Page 17 of 26 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 257
  1. #161
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    1,589
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 187 Times in 145 Posts
    Congratulations
    5
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Topgun 30-06 View Post
    If you click on that Texas link and go from Region to Region, you'll see a lot of the land up for sale is private property and there is very little acerage of substance for sale in the entire state.
    Feds are trying to buy in Tx to increase the Big Thicket National Corridor and majority of state land has been donated or is in trusts held by the University of Texas and Texas A&M University and funds off drilling the properties funneled into the public education fund for those 2 school systems (which is low 9 figures annually now, but has been happening since the early 1900s). Some has been donated to conservation groups to keep reservoirs from being built.

    Some of the land donated to the state schools or state agencies to escape estate taxes is sold off in auctions. 2 years ago a family member bought a place that was donated to a state school, it was a tract that finally allowed land access to thousands of acres of public land and it went on the market quick. This all happened without public knowledge.

  2. #162
    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
    Realistically, the money isn't there now to manage these lands that are the point of discussion, and with all of the stipulations that the Feds would most likely set forth if any such transaction were to be made could quite possibly end up being more of a financial burden than when the Feds controlled the land. Sure, there are more efficient ways to do all things when it comes to government, but when you walk in and terminate half of the workforce in the FS and they can't find any jobs and file for unemployment, you and I are still paying for their meals through taxes, same as before. Additionally, the Feds would most certainly not allocate the same amount of funding towards these lands since the root of the problem is financial burdening the State further.
    I simply don't follow your argument. The money is there as the land is currently managed. The transaction could be as complicated or as simple as they want to make it. If we can manage it more efficiently we will save money. That is the point.

    I'm not concerned with finding employment for all the lazy government employees. If they really want to work they can go to North Dakota and get a job anytime they want one. Finding a job is a personal problem we are all faced with.

    So since you think that transferring the land is a terrible idea that would never work what is your suggestion to improve the situation?

  3. #163
    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
    Easy now, let's keep it civil. You were provided with examples of state's selling land, but you chose that they didn't count for whatever reason.
    Um the examples you showed had nothing to do with large pieces of recreational property. Trying to compare a .25 acre lot that the state received because of delinquent taxes has no similarities to what we are discussing. Did you look at the links? Clearly that state does not want to own a bunch of small pieces of property that offer no recreational value so they sell them. Unfortunately that does not prove your point about states selling the land off if it was transferred to them. My guess is most states have a similar program to get rid of these types of property.

    If you could provide examples where states were selling off large pieces of recreational land you would have a point. Please feel free to provide some examples if you want to continue the discussion. I've already provided plenty of examples to confirm my side of the discussion.

  4. #164
    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
    This whole debate is really conjecture on both sides. One side says the land will be sold and the other says there would be no reason to sell it and it would be cheaper by having it under individual state management. Right now a lot of state laws would probably need to be changed and as long as Congress at the Federal level has to approve significant Federal land sales and it remains deadlocked with no party majority I doubt things will change. I know a little bit about land sales and swaps because a friend and I both appealed a tentative land swap in Wyoming between a rancher and the BLM. We lost at the local level and went through all the hoops and won an appeal at the Federal Judge level of the BLM in DC. However, the state BLM manager knowingly violated the law and signed off on the deed exchange while the appeal was in process. The Judge sent a letter castigating him for doing that, but then also sent us a letter apologizing for the violation and stated that our only recourse was to file an expensive appeal at the Federal level in DC that would have cost a fortune because he could not reverse the transaction at his level. Within a year or two the BLM manager in Cheyenne died a very excruciating death from cancer and it reminded me of an old saying that my Dad always had in that what goes around comes around. I'm pretty sure he got money under the table from the rancher to do what he did and I don't have little doubt that he was also involved in a very shady deal with the same millionaire rancher several years before that when they exchanged several thousand acres of land that the G&F even sent a letter to the BLM asking them not to because it wasn't landlocked BLM property and was a fantastic hunting and fishing property. Now I look over that land from a high point on what is left and see hundreds of elk that I could be hunting if it wasn't for that shady deal being made. I guess what I'm getting at is to be careful what you wish for because it may come back to bite you in the butt!

  5. #165
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Sterling, Colorado
    Posts
    248
    Thanks
    34
    Thanked 26 Times in 25 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 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.
    Unbelievable, but if you want to become a big wig in Wyoming, the best way to succeed is to bad mouth the Feds. Wyomingites HATE FEDS WITH A PASSION.

  6. #166
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 163 Times in 129 Posts
    Congratulations
    41
    Congratulated 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post
    I simply don't follow your argument. The money is there as the land is currently managed. The transaction could be as complicated or as simple as they want to make it. If we can manage it more efficiently we will save money. That is the point.

    I'm not concerned with finding employment for all the lazy government employees. If they really want to work they can go to North Dakota and get a job anytime they want one. Finding a job is a personal problem we are all faced with.

    So since you think that transferring the land is a terrible idea that would never work what is your suggestion to improve the situation?
    If the money is currently there now, then what is the reason for the sale that is currently proposed? My partial solution to this problem is to reel in the EPA to allow for more timber and energy leases to get executed providing more revenue. You argue that the states could absorb such costs but the examples you provide hardly compare to the vast areas that we're talking about. The reason you don't see any large properties on the links I provided is that the states want to divide the larger tracts up into more affordable pieces for quicker sale and higher profits. If you look closer, there were some larger pieces broken out into 20-80 acre portions.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to libidilatimmy For This Useful Post:


  8. #167
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Gillette, WY
    Posts
    385
    Thanks
    318
    Thanked 92 Times in 83 Posts
    Congratulations
    38
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    ^^ I think that is right on the money. ^^ Its the same way private ranches are being sold, subdivided in to smaller tracts for quick sales. Which kindof sucks, but that is life. I don't see where the money would come from either. The state parks charge $5 a day if you don't have the yearly pass deal. That is crazy and it is $10 or $15 or even $20 to camp, that includes improved campgrounds in the NF and they are still not making any money. Those 20k acre state parks and even Fort Robinson are pretty small. There are lots of ranches bigger than that, even just over the hill in Harrison. Land sales aside, I still don't see how it would be feasible for Wyoming to take over federal lands. I have been trying to keep an open mind and read through everything, but the departments are not built that way right now. There are some good government employees, too. I agree there is a lot of waste and improvements could be made, but it might be easier to work within the current system. I see a lot of people that try to reinvent the wheel because they see a way to improve things, but a lot of times they end up making the same mistakes other people have already made and learned from. Other states might be in a different position, though. I am not one of the 9000 that signed the secession petition by the way. Well, dead horse beating accomplished!

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Againstthewind For This Useful Post:


  10. #168
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    1,589
    Thanks
    49
    Thanked 187 Times in 145 Posts
    Congratulations
    5
    Congratulated 1 Time in 1 Post
    Where will the water & housing come from for energy development. Also important to note the majority of revenue created will leave the state.

  11. #169
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    589
    Thanks
    115
    Thanked 163 Times in 129 Posts
    Congratulations
    41
    Congratulated 5 Times in 2 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    Where will the water & housing come from for energy development. Also important to note the majority of revenue created will leave the state.
    The revenue I speak of would be royalties which gets divided up between federal and, in a round about way, state governments. If there is a need for housing and/or infrastructure it always gets built even if the funding comes from private industry. I'm not suggesting we open the flood gates letting companies rape and pillage our resources, but they could loosen things up a little more, especially logging.

  12. #170
    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
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post
    So you claim to have 30 years of experience in Wyoming and know the state laws well but then you turn around and tell us that if the land was transferred to Wyoming that they would sell it all? Makes no sense as laws prohibit what you describe from happening in the first place.

    Basically in a transfer there would need to be some rules like the land can't be sold and the use can't change drastically.

    You still never answered my question in post 129. At this point you keep telling me I am wrong and you want to compare our background/resume but you can't even provide 1 example of a state selling off a large piece of recreational property like you claimed would happen. Yet I've provided specific examples of everything I discussed and you have not even provided 1 example for your side of the argument.

    There is a credibility issue but it's not with me. Try proving your point with examples instead of simply telling me I'm wrong and waving your resume around. You will be taken much more seriously if you do so.
    Okielite, If you read the part of the statute that is in italics you will see that the statute does not prohibit the sale of state land. It simply requires the majority vote of the state land board. That does not provide much protection against the sale of state land. Sorry you missed my point. I will speak more slowly next time.

 

 

Posting Permissions

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