Public Lands in Public Hands Live Chat!

libidilatimmy

Veteran member
Oct 22, 2013
1,140
0
Wyoming
Look. You know darn well the examples you gave before had nothing to do with this. Stop with all the whining and get real.

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

Here is their quote.

As noted above the subject parcels are relatively small, surrounded by private land, and offers no recreational opportunities. Sale of the parcels would offer the opportunity for the state to acquire lands that would enhance public recreational access.
My quote from an earlier post that you deem unimportant. "I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

There is really no difference between the parcel for sale near Casper and the checkerboard BLM ground along the I-80 corridor which accounts for millions of acres as the Board would view it. My side of this discussion was never about whether a state would sell prime real estate that produces revenue or recreational opportunities, but rather maintaining the access to these areas for generations to come, which I'd think we can agree on. There are large portions of this state that could easily be deemed useless and unprofitable from a financial standpoint, but, if you've done much driving in the state, you almost always have to pass through these same lands to get to an area to recreate in.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
My quote from an earlier post that you deem unimportant. "I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

There is really no difference between the parcel for sale near Casper and the checkerboard BLM ground along the I-80 corridor which accounts for millions of acres as the Board would view it. My side of this discussion was never about whether a state would sell prime real estate that produces revenue or recreational opportunities, but rather maintaining the access to these areas for generations to come, which I'd think we can agree on. There are large portions of this state that could easily be deemed useless and unprofitable from a financial standpoint, but, if you've done much driving in the state, you almost always have to pass through these same lands to get to an area to recreate in.
You are hard to follow as you change the subject every time you are proven wrong. Now you are claiming all you care about is access but you have spent the last 2 days trying to find situations where states were selling large pieces of recreational land because you were trying to make us believe the states would sell the land. Which is it?

If you are truly only concerned about access then you would be pushing for the state to sell all the inaccessible checkerboard land and buy accessible land that we could use. But that has never been your argument.

:confused:
 

libidilatimmy

Veteran member
Oct 22, 2013
1,140
0
Wyoming
Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

Please re-read my quote. My logic has remained steady. Maybe you're unable to see the connection from state's selling off land that they deem "unusable" or "unprofitable" for revenue's sake at the risk of this same line of thinking within the state governments escalating to a larger scale once budgetary shortfalls develop allowing private interests to land lock or block access to large pieces of public ground for personal gain.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

Please re-read my quote. My logic has remained steady. Maybe you're unable to see the connection from state's selling off land that they deem "unusable" or "unprofitable" for revenue's sake at the risk of this same line of thinking within the state governments escalating to a larger scale once budgetary shortfalls develop allowing private interests to land lock or block access to large pieces of public ground for personal gain.
I've read you quote and listened to all your information. On one had you tell us that Wyoming will sell off recreational property if the feds give them land and try to scare us. Then you showed us how Texas and Michigan sell off small lots they obtain through things like delinquent taxes and try to say that is what will happen even though the property was mainly small lots which is nothing similar to large pieces of federal recreational land. Then you claim that all you care about is access in the future. And now we are back to you talking about selling off small, worthless, pieces of land with no recreational value and trying to make us believe that large pieces of recreational land will be next once the budget shortfalls develop. Except you can't find even 1 example where this has happened and its' basically against the law to do so if the property has recreational value and is accessible so it should never happen.

I think it is a good idea to get rid of small pieces of land that offer no access or recreational value. That is why they have rules and regulations in place that identify which property does not meet their mission statement. Sell those pieces off and buy more accessible land. Sounds to me like they have a good plan in place that will prevent what you are describing from ever happening.

I'd have no problem with the USFS selling off the pieces of land that were inaccessible or too small to be of any recreational value.

Thanks for the debate. I learned some things as usual.
 

Topgun 30-06

Banned
Jun 12, 2013
1,359
0
Allegan, MI
You are hard to follow as you change the subject every time you are proven wrong. Now you are claiming all you care about is access but you have spent the last 2 days trying to find situations where states were selling large pieces of recreational land because you were trying to make us believe the states would sell the land. Which is it?

If you are truly only concerned about access then you would be pushing for the state to sell all the inaccessible checkerboard land and buy accessible land that we could use. But that has never been your argument.


The vast majority of checkerboard land in Wyoming is in the south and it's not state land, but rather BLM that the state has absolutely no control over for sales of that property.
 

Againstthewind

Very Active Member
Mar 25, 2014
973
0
Upton, WY
Yep Topgun, it goes back to deals with the railroad going through along what is now I-80. The RR got every other checkerboard, so what is now the BLM has the other checkerboard.

I kindof remember something that land sale in GTNP. It was a pretty good uproar about it, but I think it was wheel greasing for the bigger chunks that are going to be sold to the National Parks. Shady? Probably. Man it would be nice to find a deal like that Packmule. Its hard to rent a place in Jackson for $2000 a month. That would be some income property, put a little cabin with an outhouse out there and rent it out to Touristos all summer and make a killing.
 

ScottR

Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2014
6,170
764
www.eastmans.com
Please be careful with your comments guys. We are thrilled that most days we have a forum that stays civil. We have pushed the boundaries a few times, do your best to not belittle each other and stick to facts.
 

packmule

Veteran member
Jun 21, 2011
2,433
0
TX
Yep Topgun, it goes back to deals with the railroad going through along what is now I-80. The RR got every other checkerboard, so what is now the BLM has the other checkerboard.

I kindof remember something that land sale in GTNP. It was a pretty good uproar about it, but I think it was wheel greasing for the bigger chunks that are going to be sold to the National Parks. Shady? Probably. Man it would be nice to find a deal like that Packmule. Its hard to rent a place in Jackson for $2000 a month. That would be some income property, put a little cabin with an outhouse out there and rent it out to Touristos all summer and make a killing.
That $2000 was just for the mineral estate, not the surface (and it trumps the surface owner). You can't even do a standard 3yr/1ac for that in most areas.
 

packmule

Veteran member
Jun 21, 2011
2,433
0
TX
I like that side better than the Jackson side.





This just in....

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/texas/article/Texas-Gulf-Coast-ranch-to-become-state-park-5702750.php

HOUSTON (AP) — A new state park and wildlife management area will be created with the almost $38 million purchase of a more than 17,000-acre ranch along the Texas Gulf Coast between Port O'Connor and Port Lavaca.

The Powderhorn Ranch in Calhoun County is being donated to the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife by three conservation groups who used settlement money from the 2010 BP Deep Horizon rig explosion and oil spill for their purchase.

The ranch is considered one of the last huge tracts of unaltered land on the Texas coastline.

Parks and wildlife agency executive director Carter Smith tells the [Houston Chronicle] the ranch is one of the "Holy Grails of coastal conservation" that eventually will be used for kayaking, fishing, hiking, birding and public hunting.
 

Topgun 30-06

Banned
Jun 12, 2013
1,359
0
Allegan, MI
Sounds like a great purchase buy the state of Texas.
Texas didn't purchase it. It was donated by three conservation organizations, so not one cent of public taxpayer money went into buying it! RMEF and other big groups do that a lot thorugh gifts or by getting landowners to sign conservation easements so the rivate land will never be sold to other oprivate interests that would close it off to the public.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Texas didn't purchase it. It was donated by three conservation organizations, so not one cent of public taxpayer money went into buying it! RMEF and other big groups do that a lot thorugh gifts or by getting landowners to sign conservation easements so the rivate land will never be sold to other oprivate interests that would close it off to the public.
However it happened it's a great story. Glad to hear about land transferred to a state and now they can't sell it and it will be open to the public. Win all the way around.

So do you folks who don't think states should be in charge of managing land think this is a bad deal?