BuzzH
Well-known member
In 2019, just on revenue generated on Federal land I can give you 1.2+ trillion reasons why it may be worthwhile to buy and feed chickens.
Guess it's better to let private corps realize that revenue.
Migration initiative on the ropes
- Thread starter BuzzH
- Start date
Guess it's better to let private corps realize that revenue.
Yes, definitely. You, me and most others with any sort of investment account are part owner of them too.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Wyoming would be better off as a state, and I could be cashing a permanent fund check that would put AK's to shame, fund wildlife mitigation, wildlife science and keep all my tags for Residents. Plus we wouldn't be encumbered by the whims of a derelict administration that doesn't believe in science.
Much better deal.
If operated on state and leased land, I can’t say I disagree with you. Not sure it would pencil out to being profitable if you add in the usual governmental overhead, but if it did you have a point.
The land and wildlife resources that Wyoming is sitting on are undervalued by its’s residents. Shortsightedness and fear of any temporary discomfort is preventing it from being realized.
Freedom Caucus’s existence can be summed up as a group that asks addicts if they would rather go to rehab or have $10 for their next fix. When framed that way, people often make the wrong choice.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Why wouldn't it pencil out for a State owned oil company but does for Exxon-Mobil on federal land? Everything being equal and assuming Wyoming State Oil Inc. got the same sweetheart deals that Exxon-Mobile gets how could profit margins be any different?
Are you shitting me?
Too many people have been brainwashed that all profits off natural resources MUST be realized by the private sector. I don't agree with that notion.
Last edited:
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Even if they could they take the shame of being called ‘socialists’ by 49 other states, I figure it would take about 4 weeks before WY residents wanted free gasoline.
Have you ever worked in the private sector? I’m trying to be as polite as possible here… but let’s just say the expectations are probably a bit different than what you may be used to.
If Wyoming is somehow unable to come out in the black on their vast wildlife resources (what this thread is about), I have zero faith in them executing this feat when it comes to other resources.
BuzzH
Well-known member
They would, its called a permanent fund revenue, they could buy all the gas they wanted with their yearly checks.
BuzzH
Well-known member
You should talk to someone that's worked in the oil industry, like a buddy of mine. A state making money with oil is about akin to a casino making money with gamblers. Unless you're a total dimwit ( I won't mention names), the house always wins.
Could you imagine if Wyoming applied this logic to both O/G and wildlife resources?
You’re be rolling around Laramie in a chinchilla coat!
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'll take vecuna for the win...Could you imagine if Wyoming applied this logic to both O/G and wildlife resources?
You’re be rolling around Laramie in a chinchilla coat!
These theoretical debates about who should pay for their own costs and who should pay for the costs of others are intellectual exercises that have no real influence on the outcomes we will see.
If cost-sharing agreements to fund some small parts of mitigation falls apart (which I hope doesn't happen) and Federal land activities continue to hammer state-managed wildlife, I expect wildlife numbers to fall dramatically over the next 20 years (which I hope doesn't happen). The last 20 years show it happening at a pretty rapid clip.
Even if states pick up the entire tab for these collaborations and us Americans get to cheap out on our responsibility to fund some minimal level of mitigation, the wildlife future is tenuous. When wildlife suffers, the cost and tag allocation to non-residents to get even worse (which I hope doesn't happen), someday getting to zero.
Each side of this debate benefits from more wildlife, however accomplished, however the funding responsibility is shared. More wildlife means more non-resident allocation, less demand by residents to exclude non-residents, and hopefully more reasonable costs when scarcity is not as extreme.
These decisions are certainly to the detriment of wildlife. Americans, via elected officials, declining a responsibility to fund a small portion of mitigation for activities occurring on Federal land, such as a cost-share with WMI heads us, and wildlife, further down a dark path.
While we joust about the theories of who should pay what, the pronghorn, mule deer, and other wildlife live with realities, not economic and political theories. These wild thing and wild places will write the real checks for America's collective demand for cheap energy and resources.
And if we think non-resident costs and allocations are headed in a bad direction now, in a decade or two we will wish it was like it was back in 2025.
If cost-sharing agreements to fund some small parts of mitigation falls apart (which I hope doesn't happen) and Federal land activities continue to hammer state-managed wildlife, I expect wildlife numbers to fall dramatically over the next 20 years (which I hope doesn't happen). The last 20 years show it happening at a pretty rapid clip.
Even if states pick up the entire tab for these collaborations and us Americans get to cheap out on our responsibility to fund some minimal level of mitigation, the wildlife future is tenuous. When wildlife suffers, the cost and tag allocation to non-residents to get even worse (which I hope doesn't happen), someday getting to zero.
Each side of this debate benefits from more wildlife, however accomplished, however the funding responsibility is shared. More wildlife means more non-resident allocation, less demand by residents to exclude non-residents, and hopefully more reasonable costs when scarcity is not as extreme.
These decisions are certainly to the detriment of wildlife. Americans, via elected officials, declining a responsibility to fund a small portion of mitigation for activities occurring on Federal land, such as a cost-share with WMI heads us, and wildlife, further down a dark path.
While we joust about the theories of who should pay what, the pronghorn, mule deer, and other wildlife live with realities, not economic and political theories. These wild thing and wild places will write the real checks for America's collective demand for cheap energy and resources.
And if we think non-resident costs and allocations are headed in a bad direction now, in a decade or two we will wish it was like it was back in 2025.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Let’s add that it isn’t just resources. I-80 is the gorilla in the room regarding habitat fragmentation and migration impact. It was built by the Federal government and as an interstate highway WY can’t turn it into a toll highway, so any new migration bridges can’t be funded that way. The highway benefits all Americans. But there are plenty of people that would fight any attempt to help wildlife impacted by its presence.
