Column on Wyoming's push to purchase Occidental's Land

With all the unanswered questions and particulars that rightly come from a deal of size and scope I cant Help but wonder how the response from sportman would differ if the federal government was making the purchase
 
Ben Lamb said:
State Parks are essentially the equivilent of National Parks. Bad example. We would want to compare multiple use public lands to state trust. That's the most linear comparison.

So you can't camp, have a fire, hunt, fish, hike, drive on or off road (in some states, no motorized travel at all in others it is severely restricted to a select few open roads and 0 off road use) and in the places you can camp it's highly restrictive (MT for example only recently lifted the 48 hour limit on camping. You still can only camp 100 yards from an access point). In WY, Trust lands are some of the most heaviliy restricted lands in terms of public usage.

There is no FLPMA, NEPA or other statute regulating use of the state trust lands of Wyoming either. There is general direction based on the constitution, and guidance from the OSLI, Gov's office & Legislature, etc. But the public has zero legal option to protect their voice in how that land is managed.

So it's not public land, with a multiple use mandate that puts recreation on the same level as other uses. It's not owned by the public either, it is owned by the State Government and managed not for the people, but some very specific uses.
Click to expand...
My point was if you look at the amount of use rules and restrictions on your typical state park, lands which pretty much everyone agrees are public lands, there's a helluva lot more than on these trust lands.

Is it free for all? No. But it's damn sure closer to BLM than private.
 
There is no where near 1million acres or 1500 sections. I'm guessing under 200,000 acres of surface deeded by oxy in WY.
 
Trial153 said:
With all the unanswered questions and particulars that rightly come from a deal of size and scope I cant Help but wonder how the response from sportman would differ if the federal government was making the purchase
Click to expand...
“C325A36D-2B3B-43FA-986E-F67B3C381355.png

“Fedrul Gubment ain’t suwpost 2 own land”
 
88man said:
Even with the subsidiaries which I haven't researched so I don't know them all I don't see anywhere near 1500 sections?
Click to expand...
Even if you are correct with 200,000 acres, at $100m it is $500/acre and might open up twice that in landlocked BLM. At that price, the state should be able to make the ROI work.
 
SAJ-99 said:
Even if you are correct with 200,000 acres, at $100m it is $500/acre and might open up twice that in landlocked BLM. At that price, the state should be able to make the ROI work.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing someone is counting blocks right now.
 
When it comes to state land and hunting, use some common sense. Corner jumping is a bid debate around here, this takes LOTS of corner jumping sections and makes it a non-issue. So is ALL state, or state trust land open to hunting? Nope, but use common sense, why else would they do this?
 
neffa3 said:
My point was if you look at the amount of use rules and restrictions on your typical state park, lands which pretty much everyone agrees are public lands, there's a helluva lot more than on these trust lands.

Is it free for all? No. But it's damn sure closer to BLM than private.
Click to expand...

True that. Can't hunt at all within 400 yds of a road, campground, designated trail etc at State Parks. Not even with archery. All the trails that have been built at Gowdy and Glendo have nixed a lot of hunting access in those two parks.
 
Some things on this thread just not quite right. First, in her description of state land use, Cat claimed no public use on cultivated lands. The truth is, only hunting and fishing are not allowed, by rule not regulation or statute and not in all cases. In a land swap in which the state gained cultivated land, we fought for hunting and fishing access and got it in writing. Second, the claim of 3.9 million is high by about 800,000 acres.

Ben, this notion that trust lands are not public is ridiculous. Are they the same as federal public? No. Are they the worst state lands as far as management? No. But the state owns these lands and by law manages them for the trust beneficiaries. The people of Wyoming own the trust lands, no matter how pissed we are at how they are managed. There is just this pesky thing called the Wyoming Constitution that gets in the way.

If these lands are purchased, most likely only the amount of acres purchased with state permanent land fund money will be controlled as trust lands. But nothing is totally certain other than there will be better access to these and other public lands adjacent to them. Many questions still to be answered for sure.
 
Could not the state write enabling language on this (or any) land purchase legislation that allows for or even directs public access be part of the mandate for the land? I don't know if WYO has the will for this politically, but it seems theoretically possible.
 
Ben Long said:
Could not the state write enabling language on this (or any) land purchase legislation that allows for or even directs public access be part of the mandate for the land? I don't know if WYO has the will for this politically, but it seems theoretically possible.
Click to expand...

They would likely have to create a new classification for state lands outside of Trust. That's a massive undertaking.

Jeff - Legally, the two are quite distinct. I know people don't care about that kind of technicality, but it is the truth. State Trust lands are not public lands. They're gov't land. As you note, the constitution of the state of Wyoming (And every other land grant state) treats those lands in a far different fashion that multiple-use public land.

The bill seems to be in a better space. If this is really about exploring how to add over 20% more state land to the roster, then I think it makes sense. If this is a bailout for a company that's looking to take Wyoming for a ride, I think it's pile of grizz poop.
 
Ben Lamb said:
They would likely have to create a new classification for state lands outside of Trust. That's a massive undertaking.

Jeff - Legally, the two are quite distinct. I know people don't care about that kind of technicality, but it is the truth. State Trust lands are not public lands. They're gov't land. As you note, the constitution of the state of Wyoming (And every other land grant state) treats those lands in a far different fashion that multiple-use public land.

The bill seems to be in a better space. If this is really about exploring how to add over 20% more state land to the roster, then I think it makes sense. If this is a bailout for a company that's looking to take Wyoming for a ride, I think it's pile of grizz poop.
Click to expand...
Ben2. Honest curiosity here. I don't know much about Wyoming. But in the Montana Legacy Project, Montana ended up with a big expansion of the Swan River State Forest, which is a great place to hunt whitetails, lions, etc. by picking up a bunch of Plum Creek checkerboard sections. Why could not a similar deal work out in Wyoming? Is Wyoming state land law different? Or just different custom/politics?
 
Ben Long said:
Ben2. Honest curiosity here. I don't know much about Wyoming. But in the Montana Legacy Project, Montana ended up with a big expansion of the Swan River State Forest, which is a great place to hunt whitetails, lions, etc. by picking up a bunch of Plum Creek checkerboard sections. Why could not a similar deal work out in Wyoming? Is Wyoming state land law different? Or just different custom/politics?
Click to expand...

I think it's important to remember that Montana didn't allow hunting access until the 90's, when sportsmen agreed to start paying for it. We couldn't set foot on thoselands, as they were effetctively treated as belonging to the lessee. It took another 25 years to extend camping privileges from 48 hours to two weeks. You can certainly do that in WY, and if sportsmen start to shoulder some financial burden to fulfill trust obligations, then they could have more opportunity on trust lands than they do now. That bill died last session in Wyoming, IIRC.

But again, I don't think the deal shouldn't go through, I just think it needs a lot more vetting and that's where Rep. Albert Sommers took the discussion in the revamped bill, which is an excellent attempt to split the baby. The asking price of $500 million when the state is looking at a deficit should also concern the citizens of Wyoming, who have until recently, been some of the most fiscally conservative citizens in the state for very good reason: They're used to boom & bust. This deal, if it eventually goes through, would be a significant increase in government.
 
Ben Lamb said:
Jeff - Legally, the two are quite distinct. I know people don't care about that kind of technicality, but it is the truth. State Trust lands are not public lands. They're gov't land. As you note, the constitution of the state of Wyoming (And every other land grant state) treats those lands in a far different fashion that multiple-use public land.
Click to expand...

I agree the two are distinct, but it boils down to this: owned by the state, owned by the people. The way we use state lands can be changed. It's a heavy lift, maybe too heavy, but possible. It is far easier to just get recreation a higher priority.

The story about state lands being opened for hunting and fishing goes way back. While Mike Sullivan was governor, state lands were being used by the public routinely for recreation. When that was tested, there was a public outcry and Sullivan, seeing an opportunity, brought forth what we have today, the "permission" so to speak, to hunt and fish state lands. He saw what was coming and headed it off.

While they aren't public in the federal lands sense, they are owned by the people of Wyoming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Finally an equitable balance between resident and non resident shed hunting access.
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
7K
Watts307
Watts307
M
  • Locked
Elizabeth Warren Could Be the Public Lands President
Replies
2
Views
2K
Big Fin
Big Fin
B
WY Public Land article
Replies
11
Views
2K
Horse
Horse
M
Ryan Zinke Is Opening Up Public Lands. Just Not at Home.
Replies
15
Views
2K
noharleyyet
noharleyyet
Big Fin
Federal Government right to own land
Replies
16
Views
6K
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
GOHUNT Insider

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,126
Messages
1,947,980
Members
35,034
Latest member
Waspocrew

Share this page

Back
Top