# Wyoming study confirms transfer issues



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

http://www.ammoland.com/2016/10/sta...now-state-takeover-public-land/#axzz4NZWeYAGq



> A new state-mandated report on the feasibility of transferring management authority for 25 million publically owned acres to the state of Wyoming concludes that the process would be a financial, administrative, and legislative burden.Ultimately, the report prepared for the Office of State Lands and Investments (OSLI) says that the state would inherit costly land management issues, like wildfire and litigation, if it were to manage the lands that currently belong to all Americans.


....but let me guess....we'll keep pushing this crap here in good old Utah.


----------



## Springville Shooter (Oct 15, 2010)

And you'll keep putting crap in the 'Big Game' section that has nothing to do with big game. There might be 1000 reasons not to transfer lands in Utah, but Wyoming and Utah are beyond reasonable comparison regarding the issue. Wyoming has far less population, far less tax base, and far less resources at their disposal for lands management. Utah, on the other hand, made a noteworthy effort to take things over during the highly political government shutdown period keeping public lands open for public use while areas in adjoining states were simply closed. 

You should make legitimate arguments, then post them in the correct section.-------SS


----------



## KineKilla (Jan 28, 2011)

:shock: op2:


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> And you'll keep putting crap in the 'Big Game' section that has nothing to do with big game. There might be 1000 reasons not to transfer lands in Utah, but Wyoming and Utah are beyond reasonable comparison regarding the issue. Wyoming has far less population, far less tax base, and far less resources at their disposal for lands management. Utah, on the other hand, made a noteworthy effort to take things over during the highly political government shutdown period keeping public lands open for public use while areas in adjoining states were simply closed.
> 
> You should make legitimate arguments, then post them in the correct section.-------SS


Yep, and Utahs been crying for the Feds to pay them back for it as well. If the mods would like to move the thread they can move it SS. I could argue with you but instead I'll step away.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Here you go SS....a white paper report specific to UT transfer of public lands....from those tree hugging liberal U of U law professors....;-)

http://www.law.utah.edu/newsletter/...blic-lands-movement-generates-media-coverage/


----------



## hawkeye (Feb 18, 2008)

Interesting read. Thanks for posting it here for us.

Hawkeye


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

This topic is always a double edge sword. On one hand, states can't manage public lands of this magnitude and on the other, the federal gov't can make a decision 2000 miles away of what is best for all.

Today, this is the only thing and time I am glad NM is overrun by democrats.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

#1DEER 1-I Please do not put the land grab issues in Big Game. We have been over this before a number of times.

The land grab issue, no matter what state it's being fought in, is very important to all outdoorsman, consumptive and non-consumptive. But please don't clutter Big Game with land grab threads.

Thanks everyone.

.


----------



## martymcfly73 (Sep 17, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> And you'll keep putting crap in the 'Big Game' section that has nothing to do with big game. There might be 1000 reasons not to transfer lands in Utah, but Wyoming and Utah are beyond reasonable comparison regarding the issue. Wyoming has far less population, far less tax base, and far less resources at their disposal for lands management. Utah, on the other hand, made a noteworthy effort to take things over during the highly political government shutdown period keeping public lands open for public use while areas in adjoining states were simply closed.
> 
> You should make legitimate arguments, then post them in the correct section.-------SS


Who hurt you? I want to know who caused you so much pain that you verbally assault poor 1 eye.

Nice ****** btw.


----------



## Bucksnort (Nov 15, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> And you'll keep putting crap in the 'Big Game' section that has nothing to do with big game. There might be 1000 reasons not to transfer lands in Utah, but Wyoming and Utah are beyond reasonable comparison regarding the issue. Wyoming has far less population, far less tax base, and far less resources at their disposal for lands management. Utah, on the other hand, made a noteworthy effort to take things over during the highly political government shutdown period keeping public lands open for public use while areas in adjoining states were simply closed.
> 
> You should make legitimate arguments, then post them in the correct section.-------SS


The first big fire season will bankrupt the state budget and Herbert and his cronies know this. They plan to sell, sell, sell.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Bucksnort (Nov 15, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> This topic is always a double edge sword. On one hand, states can't manage public lands of this magnitude and on the other, the federal gov't can make a decision 2000 miles away of what is best for all.
> 
> Today, this is the only thing and time I am glad NM is overrun by democrats.


The decisions are not made in DC. The people managing the land live in the community with you. Many of them are locals born and raised that chose to work in Natural resources.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Bucksnort said:


> The decisions are not made in DC. The people managing the land live in the community with you. Many of them are locals born and raised that chose to work in Natural resources.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


Two words, National Monument. Two more words, Antiques Act. Even though some may live in the community with you, they are still obligated to follow federal mandate, especially when and if NEPA is involved.


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Springville Shooter said:


> And you'll keep putting crap in the 'Big Game' section that has nothing to do with big game. Thanks. Lookin for a Moderator job? There might be 1000 reasons not to transfer lands in Utah, but Wyoming and Utah are beyond reasonable comparison regarding the issue. Correct Wyoming has far less population (yes), far less tax base (no, not counting mineral royalties), and far less resources at their disposal for lands management. Not exactly. Wyoming has a huge surplus of funds, mostly from mineral royalties from coal, natural gas, trona and oil. As of June 2016 there was $7,280,258,437 in the Permanent Wyoming Mineral Trust Fund (PWMTF). _Funded with constitutional and statutory mineral severance tax revenues, and occasional direct legislative appropriations. Income from the PWMTF goes to the state general fund. Up to 55
> percent of the PWMTF may be invested in equities._ This fund generates a lot of income some of which is put back into PWMTF. For example in June 2016 alone the fund made $14.94 million.
> 
> The next big one are the Permanent Land Funds (PLF)_ Funded with royalties, leases, fees and permits, and other revenue generated from state lands. Investment income from these funds go to state public institutions. The Common School Permanent Land Fund is the largest of the land funds: $3,391 billion book/cost, $3.486 billion market; its investment income helps to fund Wyoming's K-12 schools. Up to 55 percent of the PLFs may be invested in equities.
> ...


see red and blue


----------



## king eider (Aug 20, 2009)

If one thinks the state can manage millions upon millions of acres without sacrificing public access to them you are as dumb as a post. The state has to create revenue from these newly acquired assets to maintain them. They don't have a budget that pumps money to them without being able to refund or pay for the cost. The state will sell the rights (i.e. Agricultural, mineral, surface, etc)to a portion of them to create revenue for the agency that manages them and revenue for the state as a whole. With selling or leasing these rights come inherent property rights. That's right, post a no trespassing sign! Look no further than how trust lands work. Utah would manage these new federal lands very similar.


----------

