12 states join Utah

[Shed God]

They going to try and sell it

 

[Forkyfinder]

Do you think this may possibly cause more Campbell county coal companies to shut down at a rate even greater than they already have been the past several years?

Also, might the increase in coal cost compel electricity providers to switch to gas (or other sources) at a rate even faster than they already have been the past several years?

Finally- the “threat” of reduced coal extraction (burning) might appeal to a lot of people on the left of the aisle. This would be a perfect talking point to appeal to the green-minded folks.

Ah yeah. You know where a lot of the prime "wind/solar/nuclear/gas" resources are right?

A lot of federal land. Especially in Co, NV, and WY.

If you looked at hunting tag prices- youd know folks from there arent exactly fond of giving people like you a discount.

 

[Treeshark]

If you looked at hunting tag prices- youd know folks from there arent exactly fond of giving people like you a discount.

Ain’t that the truth!

Speaking of, it’s about the time of year when I need to start sending my wife to Biolife to pay for my applications. Thank you for the reminder

 

[Forkyfinder]

Ain’t that the truth!

Speaking of, it’s about the time of year when I need to start sending my wife to Biolife to pay for my applications. Thank you for the reminder

So what do you suppose happens when the states own the land, and manage it for the state's resident benefit?

 

[Treeshark]

So what do you suppose happens when the states own the land, and manage it for the state's resident benefit?

My guess is they would sell a large portion of it.

If not, I predict not much would change (specific to hunting). States already manage game populations for their resident’s benefit.

 

[Forkyfinder]

My guess is they would sell a large portion of it.

Right.

Have you compared lease rates for BLM land and private land?

 

[Treeshark]

Right.

Have you compared lease rates for BLM land and private land?

Oh yeah, I compare them all the time.

 

[TheTone]

My guess is they would sell a large portion of it.

If not, I predict not much would change (specific to hunting). States already manage game populations for their resident’s benefit.

my state land agency doesn’t take wildlife into account much from my experience. If it doesn’t make a dollar for them through logging it or selling a lease to graze, farm or mine it then it’s of little use to them. The employees are very very quick to say the land they manage isn’t public land but is endowment land. I also know they have been approached in the past with people wanting exclusive hunting leases and it was a difficult thing for them to say no to

 

[TOGIE]

This is hard to say, but 2025 looks like the end-date for BLM’s tombstone.

Nah. I think the thing is BLM ceasing to exist as an agency means there are no more BLM surface or mineral rights to manage and I would suspect it's impossible to dispose of that amount of land and minerals at whatever market value it realistically has in just 4 years.

PLT? Maybe that avenue would do it. But I don't agree with the sentiment that congress would fully be on board with all of this anyway. At least not in the fashion we are most worried about. Perhaps that is naivety.

And the cycle of presidencies is often the pendulum of undoing and rolling back things. The oscillations of which produce some average in some direction, but never really the drastic immediate thing we're scared of all at once. Trump only has four years. Honestly a very short amount of time. I think it's that long term average of the oscillations we need to be cognizant and have a healthy fear of, not the immediate loss of everything all at once; I just don't see that as possible.

I think the immediate threat that we're realistically looking at is high value stuff for development starting to get chipped away at.

Didn't Hamilton say "inefficiency stays the winds of tyranny" or am i making that up?

 

[Treeshark]

I think the immediate threat that we're realistically looking at is high value stuff for development starting to get chipped away at.

I agree. I don’t foresee this developing into all-or-nothing transfer or sale.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I think the immediate threat that we're realistically looking at is high value stuff for development starting to get chipped away at.

You describe a "slippery slope" which soon evolves into a luge track!

 

[SAJ-99]

Nah. I think the thing is BLM ceasing to exist as an agency means there are no more BLM surface or mineral rights to manage and I would suspect it's impossible to dispose of that amount of land and minerals at whatever market value it realistically has in just 4 years.

PLT? Maybe that avenue would do it. But I don't agree with the sentiment that congress would fully be on board with all of this anyway. At least not in the fashion we are most worried about. Perhaps that is naivety.

And the cycle of presidencies is often the pendulum of undoing and rolling back things. The oscillations of which produce some average in some direction, but never really the drastic immediate thing we're scared of all at once. Trump only has four years. Honestly a very short amount of time. I think it's that long term average of the oscillations we need to be cognizant and have a healthy fear of, not the immediate loss of everything all at once; I just don't see that as possible.

I think the immediate threat that we're realistically looking at is high value stuff for development starting to get chipped away at.

Didn't Hamilton say "inefficiency stays the winds of tyranny" or am i making that up?

I hope you are right. But to make sure we discuss the topic of the thread, this has nothing to do with legislators or who is president. If SCOTUS takes the case and sides with Utah, it could direct the Federal Government to start the process of transferring that land "per the constitution" or some nonsense. This SCOTUS hasn't;t seemed to care much about precedent. With the incoming Admin and the makeup of Congress, it could accelerate the process. Maybe a change in legislative makeup could slow it down. Maybe. We will see if they take the case. It just looks like the game has been rigged.

 

[TOGIE]

It just looks like the game has been rigged.

It'll be interesting if they take the case.

More naivety, I'm sure. But based on what little I do know, I just can't understand how they realistically have a case.

But, of course, we circle back to the meme.

 

[Treeshark]

But based on what little I do know, I just can't understand how they realistically have a case.

True story. I think often times they just start with the conclusion and work backwards from there.

How else could you explain the amount of times their decisions at cleanly split down ideological lines?

 

[TOGIE]

True story. I think often times they just start with the conclusion and work backwards from there.

How else could you explain the amount of times their decisions at cleanly split down ideological lines?

definitely

but the curveballs exist in how many times they're not.