BW,
We're talking ten percent over nearly a century. A lot has happened in the past century and you can't tell me that selling a section of state land (1 or 36) near town where it's needed is necessarily a terrible thing, especially if the funds go to buy some "better" land further out, which does happen. Or, the money is invested in some other, higher rate of return that better funds education and lowers the tax burden for citizens. It is rational to buy, sell and consolidate in order to "optimize" holdings. You know, like BLM likes to do, and USFS likes. Why shouldn't states do the same?
Skinner, what fantasyland do you live in? Ten percent? That depends on the State. Wyoming has sold 700,000 acres of its trust lands, closer to 20% of their state land.
Its not just the loss of those lands that is of concern, its also that the mandate to manage State trust lands is much different. For starters, there is no multiple use mandate on state lands in Wyoming. Its ILLEGAL to camp on trust lands here. Its ILLEGAL to start a campfire here on trust lands.
I can also tell you that recreational value is of ZERO legal concern to the OSLI in Wyoming, as in, it is the very last consideration that they give in a land swap, exchange, or in a sale. Plus, in Wyoming, land trades are NOT required to show an increase in revenue for the State School trust to move forward.
This creates a system that is prime for the plucking for those that want to do things like trade key pieces of state lands for the purpose of blocking access to other public lands.
Case in point:
http://www.backcountryhunters.org/stop_the_bonander_state_land_exchangeAs the Chair of the WYBHA board, staying on top of, and stopping this kind of chit, would be an everyday thing if the State of Wyoming was all of a sudden granted all the BLM and FS lands. It took a lot of work, by a lot of good people, to save access in the Laramie Range ands stop this exchange.
Again, there was NO legal obligation for the Land Board to even consider the recreational value of the land in the Laramie Range. This, in a county (Albany), that relies on recreation for its main economy.
Finally, don't let the legal argument slow you down on your PLT fantasy, or the fact that 11 of 12 States Attorney Generals in the West, have determined that there is no legal path forward for Public Lands Transfer. Of course, there's also those pesky Enabling Acts that the States agreed to as well...
Governor Mead (R), here has come out in opposition to PLT, for both legal reasons, and also because he recognizes the States simply cant afford to manage it. The State Legislature paid $75,000 for an independent study...and the study concluded that legally, and financially, there is no way forward.
Myself and other WYBHA chapter leadership, along with representative of WYSA, met with Governor Mead a couple weeks ago. He has a clear vision for public lands in Wyoming. A vision that keeps them intact with an eye to the future that includes recreation as the leading industry in the State. He also appointed an outdoor recreation task force to further the economy based on same.
While I have no problem with extractive, reasonable, and sensible use of natural resources (in particular renewables), its just plain ridiculous to ignore other appropriate uses of Federal Lands.
You carry on about "multiple use", yet appear to not even understand what that means. Perhaps try researching that...
I'm actually shocked anyone reads your bullchit...I've found more facts in the National Enquirer than anything you've ever scribbled. Give any arsehole a computer and they think they're a free-lance "journalist"...good grief.
