08-19-2014, 07:09 PM
It takes quite the consumption of resources with no guarantee of royalty amounts, the companies could pull out and go elsewhere while keeping wells at a minimum to hold leases. (Have seriously seen a .39 royalty check....technically it wasn't worth the stamp) the municipalities always have a habit of spending/budgeting for that money before they get it, just like some individuals who've had producing wells but don't really have a pot to tinkle in bc they've already burned through the money.
Originally Posted by libidilatimmy
Logging it also tricky bc you can't just flood the market without it being counterproductive.
The Following User Says Thank You to packmule For This Useful Post:
08-19-2014, 07:14 PM
Have you been to Gillette lately Packmule? I am not sure where they think they have the money for this new sports "stadium", but we built it, hopefully the $ comes along, too. They either built it on rumors of a new boom or they know something I don't.
Sorry for all the posts today. It was slow at work and this was interesting.
08-19-2014, 07:35 PM
I've been to Gillette Stadium. It's probably been 5 years since I've gone through Gillette, WY though. Maybe they're banking on a bunch of excess tax revenue from the cattle market.
08-19-2014, 08:06 PM
I agree, making more leases available is not a end solution, but it would help. A complex problem will take complex solutions to resolve.
Originally Posted by packmule
08-19-2014, 08:34 PM
Yes it will, so it's one of those things to not dive off into.
For logging, a corporation out of Oregon has millions of acres of prime timber land along the Gulf Coast and it's been a somewhat recent transaction that they're still paying for (and cutting like crazy to make pmts). There are sawmills everywhere down here and they can cut here, mill and ship to the NW cheaper than it can be done in the NW. What the NW might have are saw logs that are 40'+ with minimum 16" centers. Those as piers are a requirement now in many places for beach houses to get insured.
08-20-2014, 09:01 AM
To put the land back in the hands of those states who have more at stake, cut costs, improve management, be more efficient, save tax dollars, shrink the federal government, etc.... Do you remember when the gov shutdown was going on? The state of South Dakota tried to operate Mt Rushmore on their own because they knew that if Mt Rushmore was closed it was bad for the state. It made me realize how the states might be better at running things in their state versus a large federal government management that has a 1 size fits all approach and is simply not efficient.
Originally Posted by libidilatimmy
I never argued that states could simply absorb the costs, never. They would still require federal funding but it would be less than what is currently spent. There might be ways to increase revenue by getting fair value for grazing leases and increased logging activity which would provide income. We agree on the logging activity. I personally believe that if states owned the land it would be easier for them to do things like logging without all the gov red tape and lawsuits.
The reason you don't see any large properties on the links you provided is because you are dealing with a bunch of non recreational properties that have nothing to do with this discussion. Nothing. As TG pointed out some of the property on the Texas site was private. Most are less than an acre lots and some are even measured in square feet. . The state has no need to own property like this as it serves no purpose to the people it the state. You need to find some actual examples of states selling large pieces of recreational land if you want to make a point that makes sense. I've already given examples of land that was given to the state and the state did a great job of managing it and keeping it open for recreational activities, FT Robinson State Park. We have already established that Wyoming has laws that prevent it from selling state recreational land so clearly laws can be written to prevent the scenario you are trying to scare people into believing is true.
08-20-2014, 09:19 AM
Obviously that was put in place to prevent what you are talking about from happening. So can you give us any examples of the land board voting to sell off large pieces of recreational property? Any?
Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter
You keep trying to scare us into believing that something is going to happen but you can't give an example where is has actually happened. Discussion is going nowhere at this point. Please find an example to back up your point so we can continue or we might as well just stop as you aren't backing up your side of the argument with any proof.
08-20-2014, 09:25 AM
Here, you'll find a school section plus 200 acres totaling 850 acres in Natrona county that is currently going through the approval process for sale. It doesn't have a boat ramp, bathroom, or camping spots on it so I bet this won't count either.
08-20-2014, 10:57 AM
Look. You know darn well the examples you gave before had nothing to do with this. Stop with all the whining and get real.
Originally Posted by libidilatimmy
After digging through that info it appears the land is zoned residential and ag and is just outside of Casper off the highway. They also outline why the piece of property does not meet their needs including minimal income potential and no public access or recreational value. If you read through the info it is quote apparent why they are selling the land. All this proves is that the state will get rid of pieces of property that dont' offer public access or recreational value and use the money to buy property that meets those requirements. If anything it shows how the state of Wyoming is looking to improve public access and increase recreational opportunities on it's land not that it want to get rid of accessible land that offers recreational opportunities. Actually proves my point and not yours.
Here is their quote.
As noted above the subject parcels are relatively small, surrounded by private land, and offers no recreational opportunities. Sale of the parcels would offer the opportunity for the state to acquire lands that would enhance public recreational access.
08-20-2014, 11:39 AM
Here is a potential compromise, maybe. It concludes that some lands should be transferred to the state, some in trusts, and some going to private. The only problems I see are that the state could still mismanage BLM and NF lands and be politically charged (Wyoming might swing to the opposite side of the political spectrum and be even less eco-friendly which is not really good either). Also if the transition could still be subsidized by the feds, which may or may not be likely, it might be a good option. I am just still worried about losing billions of dollars and going through a real rough patch while things are worked out with any transfer. That seems like it was the reason that these reforms and transfers haven't worked in the past. Maybe it could be different this time.
Seedskeedee in SW Wyoming is a really important spot for migrating birds, and I would hate to lose those types of places with state control if they decided they couldn't afford it. I doubt that Seedskeedee supports itself. When I have gone there I was the only one in the whole place for days it seemed like. Maybe that would be a good trust land option for a specific trust, but how would someone decide which places need protection trusts, which can be strip mined, etc. Lib is right, its super complicated.
Still slow today, sorry. It is kindof nice having a little break, I was getting tired. Now you guys have to put up with me, neenerneener