Wyomingites like their public land. They hunt pronghorn in Shirley Basin’s high desert sagebrush, ogle exploding geysers in Yellowstone National Park, ride horses on trails cut through the Bighorn National Forest and hike among wind-carved spires in the Red Desert’s Adobe Town.
And nearly 60% of Wyoming residents oppose giving the state control over federal public lands, including national forests, national wildlife refuges and national parks, according to a recent poll out of Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project.
The poll is considered a gold standard of surveys examining the opinions of western voters, and its results ring true on the ground. Almost 90% of respondents said they visited federal public lands in the last year. One-third of Wyomingites visited public land more than 20 times in the last year, more than any other state and obvious to anyone pulling into a crowded national forest campground in the summer.
But the results come amid renewed efforts to cull federal land. Wyoming lawmakers recently proposed and debated bills attempting to prevent the federal government from owning more land and even a resolution demanding the feds cede all public land outside Yellowstone National Park to the state.
If a majority of Wyomingites like public lands, why do lawmakers continue to propose ways to wrest those lands from the feds?
Likely due to a whole host of reasons, observers say, from low voter turnout to an oversimplified public lands messaging campaign. Some fear threats to public lands will only get worse as on-the-ground biologists, trail crews and other federal employees continue losing their jobs to the Trump administration’s cuts, lawmakers struggle to refill firefighting coffers and proposed land transfers keep cropping up.
“I think there’s been a bigger push for privatizing public lands … And I’m going to be the guy who tells them no. I don’t want the public to take it in the teeth.”
Buzz Hettick, Backcountry Hunters and Anglers’s Wyoming chapter
“I think there’s been a bigger push for privatizing public lands,” said Buzz Hettick, co-chairman of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers’ Wyoming chapter and longtime public lands advocate. “I wouldn’t say we’re further along, but the pressure just doesn’t ever let up … And I’m going to be the guy who tells them no. I don’t want the public to take it in the teeth.”
High value lands
Cyrus Western, a former Republican lawmaker from Sheridan County, blames low voter turnout for the disconnect.
While the State of the Rockies poll surveyed more than 400 registered voters in each western state, including a mix of Republicans and Democrats, they may not have captured those who actually voted, especially in the primaries.
“Less than a third of people showed up to vote,” he said. “I mean, I would agree the broad public really appreciates and wants public land … but the people who show up to vote are the people who call the shots.”
Sabrina King, a lobbyist for Wyoming’s Backcountry Hunters and Anglers chapter, agrees. She also believes the public land message becomes lost in the mailers and screaming noise often from voices outside of Wyoming.
“It keeps people away from the polls who would vote on public lands,” she said. “When they’re bombarded with PAC mailers who think everyone is terrible, folks don’t go vote.”
For Jessi Johnson, the Wyoming Wildlife Federation’s government affairs director, the disconnect might be a little bit more subtle, and the sportsmen’s community shoulders some of the blame.
Public land advocates, and the public in general, have boiled down the conversation to be bite-sized pieces like “public lands in public hands.” While the phrase may be catchy, it becomes hard to convey the particular benefits of federal public lands. Legislators then think that as long as the public has access, they will be happy. But it’s federal public lands like those run by the Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service that allow dispersed camping, hunting and fishing. It’s federal public lands that are managed for multiple use. State lands are managed to raise money for schools.
“Could some federal lands be run more efficiently? Absolutely. But we love multiple use. We love that everybody has a say in what moves forward and not just following an industry need,” Johnson said. “We get frustrated because allowing everyone to have a voice at the table is clunky and there are knock-down drag-out fights and it’s cumbersome.
“But when we simplify things to be bite-size, we forget what makes it special and that we can work to make it better.”
Efforts to trade, transfer and sell
All out transfers of federal land to the states — and also likely to private landowners — aren’t the only worries among Wyoming’s public land users. They also fret over proposed land transfers with major consequences.
Wyoming contains about 3.05 million acres of landlocked public land. Largely due to the scattershot way the government and settlers moved across the West, there are islands of public land trapped within private land. As a result, landowners frequently propose land trades or all-out purchases with the state and feds to consolidate their properties. While the sales can sometimes result in more access for the public, they more often end up blocking the public from prime hunting, fishing or hiking grounds, said Jeff Muratore, longtime Wyoming hunter and public land advocate.
He and Hettick worry that’s the case with current land trades proposed in central Wyoming. Ranch owners near Hanna recently held a public meeting to discuss trading some of their private land near Seminoe Reservoir with BLM land near the Freezeout Hills. The trade hasn’t formally been proposed to the BLM, but Hettick attended the meeting and says it would block 100,000 acres of elk, deer and antelope hunting. Another ranch north of Casper proposed buying state land north of Casper that would result in more than 10,000 acres of lost hunting grounds in prime elk and pronghorn habitat.
“There are some land exchanges that have gone down that have been good,” Western said. “There have been some land exchanges that have gone down that have been horrible for the public.”
But all of them lack transparency, he added. As a lawmaker, he pushed for a bill that would require the state lands office to alert the public shortly after a landowner proposes a trade instead of years into negotiations. The bill ultimately reached Gov. Mark Gordon’s desk, but he vetoed it.
“Quite frankly, I think the process was designed to not be transparent,” he said. “I think it was designed to keep the public out.”
If the public isn’t informed on land trades — or begins to conflate state land with federal public land — the very land they love could begin to disappear, Johnson said.
“The silver lining is that this push for federal lands is not going away, so it means we’re going to have to keep having this conversation,” she said. “These efforts push us to have that conversation again and relook at what we love about public lands.”
Great article, but it’s more of the same that’s been thrown back and forth for decades. Public wants “more public lands access”, but without action by the Fed and state agencies it’s mostly just talk. Yes, there are examples of of specific transactions that work out great for the public (GTNP Kelly parcel purchase a recent example)
The problem isn’t going to get better until the Fed and State agencies (who don’t have a great history of working well together in Wyoming, IMO) get serious about meaningful solutions, which in my opinion is a serious effort at consolidating larger blocks of public land, and that requires land exchanges between Feds / State / private landowners. Many private landowners are eager to participate, but the typical badmouthing of private landowners often times discourages the process where private land is key to the solution the public is looking for. It’s not reasonable for the public to expect only “wins” at the expense of private landowner “losses.” Compromise on both sides is crucial or otherwise it won’t work except for the most obvious, easy opportunities (and most of those have already been picked over and completed). Fremont County in particular has some glaring examples where better Fed / State cooperation (or one agency simply getting out of the way in favor of another), and possibly involving private landowners, could enhance the public access experience. Bus Loop and Red Butte near Lander are two specific examples.
Easy to talk about, harder to actually do something. There is a State Lands forum in Laramie at UW Rochelle Center April 22-23. I’ll be attending and looking forward to hearing about useful suggestions and solutions to this ongoing issue from State Lands’ perspective.
https://www.uwyo.edu/haub/ruckelshaus-institute/forums/state-trust-lands.html
There are still those of us who not only treasure public lands but want to see better management. There are also those of us that realize “multiple use” means different things to different people. In the case for wildlife, multiple use is greatly lacking and in some cases seems more like the last use on any prioritized list. I wish that those who love their lands actually had a voice in the on the ground management.
This is 100% about transfer and sale to private interests. Permanent loss of access for the people of America, to whom these lands now belong. For the back row, remember Mike Lee and Rep. Jason Chaffetz from Team Polygamy out of UT? They both tried this move several years ago, Mike Lee being so bold as to try and transfer the land to his own family. The effort got crushed, because of strong work by BHA, among others. The simple costs of maintaining the land would overwhelm the WY freedom caucus grifters, and they would immediately declare a need to sell the lands, which is the original intent.
This is theft of our public resources and livelihood. Straight up criminal. Shame on them for trying and a pox on the houses that support the effort.
WY and the Federal government should be moving fast in the opposite direction, using Eminent Domain to open landlocked public lands, while also bringing grazing fees to modern standards. If I can’t afford beef anymore, no reason to subsidize our welfare ranches.
Well said.
The bottom line is that Republican politicians do not care at all about the views of their constituents, especially if they do not agree with their own narrow viewpoints, which are all too often influences by wealthy people, large corporations and others who want to exploit our public lands for their own profits. Public land users need to vote these characters out in their next elections.
Modern shades of 1892 Wyoming. Giga ranchers trying to get their paws on public land for nothing. Same old story.
Wyoming’s largest employment sector is Tourism and Recreation. This industry is the second largest in terms of economic contribution to Wyoming’s economy (far larger than agriculture). Most businesses in this industry are locally, owned and operated so the revenue generated stays within Wyoming communities. This economic powerhouse is dependent on public access to federally administered lands. Studies have shown that Wyoming State Government cannot afford to administer these lands and would be force to sell them to the highest bidder. What this shows is that Wyoming Legislators that support land transfer are clearly anti-business, and have little concern or recognition of the importance of Tourism and Recreation to the Wyoming economy. The majority of Wyoming Citizens support continued access to Federally administered Public Lands. So just who do these land transfer proponents actually represent? Not their constituents or the majority of Wyomingites. Remember the legislators that voted and supported this effort to damage Wyoming’s economy and way of life. Tell them to stop this effort or better yet, vote them out!
What happens when idiots are elected to office. We have a batch of them, now, at all levels of guvamint, including king Trumples and his goofy appointees and his goofy views of the country, and the world (deport Elon Musk).
Too bad the democraps can’t come up with a decent candidate rather than a proponent of genocide committed by Israelis…oops, forgot, such talk is considered treasonous by the feds, with the king’s blessing.
There is only one way to send the State the will of the people and that is putting the issue on the ballot next election.
This is an excellent article on a critical subject for all in Wyoming and across the West. Once sold, the public will never again set foot on federal or state lands. We should pass laws to allow an open process whereby public and state lands could be traded or, in some cases, sold to allow the blocking up of public lands through trade or purchase. Isolated parcels, with no access, of what their are thousands, will never be accessed by the public if left as they are now. Montana used to have a process to sell some isolated state lands in order to purchase private lands to create easily managed blocks of state lands, emphasizing access and wildlife habitat creation. But the process has to be open, while public access, and quality wildlife habitat has to be prioritized.
“Why do lawmakers keep pushing for federal land transfers when polls show the public opposes them?” The answer is easy. Legislatures do not represent the will of the people. Legislatures represent the will of the oligarchs.
https://www.promarket.org/2017/06/16/study-politicians-vote-will-constituents-35-percent-time/
The US and WY are a corporate empire behind a democratic facade.
Legislatures, and voting, yield an illusion of choice. https://foundico.com/blog/the-illusion-of-choice-how-oligarchies-are-reshaping-the-world-order.html
Be cautious Wyoming….. selling off your majestic land to outside corporations who want to strip the majesty of natural resources, end outdoor wild spaces, and the adversely alter the beauty of landscape for all to enjoy, would be an irreversible environmental disaster. Once gone, its lost forever. Stripping land to bull doze and change the natural environment will never regain the perfection and gift you have from nature.
why would Gordon veto a bill for transparency? follow the money and the campaign contributions.
The lack of funding from the administration is a Trojan horse to then claim mismanagement.
If Doge was real there would be a grazing fee increase to cover the cost of the program, the fee has not increased in nearly 50 years and the cost of beef has skyrocketed!
I’ve said it before but it’s worth repeating. When you purchase something from a sporting goods store, pay attention to who they are supporting. Are they supporting a politician that’s against public land? I’ve seen it.
Excellent idea to sell public lands. Absentee Federal land managers do a poor job of utilizing the natural resources these public lands harbor. Local control would enhance the environmental well being of this vast asset thru private ownership and investment. Rather than the financial drain of public land management, the public land transfer to private ownership would only increase the tax base for the public benefit. After all, the private land owners (ranchers) are the wildlife’s best friends and as fewer and fewer hunters hit the fields the harvesting opportunities will still be there. Maybe more than ever…………….
State public lands are a far better option for Wyomingites, than Federal “public” lands.
The recent State land transfer to Federal hands in GTNP could threaten hunter and public access. The Federal Govt. has been doing everything in its power to reduce the annual elk hunt in GTNP to near zero. They have shut down countless acres, slashed tag allocations and shortened seasons in Area 75.
The FEDERAL public lands are the ones people were ticketed on during the shutdowns of the past for recreating.
The Federal Govt. lands are NOT considered “public land” by the Feds. They are considered “Federal Lands”.
Show your support for our public lands at https://keepitpublicwyo.com/
Good example of why voters should vote
Thanks Christine, well presented from the Wyoming specific perspectives. Additionally, there are also national / global perspectives related to climate change which must be included in the conversation. Both the United Nations UNFCCC and Convention on Biological Diversity have partnered to constrain CO2 emissions on a global scale as a means of attenuating climate change fears (while some get rich in the process). One sets CO2 emission limits, the other provides allowable CO2 ‘sinks’ to absorb CO2. Carbon credits are created by the sinks to then sell to CO2 emitters like farmers, ranchers, industry etc. Fed land is targeted to be monetized by locking it up within ‘ecosystem service’ leases and sold to Natural Asset Companies (NACs) who then manage these leases / carbon credits sold back to carbon emitters.
Representative Hageman got wind of these plans last year and for now reduced the chance of NACs being traded on the NYSE. State control of fed lands allows continued grazing, agriculture, resource extraction and yes hunting / camping to continue on these lands and side steps the NAC scam. Understood, this is a tricky issue with lots of unintended consequences hidden below the surface. I’m sure we’ll progress forward with extreme caution.
https://hageman.house.gov/media/press-releases/hageman-leads-letter-calling-out-dangers-natural-asset-corporations
Thanks Christine, well presented from the Wyoming specific perspectives. Additionally, there are national / global perspectives related to climate change which must also be included in the conversation. Both the United Nations UNFCCC and Convention on Biological Diversity have partnered to constrain CO2 emissions on a global scale. One sets CO2 emission limits, the other provides allowable CO2 ‘sinks’ to absorb CO2. Carbon credits are created by the sinks to then sell to CO2 emitters link farmers, ranchers, industry etc. Fed land can be monetized by locking it up within an ‘ecosystem service’ lease and sold to Natural Asset Companies (NACs)to then manage these leases / carbon credits sold back to carbon emitters.
Representative Hageman got wind of these plans last year and for now reduced the chance of NACs being traded on the NYSE. State control of fed lands allows continued grazing, agriculture, resource extraction and yes hunting / camping to continue on these lands if the State controls them rather than the feds.
Federal land transfer to the state has got to be one of the most stupid ideas ever conceived. An opium dream of rich politicians and land owners.
I don’t know why a person would want to live in Wyoming without public lands.
Ever since I moved to Wyoming 32 years ago, wealthy private landowners have acted through hook and crook–that is, illegal means–to close off public lands for their private benefit. That is, to achieve de facto ownership. The pressure now is to achieve de jure ownership. I don’t have to explain to Wyoming’s citizens what that means, but the example presented by the corner crossing case at Elk Mountain is where we’re going. Rich Dude Fred Eschelman is determined to establish ownership of public lands in the checkerboard by punishing the corner crossers for trespass. The right of protection from trespass is a legal property right. That is, a right of ownership, one of the sticks in the property rights bundle of sticks. That is why it is essential for the corner crossers to win the legal fight against Eschelman–to prevent him from establishing quasi de jure ownership of public lands.
We have to see the determination of the GOP to sell off public lands to the very wealthy, that is, oligarchs, no doubt to include Russian oligarchs, in this light. If the very wealthy acquire legal ownership of public lands, they can do what they want with those lands. Primarily, they want to keep people out, as they now do with their purchases of private ranches throughout the West. I keep track of ranch sales on luxury real estate company websites, and over the last 10 years I’ve watched the prices of Western ranch properties increase by at least an order of magnitude. The rich are descending upon the West like moneyed locusts. They all want to be the equivalent of the old British lords–dukes, earls, counts, barons, whatever, who have their own large hunting estates, and the peasants aren’t welcome. At one time in England, the penalty for poaching on a private estate was hanging. Think about that when your favorite public land elk hunting mountain is surrounded by no trespassing signs and armed guards set up by the would be Duke of the Old Shoshone National Forest.
The push to sell off public lands is a real threat. At his recent confirmation hearing, Trump’s now Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgam stated that it would be necessary to sell off America’s public lands, which he refers to as “assets,” to front load Trump’s proposed Sovereign Wealth Fund.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/trump-quietly-plans-to-liquidate-public-lands-to-finance-his-sovereign-wealth-fund/
Well, we already have a sovereign wealth fund. It’s called Planet Earth. That’s what Donald Trump wants to do. He wants to sell every part of Planet Earth for to benefit himself and his oligarch buddies. Complaining about it won’t help. We’ll have to fight to protect our public lands. Methods to be determined.