Carnage2011
Well-known member
Looks like we don’t have to worry about Lee as AG.Yup. He'd fold the tent on behalf of the public.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Looks like we don’t have to worry about Lee as AG.Yup. He'd fold the tent on behalf of the public.
And…the people who sold the land will be looking for their next way to get rich.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?
Maybe?!? I’d guess gaetz will have a rough confirmationLooks like we don’t have to worry about Lee as AG.
I agree. He’s a f*cking whack job.Maybe?!? I’d guess gaetz will have a rough confirmation
Nope.Out of curiosity, are these the same attorneys you consulted with on the corner crossing discussions?
Nope.
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.
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.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.You are viewing an either-or binary proposition, I’m not sure that it necessarily is.
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.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.
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.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.
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?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.
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.You are viewing an either-or binary proposition, I’m not sure that it necessarily is.
I doubt that statement exists, most likely because they have not thought this through very well.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?
best guess is they apply current rules to new landI 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.
Agree to disagreebest guess is they apply current rules to new land
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.
Yep!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.
Or mining in CA comes to screeching halt.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.
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.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.
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,......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.
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.