We must defeat this land exchange!! Columbus Peak!

[elks96]

I heard about this at the BOW convention… There was massive opposition last time, and unfortunately instead of defeating the trade they motioned to table the exchange.

We should all once again work together to deny this horrible exchange!!

 

[Chesterwyo]

What part of the state is this?

 

[DESKPOP]

What part of the state is this?

Near Dayton

 

[Wyolaska]

I think we as hunters or any public land user needs to look into the reason these public lands were set aside. State or federal public land was set aside for one reason and one reason only, to generate revenue. They weren’t designated to hunt, fish, trap or hike however we’ve gotten to do those things for free for a long time. How would you feel if you owned land and then went to trade or sell it and some group got a bunch of signatures and stopped you from doing what you wanted with your property? Just something to consider.

 

[treedagain]

I think we as hunters or any public land user needs to look into the reason these public lands were set aside. State or federal public land was set aside for one reason and one reason only, to generate revenue. They weren’t designated to hunt, fish, trap or hike however we’ve gotten to do those things for free for a long time. How would you feel if you owned land and then went to trade or sell it and some group got a bunch of signatures and stopped you from doing what you wanted with your property? Just something to consider.

What happens when all public land is sold? Think Europe. It's not all about the $$$

 

[Bookhead]

I think we as hunters or any public land user needs to look into the reason these public lands were set aside. State or federal public land was set aside for one reason and one reason only, to generate revenue. They weren’t designated to hunt, fish, trap or hike however we’ve gotten to do those things for free for a long time. How would you feel if you owned land and then went to trade or sell it and some group got a bunch of signatures and stopped you from doing what you wanted with your property? Just something to consider.

So you think public lands should be sold because the government owns it? Who owns the government?

 

[HikeHunt61]

I think we as hunters or any public land user needs to look into the reason these public lands were set aside. State or federal public land was set aside for one reason and one reason only, to generate revenue.

While it's true that there have been points in history where federal public lands were managed for growth/distribution and revenue, it was not the "original" intention. It made sense to use the land that way back in the 1800s, and now makes zero sense and is largely managed that way.

But you are fully correct about the states land grants being for the purpose of revenue. Of course, it is not required, just the original intention. If a state's schools are fully funded, then selling land is obviously for some other purpose which many people oppose.

 

[jm77]

But you are fully correct about the states land grants being for the purpose of revenue. Of course, it is not required, just the original intention. If a state's schools are fully funded, then selling land is obviously for some other purpose which many people oppose.

You might want to read the Wyoming Constitution. The State Land Board is constitutionally required to maximise profits on state lands for the trust beneficiaries.

I think we as hunters or any public land user needs to look into the reason these public lands were set aside. State or federal public land was set aside for one reason and one reason only, to generate revenue. They weren’t designated to hunt, fish, trap or hike however we’ve gotten to do those things for free for a long time. How would you feel if you owned land and then went to trade or sell it and some group got a bunch of signatures and stopped you from doing what you wanted with your property? Just something to consider.

You can't lump state and federal land together when discussing reasons as to why they were set aside and what they are used for. Federal lands are managed for multiple use and the public absolutely has a say in how they are managed. State land is much different, but ultimately fall under due process at the state level with elected officials on the line for their decisions.
.

 

[HikeHunt61]

You might want to read the Wyoming Constitution. The State Land Board is constitutionally required to maximise profits on state lands for the trust beneficiaries.

I'm sure each state sets their own rules- but they imposed them themselves. And requiring themselves to "maximize profits" doesn't mean "must sell".

If it did, there would be no state land left in Wyoming.

That said- the point I was making is that it is up to the states- not some "original intention". I suppose some states have laws that are used in courts to force their hands.

 

[elks96]

I think we as hunters or any public land user needs to look into the reason these public lands were set aside. State or federal public land was set aside for one reason and one reason only, to generate revenue. They weren’t designated to hunt, fish, trap or hike however we’ve gotten to do those things for free for a long time. How would you feel if you owned land and then went to trade or sell it and some group got a bunch of signatures and stopped you from doing what you wanted with your property? Just something to consider.

How would define revenue? Sorry but there should be much more considered than just monetary gains.

How would I feel if a bunch of people tried blocking my exchange? Maybe I would resize that I under valued the importance and benefit of that land? In this case his is a land exchange and one piece of land is dry and has minimal upside while another is a beautiful place with a lake, water and provides important access to more public lands…

 

[BuzzH]

I'm sure each state sets their own rules- but they imposed them themselves. And requiring themselves to "maximize profits" doesn't mean "must sell".

If it did, there would be no state land left in Wyoming.

That said- the point I was making is that it is up to the states- not some "original intention". I suppose some states have laws that are used in courts to force their hands.

Seems intuitively obvious every State that was given land at Statehood would impose rules, laws, and regulations regarding said land.

You said that it wasn't required to make money from State lands, not true, it absolutely is in Wyoming via the State Constitution, just like @jm77 stated.

Also fair to note, not all states raise revenue from state lands strictly for a school trust/education...Wyoming being one of those states.

 

[HikeHunt61]

You said that it wasn't required to make money from State lands, not true, it absolutely is in Wyoming via the State Constitution, just like @jm77 stated.

Not by the federal government was my point. Apparently, Wyoming has such a requirement. Got it...

 

[BuzzH]

Not by the federal government was my point. Apparently, Wyoming has such a requirement. Got it...

Right, but you didn't say that.

Would be pretty tough for the Feds to say, "here, have some free land at Statehood, while forever ceding ownership to all other Federal lands to the U.S. Government within the State border, and OH, BTW, we're going to tell you what to do with your State Lands".

Read a state enabling act from a Western State, they're all very similar. The State agreed to cede control of Federal Lands in exchange for the Feds giving them control/ownership of the State land they were given by the Feds at Statehood.

 

[HikeHunt61]

No, I did not say that, but it was apparent the point I was trying to make without being a Wyo constitutional scholar.

Let me try again.

Dude said we should all be good with selling public lands because that's what they are for.

I said not so much. Federal lands are hardly ever used for that purpose (in the big scheme).

States were given land mostly for funding schools (and 20% or so for other). They are not compelled to do anything however. Most states are particular about selling their land. Most states are fine with their budgets.

You stated that your own state compels you- and I said OK, got it. Sucks to be you, but it's not required by "original intent". In your case, the state tied it's own hands. Got it.

 

[BuzzH]

No, I did not say that, but it was apparent the point I was trying to make without being a Wyo constitutional scholar.

Let me try again.

Dude said we should all be good with selling public lands because that's what they are for.

I said not so much. Federal lands are hardly ever used for that purpose (in the big scheme).

States were given land mostly for funding schools (and 20% or so for other). They are not compelled to do anything however. Most states are particular about selling their land. Most states are fine with their budgets.

You stated that your own state compels you- and I said OK, got it. Sucks to be you, but it's not required by "original intent". In your case, the state tied it's own hands. Got it.

Its up to the States to determine what "original intent" with their State lands were...Feds ceded the land and all management authority.

No reason to confuse the issue.

 

[HikeHunt61]

I agree with that entirely.

 

[Joe2Kool]

Sticking to the OP, if I'm reading correctly, the state of WY is considering selling/transferring 560 acres of public land to a private party. Correct?

Revenue streams, public access, original intent aside, income from its sale is temporary. Loss of public land is permanent. As a NR, what can I do to discourage this transfer?

 

[elks96]

Sticking to the OP, if I'm reading correctly, the state of WY is considering selling/transferring 560 acres of public land to a private party. Correct?

Revenue streams, public access, original intent aside, income from its sale is temporary. Loss of public land is permanent. As a NR, what can I do to discourage this transfer?

The biggest is sending emails to the board members above and stating your opposition.

 

[HikeHunt61]

Sticking to the OP, if I'm reading correctly, the state of WY is considering selling/transferring 560 acres of public land to a private party. Correct?

Revenue streams, public access, original intent aside, income from its sale is temporary. Loss of public land is permanent. As a NR, what can I do to discourage this transfer?

Swapping 630 acres of private for 560 acres state, and paying $400K for value difference. The two areas are within a few miles of each other. I assume the ranch wants to consolidate for their purposes.

It's interesting that the state land dept asks the Wyo G&F about it's hunting opportunity (which they claim the swap provides roughly equal opportunity). Apparently, they at least consider that in the decision. Local residents seem to disagree with the G&F evaluation.

 

[elks96]

Swapping 630 acres of private for 560 acres state, and paying $400K for value difference. The two areas are within a few miles of each other. I assume the ranch wants to consolidate for their purposes.

It's interesting that the state land dept asks the Wyo G&F about it's hunting opportunity (which they claim the swap provides roughly equal opportunity). Apparently, they at least consider that in the decision. Local residents seem to disagree with the G&F evaluation.

The game and fish assessment was very weak. It was discussed earlier. The report the Game and Fish gives is not reflective of the issue. As a resilt there is an important push to have the Game and Fish develop a better report than the one asked for by the state land board.

As for the land quality. One is lush, green, has significant surface water with running, water and connects access to other public lands. The other land is dry barren, and maybe has a few pdogs and an occasional lope. If the people say it is not a good trade and the land owner is giving up acres and an additional $400,000 it is pretty obvious which is the better piece of land..

 

[Oldwyoelkhunter]

I am familiar with both areas. Elks96 is exactly right as to difference in quality. The landowner is attempting this because it is a great deal for him. It is not for the public. The area he is seeking is one of the best state lands in terms of natural resource quality in this part of the state. It will continue to provide both income and recreation opportunity for many years. The land he is trading cannot compare. If we sit back and let this fiasco occur we the public will lose.