VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Nature conservancy is funded by voluntary donations, not the peoples' money taken under the police power of the state. I am a big NC fan.
Last edited:
WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB
- Thread starter 88man
- Start date
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
But Buzz already scolded us that this was about making money for the state - can't have it both ways.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
tags, points, gas tax, sales tax, hotel tax, etc, I am paying more than a couple of hundred a year to access the bounty of WY and thankful that I can. But if you ever decide you don't want me to come I will be happy to spend my money elsewhere - WY hunting is only one of many interests for me.
Also, I do grow weary of the western states public lands advocates' "we have to be united to save access to our public lands, but if you NRs ever disagree with us, don't forget you don't matter because you aren't from here" tune. I really don't care what WY citizens do in this instance, but it is BS to ask the 90% of the country that don't live in the Mountain West to be champions for preserving the public lands of the Mountain West while expecting us to remain silent about the many challenges in actually accessing those lands that are supposedly ours. This "have your cake and eat it too" is not a great political strategy - it may work on this forum where a few hundred NR passionate hunters roam, but it certainly will not get you far with the other 89.9999999% of American voters.
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
You must be a huge fan of feudal Europe - nearly 100% of the land was "public" and the government earned revenue by allowing farmers to plant, residents to rent, hunters to hunt - I hear it was great.I agree 55% of the land in the US being public would be enough
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Didn’t the nobility own everything, and the serfs worked the land as defacto slaves, whom could be killed for hunting the kings deer?You must be a huge fan of feudal Europe - nearly 100% of the land was "public" and the government earned revenue by allowing farmers to plant, residents to rent, hunters to hunt - I hear it was great.
Reality is we are gonna continue reproducing and undeveloped land will become increasingly scarce, here and then tucking some away for posterity seems like a good hedge to me.
Also pronghorn are tasty.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
We didn't need to burn #105 posts, the pros & cons are laid out in this KPVI summary:
www.kpvi.com
State leaders are looking to buy 1 million acres of land in southern Wyoming
State leaders view the purchase as a way to generate revenue and improve public lands access.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
On this we are fully aligned.
BuzzH
Well-known member
We grow equally as weary of NR tenderfoots telling WY how they should invest their state assets...and whether or not we choose to charge for use of OUR state lands. Montana already does it, Arizona already does it...no reason Wyoming shouldn't charge as well. Your awesome tax dollars wont be missed in Wyoming, someone will take your place, and greedily.
Its Wyoming's decision to make, not yours.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Why not? We already do both...
BuzzH
Well-known member
Sorry, you don't get a vote, you aren't a WY resident...and for the 3rd time, we don't need to "raise funds" we have the cash on hand...close to 2 billion in the rainy day fund alone.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Certainly the state can try to serve both. I was referring to your earlier bluster.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
And for a 3rd time, money is fungible so doesn’t matter if you raise new taxes, borrow new funds or spend the rainy day it has the same effect, as if you don’t need your rainy day fund you could lower taxes or refund some of it. It’s the people’s money not the bureaucrats.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
I would hope you would scream like hell about access, though with the exception of private land-locked parcels What can’t you access?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I have suggested numerous times the western states should adopt more public lands accessible friendly trespass laws more aligned with other states (such as kill corner crossing issue, make intent or harm a clear requirement for criminal trespass, allow pursuit of injured game, retrieval of a hunting dog, clear and accurate posting, etc). I have suggested that the fed gov should insert more influence on how tags are allocated to all our BLM owners hunting on our BLM land. I have questioned whether ever increasing tag fees are pricing out the traditional hunter and if that is good for the sport and public land support (personally I would price tags 5x and enjoy access to all kinds of new units, but I actually care about more than just my own hunting). I have questioned the outfitter wilderness rules in WY, etc.
I have always couched these suggestions with the preface that I am a NR and I am thankful for the access I have (particularly in WY), but we should still seek to make it better. It takes about 2 milliseconds to receive a snottty, “don’t let the door hit you in the ass, you won’t be missed” response. Oddly by some of the same folks who post threads encouraging us NR to send money and support public lands in the west. I just find it a little odd.
Mattff200
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2019
- Messages
- 148
It's pretty tough for us working folks to get a tax refund from the state. We enjoy not having a state income tax.
There is a difference between supporting federal public lands and state land investment. Some of the arguments here are completely conflating the two. In fact, and I know I can speak for Buzz on this one, many of us oppose federal land transfer because of the potential for land swaps, sales, and for profit leveraging that would jeopardize hunting and fishing access.
All that said, it’s not necessarily a bad deal when you can stand to gain a significant amount of public land, even if it’s state held under a for profit mandate.
Odd that it’s okay in someone’s mind the state can speculate in securities but not land and oil rights.
All that said, it’s not necessarily a bad deal when you can stand to gain a significant amount of public land, even if it’s state held under a for profit mandate.
Odd that it’s okay in someone’s mind the state can speculate in securities but not land and oil rights.
Just following out of curiosity. As an NR I don't have a dog in this fight. If the WY can pull the purchase off good for them. I hope it works out for all concerned and I only stand to potentially benefit.
While better discussed in a different thread some VikingsGuy's comments echo many of my thoughts lately. As we fight some serious changes to our NR tag allocation system in Iowa I am questioning everything. I have to admit I am pessimistic about my children's future as hunters.
While better discussed in a different thread some VikingsGuy's comments echo many of my thoughts lately. As we fight some serious changes to our NR tag allocation system in Iowa I am questioning everything. I have to admit I am pessimistic about my children's future as hunters.
i think the point that maybe was missed but was reiterated several times is that on it's face this land purchase is not a hutning or access related purchase at all. only a potential nice side effect.
wyoming representatives are making these decisions for wyoming residents regarding the use of wyoming state funds for purchases that pose the potential to monetarily benefit the state of wyoming via state of wyoming lands, that's all that's happening. nr's can have opinions about i but in all honesty their opinions don't matter
would be cool to have expanded legal access tho
wyoming representatives are making these decisions for wyoming residents regarding the use of wyoming state funds for purchases that pose the potential to monetarily benefit the state of wyoming via state of wyoming lands, that's all that's happening. nr's can have opinions about i but in all honesty their opinions don't matter
would be cool to have expanded legal access tho
BuzzH
Well-known member
Mr. fiscal hawk, maybe worry about your own state that just pissed away $491,000,000 and has nothing to show for it.
"Therefore, to meet another Minnesota requirement that current budgets not create deficits in the following two-year budget, they agreed to commit $491 million of the rainy day fund to keep the books in the black."
Will Minnesota lawmakers regret spending the state's 'rainy day' funds on something other than a rainy day? - MinnPost
The deal struck to end the 2019 Legislature used $491 million out of Minnesota's rainy day fund to keep the state's books in the black, creating a precedent that budget writers will have to deal with going forward.
www.minnpost.com
I'd rather Wyoming commit that same amount of money that MN just blew on something that is tangible, something that has the ability to increase public access, AND provide revenue to the state trust into perpetuity.
That's called a win-win-win...
