford (its budget is being cut every year), reduces wildfire hazard, enhances wildlife habitat, protects watershed and prevents the spread of devastating pests and disease.
I heard fears of “clear cutting” our forests. Due to reduced timber sales and poor forest management, we now have huge areas of “clear dead.” Beetle-killed timber is beautiful and a highly valued commodity, yet the USFS burns it in the name of “management.” Wyoming can do better.
HB 209 excludes from transfer: Yellowstone, GTNP, JDR Memorial Parkway, Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Devils Tower, Ft. Laramie National Historic site and Fossil Butte National Monument. Of course, the Wind River Reservation and military installations are also excluded.
In the 1930s, several states with as much as 90% controlled by the federal government (Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, etc.) banded together under the leadership of US Senator, Thomas Hart Benton (D-MO) and successfully compelled Congress to transfer title to their public lands. Many of us in Wyoming and the West think it’s time to do so again.
The legislature of the State of Washington just introduced House Bill 1192, AN ACT relating to the transfer of federal land to the state.
Montana is deliberating similar legislation with almost 2/3 of its county commissioners in support.
An Idaho congressman testified that if his state could get control of the 62% of federally controlled land, Idaho could eliminate it’s income tax, its sales tax on prescriptions and it’s property tax.
The South Carolina General Assembly passed H. 3552, a Resolution to express support to the Western States and the federal transfer of public lands to the Western States.
The National Association of Counties passed the Resolution supporting the immediate implementation of the transfer of public lands.
The comment that we “have drunk the Utah kool-aid” is simply wrong. Besides being unhelpful to the conversation.
This debate is being framed as “pro-development” versus “preservationist forces.” I disagree. Development funds preservation. And both development and preservation can be better accomplished by the state of Wyoming. After all, with whom would you rather deal on these issues, Cheyenne or Washington, D.C.?
The federal government is broke. Of the income it receives, most of it goes to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Nearly everything else it spends is borrowed. This simply cannot be sustained. The time for Wyoming to strike out on our own is sooner rather than later.
Read the Engrossed bills here:
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Engross/HB0209.pdf
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Engross/SF0056.pdf
Marti
At this rate, there is a much greater chance that the federal government will limit access than the state will.
Access to public lands is vital for proper management, economic activity and public enjoyment, yet the federal government is actively RESTRICTING access routes and prohibiting multiple uses of tens of millions of acres of public land across the West.
According to the Sutherland Institute, with assistance from Dr. Tim Considine, an economist at the University of Wyoming, on average over 12 Western states, the federal government loses 62¢ per acre it manages; states earn over $6 per acre.
And, that is how we can “afford” to manage the land.
Whether it is energy, minerals, timber, agriculture, tourism, hunting, fishing or recreation, public lands offer vast economic opportunities that, when managed wisely, can significantly improve the economy, and the lands, of Wyoming.
Under increasing federal control, western county commissioners are reporting that the greatest export from their once vibrant communities is their children.
In Oregon, vast tracts of state-owned forests are leased to paper, pulp and timber companies – excellent forest stewards. Nice income to the state, and beautiful, healthy habitats for our wildlife and for recreating. This is not to say Wyoming will follow this path - just pointing it out.
No state has yet "seized" its federal lands, nor is seizure necessary. Prior to 1976, federal lands were ceded to the states east of Colorado as part of the exact same enabling act stipulations as Wyoming's (and, Colorado, Idaho, Utah and other Western sates).
The Wyoming Constitution, Article 21, Section 26 states: “that the people inhabiting said proposed States do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof . . . AND THAT UNTIL THE TITLE THERETO SHALL HAVE BEEN EXTINGUISHED BY THE UNITED STATES, THE SAME SHALL BE AND REMAIN SUBJECT TO THE DISPOSITION OF THE UNITED STATES, and no taxes shall be imposed by the States on lands or property therein, belonging to or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use.”
(Notice, “subject to the disposition” – see Ecuador, above.)
You may argue that you do not wish for the US to extinguish its title. I would ask you, how many other provisions of our Constitution would you change?
In 1976, the US congress passed FLPMA – unilaterally stopping the transfers of its lands to the states. In exchange, the federal government promised PILT payments to the counties in which non-taxable federal land existed. These PILT payments are dwindling. Wyoming counties used to share over $25 million - now we are down to $14 million as the federal government struggles with overwhelming debt.
(Perhaps, had the Seventeenth Amendment not been in place, FLPMA would never have passed and we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. But, I digress.)
In 2000, the US Forest Service promised us SRS (“secure rural schools”, for schools and roads) money - that is entirely gone now. (Although, current negotiations look good for getting at least some SRS money. But now we have to fight for what was promised.)
Continued federal control of 72% of Lincoln County, 76% of Sublette County, 97% of Teton County, 80% of Park County, etc. is costing us millions of dollars a year as the feds, struggling with their own budget challenges, renege on the FLPMA pledges.
Park County receives $13.08 per taxable acre in property taxes, yet only 49¢ in PILT payments per “public” federal acre. http://www.naco.org/legislation/Pages/PILT.aspx
Wyoming’s schools, roads, public safety, and other state and local responsibilities such as search & rescue and emergency medical services, are feeling the squeeze as federal, purely discretionary subsidies come under pressure and we are not allowed to benefit due to federal policies.
PILT monies that are not borrowed are funded largely by states east of Colorado – and they are becoming aware, and resentful, of these subsidies.
$700 million in Abandoned Mine Land funding is gone. The state finally had to bear down and pick up the tab for closing and reclaiming abandoned mine sites.
Wyoming is being short-changed on the Federal Mineral Royalties due us. The formula has gone down to 48% for the state, 52% for the federal government. And, as with SRS money, we are fighting for what is due to us.
Continuing this string of broken funding promises can only result in a state income tax. Which may be pocket change for the “haves” among us, but for the working middle class of this state it will be devastating.
US management of forests is poor, you must admit. The Bridger-Teton. Medicine Bow and Shoshone forests are unhealthy. We are in an era of catastrophic forest fires due to mismanaged, dangerously high fuel loads. A healthy forest will have 80 trees per acre. There are forests in the West that have a very unhealthy 400 trees per acre. Wildlife, much less trees, cannot thrive in those forests.
Every year, failed federal forest policies send more than six million acres, on average, of national forests up in smoke, polluting our air and water, killing millions of animals and placing communities at extreme risk. Proper management, which the USFS can no longer afford (its budget is being cut every year), reduces wildfire hazard, enhances wildlife habitat, protects watershed and prevents the spread of devastating pests and disease.
I heard fears of “clear cutting” our forests. Due to reduced timber sales and poor forest management, we now have huge areas of “clear dead.” Beetle-killed timber is beautiful and a highly valued commodity, yet the USFS burns it in the name of “management.” Wyoming can do better.
HB 209 excludes from transfer: Yellowstone, GTNP, JDR Memorial Parkway, Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area, Devils Tower, Ft. Laramie National Historic site and Fossil Butte National Monument. Of course, the Wind River Reservation and military installations are also excluded.
In the 1930s, several states with as much as 90% controlled by the federal government (Illinois, Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Indiana, Florida, etc.) banded together under the leadership of US Senator, Thomas Hart Benton (D-MO) and successfully compelled Congress to transfer title to their public lands. Many of us in Wyoming and the West think it’s time to do so again.
The legislature of the State of Washington just introduced House Bill 1192, AN ACT relating to the transfer of federal land to the state.
Montana is deliberating similar legislation with almost 2/3 of its county commissioners in support.
An Idaho congressman testified that if his state could get control of the 62% of federally controlled land, Idaho could eliminate it’s income tax, its sales tax on prescriptions and it’s property tax.
The South Carolina General Assembly passed H. 3552, a Resolution to express support to the Western States and the federal transfer of public lands to the Western States.
The National Association of Counties passed the Resolution supporting the immediate implementation of the transfer of public lands.
The comment that we “have drunk the Utah kool-aid” is simply wrong. Besides being unhelpful to the conversation.
This debate is being framed as “pro-development” versus “preservationist forces.” I disagree. Development funds preservation. And both development and preservation can be better accomplished by the state of Wyoming. After all, with whom would you rather deal on these issues, Cheyenne or Washington, D.C.?
The federal government is broke. Of the income it receives, most of it goes to Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. Nearly everything else it spends is borrowed. This simply cannot be sustained. The time for Wyoming to strike out on our own is sooner rather than later.
Read the Engrossed bills here:
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Engross/HB0209.pdf
http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2015/Engross/SF0056.pdf
Marti
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
There is a lot to comment on in Representative Halverson's email. I suggest we take them one by one. I'll go first.
If it is working out for 32 other states, why wouldn’t it work for Wyoming? Why is it that the transfer of public lands is OK for 32 states but not OK for Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico or Nevada? Why is it “extreme” for Wyoming to want what other states have?
I moved to Wyoming 30 years ago specifically to be near an abundance of public land. Our recreational opportunities in the Western United States amount to a rare national treasure. None of the states to the east, that took control of their federal lands have retained those lands as public. Most lands in the eastern states are private. That is not what I want for the Western United States. It is not something to be emulated. Instead, we should learn from their mistake.
If it is working out for 32 other states, why wouldn’t it work for Wyoming? Why is it that the transfer of public lands is OK for 32 states but not OK for Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Utah, New Mexico or Nevada? Why is it “extreme” for Wyoming to want what other states have?
I moved to Wyoming 30 years ago specifically to be near an abundance of public land. Our recreational opportunities in the Western United States amount to a rare national treasure. None of the states to the east, that took control of their federal lands have retained those lands as public. Most lands in the eastern states are private. That is not what I want for the Western United States. It is not something to be emulated. Instead, we should learn from their mistake.
Last edited:
Ilovethewest
Active Member
Thanks for posting. It's cool that you got such a detailed response. But I agree with your first assessment......most of the land East of the Mississippi is privately held. Take my home state in Wisconsin. Very little public land left at all, with most being in the far north where there is national forest land. I too think this opens up development and the selling off of lands for financial gain. The writer also seems sold on the "sky is falling" mantra that is prevalent in politics these days. I guess we shall see what happens, but something inside me says that this won't be as good for outdoorsman and the average man as the representative says it will be. I smell big money influence in this.
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
A second comment about Representative Halverson's email:
She says: There is NO incentive for Wyoming to sell public lands it might acquire. 95% of the proceeds would have to go to the federal government with the remaining 5% directed to a state school account. This is in our enabling acts. Nowhere else have the states sold their public land. Why would Wyoming?
I don't see anything in our enabling act that requires 95% of proceeds to go to the federal government:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/managing-state-trust-lands/publications/trustlands-wy.pdf
She is correct that HB0209 (which is probably dead in committee) does require 95% of proceeds from sales to go to the federal government. But this could be changed by future legislatures after the transfer took place. So, I don't find a lot of comfort in the 95% clause.
As for her statement; Nowhere else have the states sold their public land. That is just plain wrong! Nevada has sold most of its state land and Utah has sold about 50%. The following website shows how much state trust land has been sold in each state:
http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-comparisons.html
She says: There is NO incentive for Wyoming to sell public lands it might acquire. 95% of the proceeds would have to go to the federal government with the remaining 5% directed to a state school account. This is in our enabling acts. Nowhere else have the states sold their public land. Why would Wyoming?
I don't see anything in our enabling act that requires 95% of proceeds to go to the federal government:
https://www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/managing-state-trust-lands/publications/trustlands-wy.pdf
She is correct that HB0209 (which is probably dead in committee) does require 95% of proceeds from sales to go to the federal government. But this could be changed by future legislatures after the transfer took place. So, I don't find a lot of comfort in the 95% clause.
As for her statement; Nowhere else have the states sold their public land. That is just plain wrong! Nevada has sold most of its state land and Utah has sold about 50%. The following website shows how much state trust land has been sold in each state:
http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-comparisons.html
Last edited:
shootbrownelk
Veteran member
From the e-mails and jibberish content that I received, it would seem that Enzi, Barrasso and Lumis and our State elected officials seem to be all for it.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
For those that might not be aware, the American Lands Council is a group based in Utah advocating the transfer of federal lands to the states:
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/policy_statements
Apparently someone has already accused Representative Halverson of being influenced by this group. This is probably what they meant when they accused her of having drunk the Utah kool-aid.
http://www.americanlandscouncil.org/policy_statements
Apparently someone has already accused Representative Halverson of being influenced by this group. This is probably what they meant when they accused her of having drunk the Utah kool-aid.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
I posted this link in the MT thread, but the ALC is way too close to the MT Senator pushing the agenda in MT:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/mtleg/senator-s-aide-asked-to-leave-after-registering-as-lobbyist/article_1056414b-959a-5bb0-b4f9-2bd7b9523ca1.html?utm_medium=mobile&utm_source=block_669158&utm_campaign=blox&mode=jqm
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/mtleg/senator-s-aide-asked-to-leave-after-registering-as-lobbyist/article_1056414b-959a-5bb0-b4f9-2bd7b9523ca1.html?utm_medium=mobile&utm_source=block_669158&utm_campaign=blox&mode=jqm
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
Another comment about Representative Halverson's email:
Representative Halverson says: Park County receives $13.08 per taxable acre in property taxes, yet only 49¢ in PILT payments per “public” federal acre. http://www.naco.org/legislation/Pages/PILT.aspx
It appears that the $13.08 figure is an average of all nonfederal land in Park County. It is not fair to compare taxes from all private land, some of which is highly developed, to undeveloped federal land. It would be more fair to compare undeveloped private land to undeveloped federal land. A 1999 study conducted by the US Department of Agriculture did this:
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr036.pdf
While the study is a little dated, they found that PILT payments on undeveloped federal lands in the Interior West were about 50 cents per acre less than taxes on undeveloped private lands. So, I suspect that Representative Halverson's claim that the difference is $12.59 is way off.
Also as I pointed out in a previous post, Wyoming counties currently get $27 million per year in PILT payments (not $14 million as the representative claims). If federal land is transferred to the state, the counties would lose all $27 million in annual revenue because the state does not pay taxes on land it owns.
Representative Halverson says: Park County receives $13.08 per taxable acre in property taxes, yet only 49¢ in PILT payments per “public” federal acre. http://www.naco.org/legislation/Pages/PILT.aspx
It appears that the $13.08 figure is an average of all nonfederal land in Park County. It is not fair to compare taxes from all private land, some of which is highly developed, to undeveloped federal land. It would be more fair to compare undeveloped private land to undeveloped federal land. A 1999 study conducted by the US Department of Agriculture did this:
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr036.pdf
While the study is a little dated, they found that PILT payments on undeveloped federal lands in the Interior West were about 50 cents per acre less than taxes on undeveloped private lands. So, I suspect that Representative Halverson's claim that the difference is $12.59 is way off.
Also as I pointed out in a previous post, Wyoming counties currently get $27 million per year in PILT payments (not $14 million as the representative claims). If federal land is transferred to the state, the counties would lose all $27 million in annual revenue because the state does not pay taxes on land it owns.
6mm Remington
Very Active Member
highplainsdrifter
Very Active Member
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I would like to comment on one more point in Representative Halverson's email:
Representative Halverson says: I read that the groups opposing HB209 are generally also against energy and agriculture. I infer, from reading the emails, that their goal is to turn the state of Wyoming into one, big national park.
This appears to be another attempt to dismiss the opposition as radicals. While debating HB0209 during third reading in the House, Representative Miller suggested the opposition was mainly a bunch of radical, anti-gun, out-of-state environmentalists. During the House Minerals Committee meeting, Senator Bebout said there is a lot of misinformation out there, clearly suggesting that the opposition is misinformed.
Since hunting is not allowed in a national park, I think I can say with confidence that most hunters would not want to turn Wyoming into one big national park. I am also quite certain that most of us believe in multiple use. Energy and agriculture are import to our nation. I don't know of anyone who is suggesting they be eliminated from our federal lands.
I continue to be perplexed as to how some of our elected officials can so completely misunderstand the recreational community which represents so many thousands of people.
Representative Halverson says: I read that the groups opposing HB209 are generally also against energy and agriculture. I infer, from reading the emails, that their goal is to turn the state of Wyoming into one, big national park.
This appears to be another attempt to dismiss the opposition as radicals. While debating HB0209 during third reading in the House, Representative Miller suggested the opposition was mainly a bunch of radical, anti-gun, out-of-state environmentalists. During the House Minerals Committee meeting, Senator Bebout said there is a lot of misinformation out there, clearly suggesting that the opposition is misinformed.
Since hunting is not allowed in a national park, I think I can say with confidence that most hunters would not want to turn Wyoming into one big national park. I am also quite certain that most of us believe in multiple use. Energy and agriculture are import to our nation. I don't know of anyone who is suggesting they be eliminated from our federal lands.
I continue to be perplexed as to how some of our elected officials can so completely misunderstand the recreational community which represents so many thousands of people.
Bitterroot Bulls
Veteran member
HPD,
Halverson's quote is actually just a classic strawman. Halverson is misrepresenting the position of the opponent (constructing the strawman), so that Halverson can argue against that weaker position (knocking down the straw man), rather than address the real position.
It is much easier for Halverson to believe she is arguing against Eath Firsters pushing for extreme environmentalism rather than reasonable Wyoming sportsmen and women advocating for the Western tradition that is pulbic land hunting.
We all know that resorting to straw man fallacies indicates that, in fact, Halverson can't really support the position she is advocating.
Halverson's quote is actually just a classic strawman. Halverson is misrepresenting the position of the opponent (constructing the strawman), so that Halverson can argue against that weaker position (knocking down the straw man), rather than address the real position.
It is much easier for Halverson to believe she is arguing against Eath Firsters pushing for extreme environmentalism rather than reasonable Wyoming sportsmen and women advocating for the Western tradition that is pulbic land hunting.
We all know that resorting to straw man fallacies indicates that, in fact, Halverson can't really support the position she is advocating.