Will Coogin's back...

[roadhunter]

]You can't camp on state land in Wyoming[/B]. You can also be kicked off of state land in Wyoming at the request of the leesee.

Public land management isn't perfect, but it's by far better for hunters and anglers than state lands in many western states.

.

Ben,
You can't camp on state school trust land but you can camp at places like state owned parks such as Curt Gowdy or Glendo. You know this but you still like to claim there is no camping on state land in Wyoming which is just another exaggeration and half truth used by folks like yourself.

When you make statements like this. And then claim that if Wyoming gets control of the federal land and they won't allow any camping in the state you lose all credibility IMO. At that point it is clear that you are going to exaggerate your story to make it look much different than the reality of the situation which is that Wyoming is not anti camping, anti hunter, or anti tourism. They have reasons for not allowing camping on the school land and reasons why they do allow camping on other pieces of state land. You are just spinning the truth and misrepresenting the reality of the situation.

Hunting and fishing is just a small part of public land management. When you look at the big picture it is easy to see how many areas of federal land management could be improved upon IMO.

 

[Ben Lamb]

You're parsing, and you seemingly want more restrictive access than is currently allowed with public lands.

I've camped at Glendo. I've avoided drunken brawls, gunshots and domestic violence situations. I grew up camping at Sinks Canyon. I spent countless weekends at Boysen and other state parks in Wyoming and what you're saying is that camping in confined campgrounds with tons of other folks is great.

I disagree. I like dispersed camping, strapping a backpack on and setting a tent up a few miles from a trailhead. You can't do that on state trust lands in Wyoming, and you know it.

 

[James Riley]

You can't camp on state land in Wyoming. You can also be kicked off of state land in Wyoming at the request of the leesee.

Same in Colorado. Having lived in ID where state land could be leased for grazing but not exclusive of the public and hunting, I was surprised to come home to CO and find the blue squares were off limits unless the lessee decided to open it up. Somehow that doesn't happen much were they also run hunts for their private guests.

 

[shoots-straight]

Ben,
You can't camp on state school trust land but you can camp at places like state owned parks such as Curt Gowdy or Glendo. You know this but you still like to claim there is no camping on state land in Wyoming which is just another exaggeration and half truth used by folks like yourself.

When you make statements like this. And then claim that if Wyoming gets control of the federal land and they won't allow any camping in the state you lose all credibility IMO. At that point it is clear that you are going to exaggerate your story to make it look much different than the reality of the situation which is that Wyoming is not anti camping, anti hunter, or anti tourism. They have reasons for not allowing camping on the school land and reasons why they do allow camping on other pieces of state land. You are just spinning the truth and misrepresenting the reality of the situation.

Hunting and fishing is just a small part of public land management. When you look at the big picture it is easy to see how many areas of federal land management could be improved upon IMO.

So road, your saying that the lands that are transferred to the state of Wyoming will go into state parks? Some other form of state ownership? If you want to see those lands make maximum money they need roads, infrastructure, and development of all kinds. Is that where your headed?

You certainly don;'t understand the issue. That's apparent, and credibility is non existent.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Also, as has been pointed out before, you can't combine different agencies like State Parks and Wildlife agency lands with State Trust.

The bulk of these lands, based on the rhetoric (since nobody has produced a credible plan) would become state trust lands, which are highly restrictive when it comes to pursuing game.

We had a bill in MT that would have changed the way travel would occur, increased camping time and allow horse use (that's right, you can't hobble a horse overnight on state lands in MT) and it was beaten up pretty bad by state land lessess. Did the bill have some problems? Sure, but nothing that was insurmountable.

48 hours is what you get when you camp on state trust lands in MT. That's a poor elk camp when you want to hunt for 10 days.

 

[James Riley]

Ben,
You can't camp on state school trust land but you can camp at places like state owned parks such as Curt Gowdy or Glendo. You know this but you still like to claim there is no camping on state land in Wyoming which is just another exaggeration and half truth used by folks like yourself.

When you make statements like this. And then claim that if Wyoming gets control of the federal land and they won't allow any camping in the state you lose all credibility IMO. At that point it is clear that you are going to exaggerate your story to make it look much different than the reality of the situation which is that Wyoming is not anti camping, anti hunter, or anti tourism. They have reasons for not allowing camping on the school land and reasons why they do allow camping on other pieces of state land. You are just spinning the truth and misrepresenting the reality of the situation.

Hunting and fishing is just a small part of public land management. When you look at the big picture it is easy to see how many areas of federal land management could be improved upon IMO.

Seems to me the issue is not really future state management of federal land but, rather, laying the groundwork for transfer to the states and then all bets are off. In that case, again, look east to your and my example of NE and KS.

 

[roadhunter]

First, I'm going to confess to some hyperbole. You are correct; I overstated my case and stand corrected.

With that said, regarding some of the large western public land states, I would argue that most of the good they do gets done on federal land because they aren't allowed to do much else on it; might as well make money off of sportsmen by providing them with wildlife and access. As to their own state land, they have obviously determined the best long term financial benefit (school trust fiduciary mandate) is, for the time being, leaving it in a savings account. Like the federal government, that could change, but so much easier. Thus, I don't think they should be trusted with my land.

Finally, with the other states, setting aside some state land for recreation is akin to NYC protecting Central Park: It's the exception that proves the rule. They want their citizens to have a place to go without having to travel to federal lands out west. Since they've plowed over 98% of it, it's understandable they might toss a bone here and there.

James,

It's easy to make all sorts of claims about states and I'm sure what you say is true in some situations. I used to think the same way until I started spending more of my outdoors on state land and working on conservation projects on state land. Since then I have had my eyes opened to the good that states can do. I already gave some example of hunting on state land and land being transferred to the state. Here are a few more. Would you believe that that state of Nebraska recently awarded a nearly 2 million $ contract to do conservation work on a federal WMA in Valentine NE. Yep, that's right, state money used on federal land because the feds can't complete the project even with a full staff and equipment on site. The state of Nebraska also works with other groups like ducks unlimited and pheasants forever to complete conservation projects on state owned wildlife management areas. The state of Nebraska also works really hard on bighorn sheep conservation. A couple of years ago I was able to go on a sheep release where the state brought in sheep from Canada to transplant in Nebraska. States like this are not the enemy of hunters like some make them out to me.

 

[BuzzH]

Ben,

Either that or you spend more time tearing down and setting up camp than hunting elk...

Its painfully obvious that many haven't done their homework on what all would happen with a transfer of public lands.

I've looked at it from every angle...and they all lead to the same place...land disposal, and massive land disposal at that.

 

[BuzzH]

James,

It's easy to make all sorts of claims about states and I'm sure what you say is true in some situations. I used to think the same way until I started spending more of my outdoors on state land and working on conservation projects on state land. Since then I have had my eyes opened to the good that states can do. I already gave some example of hunting on state land and land being transferred to the state. Here are a few more. Would you believe that that state of Nebraska recently awarded a nearly 2 million $ contract to do conservation work on a federal WMA in Valentine NE. Yep, that's right, state money used on federal land because the feds can't complete the project even with a full staff and equipment on site. The state of Nebraska also works with other groups like ducks unlimited and pheasants forever to complete conservation projects on state owned wildlife management areas. The state of Nebraska also works really hard on bighorn sheep conservation. A couple of years ago I was able to go on a sheep release where the state brought in sheep from Canada to transplant in Nebraska. States like this are not the enemy of hunters like some make them out to me.

There's also a big world of difference, at a minimum, between Nebraska and Wyoming...and that's a fact.

Why do you think Nebraska is unique in having a herd of bighorns? Or that they were transplanted there?

Nothing like that has been done on federal lands in MT, WY, ID, CO, NM, AZ?

I reckon only dozens up dozens of times...what's your point?

Also, on many conservation projects its not at all unusual for multiple Government as well as NGO's to cost share to get things done. Been happening for decades.

Pretty common for the STATE GF organizations to leverage money from sportsmens groups, grants, federal agencies, etc. to accomplish various missions. I don't view that as a bad thing when the various orgs and agencies combine resources to make projects happen.

What problem do you have with that?

 

[James Riley]

James,

It's easy to make all sorts of claims about states and I'm sure what you say is true in some situations. I used to think the same way until I started spending more of my outdoors on state land and working on conservation projects on state land. Since then I have had my eyes opened to the good that states can do. I already gave some example of hunting on state land and land being transferred to the state. Here are a few more. Would you believe that that state of Nebraska recently awarded a nearly 2 million $ contract to do conservation work on a federal WMA in Valentine NE. Yep, that's right, state money used on federal land because the feds can't complete the project even with a full staff and equipment on site. The state of Nebraska also works with other groups like ducks unlimited and pheasants forever to complete conservation projects on state owned wildlife management areas. The state of Nebraska also works really hard on bighorn sheep conservation. A couple of years ago I was able to go on a sheep release where the state brought in sheep from Canada to transplant in Nebraska. States like this are not the enemy of hunters like some make them out to me.

I understand your point. It just seems to be an exception proving the rule. Supply and demand dictates that when you don't have much of something of value, you will take better care of it. They don't have much so they steward what they have. I'm probably a little biased too, since I don't like crowded country and most state parks and campgrounds I've seen are not places I'd spend my time.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's a great example of how Montana's illustrious legislature manages for access & wildlife:

http://billingsgazette.com/news/gov...ial&utm_campaign=curated&utm_content=BGKarenS

Spiler alert: They just eliminate it from the budget.

 

[jryoung]

You can't hunt State Lands in CA unless owned by CA DFW....and you all know CA and it's "politics" are dispersing into your state.

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

 

[roadhunter]

You can't do that on state trust lands in Wyoming.

Glad to see you correct your earlier statement.

 

[katqanna]

I agree. I simply can't look at how the feds manage our land and say they are doing a good job. Things like the Bundy disaster, Wilkes fencing, and the guy who built a mansion on a USFS right of way in MT are perfect examples of incompetence.

Roadhunter, while I agree there are examples of Federal mismanagement, lets look at your Wilks case you just brought up. While there are issues taking place with BLM right now, and it took a hell of a lot to get them to start investigating and do the survey (turns out it was only a partial). When I spoke with Clive Rooney, the Lewistown DNRC Area Manager (our state land), he told me they didnt have it in their budget to even do a survey to check for encroachment and was going to ask the BLM to do that northern boundary while they were out there. The last time I checked with him in Jan on the status, he said they were waiting on the survey to be released, just like we were, to the Federal Register. When I spoke with BLM a wee bit later, I was informed they could not do the survey for DNRC because of legalities, seeing there could be potential legal action as a result of the situation. They did begin their survey at that tri landowner junction that I had documented and did about 1/2 or 1/4 of the DNRC northern boundary to begin the survey, but they will not be doing DNRC's portion of the survey to check for encroachment.

Now while you and I are not so pleased with the BLM's handling of things and this may end up getting worse before it gets better, at least they had the money and began the survey. The state does not even have the money.

 

[HSi-ESi]

Roadhunter -

I do agree with you that States can and have done projects like you are bringing to light. Those are great things the States do. But these projects are small scale items. States just don't have the infrastructure in place to deal with a massive change in the amount of land that they manage.

I think that the fact that some States have done a good job managing their State Land (or at least have a perception of it) makes the Public Land transfer argument more appealing. That is one of the things ALC is taking advantage of right now.

The States would be quickly overwhelmed.

 

[James Riley]

You can't hunt State Lands in CA unless owned by CA DFW....and you all know CA and it's "politics" are dispersing into your state.

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

Why do I hear the sound of Hueys? Tip o' the hat to JM and FFC, years and meanings apart.

 

[roadhunter]

Roadhunter, while I agree there are examples of Federal mismanagement, lets look at your Wilks case you just brought up. While there are issues taking place with BLM right now, and it took a hell of a lot to get them to start investigating and do the survey (turns out it was only a partial). When I spoke with Clive Rooney, the Lewistown DNRC Area Manager (our state land), he told me they didnt have it in their budget to even do a survey to check for encroachment and was going to ask the BLM to do that northern boundary while they were out there. The last time I checked with him in Jan on the status, he said they were waiting on the survey to be released, just like we were, to the Federal Register. When I spoke with BLM a wee bit later, I was informed they could not do the survey for DNRC because of legalities, seeing there could be potential legal action as a result of the situation. They did begin their survey at that tri landowner junction that I had documented and did about 1/2 or 1/4 of the DNRC northern boundary to begin the survey, but they will not be doing DNRC's portion of the survey to check for encroachment.

Now while you and I are not so pleased with the BLM's handling of things and this may end up getting worse before it gets better, at least they had the money and began the survey. The state does not even have the money.

Kat,
Can you give us any examples of situations similar to the Bundy or Schlueter fiasco that happened on state land?

Any situations where the state allowed someone to graze for free over decades or build a mansion in a right of way without anybody stopping them?

I consider both of those situations perfect examples of incompetence. Your recent research on the Wilkes fencing issue seem to be another example. Overtime you point out how the fences in question are not of legal construction and encroaching on public land it shows how the people in charge of managing that land are not doing there job while proving how bad the feds can be at managing land. Thanks for showing how incompetent they really are.

 

[jryoung]

RH – I think first we need to understand the context. While we’re all aware and frustrated with these examples, they are just that. How many examples are out there of freeloading Bundy’s or the ridiculously wealthy “doing what they want”.

On the first point, probably a difficult comparison because grazing fees, amount of acres available etc are not comparable between Fed/State.

On the second point regarding the ultra-wealthy doing what they want, it could be very easily argued that it will only get easier at the state level (less people to convince). That said the situation I’m going through with my county is a perfect example of local officials being incompetent.

I’d prefer not to fall into the “throw it away and buy another”, but try and fix what is there, otherwise you’re going to end up with the same issues.

 

[roadhunter]

Roadhunter -

I do agree with you that States can and have done projects like you are bringing to light. Those are great things the States do. But these projects are small scale items. States just don't have the infrastructure in place to deal with a massive change in the amount of land that they manage.

I think that the fact that some States have done a good job managing their State Land (or at least have a perception of it) makes the Public Land transfer argument more appealing. That is one of the things ALC is taking advantage of right now.

The States would be quickly overwhelmed.

I have not suggested that states like Nevada would simply be able to take over management of the federal land in their state with no additional funding. A reasonable expectation is that states could manage the land more efficiently and with less federal $ than is currently used.

Same for camping and claiming that states will put an end to dispersed camping if they get control. A reasonable solution is to maintain the current recreational use if the land management was transferred.

Same with selling the land and claiming states will immediately sell the land if they get control. A reasonable solution is to make it impossible to sell the land if it was transferred or simply transfer management and not ownership.

There are reasonable solutions to these concerns.

 

[roadhunter]

RH – I think first we need to understand the context. While we’re all aware and frustrated with these examples, they are just that. How many examples are out there of freeloading Bundy’s or the ridiculously wealthy “doing what they want”.

On the first point, probably a difficult comparison because grazing fees, amount of acres available etc are not comparable between Fed/State.

On the second point regarding the ultra-wealthy doing what they want, it could be very easily argued that it will only get easier at the state level (less people to convince). That said the situation I’m going through with my county is a perfect example of local officials being incompetent.

I’d prefer not to fall into the “throw it away and buy another”, but try and fix what is there, otherwise you’re going to end up with the same issues.

Do you have any examples of sates allowing people to graze cattle for decades without paying for it?

Any examples of a mansion being built on a state right of way with nobody stopping construction?

Any examples similar to the Wilkes fencing issue?

An AUM is an AUM no matter if its' on 100 acres of 100k acres. Any examples where states charge less than the feds for grazing rights?

It's easy to say that States will do a worse job than the Feds but when you start looking at specifics such as what they charge for grazing rights it's easy to see how the USFS much like other government agencies is incompetent and inefficient at everything they do. Guys like Buzz will tell you otherwise but his opinion is obviously biased as he works for the feds. When you step back and take an unbiased look at the management of the federal land I see room for major improvements that wont' be possible to implement with the current management IMO.

If you believe the feds are doing a great job of managing the land and that no state could do better you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I simply see yet another overgrown government agency that is inefficient and wasteful.