Public land transfer draft for WY

[Gobbler36]

So in a debate with a close friend in WY about the transfer debacle who is working pretty closely with some organizations he sends me a draft of a house bill that would grant WY federal lands. He is for this I am against this for multiple reasons, but I'd like ya'lls thoughts on the bill and the wording of it.

 

[Gobbler36]

Someone let me know if they can't read this

 

[Brendan]

Can't read. Images are all tiny.

 

[the big Mao]

impossible to read-too small!

 

[blicero]

The bill itself is here: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/InterimCommittee/2016/SFR-1109APPENDIXH.PDF

Here's a recent article from the Trib about it: Lawmakers advance public lands constitutional amendment despite widespread opposition | Wyoming Politics | trib.com


Bill Text:

Public lands-constitutional amendment.
Sponsored by: HDraft Committee

A BILL for A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing to amend the Wyoming Constitution to provide for the management of and public access to lands granted by the federal government to the state after January 1, 2019.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, two-thirds of all the members of the two houses, voting separately, concurring therein:

Section 1. The following proposal to amend Wyoming Constitution, Article 18 by creating a new Section 7 is proposed for submission to the electors of the State of Wyoming at the next general election for approval or rejection to become valid as a part of the Constitution if ratified by a majority of the electors at the election: Article 18, Section 7. Public lands management and access.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution and when in accordance with the purposes of a grant of land to the State of Wyoming from the United States, lands granted to the state after January 1, 2019 shall be managed for multiple use and sustained yield, including public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation, as prescribed by the legislature.

(b) The legislature may provide for the exchange of state lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. The legislature shall ensure that any exchanges of lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section collectively cause no more than a de minimis loss or gain of the state lands, either in value or size.


(c) Any exchange of the lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall maintain or increase public access to those lands.

Section 2. That the Secretary of State shall endorse the following statement on the proposed amendment:

The adoption of this amendment would require lands granted to the state from the federal government after January 1, 2019 to be managed for multiple use and sustained yield when those lands are granted for that purpose. The lands may be exchanged; however, no net loss or net gain, in either size or value, or decrease in public access to the lands would be allowed.

 

[blicero]

I am not a lawyer, but my reading of it is that Section A is basically window dressing for Section B.

Section A states that starting in 2019, any land granted to Wyoming by the Federal Government should be managed for multiple uses, including hunting and public access, so we're all supposed to come away feeling warm and fuzzy about that.

But Section B spells out explicitly that said lands can be exchanged per the legislature's desires, and that said exchanges should be judged on value or size. There's nothing that says these lands can't be exchanged on value (aka being sold to the highest bidder for whatever Wyoming decides they are worth), or exchanged on size (aka 10,000 acres of prime elk habitat traded for 11,000 acres of wasteland).

 

[Shrek]

This beats the he'll out of the alternative which is no restrictions on lands that may come into Wyoming possession. If a Federal court challenge were to disallow the Federal government owning lands not specifically addressed in the constitution then Wyoming could suddenly own almost every single acre of what is now Federal lands.

 

[Scoot]

Better than nothing, as Shrek stated, but the other states that have moved this direction have screwed sportsmen big time. Terrible idea and I'm 100% against it. Randy Newberg has written and talked about this movement quite a bit and it's a very bad idea for sportsmen and for the future of public land hunting. Totally against!!!

 

[blicero]

I guess it's better than nothing, but I don't see anything binding that would keep them from disposing acquired Federal land as they saw fit. It reads to me like a "good intentions" bill for soothing sportsmen's concerns, but again, I'm not a lawyer.

I do know that Wyoming currently has 17% less land than they started off with at statehood due to them selling it off.

As far as exchange criteria, we currently have a pending land exchange here in Colorado. An east coast hedge-fund billionaire named Paul Tudor Jones bought up the lower Blue River in the 90s and wants to end the ability of people to float through it, seeing as how the land is now his but the water in the river belongs to the State. He's working an exchange with the BLM to get the last public put-ins and takeouts on the river handed over to him, and in exchange, he'll give up larger parcels that are mostly rugged, mountainous terrain.

It's being pitched as a win for the public because they're getting larger acreage and "greater public access" to the river in the canyon, but the access in question is un-fishable or hike-able unless you're into rappelling down sheer rock faces. But everyone gets to pretend that "more acreage is now in the hands of the people" even though the acres in question are far less valuable for anyone to use.

 

[Shrek]

Utah will challenge as soon as there is a favorable court. Idaho and Wyoming will too most likely. It would be a very good idea for sportsmen to get behind state constitutional amendments to preserve the lands because I see the day coming that the Federal government is going out of the land owning business. The western states were coerced into accepting Federal ownership as the price of admission to the union but the actions of the last administration has ended the goodwill between the states and the Feds and a strict reading of the constitution leaves no room to wiggle. Honestly I don't see any room to argue that the constitution allows federal ownership and its just been avoided up to now because the lands weren't worth what it would take to manage and having the Feds own and manage the lands worked for both parties. Obama and the environmental lobby poisoned the relationship and I don't see the states ever trusting the Feds again. I'm not saying I like the idea of the states getting the land and doing what they please but I see it coming.

 

[dotman]

So will WY change its laws on NR hunting if Federal land goes to the state? Will we see a change that NR are required to have a guide on state lands if there are no federal lands to prop up the outfitters?

I'm against any transfer of federal lands, this is giving away yours and my land!! Federal land is the people's and I don't get why so many are ok with losing their say and possibly their access to these lands.

 

[blicero]

It would be a very good idea for sportsmen to get behind state constitutional amendments to preserve the lands because I see the day coming that the Federal government is going out of the land owning business.

If Public Land Transfer is going to get shoved down our throat by a Republican administration against the stated will of the people, why should we support toothless State Constitutional amendments that are proposed by the very same people, who are being pushed to do it in the first place by the same special interests?

This comment is not directed at you Shrek, but we need stand up and fight this shit at the State and Federal levels or GTFO. Trump and his sons have assured us that he does not want to pursue Public Land Transfer and they'd better be right.

 

[Shrek]

Don't get me wrong guys. I'm not in favor of the transfer but I see it as a very real possibility. The solution is amending the individual states constitutions to preserve those lands if they become the property of the states.

 

[Shrek]

Trump wanting it or not has nothing to do with it. As the pendulum swung way left and Obama stretched the constitution he was setting up the swing back which will be equally extreme. As I stated earlier , a strict reading of the constitution and plaintiffs motivated by Obamas executive orders leads to the loss of federal ownership. Obama has done tremendous damage to the fabric of America and the repercussions will be felt for many years. I hope the conflict is defused but it certainly isn't guaranteed.

 

[Gobbler36]

The bill itself is here: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/InterimCommittee/2016/SFR-1109APPENDIXH.PDF

Here's a recent article from the Trib about it: Lawmakers advance public lands constitutional amendment despite widespread opposition | Wyoming Politics | trib.com


Bill Text:

Public lands-constitutional amendment.
Sponsored by: HDraft Committee

A BILL for A JOINT RESOLUTION proposing to amend the Wyoming Constitution to provide for the management of and public access to lands granted by the federal government to the state after January 1, 2019.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING, two-thirds of all the members of the two houses, voting separately, concurring therein:

Section 1. The following proposal to amend Wyoming Constitution, Article 18 by creating a new Section 7 is proposed for submission to the electors of the State of Wyoming at the next general election for approval or rejection to become valid as a part of the Constitution if ratified by a majority of the electors at the election: Article 18, Section 7. Public lands management and access.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this constitution and when in accordance with the purposes of a grant of land to the State of Wyoming from the United States, lands granted to the state after January 1, 2019 shall be managed for multiple use and sustained yield, including public access for hunting, fishing and other recreation, as prescribed by the legislature.

(b) The legislature may provide for the exchange of state lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section. The legislature shall ensure that any exchanges of lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section collectively cause no more than a de minimis loss or gain of the state lands, either in value or size.


(c) Any exchange of the lands acquired pursuant to subsection (a) of this section shall maintain or increase public access to those lands.

Section 2. That the Secretary of State shall endorse the following statement on the proposed amendment:

The adoption of this amendment would require lands granted to the state from the federal government after January 1, 2019 to be managed for multiple use and sustained yield when those lands are granted for that purpose. The lands may be exchanged; however, no net loss or net gain, in either size or value, or decrease in public access to the lands would be allowed.

Thanks for posting this! Sorry my pictures were terrible, but this is starting guys the threat to our hunting and fishing is more real now than ever, so let's get engaged and educated on the subject to win over the middle grounders

 

[WyoBowhunter21]

I am 100% against this and cannot express how much this will end up screwing the sportsman and fisher alike. I am not sure how many understand that by technical legal terms the state owning land means it is classified as private land in the eyes of game and fish. So for some areas this could eliminate hunting for some species during prime hunting times. Another reason for my opinion is the way Wyoming handles state lands and camping. If transferred to the state we will no longer be allowed to camp anywhere but a campground as there is no camping on state land, as the current law is written.

 

[TJ]

... Honestly I don't see any room to argue that the constitution allows federal ownership and its just been avoided up to now because the lands weren't worth what it would take to manage and having the Feds own and manage the lands worked for both parties. ....

It looks to me as if Congress has the authority. Federal land ownership has been tested in the courts.

I have zero faith in this Congress, they'll look out for their big money donors, period.

​

"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States...."
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2

Moreover, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Kleppe v. New Mexico, that this constitutional provision provides that “the power over the public land thus entrusted to Congress is without limitations.” The federal government may own land, it may enact regulations governing that land, and it may do with its own land as it chooses, regardless of whether that land is within the borders of a state.

There were other challenges as well. I believe federal ownership of the Malhuer Refuge had also been to the Supreme court.

Article 4 -
Section 3 - The States



Section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state

Article IV | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Inside The Backwards Ideology Driving The Right-Wing Militiamen Who Captured A Federal Building

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/4/essays/126/property-clause



Also consider the costs of management, fire fighting, loss of revenue from the Federal Government (payments in lieu of taxes on federal lands)

Wyoming will loose 27 million in federal payments (2012)
Fire suppression costs in 2012 55 million.

I could go on but I won't.

​

 

[blicero]

Same situation here in Colorado. They've recently removed it, but the Colorado State Land Board website used to have an FAQ section, and in it, responding to a question about whether trust lands were publicly accessible, it said:

"Because these lands are held in trust, they are virtually private".

 

[tipsntails7]

Trump wanting it or not has nothing to do with it. As the pendulum swung way left and Obama stretched the constitution he was setting up the swing back which will be equally extreme. As I stated earlier , a strict reading of the constitution and plaintiffs motivated by Obamas executive orders leads to the loss of federal ownership. Obama has done tremendous damage to the fabric of America and the repercussions will be felt for many years. I hope the conflict is defused but it certainly isn't guaranteed.

How exactly is this Obama's fault? I get all the "damage" he has done but I would never put public lands into that conversation.

This has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with states wanting lands to sell off or pirate anything of value out of the land. Nothing in that precludes them from selling.

Thinking anything else is foolish.

Edit: I view this as something to appease people like us that will speak up and out against land transfers. People will become watered down by legislature speak and they will hear " oh your lands are safe don't worry, look at this" then nothing gets done and we wake up 5 years from now and all the public land has been sold.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalka

 

[LostArra]

Big money will eventually win this fight. The transfer of public lands will occur. Maybe not in our lifetime but it will happen.

And I hope Teddy Roosevelt rises from the grave with his trusty 45-90 Winchester to strike down with great vengeance and furious anger on those responsible.