Neck deep in the furor of this election season, there’s so much signal noise being spewed from every direction it’s damned challenging at times to find information and data sources that are grounded in objective reality.
We’ve long been, and always will be, dyed in the wool, fight to the last man, supporters of public lands, in particular the public lands concept of the Western US that we’ve grown up in and embraced for decades.
That said, recent news out of Wyoming has made us smile of late.
Wyoming’s Study on Management of Public Lands
Back in 2015 Wyoming’s Office of State Lands and Investments commissioned a study (Senate File 56, Study on Management of Public Lands); the study was completed by Y2 Consultants out of Jackson 31 August.
It’s a 339 page behemoth, packed with information, detailed graphics, and supporting data. As is required when deliberating these kinds of issues, the team delved into intricacies of Federal and State statutes and deeply into the economics involved. Read the entire report here.
In short, and to no one’s surprise, it’s not nearly as simple as the land transfer advocates would have you believe.
And the costs inherent in public land management, costs that would be imputed to the states post transfer, coupled with loss of federal revenue sources (i.e., Payments in Lieu of Taxes), make state takeover of public lands unworkable. (Math, like physics, can be a real bitch sometimes, exposing the best laid plans of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats).
Of particular interest is Section 21. Management Alternatives and Conclusions (starting on page 254!); it’s far too meaty and lengthy to be copied here in its entirety, though their opening paragraph nails one of the critical questions most land grabbers fail to address in their arguments –
This study examines the transfer of management only of certain federal lands to the state. Identifying an appropriate and feasible outcome from this study is dependent on identifying the goal in the beginning of the study. Examining the feasibility of a transfer of management of these federally owned lands from federal agencies to the state gives rise to two overriding questions. Is the goal of the transfer to generate more revenue to financially support the state and/or to pay for the cost for the state to manage these lands, or is the goal to improve management and the condition of the lands in question? Part of the challenge with proposing solutions is that either or both goals may apply to each resource being discussed. Another challenge is that the answer to that question will be different for different individuals, interest groups, and stakeholders…
Casper’s Land Rally Yesterday
The Casper Star Tribune posted an article yesterday here detailing the damned robust response to the Rally for Public Lands held yesterday. Gathering a diverse crowd on a fine fall Saturday afternoon isn’t a foregone conclusion, and getting this kind of response even when there’s no actual pending legislation to oppose was damned impressive.
Let’s hope the WY Legislature’s Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee (meeting this week btw) gets the message expressed loudly and clearly on Saturday.
And kudos for the Rally leadership working hard to focus on the issue at hand – Keeping Public Lands in Public Hands – and not partisan bullshit. Well done.
