Oh, the irony!

[Carnage2011]

Yup. He'd fold the tent on behalf of the public.

Looks like we don’t have to worry about Lee as AG.

 

[Gellar]

I think I always go back to simple math.

N - N = 0 N = ANY number

If we sell these lands at any price it will be probably spent, and most likely spent poorly. It won’t be put in a trust. It won’t be invested. Eventually we will be back to 0, and the land will be in the hands of the wealthy. Do we really want an oligarchy?

And…the people who sold the land will be looking for their next way to get rich.

 

[TheTone]

Looks like we don’t have to worry about Lee as AG.

Maybe?!? I’d guess gaetz will have a rough confirmation

 

[Carnage2011]

Maybe?!? I’d guess gaetz will have a rough confirmation

I agree. He’s a f*cking whack job.

 

[Big Fin]

Out of curiosity, are these the same attorneys you consulted with on the corner crossing discussions?

Nope.

 

[VikingsGuy]

For those who are willing to let this great gift of our federal lands be sold off by the individual states because they have a driving commitment to local governance on all matters - I think you will be underwhelmed in the result of local governance in this case for all the reasons @Ben Lamb pointed out. I hear the theory, but I don't believe it works in this case.

For those who want it as a thumb in the eye to resident hunters as a result of the NR-squabbles, it appears as if you are willing to burn it all down rather than to work to fix it. If you don't like being told they are "your lands" but you can't hunt them under your preferred rules/allocation, don't throw out the public lands baby with the tag-squabble bathwater. To push for moving the lands to the state will just mean you have fewer lands to hunt the tags you do get. Rather, if this is the problem you are pissed about, start pushing for more federal management of big game that resides on federal land (as waterfowl, wild horses and endangered species has gone). There are pros/cons to this but at least you are fighting your fight and not sweeping in all the other problems associated with the transfer issue.

 

[Treeshark]

Nope.

Got it, I suspected as much

 

[Treeshark]

For those who want it as a thumb in the eye to resident hunters as a result of the NR-squabbles, it appears as if you are willing to burn it all down rather than to work to fix it.

You are viewing an either-or binary proposition, I’m not sure that it necessarily is.

 

[VikingsGuy]

You are viewing an either-or binary proposition, I’m not sure that it necessarily is.

Ultimately a legislator has to vote yes or no and we have to influence them as to those two options. Life is subtle, nuanced and gray- legislative votes are binary.

 

[Gellar]

You are viewing an either-or binary proposition, I’m not sure that it necessarily is.

I’ve seen you state this many times, but you haven’t provided 1 piece of evidence to the contrary. We all want to believe the states wouldn’t sell the land but the history paints a very different, bleak picture.

Shit in one hand and make a wish in the other and see which one fills up faster.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

But, the TLDR of it is that states like Wyoming do not allow any overnight camping and even hunting access can be at the will of the lessee. You do not have the right to hunt of Wyoming State Trust lands - you have the privilege that is extended to you by the grace of politicians.

Let me start with the fact that I am not advocating for transfer of Fed land to the States. However, I very much find this point argueing against it to be rather weak. Should a transfer happen, I am 100% confident that I and anyone else for that matter would still be camping and hunting on what used to be BLM and FS land. Yes, you cant camp on current Wyo State land but that could either be changed or the newly acquired lands could have different regulations. Quite certain camping would not come to an end in Wyoming, should a transfer take place.

Which brings up another issue with minerals. If the mineral estate stays with the federal government, then the transfer from that perspective is really a ball-buster for industry that now has two government entities to deal with rather than one on leasing and surface use.

Not so fast. Currently in regards to mining in Wyoming, Wyoming maintains Primacy over environmental regualtion and enforecement. The state Department of Environemental Quality is the main entitity that permits, regulates, monitors and enforces within Wyoming. In order to be granted Primacy, that state must have a Federally Approved program to do all of these actions that is at a minimum as strict as current Federal regulations. I mine on Federal, State and Private land. Royalty and lease gets paid to whoever owns the land and mineral rights. However, the environmental enforecement is almost entirely done by the State. Makes no difference whether its Fed, State or Private land, the state is the primary regulatory agency. The State DEQ inspects every month. They write the NOV's should we have an issue. The BLM shows up once a quarter and that is to soley look over coal removal to make sure we are not leaveing any behind and that they are getting paid for all tons they should. Maybe once every two years BLM folks show up to perform an environmental inspection. More often than not they find nothing, usually concerns about Halogeton. EPA has been to the mine twice in 15 years, both times to audit our culinary water system. OSMRE, another Federal agency tasked with surface mining environmental enforcement only shows up when we ask them to. We do this so that they can put the final signature on reclamation bond release. As it curently stands we already deal with a combination of State and Federal agencies and owners. If a transfer happened I would expect almost no change in the amount of ball busting that currently takes place.

I believe but am not certain that almost every State has primacy over mining activities. Same for O&G but once again not my area so I am not certain.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Let me start with the fact that I am not advocating for transfer of Fed land to the States. However, I very much find this point argueing against it to be rather weak. Should a transfer happen, I am 100% confident that I and anyone else for that matter would still be camping and hunting on what used to be BLM and FS land. Yes, you cant camp on current Wyo State land but that could either be changed or the newly acquired lands could have different regulations. Quite certain camping would not come to an end in Wyoming, should a transfer take place.

sorry but this sounds like “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” hollow conclusion to dodge the uncomfortable reality. Show us one written statement by any politician in WY saying this?

 

[SAJ-99]

You are viewing an either-or binary proposition, I’m not sure that it necessarily is.

It certainly wouldn't be binary for all states. As @Irrelevant pointed out, Washington has more state land now than when it was brought into the union. I could guess that WA would try to keep as much of that land public as possible. WA has one of the highest median income levels, zero state income tax, and broad enjoyment of public lands. The problem is the math is hard. WA state land is currently managed by the DNR and it has the normal budgetary problems everyone has, despite getting significant money from the General fund. But DNR still gets a large amount of federal funds and funds from FEMA on wildfires. So yes, if the transfer was done, it is probably not a binary choice on public-private for those of us in WA, but some hard choices will need to be made in other places. That or we just have zero management and let fires burn. Other states will each have to make the same choices and most of them rank in the bottom half of the median income metric.

Part of America's problem is that we have largely avoided making decision on tradeoffs. It sounds like this Admin is going to made that unavoidable, and maybe it is time. I am sure that doing without some things and enduring some pain will help solidify the understanding of the benefits provided by the system people like to trash on the internet. I just don't know if once we go down that path there is any reversal on some things like land transfer.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

sorry but this sounds like “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor” hollow conclusion to dodge the uncomfortable reality. Show us one written statement by any politician in WY saying this?

I doubt that statement exists, most likely because they have not thought this through very well.

Which do you honestly think is more likely to happen, camping outside of Private land comes to an end in Wyoming or changes are made to regulation to allow it.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I doubt that statement exists, most likely because they have not thought this through very well.

Which do you honestly think is more likely to happen, camping outside of Private land comes to an end in Wyoming or changes are made to regulation to allow it.

best guess is they apply current rules to new land

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

best guess is they apply current rules to new land

Agree to disagree

 

[Ben Lamb]

Let me start with the fact that I am not advocating for transfer of Fed land to the States. However, I very much find this point argueing against it to be rather weak. Should a transfer happen, I am 100% confident that I and anyone else for that matter would still be camping and hunting on what used to be BLM and FS land. Yes, you cant camp on current Wyo State land but that could either be changed or the newly acquired lands could have different regulations. Quite certain camping would not come to an end in Wyoming, should a transfer take place.

Not so fast. Currently in regards to mining in Wyoming, Wyoming maintains Primacy over environmental regualtion and enforecement. The state Department of Environemental Quality is the main entitity that permits, regulates, monitors and enforces within Wyoming. In order to be granted Primacy, that state must have a Federally Approved program to do all of these actions that is at a minimum as strict as current Federal regulations. I mine on Federal, State and Private land. Royalty and lease gets paid to whoever owns the land and mineral rights. However, the environmental enforecement is almost entirely done by the State. Makes no difference whether its Fed, State or Private land, the state is the primary regulatory agency. The State DEQ inspects every month. They write the NOV's should we have an issue. The BLM shows up once a quarter and that is to soley look over coal removal to make sure we are not leaveing any behind and that they are getting paid for all tons they should. Maybe once every two years BLM folks show up to perform an environmental inspection. More often than not they find nothing, usually concerns about Halogeton. EPA has been to the mine twice in 15 years, both times to audit our culinary water system. OSMRE, another Federal agency tasked with surface mining environmental enforcement only shows up when we ask them to. We do this so that they can put the final signature on reclamation bond release. As it curently stands we already deal with a combination of State and Federal agencies and owners. If a transfer happened I would expect almost no change in the amount of ball busting that currently takes place.

I believe but am not certain that almost every State has primacy over mining activities. Same for O&G but once again not my area so I am not certain.

Feds maintain primacy on rights they currently own, hard rock or oil/gas. The state programs are in place until they are weaker than the federal ones, then the federal ones kick in.

Regardless of that - you would have companies now dealing with 50 entities (states) on O&G and hard rock federal rights while they currently deal deal with one. But even if we take at face value that states would take over mineral rights as well, you now have California and Wyoming w/wildly different regimes, and costs soar to meet all requirements.

As for camping - that's exactly the point. There isn't any thought beyond "let's do this." The system is currently set up to not have any of those things you cite and as the counselor from the Twin Cities notes - that's pie in the sky based on things that have never happened to date.

So there is no plan for management post-transfer, which tells me these folks are either hiding their true intentions, or even worse - they have no idea what they are asking for.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Feds maintain primacy on rights they currently own, hard rock or oil/gas. The state programs are in place until they are weaker than the federal ones, then the federal ones kick in.

Yep!

Regardless of that - you would have companies now dealing with 50 entities (states) on O&G and hard rock federal rights while they currently deal deal with one. But even if we take at face value that states would take over mineral rights as well, you now have California and Wyoming w/wildly different regimes, and costs soar to meet all requirements.

Or mining in CA comes to screeching halt.

So there is no plan for management post-transfer, which tells me these folks are either hiding their true intentions, or even worse - they have no idea what they are asking for.

I think the no idea line is more correct than not. However, should a transfer happen, I am confident the camping thing would be worked out in short order.

 

[Big Fin]

I doubt that statement exists, most likely because they have not thought this through very well.

Which do you honestly think is more likely to happen, camping outside of Private land comes to an end in Wyoming or changes are made to regulation to allow it.

The lands in discussion are far more than Wyoming. Even if, a big IF, Wyoming were to change their rules on state lands to allow hunters to camp,......

Do you think Colorado is going to change their rules and suddenly allow open access to 23 million acres of formerly Federal land to now be open to shooting and hunting? It is current closed without permission (usually in the form of $$$) from the lessee.

Do you think Arizona is going to change their rules and suddenly allow open access to 28 million acres of formerly Federal land and open those to shooting, an activity currently allowed on Federal lands though not allowed on state lands? Do you think Arizona is going to waive their permit fees for other recreation on state lands when they now have 500% more lands to be responsible for?

Do you think Nevada is going to allow hunting and shooting on their currently restricted state lands when they are granted ownership to the 56 million of Federal lands currently within their boundary?

Do you think New Mexico is going to allow camping and recreational shooting on their states lands when 24 million acres of formerly Federal lands fall into their lap? Do you think New Mexico is going to keep the rate NMG&F pays for hunting access to the State Land Board as the current rate, when they end up with 5-6x the amount of acreage?

Do you think California is going to open their state lands to recreational shooting when they are handed 45 million acres of formerly Federal lands that were open to recreational shooting?

I could continue with more examples, but I think I've made my point.

You can focus on this as a Wyoming-centric issue; reality is this issue is far more than that. You can place your bets that your Wyoming elected officials will exercise their altruistic tendencies towards hunters and change your state land rules to allow camping and other activities currently restricted. I'm not willing to make that bet.

 

[Treeshark]

You can place your bets that your Wyoming elected officials will exercise their altruistic tendencies towards hunters and change your state land rules to allow camping and other activities currently restricted. I'm not willing to make that bet.

Do you not foresee that as being political suicide? I would guess it would be very unpopular with the voters of WY.