Oh, the irony!

[mplane72]

Wait, so I'm supposed to get worked up and come to the defense for a public resource, in a state that chose to elect these people (idiots), a public resource that supports the wildlife that I'm either completely excluded from or ridiculed for accessing? You made your bed, now you have to sleep in it.

I harbor some of the same feeling but when I stop and think that my kids might not have the opportunities I did I decided to suck it up and get on our AG's ass. I'm asking others to do so too.

 

[Ben Lamb]

However, should a transfer happen, I am confident the camping thing would be worked out in short order.

When I was a kid and really wanted something bad, my folks made me work for it.

I expect the states that want transfer to happen to work to show us that they can be trusted to adequately fund and manage those lands by enacting new laws and rules that place recreational opportunities on the same plane as other state trust obligations.

Show me, don't tell me.

 

[Big Fin]

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

Suicide stemming from who, the hunters or the ranchers? If it was hunters, the rule would have been changed by now, as there is some great Wyoming state lands that would be good to have a hunting camp.

Looking at some of the recent elk management policies forced on WY G&F by the legislature and ag interests, the table seems slanted towards the interest of landowners.

All of this discussion continues to ignore that the best solution would be to force Congress to do their job. To better manage the Federal lands, provide priority, provide funding, and to change laws that currently restrict land managers and their ability to do implement good management. But, that would be counter to the long-term goal of these folks, so they would rather give it away and use state land boards as conduits for disposal.

Not sure how much history of states selling their lands we need to show and what examples of the "what ifs" need to be pointed out for folks to realize what this multi-decade effort represents. If they choose to ignore this effort and its damaging outcomes, there's not much I can do about it. My effort is focused on the people, groups, and organizations who are truly interested and do not want to see hunters and shooters get the hard ride.

 

[Treeshark]

Suicide stemming from who, the hunters or the ranchers? If it was hunters, the rule would have been changed by now, as there is some great Wyoming state lands that would be good to have a hunting camp.

Hunters, campers, etc… I suspect it would be very unpopular.

I’m not sure it is necessarily a fair assumption to use present state as a gauge for the future with respect to camping. Currently, countless awesome federal land camping options exist in WY- so it’s understandable that people tolerate the status quo regarding state land.

I don’t think you can predict a hypothetical reaction based solely on that, because the dystopian scenario you are describing is so different in terms of camping opportunity from current state.

 

[Forkyfinder]

.

Hunters, campers, etc… I suspect it would be very unpopular.

Maybe.

But remember its only political suicide for the people who vote for you. . . What set of user groups has their usage/fees go up the most?

 

[Ben Lamb]

Hunters, campers, etc… I suspect it would be very unpopular.

I’m not sure it is necessarily a fair assumption to use present state as a gauge for the future with respect to camping. Currently, countless awesome federal land camping options exist in WY- so it’s understandable that people tolerate the status quo regarding state land.

I don’t think you can predict a hypothetical reaction based solely on that, because the dystopian scenario you are describing is so different in terms of camping opportunity from current state.

Once again, if there is no plan in place to asuage the legitimate concerns of pro-public land people, then it is all assumption that things will change.

That is the basis of losing all of your ability and then begging for it back. From a negotiating standpoint, that's a ridiculous position to hold and is the weakest place to put yourself. You literally give everything away for a hope and the promise of a politician.

 

[Treeshark]

That’s a good point Ben.

 

[FI460]

I feel like a few folks are playing devils advocate for a fringe group here. Why are we entertaining hypotheticals for something that only folks like Mike Lee perceive as a problem?

Sure, many people back east may not use their federal public lands, but many do. Perhaps not a majority, but those aren't the folks calling for divestment. As was previously mentioned most of them either don't know or don't care about access to public lands, so it's obviously not a problem for them.

We're debating solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[BrentD]

I feel like a few folks are playing devils advocate for a fringe group here. Why are we entertaining hypotheticals for something that only folks like Mike Lee perceive as a problem?

Sure, many people back east may not use their federal public lands, but many do. Perhaps not a majority, but those aren't the folks calling for divestment. As was previously mentioned most of them either don't know or don't care about access to public lands, so it's obviously not a problem for them.

We're debating solutions to a problem that doesn't exist.

Whether people use it or not, they still can (and definitely do) value it. Take away Yellowstone and a jillion people that have never been there will be up in arms.

when it gets sold to Japan or some such and turned into Jellystone water park on a grand scale, millions will weep.

There is a lot over very vague (at best) reasoning being put forth by those advocating giving away the national treasures. I'm stunned that any here would contemplate it for even a moment.

 

[gouch]

Just came across this article

MSN

 

[wytex]

I would not bet on the State Land Board changing many rules if they are in charge of these new state lands.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Hunters, campers, etc… I suspect it would be very unpopular.

I’m not sure it is necessarily a fair assumption to use present state as a gauge for the future with respect to camping. Currently, countless awesome federal land camping options exist in WY- so it’s understandable that people tolerate the status quo regarding state land.

I don’t think you can predict a hypothetical reaction based solely on that, because the dystopian scenario you are describing is so different in terms of camping opportunity from current state.

It would be foolhardy to take the chance. Other than theoretical states rights positions I see no actual benefit and only hope seems to be offered that obvious downsides won’t happen. These folks are not trying to improve public land hunting, no sense thinking otherwise.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

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,......

Seriously, you think camping in Wyo would come to and end?

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.

On formerly BLM and FS, yes I do.

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?

On formerly BLM and FS, yes I do.

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.

Less likely that they would change current state land restrictions but same as last two answers. Agree that you have made a point I just don't agree with your assumptions.

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.

I'm focusing on Wyo since that's what I know best. Not dipping my toe into unfamiliar waters.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Seriously, you think camping in Wyo would come to and end?

On formerly BLM and FS, yes I do.

On formerly BLM and FS, yes I do.



Less likely that they would change current state land restrictions but same as last two answers. Agree that you have made a point I just don't agree with your assumptions.

I'm focusing on Wyo since that's what I know best. Not dipping my toe into unfamiliar waters.

Your basing assumptions on the goodwill of politicians in Wy. The other assumptions are based on historical context of what states do with their land.

Feeling that the lawmakers are behind you as a sportsman in WY is suprising to me, and even that is all based on what direction the political wind is blowing and subject to change.

 

[VikingsGuy]

It’s weird to see folks from the west putting faith in politicians. I was raised on the wise advice of Ronald Reagan - The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

 

[BrentD]

It’s weird to see folks from the west putting faith in politicians. I was raised on the wise advice of Ronald Reagan - The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

Really? They have always done that. They love their politicians. It is just everyone else's that that are the problems. Even if they are just one state away. This is not unique to the west.

I don't think much of Ronnie for several reasons and that quote is one of them. Too many really good people in .gov that keep the system going to backhand them like that for political gain. We are still paying the price for that (and trickle down).

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Your basing assumptions on the goodwill of politicians in Wy. The other assumptions are based on historical context of what states do with their land.

Feeling that the lawmakers are behind you as a sportsman in WY is suprising to me, and even that is all based on what direction the political wind is blowing and subject to change.

Yes, I am basing my assumptions on the reality of today, not what was decided in the past. Context changes all the time. Believing that the political majority would end camping in Wyoming or any other Western State for that matter, and that the voters would not beat that back almost instantly, surprises me.

I do not share the same view of politicians as a whole that many on this forum seem to hold. I still think most politicians will listen to the average citizen/voter on many issues. Particularly at the State level. I do not believe that they are all out to just help their billionaire friends. Certainly, some are and not every vote breaks the way I would like it but some assumptions of what would happen just dont pass my smell test.

Again, I am not for a transfer. I would like to see the Fed Agencies do the job they were hired to do. All too often, in my world, I see the Feds as absentee landlords, whose sole job seems to be delay, evaluate, review, but never decide and act. I would be happy if they would make decisions and act even if it didn't go the way I desire. I think the Feds have the ability, resources, expertise and knowledge to act but seem so unwilling to do so.

 

[SAJ-99]

Really? They have always done that. They love their politicians. It is just everyone else's that that are the problems. Even if they are just one state away. This is not unique to the west.

I don't think much of Ronnie for several reasons and that quote is one of them. Too many really good people in .gov that keep the system going to backhand them like that for political gain. We are still paying the price for that (and trickle down).

The implied meaning went from “The government should get out of Americans way and let them be successful” to “If you failed or don’t like something, it’s the government’s fault.”

Believing that the political majority would end camping in Wyoming or any other Western State for that matter, and that the voters would not beat that back almost instantly, surprises me.

To say that WY camping rules would change so the transfer would be fine is not just failing to see the forest for the trees, it is convincing yourself there is no forest. It is sad to watch Americans gaslight themselves.

The wood is being loaded on the bonfire as we type and the match gets lit in a couple of month.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

To say that WY camping rules would change so the transfer would be fine is not just failing to see the forest for the trees, it is convincing yourself there is no forest. It is sad to watch Americans gaslight themselves.

Dont put words in my mouth. Show me where I said a transfer would be just fine? I just think the whole "no camping" argument is laughable. Its sad to watch you gaslight yourself by making shit up.

 

[406dn]

If the federal government was to relinquish federal lands to the various states, it seems to me that EVERY citizen has an equal ownership of that land.

If i was a Senator or Congressman from a state not blessed with much public land, it would take a sale at true market value and money in that amount from each state, before ownership could be transferred. Any other transfer is a gift to certain states, at the expense of the others.

Dont put words in my mouth. Show me where I said a transfer would be just fine? I just think the whole "no camping" argument is laughable. Its sad to watch you gaslight yourself by making shit up.

If making shit up is gaslighting... you have been doing it with most of your posts. The fact is no one can know how it would shake out.