WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB

[Deleted member 28227]

@BuzzH and @ImBillT

 

[BuzzH]

You obviously don’t understand that when I respond to a SPECIFIC POST SIGHTING USE, that that’s as far as any of comments should be applied.

Here, I'll give you a specific example why consolidating "inaccessible" state lands make NO sense, other than the obvious like generating revenue for the State trust.

When I moved to Wyoming in 2000, there was very little public access to a pronghorn unit that I like to hunt. Several pieces of State ground, would have easily qualified by your logic as "trade it and consolidate!" since they were completely landlocked. Fast forward a few years later and a couple landowners enrolled in the HMA/WIA hunting program. Bingo, since about 2006, those "inaccessible" land locked State lands, are no longer landlocked and haven't been since 2006.

Imagine if some short-sighted boob would have pushed for consolidation prior to 2006?

I can tell you one thing that wouldn't have happened:

See that fence in front of that pronghorn?

Yeah, border of a WIA and he's standing on what is now accessible state land.

A few hours after the picture was taken...thanks to NOT consolidating "inaccessible" state ground.

 

[ImBillT]

When I think consolidation I think: State gives 12 sections that are spread out to a landowner for his 10 sections that are all together. This is what I don't like.

This project is fixing the checkerboard over most of south Wyoming. It covers a massive massive area, it will still be checker board just state, BLM not BLM and private with no access.

Oak, made a good point. Just because Anadarko has tried to enforce trespassing, doesn't mean that trespassing wasn't illegal nor does it mean that if EOG bought the property they wouldn't shut down all access.

Bill have you looked at the maps I posted and are you familiar with this particular asset?

Have you read my first post in this thread? It’s very general. My personally opinion is that I do not like government getting involved in business deals. There is a legitimate case to be made for public lands on the grounds of conservation, and many different types of public use. However, if my state was using my money to purchase property, I would be uneasy about that. I of course followed with the statement that since it was not my money, but the money of WY tax payers, that they were welcome to have at it.

 

[BuzzH]

My personally opinion is that I do not like government getting involved in business deals.

I bet you never sleep...the government does exactly that, every single day.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Have you read my first post in this thread? It’s very general. My personally opinion is that I do not like government getting involved in business deals. There is a legitimate case to be made for public lands on the grounds of conservation, and many different types of public use. However, if my state was using my money to purchase property, I would be uneasy about that. I of course followed with the statement that since it was not my money, but the money of WY tax payers, that they were welcome to have at it.

I have, personally I can’t think of much I would rather have a state spend my money on.

 

[TOGIE]

Oak, made a good point. Just because Anadarko has tried to enforce trespassing, doesn't mean that trespassing wasn't illegal nor does it mean that if EOG bought the property they wouldn't shut down all access.

this is important, and i assume you meant *hasn't* - further, and to the point you already made, just because they hadn't doesnt meant they were comfortable with the trespassing. just more important things.

i tend to think the access issue would have a high probability of becoming worse if the lands go anywhere but the state

 

[ImBillT]

Here, I'll give you a specific example why consolidating "inaccessible" state lands make NO sense, other than the obvious like generating revenue for the State trust.

When I moved to Wyoming in 2000, there was very little public access to a pronghorn unit that I like to hunt. Several pieces of State ground, would have easily qualified by your logic as "trade it and consolidate!" since they were completely landlocked. Fast forward a few years later and a couple landowners enrolled in the HMA/WIA hunting program. Bingo, since about 2006, those "inaccessible" land locked State lands, are no longer landlocked and haven't been since 2006.

Imagine if some short-sighted boob would have pushed for consolidation prior to 2006?

I can tell you one thing that wouldn't have happened:

See that fence in front of that pronghorn?

Yeah, border of a WIA and he's standing on what is now accessible state land.

A few hours after the picture was taken...thanks to NOT consolidating "inaccessible" state ground.

You still have not responded to a post that I made. You’re still arguing against statements I did not exactly make and in contexts in which I did not make them, and you’re twisting them to look as bad as possible. It’s a dirty way to argue.

 

[ImBillT]

I have, personally I can’t think of much I would rather have a state spend my money on.

Then we differ there. If it’s for access and public use, there are much cheaper ways to achieve that goal. If it’s a business deal, then I’d prefer that my state stayed out of it. They have no business doing business. But, as you saw in that post, I said WY can do what they want with WY tax dollars.

 

[ImBillT]

I bet you never sleep...the government does exactly that, every single day.

I know they do, they frequently end poorly, I’ve never received a tax cut as a result, and I’ve never received a service that I otherwise would not have. The money generally ends up lining the pocket of a politician or government employee. That’s why if my state was spending money to purchase that much land, I would be uneasy, especially if it was not for a needed public use but rather simply because they got a good price.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Then we differ there. If it’s for access and public use, there are much cheaper ways to achieve that goal. If it’s a business deal, then I’d prefer that my state stayed out of it. They have no business doing business. But, as you saw in that post, I said WY can do what they want with WY tax dollars.

1. If it’s for access and public use, there are much cheaper ways to achieve that goal. I highly doubt that.
2. If it’s a business deal, then I’d prefer that my state stayed out of it. They have no business doing business? Going with BuzzH here, that's how government works... so. The State land board is a business with the expressed goal of making money. In the context of CO half of our government agencies are classified as business enterprises with the mandate to generate their own revenue.

 

[BuzzH]

Then we differ there. If it’s for access and public use, there are much cheaper ways to achieve that goal. If it’s a business deal, then I’d prefer that my state stayed out of it. They have no business doing business. But, as you saw in that post, I said WY can do what they want with WY tax dollars.

For the 5th-6th time, State lands are not for access and public use, they're to generate money for the State Trust.

I'm much more uneasy about my state splashing around in the stock market with my money than I am them purchasing an asset that can be held long term for the purpose of generating revenue into perpetuity...

Since the State currently provides exactly ZERO dollars to access and public use...not sure how you're proposing the "state" has a cheaper way to achieve that goal. There isn't an option that currently exists to achieve the goal of improving access via the State.

 

[ImBillT]

1. If it’s for access and public use, there are much cheaper ways to achieve that goal. I highly doubt that.
2. If it’s a business deal, then I’d prefer that my state stayed out of it. They have no business doing business? Going with BuzzH here, that's how government works... so. The State land board is a business with the expressed goal of making money. In the context of CO half of our government agencies are classified as business enterprises with the mandate to generate their own revenue.

A) Some land swapping is going to cost more than the proposed purchase?

B) There’s a big difference between what I THINK the government SHOULD do, and what the government actually does.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

A) Some land swapping is going to cost more than the proposed purchase?

B) There’s a big difference between what I THINK the government SHOULD do, and what the government actually does.

A) How do you land swap yourself into a million more acres? If you think there should be less public land, then I get why you don't like the idea. If you want more public land then the only way that happens is to purchase it.

 

[TheJason]

A) Some land swapping is going to cost more than the proposed purchase?

B) There’s a big difference between what I THINK the government SHOULD do, and what the government actually does.

Land swapping is a shell game. I certainly CAN increase access, but it doesn't provide any net gain in total acreage, hence the reason it's cheaper. Elementary, right?

Also, If the land board's purpose is to maximize revenue from state land holdings, how the heck does a land swap achieve that? It only does if you're increasing resource availability from the swap itself.

 

[TheJason]

A) How do you land swap yourself into a million more acres? If you think there should be less public land, then I get why you don't like the idea. If you want more public land then the only way that happens is to purchase it.

typing the same time I was. Maybe we can clone the parcels to make more?

 

[Mattff200]

Schools? We all know Wyoming and Idaho both fund their schools from selling lottos to Utahns. Although I'm guessing now that we have neen granted partial adulthood, liquor tax revenue is probably down

Not a res. But as I watch the no yearly dumping of Utah lands, I'd applaud a state buying ground and licking it down. Especially if it's outside the trust system.

There are always details. But there isn't more dirt being made.

The squirelliness of bureaucracy sucks. But NO TRESPASSING SUCKS sucks worse.

Actually most of wyoming's revenue comes from royalties and taxes on mineral extraction. We dont pay a state income tax thanks to all the oil gas tons and COAL. That is extracted in this state.

 

[beginnerhunter]

Backtracking a bit, someone mentioned these lands might be managed differently than state trust land (that is apparently capped at 3.1 million acres). I could not find an answer in the articles.

I take it OP is selling because prices are too low? So the thought is buy it cheap now in the hope that oil prices improve? Is that correct wllm? Is this a smart move?

Sounds like recreation benefits would be only incidental, not the intent.

 

[TOGIE]

I take it OP is selling because prices are too low? So the thought is buy it cheap now in the hope that old prices improve? Is that correct wllm? Is this a smart move?

selling because they paid a f&%$ ton for anadarko and have to deleverage as much as possible

the timing may really be coincidental as far as oil prices go. good for wyoming though if they get it

 

[TheJason]

Backtracking a bit, someone mentioned these lands might be managed differently than state trust land (that is apparently capped at 3.1 million acres). I could not find an answer in the articles.

I take it OP is selling because prices are too low? So the thought is buy it cheap now in the hope that old prices improve? Is that correct wllm? Is this a smart move?

Sounds like recreation benefits would be only incidental, not the intent.

@JM77 did, and I'm very curious about this aspect. Although it didn't sound like anyone really knew the details.

 

[ImBillT]

For the 5th-6th time, State lands are not for access and public use, they're to generate money for the State Trust.

I'm much more uneasy about my state splashing around in the stock market with my money than I am them purchasing an asset that can be held long term for the purpose of generating revenue into perpetuity...

Since the State currently provides exactly ZERO dollars to access and public use...not sure how you're proposing the "state" has a cheaper way to achieve that goal. There isn't an option that currently exists to achieve the goal of improving access via the State.

A) When did I argue otherwise? That doesn’t mean that would want my state buying more land to manage for such a purpose.

B) When your state land board was created, was it tasked with purchasing more state land or managing the land it was given? It doesn’t matter, from the very first post I’ve stated that WY can and should do what they want.

C) Is the state barred from a land swap, and if not, is there still no means by which it could be made?

D) I don’t even care how WY spends your money Buzzh. In the post from which all of this stems I merely expressed the unease that I would feel if my state was spending my money to purchase all that land. Even if a land swap offered less overall benefit to me and the rest of the public in my state, it would be tremendously cheaper, ideally it would be done in such a way that the public did not loose anything, but did gain a lot, and thus, I would be more comfortable with it.