Page 15 of 26 FirstFirst ... 5131415161725 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 257
  1. #141
    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 Againstthewind View Post
    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.
    Actually the employees would be easy to hire. They already live in these areas and already manage the land for the feds. By hiring the best people from the federal government the transition would be much easier. So you cut the # of people it takes to manage the land by 50% and drop all the dead weight employees and federal government waste. You cut out some of the ridiculous requirements the federal government are required to do by transferring the land to the state and suddenly you can manage the same piece of land for much less per acre and keep the public use similar to what it currently is. Then go in and get fair market value for the grazing, ag, and mineral leases. There are ways to improve how the feds manage land.

  2. #142
    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
    http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/landsale/...SearchType=Pub

    Michigan does frequent land sales as well. I agree that some of the parcels would have little to no value from a recreational stand point. Although, it is state owned land that they don't want to spend the time or resources to manage and are trying to produce revenue from the acreage by it's sale. How the properties were acquired by the state, whether by tax lien, donation, etc., is really inconsequential since they stand to profit from the sale.

    I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed.

  3. #143
    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 Topgun 30-06 View Post
    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.
    Cool off. No reason to start insulting peoples intelligence or get angry. I think you must have gotten confused about who said what. I'm not the one claiming Wyoming would sell off land if it could. That was the guy who claims he worked for the state for 30 years (you would think he might know about the statutes you mentioned). Thanks for confirming that Wyoming has laws in place to prevent the sale of state owned land. Obviously things can be done to prevent the land from being sold if it was transferred to the state.

    As far as large tracts I've already given some examples in Wyoming. There is a nice piece of state land north of Manville that I have hunted in. Really nice. Also some of the state parks are quite large. I've also given examples of land in other states like FT Robinson which was federal land that was transferred to the state and the state has done a great job of managing it for outdoor recreation. Obviously states can manage land.

  4. #144
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gillette, WY
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    318
    Thanked 92 Times in 83 Posts
    Congratulations
    33
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    http://wyofile.com/gregory_nickerson...federal-funds/
    This was a good article I thought.

  5. #145
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    925
    Thanks
    53
    Thanked 494 Times in 191 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 9 Times in 5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by libidilatimmy View Post
    http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/landsale/...SearchType=Pub

    Michigan does frequent land sales as well. I agree that some of the parcels would have little to no value from a recreational stand point. Although, it is state owned land that they don't want to spend the time or resources to manage and are trying to produce revenue from the acreage by it's sale. How the properties were acquired by the state, whether by tax lien, donation, etc., is really inconsequential since they stand to profit from the sale.

    I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed.
    The problem with selling the low value pieces is that in turn the list gets shorter of what is owned by state. If we sell from the bottom of the list eventually the list reaches the untouchables.

  6. #146
    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
    If you look at those pieces of land in Michigan they seem more like land that was owned because of delinquent tax payments or other means. They dont' look like large pieces of recreational property to me. I dont' think that really proves that states would sell off large pieces of land if it was transferred to them. It simply proves that states have no interest in small pieces of land acquired through things like not paying taxes and that land/lots such as that will be sold off, which makes perfect sense.

  7. #147
    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
    Sorry if you took it as an insult and I'm not angry, but you keep coming up with baseless statements that are incorrect and easily debunked. State Parks are one thing that already benefits the entire population and the biggest share of them don't allow hunting, so there would be no reason to sell what is making money and being enjoyed by a vast majority of residents and many NRs. I thought we were talking about wild lands, rather than land like parks where many already have an expensive infrastructure that would make no sense in selling it off. You keep saying a nice piece of land here and a nice piece of land there, but the majority are not considered big chunks of land like we're talking about. It sounds like what you are calling big is a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things. What we're gettin at is the way things are set up now the entire country is putting money into these Federal lands, regardless of whether we agree or disagree as to the proper management of them. Given that, where would you propose that the money would come from when a state such as Nevada that doesn't have a pot to piss in took over the vast Federal lands and there was a year of vast fires like is becoming more and more common every year. That would break that state in a month unless you can tell us where
    all the money would come from without borrowing to the hilt for our great grandchildren to pay off or selling off a bunch of it off.

  8. #148
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottR View Post
    The problem with selling the low value pieces is that in turn the list gets shorter of what is owned by state. If we sell from the bottom of the list eventually the list reaches the untouchables.
    Agreed.....

  9. #149
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gillette, WY
    Posts
    386
    Thanks
    318
    Thanked 92 Times in 83 Posts
    Congratulations
    33
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I am glad that Fort Robinson was mentioned in a positive light. My in-laws are part of the management there and we "honey mooned" there. Cool place.

  10. #150
    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 Topgun 30-06 View Post
    Sorry if you took it as an insult and I'm not angry, but you keep coming up with baseless statements that are incorrect and easily debunked. State Parks are one thing that already benefits the entire population and the biggest share of them don't allow hunting, so there would be no reason to sell what is making money and being enjoyed by a vast majority of residents and many NRs. I thought we were talking about wild lands, rather than land like parks where many already have an expensive infrastructure that would make no sense in selling it off. You keep saying a nice piece of land here and a nice piece of land there, but the majority are not considered big chunks of land like we're talking about. It sounds like what you are calling big is a drop in the bucket in the overall scheme of things. What we're gettin at is the way things are set up now the entire country is putting money into these Federal lands, regardless of whether we agree or disagree as to the proper management of them. Given that, where would you propose that the money would come from when a state such as Nevada that doesn't have a pot to piss in took over the vast Federal lands and there was a year of vast fires like is becoming more and more common every year. That would break that state in a month unless you can tell us where
    all the money would come from without borrowing to the hilt for our great grandchildren to pay off or selling off a bunch of it off.

    Has nothing to do with me taking it as an insult. It was an insult. Here is your exact quote. If you knew half as much as you think you do, Don't be surprised when you get a negative reaction when you say something like that to someone.

    You don't know who I am but I know who you are. In fact I've communicated with you via PM on another site.

    Baseless statements that are incorrect? Feel free to point them out.

    You can hunt in the state parks I mentioned. I know there are tags for Curt Gowdy and you can hunt a good part of Glendo. You can also hunt Ft Robinson St park which I used as an example. So clearly my examples allow hunting.

    The piece of land North of Manville looks like it covers appx 50 sq miles. Obviously a nice piece of property that holds deer, elk, antelope, etc..
    Ft Robinson is appx 22k acres and Packsaddle WMA in Oklahoma is about 20k acres.
    Obviously I have given examples of states managing larger pieces of land for public use including hunting.

    Obviously there would still need to be some federal $ to assist the states in doing this but I have no doubt that there are ways to manage that land more efficiently with less $. That is how you help slow down the debt we are creating for out kids, cut costs.

    Again please point out what I said that was incorrect, and baseless. I have given you examples of everything I talked about so far and have not insulted you in any way shape or form and plan on keeping it that way.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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