Transfer of Public Lands

S

shootbrownelk

Veteran member
Apr 11, 2011
1,535
196
Wyoming
grizzly said:
That may be, but I would not be one of those people. I own a small business (currently: 51 employees). I, like many others, know how to balance budgets and look at cost/benefit calculations. You and I just disagree on what the priority is and what the definition of "management" is.

My thought is... To give up hundreds of millions (or billions) of dollars of Federal money to make a relatively few millions in increased grazing fees does not jive... which is exactly why the States will be forced to sell the land in short order. There simply are not enough cows to make up the difference... regardless of the AMU cost.

(To clarify, I am not pro-rancher. If conservation groups starting buying grazing rights and retiring them, it would be great with me.)
Click to expand...
"Conservation" groups cannot get a grazing lease on State land here in Wyoming anyway, unless they run a certain amount of cattle on it. And as the law is written, the current lease holder has the right to match the highest bid and gets to keep the lease. Ranches are sold in Wyoming based on total acreage, Federal & State leased land along with the deeded. I think any State & Federal grazing leases should be a sealed bid affair, with the lease going to the highest bidder...not catering to Ranchers. And from my experience, a lot of ranchers consider leased land as theirs. Some even go so far as to post public land. Some of the current leases should be retired after years of over grazing. Oh, and when a ranch is sold, the leases go to the new owner.
 
G

grizzly

Active Member
Dec 3, 2013
195
1
UT
Shootbrownelk,

Thanks, that's good information. It also goes to the problem with state-owned land and the power that lobbying groups (like the cattle industry) can have on our land use plan.
 
S

shootbrownelk

Veteran member
Apr 11, 2011
1,535
196
Wyoming
Good for Montana, Wyoming's land transfer study is funded and a go. The wishes of the States Hunters, Fishermen and recreationists be damned.
 
Colorado Cowboy

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,352
4,742
83
Dolores, Colorado
I was reading today's news and saw an interesting article that exemplifies why I am completely against any federal transfer of federally owned land to individual states. The article was basically about how in our economic recovery almost half or the states are still faced with growing budget defecits. One statement was "If a state is grappling with a budget defecit now, with the economic upturn in it's 6th year, what will be its condition when the next slowdown hits?"

My belief is that, if ownership was in the states hands, it would be viewed as a "cash cow" and the public's land would vanish. It would become private property and "No Trespassing" signs immediately appear. With all this talk of turning over the land to the states, I am sure Teddy Roosevelt is thrashing around in in grave!!!
 
Last edited:
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
A lot of state school land has been sold in the past 100 years when the proceeds had to be used exclusively for education. With the proposed transfer there would presumably be no restrictions on what the money could be used for. It could be used for debt service, highways, welfare, new buildings, salaries and who knows what. It could turn out to be a spending spree at the expensive of public land recreationists!!

In all honesty I don't think it would happen overnight, but we would almost certainly be headed in that direction. In 75 to 100 years, some western states may not have much more public land than the Eastern United States (except for the western parks). If history provides any clue, states like Nevada and Utah would likely be most aggressive in selling their land. States like Montana and Colorado would likely be less aggressive. That is my guess under current political/financial conditions. Who knows what political/financial conditions might exist in 25 years, 50 years, 75 years? One thing we can be sure of: If the states get control, greed will eventually prevail!
 
O

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Lots of statements made about state trust land and which states have sold it off. Surprisingly the data is not consistent with many of those statements.

All the statements about the state selling the land off and the "spending spree" that hurts the public land enthusiast is not consistent with the actual actions of many Western states. Many that we talk about have increased state trust land. Funny how that never gets mentioned.
State%20Acres_zpsqpsettc2[1].jpg
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
okielite said:
Lots of statements made about state trust land and which states have sold it off. Surprisingly the data is not consistent with many of those statements.

All the statements about the state selling the land off and the "spending spree" that hurts the public land enthusiast is not consistent with the actual actions of many Western states. Many that we talk about have increased state trust land. Funny how that never gets mentioned.
View attachment 13411
Click to expand...
I am not sure where you got your table. Here is one I have more faith in:

http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-comparisons.html

Your table shows Wyoming gaining trust land. The table I referenced shows Wyoming losing trust land.

In any case, both tables show a clear downward trend in most states. That is no doubt the future in most states if the feds turn over federal land to the states.
 
O

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Actually the table I showed had many western states increasing state trust land. Clearly there are many factors here but it is interesting to see how this was looked at quite some time ago in 97. I'm sure both tables are right, one is just nearly 20 years old. I think we have to keep in mind that there are many reasons state trust land is bought/sold and few have to do with hunting.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or.../pdf/pa276.pdf
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
okielite said:
Actually the table I showed had many western states increasing state trust land. Clearly there are many factors here but it is interesting to see how this was looked at quite some time ago in 97. I'm sure both tables are right, one is just nearly 20 years old. I think we have to keep in mind that there are many reasons state trust land is bought/sold and few have to do with hunting.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or.../pdf/pa276.pdf
Click to expand...
I am a little confused. Are you saying your table is 20 years old?

By the way, the link you provided is not working.
 
highplainsdrifter

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
The link I provided, which is much more current, shows not a single state anywhere in the western half of the US with more trust land now than at statehood.

http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-comparisons.html

Clearly there is a downward trend, sometimes dramatic. I find no reason to believe the trend would reverse if federal lands were transferred to the states. I thought you shared our concern about the potential sale of lands if a transfer were to occur?
 
Last edited:
O

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
highplainsdrifter said:
Here is a link to a brochure produced by the Wyoming Office of State Lands. On the second page you will see they acknowledge the state started out with 4.2 million acres and are currently down to 3.5 million acres. If my math is correct that is less, not more. It is consistent with the link I provided earlier.

http://slf-web.state.wy.us/Surface/brochure.pdf
Click to expand...
Actually if you look at the data in my link the state was originally given 3.473 million acres and now according to you have 3.5 million so if my math is correct that is more, not less as you claim. LOL.


I'm not sure where the discrepancies are in the data but it would almost seem like in Wyoming's case that there must have been a change in the last 15+ years where some land was sold off.

Here is a list of those pieces being looked at. Pretty clear that each property is looked at closely before any sale happens.
http://lands.wyo.gov/lands/transactions
 
O

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
highplainsdrifter said:
The link I provided, which is much more current, shows not a single state anywhere in the western half of the US with more trust land now than at statehood.

http://www.statetrustlands.org/about-state-trust-lands/state-comparisons.htm

Clearly there is a downward trend, sometimes dramatic. I find no reason to believe the trend would reverse if federal lands were transferred to the states. I thought you shared our concern about the potential sale of lands if a transfer were to occur?
Click to expand...
LOL. Never let the truth get in the way of an argument.

State trust land is not the same as BLM just like its' not the same as state parks. You can't compare the two and make assumptions like that. I could say that there is clearly more state walk in land available now than there used to be so clearly states are increasing the number of huntable acres not decreasing. But then I'd be doing the same thing you are.

States are not the enemy of hunters, states actually already manage the hunting resource on federal land anyway and they go to great lengths to bring hunters to their states.

Clearly you dont' agree with being financially responsible with these resources and would prefer for American taxpayers to foot the bill for a federally managed tourist attraction that benefits Wyoming. I dont' blame you. It benefits you and your state, but for a guy in Massachusetts it might not look like that great of a deal on paper. When I look at it I see a group that has mismanaged the resources they are in charge of and I see opportunity for improvement that could have a huge financial benefit to the state. Unfortunately the current group in charge has squandered the resources they are in charge of and simply asked the American taxpayer to cover the difference. At some point we need to try something new. Getting $1.67 for something that is worth $20 - $150 is blatant mismanagement IMO.
 
Colorado Cowboy

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,352
4,742
83
Dolores, Colorado
okielite said:
Lots of statements made about state trust land and which states have sold it off. Surprisingly the data is not consistent with many of those statements.

All the statements about the state selling the land off and the "spending spree" that hurts the public land enthusiast is not consistent with the actual actions of many Western states. Many that we talk about have increased state trust land. Funny how that never gets mentioned.
View attachment 13411
Click to expand...
Looking at the data and especially the summary (totals), shows ME what I think we could expect if the states were to take over federal lands (less NPs & NMs). There is only 59% of the land originally given (or controlled) to the states left! Draw you own conclusion, I have!
 
O

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Colorado Cowboy said:
Looking at the data and especially the summary (totals), shows ME what I think we could expect if the states were to take over federal lands (less NPs & NMs). There is only 59% of the land originally given (or controlled) to the states left! Draw you own conclusion, I have!
Click to expand...
Interesting. So would looking at data on federal lands being decreased during that same time period indicate what we should expect with federal ownership? LOL!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom