Page 12 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 257
  1. #111
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 504 Times in 195 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 9 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    First I'd read on the guy. I'm as conservative as they come, but he fell off the turnip truck.
    Yup, he is really out there.


    Eastmans' Staff Digital Media Coordinator

  2. #112
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    IMHO the people who insist that the state could better manage the land are missing the point. This issue is not about management, it is about access. An argument could be made on both sides for who could better manage the land. But if the state were to get control and sometime in the future sell some/all of the land, the resulting private land would be lost to access. Well managed private land could just as well be on the moon, if you can't get access to it. With federal ownership, we can be much more confident that the land won't be sold. I will be happy to trade less than idea federal management for continued access.

  3. #113
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    IMHO the people who insist that the state could better manage the land are missing the point. This issue is not about management, it is about access. An argument could be made on both sides for who could better manage the land. But if the state were to get control and sometime in the future sell some/all of the land, the resulting private land would be lost to access. Well managed private land could just as well be on the moon, if you can't get access to it. With federal ownership, we can be much more confident that the land won't be sold. I will be happy to trade less than idea federal management for continued access.
    Can you give some examples of what you are referring to where states like Wyoming are selling off hunting land?

  4. #114
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    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.

  5. #115
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    586
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 163 Times in 129 Posts
    Congratulations
    32
    Congratulated 5 Times in 2 Posts
    As far as Wyoming goes, the Office of State Lands and Investments buys, sells, and trades land on a fairly regular basis albeit on a small scale for the most part. Back when the land in the state was originally surveyed and broken up, two sections per township, 16 & 36, were assigned to be under state control with the original thinking that this 1280 acres could produce revenue by various means for the school districts residing in these townships, hence the term "school sections". Over time, the State has sold some of these sections, but for the most part they've held control of these lands and used leases for the revenue generation. By enlarge, the State owns a very small portion of the public lands throughout the state, and the ones they actively manage, being the State Parks, are mis-managed and continuously have budget shortfalls. These State Parks have far, far more restrictions on them than they had even 10 years ago and, unfortunately, it's getting to the point where the Rangers borderline harass people looking to write tickets for revenue generation.

    Given the sample of how the State currently manages it's very small piece of the pie as far as public lands go, I don't think they'd stand a chance in hell of properly managing lands on a large scale with the end result being the selling off of such land to get out from under it which is what we're trying to avoid.

  6. #116
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    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.
    So your scenario is purely hypothetical and is not based on any actual states selling off large pieces of public land used for hunting?

  7. #117
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by libidilatimmy View Post
    As far as Wyoming goes, the Office of State Lands and Investments buys, sells, and trades land on a fairly regular basis albeit on a small scale for the most part. Back when the land in the state was originally surveyed and broken up, two sections per township, 16 & 36, were assigned to be under state control with the original thinking that this 1280 acres could produce revenue by various means for the school districts residing in these townships, hence the term "school sections". Over time, the State has sold some of these sections, but for the most part they've held control of these lands and used leases for the revenue generation. By enlarge, the State owns a very small portion of the public lands throughout the state, and the ones they actively manage, being the State Parks, are mis-managed and continuously have budget shortfalls. These State Parks have far, far more restrictions on them than they had even 10 years ago and, unfortunately, it's getting to the point where the Rangers borderline harass people looking to write tickets for revenue generation.

    Given the sample of how the State currently manages it's very small piece of the pie as far as public lands go, I don't think they'd stand a chance in hell of properly managing lands on a large scale with the end result being the selling off of such land to get out from under it which is what we're trying to avoid.
    I don't 'understand how someone could look at our current system of managing federal land and think that there is no way to improve it.

  8. #118
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 504 Times in 195 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 9 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post
    I don't 'understand how someone could look at our current system of managing federal land and think that there is no way to improve it.
    No one is against improving it, but the proposed solutions are non-starters.

  9. #119
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,076
    Thanks
    37
    Thanked 242 Times in 198 Posts
    Congratulations
    2
    Congratulated 2 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post
    So your scenario is purely hypothetical and is not based on any actual states selling off large pieces of public land used for hunting?
    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!

  10. #120
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    946
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 504 Times in 195 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 9 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Topgun 30-06 View Post
    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!
    Well stated.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •