As you can see in my earlier post, I fear this could happen in the future if a budget crunch was to develop. Currently, it takes an act of Congress to sell even a single parcel of federal land. This provides substantial protection that federal land won't be sold. I don't have that level of confidence that the state wouldn't sell it. I simply don't trust that the State of Wyoming wouldn't sell some of the land in the future.
What really happens (more than we know) is that the Feds trade lots of land to the public. Say a piece of land is surrounded by a NP or Monument and they want it. If someone can get that piece of private land or the owner is willing to let the Feds get it, they usually trade it out. The private owner finds a piece of Fed land and a trade is worked out and the traded for parcel goes public and public goes private. I know of an instance where a piece of National Forest in Az was traded for a private piece at Yosemite NP in Ca.
You've got the cart before the horse pardner! FIRST, the state would have to own it in order to sell it. As he stated, they don't own any large tracts, but rather just small tracts here and there and it's usually section 36 in a township, many of which are landlocked by private lands already. if they did own large tracts and had a budget problem, they would more than likely try to sell a bunch off just like some of the idiots in Congress are now proposing for the Federal lands under the GOP banner! If any of those lands are sold to private interests, they are gone for public use forever!
States already own large pieces of land so obviously they could sell it if they wanted to. But they haven't which means that while the scenario you are describing is possible it has yet to happen.
The intent of my post wasn't to say I'm content with the way federal lands are being managed, but rather to point out how little control and experience the State I'm familiar with has in managing public lands. I do think there are measures that could be taken to improve the management of federal land, but I don't think solely State control is the answer. I'm not sure there is a "right" solution for this issue the more I think about it other than finding a way for the lands to become somewhat self-sufficient while remaining open to the public for recreation, while staying in compliance with EPA regulations, while not taking any money away from other portions of the government, and NOT under any circumstances transfer the land to private enterprise.
Additionally, this is not a new thing for the federal government, but rather a play out of the pages of history from the times when Public Domain was conceived following the Revolutionary War. At that time, the government was broke and couldn't pay it's soldiers. At the same time, they found themselves in control of land outside of the original colonies where what would later be Ohio. They devised a plan to give these soldiers tracts of land in this territory in lieu of cash payment. This same act that gave land warrants to the soldiers also gave the government the right to sell land at auction to the highest bidder. What transpired was that the soldiers couldn't afford to travel to Ohio, so a large portion of them put their tracts up for auction in DC where the govt was auctioning off minimum 640 acre parcels, which only the well off speculators could afford, which in turn they divided up and sold off this land in smaller portions at a huge profit. The government then copied this business model in later auctions to make more money as they acquired more and more "Public Domain" land throughout history. A quick search on the net says that over time the federal government has sold or given away over one billion acres of land, or roughly 2.5 times the size of Alaska.
You've got the cart before the horse pardner! FIRST, the state would have to own it in order to sell it. As he stated, they don't own any large tracts, but rather just small tracts here and there and it's usually section 36 in a township, many of which are landlocked by private lands already. if they did own large tracts and had a budget problem, they would more than likely try to sell a bunch off just like some of the idiots in Congress are now proposing for the Federal lands under the GOP banner! If any of those lands are sold to private interests, they are gone for public use forever!
I almost started this post with "I don't have a dog in this fight", but after I thought about it for a second, we ALL have a reason to be concerned. I have read every post on this thread since the initial live discussion. I have learned a lot about the happenings and potential happenings in that part of the country and it seems like a fragile situation to me. I want my children, and their children, and so on to be able to enjoy what access the western states have to offer. It is more valuably owned by the Federal GOV't than to be sold for pennies on the dollar and lost forever. There is no quick fix for the Country's financial woes, and selling off land is just a bad idea all the way around.
One of my biggest regrets in my life is waiting unitl I was 35 to make my first trip out there, this coming fall. I only hope I can get my Daughters out there with me when they are old enough to make the trip.
Additionally, this is not a new thing for the federal government, but rather a play out of the pages of history from the times when Public Domain was conceived following the Revolutionary War. At that time, the government was broke and couldn't pay it's soldiers. At the same time, they found themselves in control of land outside of the original colonies where what would later be Ohio. They devised a plan to give these soldiers tracts of land in this territory in lieu of cash payment. This same act that gave land warrants to the soldiers also gave the government the right to sell land at auction to the highest bidder. What transpired was that the soldiers couldn't afford to travel to Ohio, so a large portion of them put their tracts up for auction in DC where the govt was auctioning off minimum 640 acre parcels, which only the well off speculators could afford, which in turn they divided up and sold off this land in smaller portions at a huge profit. The government then copied this business model in later auctions to make more money as they acquired more and more "Public Domain" land throughout history. A quick search on the net says that over time the federal government has sold or given away over one billion acres of land, or roughly 2.5 times the size of Alaska.
The intent of my post wasn't to say I'm content with the way federal lands are being managed, but rather to point out how little control and experience the State I'm familiar with has in managing public lands. I do think there are measures that could be taken to improve the management of federal land, but I don't think solely State control is the answer.
According to that link the state of Wyoming owns appx 3,865,000 acres of land. I'd say that is enough land to qualify as experience in managing land. No?
Ok. how many times in those 30 years did you see large pieces of state land being sold off to help balance the budget? Can you provide a link to an example?
According to that link the state of Wyoming owns appx 3,865,000 acres of land. I'd say that is enough land to qualify as experience in managing land. No?
This link will give you a visual of what land is "owned" by the State. Sure, just shy of four million acres sounds like a lot of land, but in the grand scope of what we're discussing, it's not that much. Off of that link, the Forest Service, BLM, and State control 30%, 58%, and 12% of the public land respectively. Just to reiterate what I said previously, the State does not "actively" manage a large portion of what they own. Most of their land is managed by private entities in the agricultural or energy industry whom hold the leases on those respective parcels. I don't think that increasing the amount of land a State has to manage by 800% is a viable solution.
You seem to have a strong opinion about land management in Wyoming, so let me ask you a question: How much experience do you have with Wyoming State Government?
This link will give you a visual of what land is "owned" by the State. Sure, just shy of four million acres sounds like a lot of land, but in the grand scope of what we're discussing, it's not that much. Off of that link, the Forest Service, BLM, and State control 30%, 58%, and 12% of the public land respectively. Just to reiterate what I said previously, the State does not "actively" manage a large portion of what they own. Most of their land is managed by private entities in the agricultural or energy industry whom hold the leases on those respective parcels. I don't think that increasing the amount of land a State has to manage by 800% is a viable solution.
People continue to say that states can't manage land and will sell off the land if it is transferred from the federal government. The problem is the sates are already managing millions of acres of land and have not sold off large pieces to balance budgets. The state actually spends a lot of money opening up private land for hunting with programs like WIHA so it would appear the states like Wyoming actually spend money to increase the amount of huntable land which is completely opposite of what people are saying will happen.
Obviously if transferred to the state additional money would need to be given to them to manage the land but I think there would be some significant savings compared to our current system which is extremely inefficient. The amount of people and $ the federal government uses to manage land is ridiculous.
I enjoy a good debate and if you can come up with examples of states selling off large pieces of land to help budgets you would have a really good point. You would also have a really good point if the states did not manage any large pieces of land, but since they own millions of acres that really does not apply either.
You seem to have a strong opinion about land management in Wyoming, so let me ask you a question: How much experience do you have with Wyoming State Government?
I enjoy a good debate and if you can come up with examples of states selling off large pieces of land to help budgets you would have a really good point. You would also have a really good point if the states did not manage any large pieces of land, but since they own millions of acres that really does not apply either.
Wyoming probably isn't the best example since the State government seems to be more fiscally responsible than other states and they really don't manage any "large" pieces of land since a large majority of their acreage is non-contiguous. However, I do know the state of Texas auctions land off on an annual or bi-annual basis.
Ok. how many times in those 30 years did you see large pieces of state land being sold off to help balance the budget? Can you provide a link to an example?
If you knew half as much as you think you do, you'd know the current Wyoming statutes expressly forbid the sale of the public land by the State Land Board without going through a ton of red tape that at the present time would never fly if/when it went before the State Legislature! Also, as was stated in more than one previous post, the land we're talking about is not in large tracts that would come close to tracts of BLM or NF lands. Take a look at the maps to see how things are spread out all over the state. You won't see the shade of blue that designates state lands in very big tracts like you do the yellow for BLM and green for NF lands.
I agree with a lot of what libidilatimmy has said. I was doing the math while he was posting, and if you take out Yellowstone, Grand Teton and the Wind River Indian Reservation, its about 600%. That is a huge boost of lands that need managed and one of the simplest solutions is selling some off. Its hard to find good employees and adding 6x the number of employees would be a lot. Lib. is also right that most of the state lands (6% of total state lands) are trust lands (school sections) which are 1 in every 36 section I think which is about 3%, so 1/2 of Wyoming state lands are stuck right in the middle of something else, either BLM or private. The other 3% is probably in a similar situation. The majority of these trust lands are set up to get mineral royalties, so they are really managed by someone else. Wyoming is not set up to take over federal land management. Maybe if it was a baby step process that was funded by mineral royalties, it might work, I don't know. Sometimes it is frustrating to have federal lands that are subject to policies made by people who don't seem to have a good handle on the multi-use that these lands could have, and I think were originally supposed to have, but I think water rights are a good example of why the federal goverment should have a say in managing these lands. If Wyoming were to manage the water that starts in our mountains and what not, the reservoirs would probably always be full and we would have bumper hay crops, but Nebraska would suffer for it, if only because they would have to pay more for it, so we would have to pay more for corn. Utah and California and Colorado couldn't grow as much fruit, so I would have scurvy, it would be a bad deal. Montana wheat would even suffer because the Yellowstone has roots in Wyoming, too. I am getting out there again, I had better call it good, but I agree there have been some good points.
If you click on that Texas link and go from Region to Region, you'll see a lot of the land up for sale is private property and there is very little acerage of substance for sale in the entire state.
Wyoming probably isn't the best example since the State government seems to be more fiscally responsible than other states and they really don't manage any "large" pieces of land since a large majority of their acreage is non-contiguous. However, I do know the state of Texas auctions land off on an annual or bi-annual basis.
Wyoming has large pieces of state land. I've hunted on one really nice piece of property just north of Manville. Not to mention places like Glendo st park or Curt Gowdy.
I'm not sure Texas selling off small pieces of state land is quite the crisis that people are describing happening if the federal lands are transferred to the state. I also doubt that land that is being sold is really used for hunting or public recreation as most of those pieces are really small some even measured in square feet.
A few examples of states managing large pieces of land include Ft Robinson St park in Nebraska. 22k acres of land that used to be federal owned military base but was transferred to the state. It's used as a tourist attraction and also for outdoor recreation such as hunting. They also have a buffalo pasture. Beautiful place that the state does a great job managing.
Here is a piece of state land in Oklahoma, about 20k acres, Packsaddle WMA. Used to quail hunt there as a kid. Looks like they do a pretty good job of managing it for wildlife and outdoor recreation.
Description of Wildlife Management Practices:
Management efforts focus on producing native cover plants and wildlife foods such as ragweed and sunflower, although some small agricultural food plots are planted annually. Wildlife watering facilities have been installed, including windmills, water guzzlers, and small ponds. Cattle grazing is used to increase quail food abundance and improve brood habitat. Vehicle access is limited with few interior roads open to the public.
Camping and Facilities:
Nine designated primitive camping areas are located on the area. Both lodging and restaurants are available 17 miles north in Arnett and 22 miles south in Cheyenne.
No shooting range available.
Fishing Opportunities:
Fishing opportunities exist at Lake Lloyd Vincent 30 miles northwest and Black Kettle Lake 15 miles south. There are no fishing opportunities at Packsaddle WMA
So obviously States have proven that they can indeed manage large pieces of land for public use including hunting.
, it would be a bad deal. Montana wheat would even suffer because the Yellowstone has roots in Wyoming, too. I am getting out there again, I had better call it good, but I agree there have been some good points.