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.
I don't think Ft Robinson proves that states can manage large pieces of land but it does demonstrate that if the federal government gives the state land that the state wont' stop all recreation and sell it off. Quite the opposite. The state has done a great job of purchasing adjacent land and opening up adjacent land with walk in hunting. Ft Rob is a great place for all types of recreation.
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".
That is not a clear picture IMO. Wyoming might not allow camping son state school sections for several reasons. But they do allow camping on other pieces of state land. In fact almost every state allows camping on their state parks. Just because they dont' allow camping on school sections does not mean they wont' on huge pieces of NF. That would make no sense. Wyoming is not trying to prevent people from camping in the state. They simply have reasons why they dont allow it on school sections.
If you could show that Wyoming was trying to stop tourism and outdoor recreation in the state by booting campers you would have a great point. If you had several examples of the state selling off well used recreational properties then you would have a great point. In reality this is just a bunch of exaggerations and half truths not based on the reality of the situation. But the overwhelming evidence as well as common sense will tell you that Wyoming wants people to visit and work hard to provide recreational opportunities for visitors.
I think one point to keep in mind is that transferring the management of the land and ownership of the land are 2 different things. Would you be more agreeable if the state managed the land but feds kept ownership?
On you last statement I have no idea how you could come to that conclusion. The state does plenty to create recreational opportunities for people. Here is a list of the many state parks, historical sites, etc that the state of Wyoming supports. http://wyoparks.state.wy.us/Site/Index.aspx
Not to mention all the other things like access yes which opens up thousands of acres for recreation like hunting and fishing. Things like the state run game bird program for pheasants to give more people the opportunity to hunt them. Billboards on the side of the higway to help convince you to vacation in Wyoming. The list goes on an on. What else do you want them to do?
The sooner you realize that the state doesn't' want to kick all campers and hunters out of Wyoming and sell the land the more realistic you can be with your expectations. Until then this is just the same old worn out exaggerations and half truths.
Yesterday, the Wyoming Senate passed first reading of SF0056. The bill still needs to pass two more readings in the senate and then three in the house. So there is time to express your opinion on this. You can find legislator contact information at:
Apparently they have softened the language a bit by taking out words relating to transfer of federal land...now calling it state management of federal land. In either case, the bill sets up a potential showdown with the feds. And with all the reasons stated on this forum, sportsmen should not want the state to manage federal land.
Even if you are from out of state, I encourage you to contact the Wyoming Legislature. This is your federal land they are talking about!
Here it is! Pay particular attention to the section "To preserve and promote the State's interest in". There's more language in the bill about who gets what money from the transfer of public lands than preserving access or recreation.
Here it is! Pay particular attention to the section "To preserve and promote the State's interest in". There's more language in the bill about who gets what money from the transfer of public lands than preserving access or recreation.
Yeah, this one is demanding the release of federal lands to the State. Also take notice of the sponsors of the bill and their positions within the legislature.
Scott, I enthusiastically agree. I have written letters until my fingers are sore, but they appear to be doing no good. The only thing that will stop this is if MANY people contact them.
Make no mistake about it, recreational use of our public land is at risk here. Recreational uses cannot compete with consumptive uses in a for-profit management model that the state is likely to impose. If you are a hunter, fisherman, ATVer, snowmobiler, hiker, RVer or other recreationist, you should be very concerned about this.
I have one question for the people who want the transfer and keep talking about tourism. What makes Wyoming the most money, tourism or mineral extraction? The reason I ask is yes maybe they wouldn't sell off the national forest. But they sure as heck would look at selling off a ton of BLM.
"11 (b) If the state subsequently transfers title to any
12 public lands received under subsection (a) of this section,
13 the state shall:
14
15 (i) Retain five percent (5%) of the net proceeds
16 the state receives from the transfer of title; and
17
18 (ii) Transfer ninety-five percent (95%) of the
19 net proceeds the state receives from the transfer of title
20 to the United States."
I dont think the state would be trying to get the land so they could sell it and only keep 5% of the sales.
In the early days of this country the federal government did not want to own land and made a point of getting rid of any land they owned as fast as they could. This is why there is no federal land in the eastern states. Years later when the western states came to be the federal government decided to keep ownership of alot of land. Now the western states are saying they want the land transferred to them like it was in the eastern states long ago.
I understand your logic MM, but it is 5% that they wouldn't have otherwise. What happened back east with States owning a bunch of public land is the model which scares everyone. How much accessible land do they have now 100 yrs later?
Im not sure alot of the public land in the east was ever in state ownership? That 95/5 deal is a deal that already exists and the state is just saying they would continue it. If they were saying that deal would no longer exist I would be concerned but as it is written it really doesnt change any existing regs.
I understand your logic MM, but it is 5% that they wouldn't have otherwise. What happened back east with States owning a bunch of public land is the model which scares everyone. How much accessible land do they have now 100 yrs later?
Yep, that's a real problem. I live in the 25th largest state, and we are 47th in terms of public land. Public land hunting opportunities are limited (and crowded); most public sites have permit lotteries to limit access to a somewhat manageable number. Leases are expensive.
The federal government was giving away land in the past to encourage economic development, not to simply allow states to keep and manage the land. And yes, a lot of it probably did pass directly from the feds to private parties. (also one of the reasons that we ended up with checkerboard land ownership: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkerboarding_(land) )
Today, SF0056 passed third and final reading in the senate. We have lost the battle in the senate. We must now focus on stopping HB0209 in the House of Representatives. If HB209 passes, the two bodies will get together in conference committee to iron out the differences and then send it to the governor for signature. Let's do everything we can to make sure HB0209 does not pass. The Wyoming Outdoor Council is solidly against HB0209 and has provided a website to make it easier to comment on HB0209: http://www.congressweb.com/WYOC/4
If it is any consolation, residents of Wyoming, consider this:
There is a general consensus among contstitutional scholars that a state takeover of Federal Lands would be unconstitutional.
The good part about this is that it is highly unlikely that any takeover will occur, regardless of what the state legislature and governor do.
The bad part is that Wyoming will end up wasting a bunch of taxpayer money on "studying" and maybe even litigating the issue. Utah, of course, has already gone down that road.
The reference study for federal ownership is the University of Maryland's commisioned Report to Congress on the issue from 2007:
Anyone that thinks this proposal is about revenues generated from surface uses, whether the state retains title or not, is either uninformed, or very naive.
Subsurface mineral rights and royalties are all that the legislature and the bill's/file's sponsors are interested. The government's cut on the $$ generated by minerals and oil and gas extraction make the surface revenues, whatever they may be, look like less than a drop in the bucket. Annual revenues in Wyoming alone are in the multi-millions (sometimes billions, dependent on the market), and long term revenues are in the multi billions. If/when the states were to ever gain title to federal lands, they could and would sell the surface rights off in a heartbeat and not blink an eye, whether the state gets 5% of the sale or 5000% of the sale it pales in comparison to the value of the mineral rights, which the state would keep and exploit.
The individual states, whether its Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, or any other, are in the business of making money for the benefit of their citizens, as they well should be, that's what the respective state constitutions call for. Their definition of multiple use is different than the definition on federal lands, and it does not include free use for recreation. Look on the state land board's web site, it is clearly spelled out. The public has been offered the privilege of accessing state lands, not a right. If your interest is generating profit, and if your definition of multiple use only applies to those uses that generate profit, that's fine, but please don't blow smoke up our a***s and try and tell people that this is about managing surface uses (grazing, forest management, etc.) "better" than the federal government. Truth be told, the only reason that the citizens of the United States can access federal public lands is because it is managed under a true multiple use concept (defined by law) not bound by making a profit from every use. There is nothing in the constitution which says anything about public access to public lands.
As an aside, the above post is right, there is no way the United States government will cede interest in public lands. The state of Wyoming already gave up that right in the Articles of Admission to the Union. That is clearly spelled out in black and white. This is a waste of tax dollars to the tune of $100K, which I guess is alright, since the lion's share of Wyoming's tax revenue comes from the extractive minerals industries, which are behind passage of the bills/files.
