Transfer of Public Lands

Againstthewind

Very Active Member
Mar 25, 2014
973
2
Upton, WY
I might be speaking out of turn, but I think a lot of the Wyoming guys against the transfer on here have lived through the boom and bust cycles and have seen what happens in the lean years in our state. Right now we have this nice rainy day fund and its easier to see the state handling more things. With the "war on coal", every once in a while oil and gas go bust, and recessions which really bite into the tourism and hunting economy, its just seems natural not to want to take on more stuff. I am not sure that is right, but it is a hard thing to get past. I am not certain where I stand on the issue, well almost any issue, but I have enjoyed this topic. Thanks guys, I feel a little more informed than before.
 

jjenness

Very Active Member
Sep 30, 2011
666
62
Lewistown, MT
You are right, it will be tough to manage with no federal assistance. ............. So even if they still required 50% of the federal assistance that is still a 50% savings for the taxpayer. How is that a bad thing?

.......... money..........money...........money............money.............
Okielite I think you are missing one major factor in that if the federal government no longer managed the land, they they sure as heck are not going to fund the accounts necessary to operate them. The states would be on the hook to find the money, which out west one fire season alone could be enough to put any state in the black, and that's just the Fire Management aspect.

Secondly, if all our public land was put into the money making business, you can guarantee that the restrictions would tighten up so fast for every single type of recreation, that you will need a permit just to watch the sunset from your favorite vantage point, oh yeah at that will cost you $30.00.
 

Musket Man

Veteran member
Jul 20, 2011
6,457
0
colfax, wa
Only the federal government could own that much land and loose that much money on it. The land could pay for its self but the feds have been doing everything they can to make it unproductive and dig it into a hole for years. They have done everything they can to do away with productive things like logging and ranching and replace them with things that cost alot of money like forest fires, wild horses, and wolves.
 

jjenness

Very Active Member
Sep 30, 2011
666
62
Lewistown, MT
Okielite I think you are missing one major factor in that if the federal government no longer managed the land, they they sure as heck are not going to fund the accounts necessary to operate them. The states would be on the hook to find the money, which out west one fire season alone could be enough to put any state in the black, and that's just the Fire Management aspect.

Secondly, if all our public land was put into the money making business, you can guarantee that the restrictions would tighten up so fast for every single type of recreation, that you will need a permit just to watch the sunset from your favorite vantage point, oh yeah at that will cost you $30.00.
I agree MM that the fed gov doesn't do everything they can, and there should be some management happening. But the the Federal Gov should be the ones doing it.
 

In God We Trust

Very Active Member
Mar 10, 2011
805
0
Colorado
I say that people write their elected reps and demand that the quality of management public lands increase. Responsible logging, limited mining, and limited drilling. I find it foolish to tear down a system that works 80% of the time and start a new system that is controlled by 50 different states with 50 different special interests in mind.
jjenness brings up a great point. States could not afford one bad fire season out west without the help of the Feds. So unless you want your state to go begging to the Federal Govt. you just demanded control of the land from or let fires burn out of control because individual states can't afford to fight them I would caution jumping aboard the state run land idea. There are a lot of factors to consider and making a decision based on emotion or taking a side before doing your research on a hot button issue like this is dangerous. This public land out west is vital to the existence of DIY public land hunting. This land has been managed by the Feds and has allowed generations of hunters to enjoy the hunting tradition. Be careful you do not tear down the system that has supported the hunting public for years. Yes they screw up with the lack of logging and other areas of mismanagement. But they do a lot right. I have shot all of my animals out west over my lifetime and my dad has done the same on BLM and National Forest/ Wilderness. I am sure most of you have harvested animals on the same Federal Land. Seems to be a pretty good system. How about the opportunities that a hunter has to go into a road-less wilderness area and kill a Boone and Crockett animal. Those are unique to our system as well. All I am saying is think long and hard before taking a side on this.
This is a great topic and great debate where we can all learn something.
 
Last edited:

In God We Trust

Very Active Member
Mar 10, 2011
805
0
Colorado
Do you really think it would be difficult to keep the existing recreational opportunities intact if the management of the land was transferred? I dont'.
People transfer land to states and other organizations like RMEF with clear rules about how the land is to be used in the future including not selling it. It's not as difficult as you like to pretend it is.

In reality Wyoming wants you to come to the state and I have no doubt that they would be able to work out a way for people to camp if they were in charge of the land.

You guys act like the state in the enemy. They are not. They want you to come hunt and they spend millions on everything from advertising for tourism to paying private landowners to open up and for public hunting. Why you suddenly think that would change and Wyoming would tell everyone they can't camp or hunt and eventually would sell the land off is ridiculous and not based on any truth.

If you have some good reasons lets hear them but the whole "we won't be able to camp" or "the land will be sold off" is clearly not the intent of the state and not based on any truth.

Do you really think that Wyoming is meeting to plan how they will kick all campers and hunters out of the state and sell the land if the land is transferred to them? Get real. My guess is they are working to see how they can improve the management of the land and increase tourism which will in turn benefit the state. Much more logical.
I call B.S. Wyoming only allows outfitters and residents to hunt wilderness areas. Lets not act like Wyoming as well as Colorado and other states are not already in bed with special interest groups. The states cower down to outfitters and ranchers when it come to public access.
Hell Colorado gives special tags to ranchers and outfitters to sell on the open market, tags that take the common guy 20 years to draw. They can't be trusted already so stop with the states are looking out for the hunter song.
 
Last edited:

Musket Man

Veteran member
Jul 20, 2011
6,457
0
colfax, wa
Good hunting on federal land is not because of federal management. Its because of the states managing wildlife on it. The feds have all but destroyed hunting on alot of federal land by introducing wolves, not allowing predators to be managed, the misuse of the ESA, ect. Would you want the USFWS to take over wildlife management in all states?
 

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
Good hunting on federal land is not because of federal management. Its because of the states managing wildlife on it. The feds have all but destroyed hunting on alot of federal land by introducing wolves, not allowing predators to be managed, the misuse of the ESA, ect. Would you want the USFWS to take over wildlife management in all states?
You ask: Would I want the USFWS to take over wildlife management in all states? No I would not. Would you like each state to decide the right to bear arms?
 

Colorado Cowboy

Super Moderator
Jun 8, 2011
8,355
4,747
83
Dolores, Colorado
Good hunting on federal land is not because of federal management. Its because of the states managing wildlife on it. The feds have all but destroyed hunting on alot of federal land by introducing wolves, not allowing predators to be managed, the misuse of the ESA, ect. Would you want the USFWS to take over wildlife management in all states?
They already do......

They control all migratory waterfowl and gamebirds (doves). The rational is that their habitat is multi state. Think about this.....big game herds that migrate multi state. Not too much of a stretch.
 

shootbrownelk

Veteran member
Apr 11, 2011
1,535
196
Wyoming
We have not "busted" the camping myth. Since the vast majority of state land in Wyoming does not have established campgrounds, and you can't camp without a dedicated campground, then it follows that you can't camp on most state land in Wyoming.
Correct HPD, you cannot camp or have an open fire on Wyoming (school trust) State land. 3 guesses as to who asked that provision in the laws regarding public use....Ranchers/Outfitters. They'd carry that law over to any federal land they would get title to. That's for sure and for certain.
 

shootbrownelk

Veteran member
Apr 11, 2011
1,535
196
Wyoming
A number of years ago I shot my rifles on state land outside Cheyenne. One day I arrived to shoot and found the land posted by the livestock company that leased the land for grazing. I decided to call the State Land Office to complain and discovered they knew nothing about the posting. Well I thought that is very interesting! I expected they would get after the livestock company for illegally posting the land. A couple weeks later I went to check the site and found the signs still there. I called the State Land Office again and found out they had "rubber stamped" the illegal posting. They did this without notifying the public or the person who had complained about it (me).

At least with the federal government there is an Administrative Procedures Act to follow...public notice, wait for comments, etc.

This is just another example of how recreational users will be left out if the state gets control of our federal land. The state is more interested in profit than recreation.
I hear you, there are a couple of ranches that I know about that try to restrict access to public land by illegal posting. Some outfitters do the same thing. Good luck trying to find a public official or G&F employee to do anything about it.
 

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
Several people on this forum appear to agree that our federal lands should not be transferred to state or private ownership. The question is...what are going to do to stop the transfer? Here are some of things that I have done. Maybe you want to do some of the same.


I have emailed all 60 Wyoming state representatives urging them to vote against SF0056 or any effort to transfer federal lands.

I have emailed all 30 Wyoming state senators urging them to vote against SF0056 or any effort to transfer federal lands.

I have emailed the governor of Wyoming urging him to oppose SF0056 or any effort to transfer federal lands.

I have emailed my two United States senators and one representative urging them to oppose any effort to transfer federal lands.

I have submitted a letter to the editor to Wyoming's two major newspapers objecting to the transfer of federal lands.

I have contacted several national sportsman's organizations offering to help them fight this movement.

In the future, I intend to contribute financially if I can find an organization passionate about stopping this movement.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Okielite I think you are missing one major factor in that if the federal government no longer managed the land, they they sure as heck are not going to fund the accounts necessary to operate them. The states would be on the hook to find the money, which out west one fire season alone could be enough to put any state in the black, and that's just the Fire Management aspect.

Secondly, if all our public land was put into the money making business, you can guarantee that the restrictions would tighten up so fast for every single type of recreation, that you will need a permit just to watch the sunset from your favorite vantage point, oh yeah at that will cost you $30.00.
That is absolutely not true. The federal government could easily pay states to manage the federal land within its' borders instead of letting the USFS do it. You guys keep acting like simple concepts are impossible.

It would not be difficult to incorporate the existing use and some federal funding into the transfer of management of the land. States get control of land within it's borders and the taxpayers save some $. Win Win.

It is my belief that the state would do a better job of managing the land and would sell the timber instead of letting it burn and putting the fire out with $. That could make a huge difference is the bottom line. not to mention getting fair market value for the grazing rights. The feds have mismanaged this land for too long. They simply waste the resources.

As far as your last statement it's just more of the same half truths and exaggerations you guys use to speak against the states managing the land within their borders. When you make ridiculous claims like that nobody takes you seriously. Makes about as much sense as claiming the land will be sold off and people wont' be allowed to camp in Wyoming.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
I agree MM that the fed gov doesn't do everything they can, and there should be some management happening. But the the Federal Gov should be the ones doing it.
The federal government has had the chance to do thing right. They failed miserably. some of that is no them and some is on the frivolous lawsuits they are subject to. States will cut through the BS and get something done instead of just making excuses. It can't be any worse so why not try.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Good hunting on federal land is not because of federal management. Its because of the states managing wildlife on it. The feds have all but destroyed hunting on alot of federal land by introducing wolves, not allowing predators to be managed, the misuse of the ESA, ect. Would you want the USFWS to take over wildlife management in all states?
Very good point. The answer is hell no. The state already sets many regulations on federal land including seasons, tags, units, etc... So why not let them control the rest of the management. Just makes sense.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
I call B.S. Wyoming only allows outfitters and residents to hunt wilderness areas. Lets not act like Wyoming as well as Colorado and other states are not already in bed with special interest groups. The states cower down to outfitters and ranchers when it come to public access.
Hell Colorado gives special tags to ranchers and outfitters to sell on the open market, tags that take the common guy 20 years to draw. They can't be trusted already so stop with the states are looking out for the hunter song.

If you believe the federal government is less corrupt than state government so be it. If you believe Washington can do a better job of managing land in Wyoming than people in Wyoming can so be it. I do not. The federal government is not good at much of anything IMO. This is just another example.
 

okielite

Banned
Jul 30, 2014
401
0
NW Nebraska
Correct HPD, you cannot camp or have an open fire on Wyoming (school trust) State land. 3 guesses as to who asked that provision in the laws regarding public use....Ranchers/Outfitters. They'd carry that law over to any federal land they would get title to. That's for sure and for certain.
Based on what? your opinion.

Wyoming is not trying to stop all dispersed camping in the state. There are reasons dispersed camping is not allowed on school trust land but camping is allowed on other state land like state parks. At least they allow hunting on state school trust land. Some states do not.

Wyoming is not against tourism. They are no against outdoor recreations they arenot against hunters. They want people to come to Wyoming on vacation.

There is not way they would stop all camping and sell the land off like you guys keep claiming is fact. Show us some examples of Wyoming selling off large pieces of state owned recreational land. If you can provide some examples you will have a great point. But the only piece of state land I know about them selling was deemed useless from a recreational standpoint and it was sold so the money could be used to buy property that offered more recreational opportunities.

I'm going to give you an example of the feds giving land to the state and the state doing a great job of managing it for recreational purposes. Fort Robinson State Park. And yes camping is allowed. It even has some wilderness next to it. And the state has paid for walk in hunting on some surrounding land and purchased some adjacent land for a WMA. Clearly nothing like what you describe happening.

History[edit]

In August 1873, the Red Cloud Agency was moved from the North Platte River to the White River, near what is now Crawford, Nebraska, in the northwest corner of the state. The following March, the U. S. Government authorized the establishment of a military camp at the agency site. Home to some 13,000 Lakotas, some of them hostile, the Agency was a source of tension on the Great Plains.

The camp was named Camp Robinson in honor of Lt. Levi H. Robinson, who had been killed by Indians while on a wood detail in February. In May, the camp was moved 1.5 miles (2.4 km) west of the agency to its present location; the camp was renamed Fort Robinson in January 1878. Fort Robinson played a major role in the Sioux Wars from 1876 to 1890. The Battle of Warbonnet Creek took place nearby in July 1876. Crazy Horse surrendered here with his band on May 6, 1877. On September 5 that year, he was fatally wounded while resisting imprisonment.[4] A historic plaque marks the site of his death.

In January 1879, Chief Morning Star (also known as Dull Knife) led the Northern Cheyenne in an outbreak from the agency. Because the Cheyenne had refused to return to Indian Territory, where they believed conditions were too adverse for them to survive, the army had been holding them without adequate food, water or heat during the severe winter to try to force them into submission. Soldiers hunted down the escapees and killed most over the next several weeks. The event marked the end of the Sioux and Cheyenne Wars in Nebraska.





Fort Robinson in 2003
In 1885, the 9th Cavalry Regiment, nicknamed the Buffalo Soldiers, was stationed at Fort Robinson. This was an all-black unit. During the next several years, the fort was enlarged and military training was a major activity. From 1889-1890, Second Lieutenant Charles Young served here and later was reassigned to the regiment. A black pioneer officer who had graduated from West Point, he was the highest-ranking black in the US Army throughout his career and achieved the rank of colonel.[5] From 1887-1898, the fort served as regimental headquarters. The post gymnasium and theatre, built in 1904, provided entertainment for the soldiers.[1]

In 1919 at the end of World War I, Fort Robinson became the world's largest quartermaster remount depot. It was used as a breeding and training center for horses and mules for the military. In addition, stallions owned by the military were used to breed with local stock to improve it. During World War II, the fort was the site of a K-9 corps training center. Later it was used to hold a German prisoner-of-war camp.

The army decided to abandon Fort Robinson in 1947; in the following year, it transferred the property to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), for its Beef Cattle Research Station. In the mid-1950s, efforts were made to preserve the fort as a historic site, prompted by the demolition of buildings. In 1955, the Nebraska State Historical Society began to acquire property on the fort; in 1956, they opened a museum on the site. The fort was declared a National Historic Landmark in 1960. The USDA closed its operation in 1971, transferring the property to the state of Nebraska.[1][3][6][7]

The fort is part of the Fort Robinson and Red Cloud Agency historic district, which includes Fort Robinson and the site of the second Red Cloud Agency (about 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to the east). The district also includes the Camp Camby site and the 1886 Percy Homestead.

The fort is managed by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, with some individual buildings operated by the Nebraska State Historical Society and the University of Nebraska. A quartermaster's stores building is now used as a playhouse by Chadron State College.[1]
 
Last edited:

highplainsdrifter

Very Active Member
May 4, 2011
703
128
Wyoming
okielite, I have been to Fort Robinson many times. It is located in a beautiful part of NW Nebraska with a very interesting history relating to Native Americans. The Fort deserves to be preserved and appears to be well managed.

Having said that, I noticed on the internet that it comprises about 22,000 acres. This pales in comparison to the 30 million acres of federal land in Wyoming. Yes Nebraska, or any state, is probably in a good position to manage 22,000 acres but I am absolutely convinced that Wyoming is not in a good position to manage 30 million acres.
 

WapitiBob

Veteran member
Mar 1, 2011
1,385
58
Bend, Orygun
Okie, I prefer to look at the current State Land uses for a snapshot of what our "rights" would be should the states take ownership of fed land. That picture is far from encouraging.
I'm not of the mindset that after the lands transfer, that somehow the states would miraculously change their policy on those newly acquired lands.

The states have already shown how they manage their lands, and many are a long long way from creating "recreational opportunities".