As a 0.0000000003% I disagree.
I could see a court not liking a discriminatory prohibition - as in, land owners no, others yes, but I am not aware of any case where a court has said the fed can't close completely and equally for all - do you have such a case you can point me to?
Of course each parcel would have to be evaluated. Some of those 40 and 80 acre parcels inside the Grand Teton Park near Jackson Hole would certainly be worthy of a hefty sum. Many however, just linger on the books and are deeply landlocked and very rural like Central Wyoming or Eastern Montana, never to be utilized by the public as they’re too small to even fly into to hunt. It would be a case by case basis and perhaps some of them could be swapped as you detailed.
Of course on our current fiscal policy path, that $16MM purchasing power would also only buy you a nice steak dinner or a couple of lattes.
Agree, there is likely some good swap bait out there... though also I think as a public resource you need to look waaaaaaay out there, we can't even imagine what eastern Montana will look like in 200 years.
No example as you describe. If you want some entertainment look at the Frank Robins case in Wyoming. He almost won it but SCOTUS decided against him but he still to this day we call it the Clown Show Ranch from Thermopoils, Wyoming. They have fought almost like the Buddy case in S. Utah but not as violent though certainly high stakes. They had BLM agents taking pictures of guests on a dude ranch trying to go pee in the sagebrush bushes and Frank Robins even defiantly rode his mule around the BLM office in Worland like 30 circles around it with media notified. BLM locked him out and cancelled some of his leases but he fought them every step and almost one it. Today they fight Game and Fish over sheep grazing leases located too close to Bighorn sheep and grizzly bear damage claims. Almost every BLM action conceivable has been taken against these clowns. The son in law now runs the place and has great elk hunting if your willing to pay for their outfitted hunt. https://prfamerica.org/speeches/10th/RICO-ActionBLM.html
I would be all for selling the small landlocked parcels if the proceeds went into a fund used to buy access to some of the larger land locked parcels. If the funds go into the general fund, not so much.
I am no lawyer, but what would stop me from taking the antlerradar land and cattle Co and dividing it up in the antlerradar land Co and the antlerradar cattle Co. The land company owns the land and the cattle co owns the cattle and the public leases plus the small amount of base property needed ?The land company then leases the Cattle co the grazing on the private. How do you demand access across property that is not owned by the public lease holder. I am sure it would be a accounting nightmare, but there must be some other benefits as I know of a few ranches that are currently set up this way.
The state of Montana tried something similar to this when recreational access to state land first became an issue. It was a miserable failure.
What is the rationale and the precedent for states receiving compensation for sale of federal lands? (It reminds one of the push to "return" federal lands to the states. The states have no ownership nor vested interest which warrant the 25% compensation.)
You mean specific vehicular access right? I mean they still own the public land at the same rate we do, so you can't prevent them from walk across it.
I am no BLM lease expert, but my understanding is there is a built-in preference for adjacent land, so having antlerlandco do the leasing puts you in a better spot vs other potential lessors. Even without that, you can have your BLM lease require an easement from any "commonly owned or controlled entities" - very common in deals. But what if antlerwife owns one and antlerhusband owns the other. You also can have language around "insiders" and "affilatiated parties". The tax-dodging folks have tried it all, but most of it can be buttoned up with proper drafting.
Curious as to why it failed?
No, I meant any access. The Feds can absolutely ban any human from accessing public land. Legally, the fed is the owner not us and they can set whatever access rules they want.
Landowners were happy with the agreement and ether didn't hunt the state or looked the other way if there friends did. Opened up very little state to the general public.
This was the case in the distant past. Not so anymore.
Interesting- thanks.
The reality is that with the vast majority of the landlocked parcels and much of the accessible public the adjacent landowners are the only option that makes economic sense dew to fencing, water and access issues.
