State Land and recreating

Mosby

WKR
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
1,972
In Colorado, "state trust lands" are for the purpose of generating revenue for the school system. Something like 10-15% is publicly accessible, the rest is leased privately.
I use to hunt a section of state trust land in CO that we killed more that a few elk on. Then a local ranch owner leased it and closed it down. I think he leased it just to keep us off of it. I still hunt the adjoining BLM land when I draw a tag. The same rancher seems to have a deal with the local game warden. Every time I run into one of his guys on the BLM land, I can expect to see the game warden within 24 hours to check my license. Like clock work.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2019
Messages
2,021
I am not advocating for a transfer. I am saying the argument that should a transfer happen it would bring an end to camping in Wyoming because you cannot currently camp on Wyo State land is a stupid argument. It is so ridiculously stupid that it devalues the entire argument against a transfer.

How to pay for managment. Legality of a transfer. Sale of land to private individuals. Those are solid arguments against a transfer.

No more camping in Wyoming. That just sounds stupid.
If Ferderal land was ro transfer to WY tomorrow, given the current state statue you would not be able to camp on it...They are not wrong. I agree it's not the most convincing argument on the subject.
 

mulecreek

FNG
Joined
Oct 7, 2016
Messages
54
Location
Wyoming
Joined
Feb 12, 2024
Messages
87
Isn’t the bigger issue here that the transfer of these lands to the state would lead to a significant loss of revenue to the state compared to current status? And, because the Wyoming constitution mandates a balanced budget, this inevitably leads to a sell off to private interests who certainly won’t be interested in us traipsing all over their property (let alone camping)?
 

TuckTruck

WKR
Joined
Dec 22, 2020
Messages
397
Location
Montana
In MT you can’t discharge a firearm on state land within 1/4 mile of any dwelling. It’s always been a “law”, but apparently, DNRC started to crack down hard this last year on enforcement.
 

Mtndawger

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
135
I suspect if FS and/or BLM land ever got transferred to State hands, it would either be classified differently than current State Trust Lands or existing State Trust Land regs would change. I personally find the argument that "if a Fed land transfer were to happen, that would mean overnight camping in Wyoming would end" to be nonsense and one of the dumbest arguments against a transfer.
But in reality you are just speculating as well. So who is using the dumb argument? Just different points of view. No need to call anyone dumb. In my view we have current facts regarding what one can do on state lands. We don’t know exactly if that/they would change with transfer of status. Every time you have a change in status you never know what the laws of unintended consequences are going to bring up. Using the camping argument is simply a metaphor for that process of being further shut out from utilizing public lands with the freedom we have had in the past.
 
Last edited:

Mtndawger

Lil-Rokslider
Joined
Mar 11, 2021
Messages
135
Want to bet on that?
Looks to me like the agriculture committee needs to go back to college and re-take philosophy and logic 101. Nonsensical reasoning.
Case #1:
Citing the Constitution, Ide said “Congress shall have the power to dispose,” of the land. He interpreted what that means.

“It’s a mandate to dispose,” he said. “They don’t have the authority not to dispose.

Shall have the power to dispose is not a mandate to dispose. It’s a wholly illogical argument.

But such is the challenge of our time. And when you have actors who are unable to reason logically along with bad faith you never know what will come of it.
 
Top