Column on Wyoming's push to purchase Occidental's Land
- Thread starter Ben Lamb
- Start date
SAJ-99
Well-known member
It wouldn’t change my response. I would rather they do that and combine it all into BLM. $100m is a rounding error for the Federal govt.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
My point was if you look at the amount of use rules and restrictions on your typical state park, lands which pretty much everyone agrees are public lands, there's a helluva lot more than on these trust lands.
Is it free for all? No. But it's damn sure closer to BLM than private.
Schaaf
Well-known member
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Did you check all the subsidiaries?
Uinta Dev
Rocky Springs Royalty
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
www.sec.gov
Union Pacific Lands Res Co
D
Deleted member 18333
Guest
You spying on me? I was there yesterday. About 100 elk lounging in that reclaim.
Even with the subsidiaries which I haven't researched so I don't know them all I don't see anywhere near 1500 sections?
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Even if you are correct with 200,000 acres, at $100m it is $500/acre and might open up twice that in landlocked BLM. At that price, the state should be able to make the ROI work.
I'm guessing someone is counting blocks right now.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Great day for the big boys in the powder...
So about that 500 million dollar purchase of non-core acreage...
.
So about that 500 million dollar purchase of non-core acreage...
.
When it comes to state land and hunting, use some common sense. Corner jumping is a bid debate around here, this takes LOTS of corner jumping sections and makes it a non-issue. So is ALL state, or state trust land open to hunting? Nope, but use common sense, why else would they do this?
bullbugle307
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2018
- Messages
- 934
True that. Can't hunt at all within 400 yds of a road, campground, designated trail etc at State Parks. Not even with archery. All the trails that have been built at Gowdy and Glendo have nixed a lot of hunting access in those two parks.
JM77
Well-known member
Some things on this thread just not quite right. First, in her description of state land use, Cat claimed no public use on cultivated lands. The truth is, only hunting and fishing are not allowed, by rule not regulation or statute and not in all cases. In a land swap in which the state gained cultivated land, we fought for hunting and fishing access and got it in writing. Second, the claim of 3.9 million is high by about 800,000 acres.
Ben, this notion that trust lands are not public is ridiculous. Are they the same as federal public? No. Are they the worst state lands as far as management? No. But the state owns these lands and by law manages them for the trust beneficiaries. The people of Wyoming own the trust lands, no matter how pissed we are at how they are managed. There is just this pesky thing called the Wyoming Constitution that gets in the way.
If these lands are purchased, most likely only the amount of acres purchased with state permanent land fund money will be controlled as trust lands. But nothing is totally certain other than there will be better access to these and other public lands adjacent to them. Many questions still to be answered for sure.
Ben, this notion that trust lands are not public is ridiculous. Are they the same as federal public? No. Are they the worst state lands as far as management? No. But the state owns these lands and by law manages them for the trust beneficiaries. The people of Wyoming own the trust lands, no matter how pissed we are at how they are managed. There is just this pesky thing called the Wyoming Constitution that gets in the way.
If these lands are purchased, most likely only the amount of acres purchased with state permanent land fund money will be controlled as trust lands. But nothing is totally certain other than there will be better access to these and other public lands adjacent to them. Many questions still to be answered for sure.
Ben Long
Well-known member
Could not the state write enabling language on this (or any) land purchase legislation that allows for or even directs public access be part of the mandate for the land? I don't know if WYO has the will for this politically, but it seems theoretically possible.
They would likely have to create a new classification for state lands outside of Trust. That's a massive undertaking.
Jeff - Legally, the two are quite distinct. I know people don't care about that kind of technicality, but it is the truth. State Trust lands are not public lands. They're gov't land. As you note, the constitution of the state of Wyoming (And every other land grant state) treats those lands in a far different fashion that multiple-use public land.
The bill seems to be in a better space. If this is really about exploring how to add over 20% more state land to the roster, then I think it makes sense. If this is a bailout for a company that's looking to take Wyoming for a ride, I think it's pile of grizz poop.
Ben Long
Well-known member
Ben2. Honest curiosity here. I don't know much about Wyoming. But in the Montana Legacy Project, Montana ended up with a big expansion of the Swan River State Forest, which is a great place to hunt whitetails, lions, etc. by picking up a bunch of Plum Creek checkerboard sections. Why could not a similar deal work out in Wyoming? Is Wyoming state land law different? Or just different custom/politics?
I think it's important to remember that Montana didn't allow hunting access until the 90's, when sportsmen agreed to start paying for it. We couldn't set foot on thoselands, as they were effetctively treated as belonging to the lessee. It took another 25 years to extend camping privileges from 48 hours to two weeks. You can certainly do that in WY, and if sportsmen start to shoulder some financial burden to fulfill trust obligations, then they could have more opportunity on trust lands than they do now. That bill died last session in Wyoming, IIRC.
But again, I don't think the deal shouldn't go through, I just think it needs a lot more vetting and that's where Rep. Albert Sommers took the discussion in the revamped bill, which is an excellent attempt to split the baby. The asking price of $500 million when the state is looking at a deficit should also concern the citizens of Wyoming, who have until recently, been some of the most fiscally conservative citizens in the state for very good reason: They're used to boom & bust. This deal, if it eventually goes through, would be a significant increase in government.
JM77
Well-known member
I agree the two are distinct, but it boils down to this: owned by the state, owned by the people. The way we use state lands can be changed. It's a heavy lift, maybe too heavy, but possible. It is far easier to just get recreation a higher priority.
The story about state lands being opened for hunting and fishing goes way back. While Mike Sullivan was governor, state lands were being used by the public routinely for recreation. When that was tested, there was a public outcry and Sullivan, seeing an opportunity, brought forth what we have today, the "permission" so to speak, to hunt and fish state lands. He saw what was coming and headed it off.
While they aren't public in the federal lands sense, they are owned by the people of Wyoming.
Similar threads
