Well, I'd rather have the site sold off for something good than continuing to be welfare ranched by someone who has cattle ruining it anyway. I say go for it gov, if you can't lock it up for everyone to view in it's natural beauty, sell to the highest bidder and help the school system out.
Posted by Todd Caudle on August 6, 2010 at 9:40 PM
A map of the parcels would add a lot to this story, but I'm too lazy to go looking for one. 1,360 acres in a 310,500-acre park doesn't exactly sound like the sky is falling. Unless you're a Sierra Club member.
yeah Todd has a good idea, RMNPN members clubhouse or headquarters it sounds awesome. now we all just have to chip in about an equal percentage of 125 million
And that's the issue in the West - we think that a few acres here and there are no problem. Let 'em go - and the whole freaking business is chopped up into little fragments. Wildlife migration corridors are shut down... forever. Indeed the sky is falling in the industrialized West. It's long past time to actually plan - grand landscape planning that preserves Western wildlife, character and heritage. Or, we can just run around and photograph the pretty stuff while pretending that everything's just fine. Our choice.
Couldn't agree with Dave more. They arn't making any more land....There are so many spots around here that I so wish could've been preserved. I'm sure it all started with just selling off a little bit of it...
Posted by Les Barstow on August 9, 2010 at 3:43 PM
I've only found one very small image of the proposed parcel sales. They're both East of the highway, in the area around Moose. My sense is that they have to be close to the Elk Refuge, or against the Teton NF. If this is true, the sale would not impose on the view toward the Tetons themselves.
Still, there are other considerations like wildlife migration to consider. Someone with a Wyoming atlas should be able to pinpoint the parcels - they're two 1sq. mile state-owned parcels near Moose. Supposedly a couple of smaller parcels are also included - those could be worse.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on August 9, 2010 at 4:17 PM
You guys are playing into the state of Wyoming's hands with this one.
First off, the State of Wyoming could only be financially "beleaguered" due to gross mismanagement of the state coffers. No other state in the union collects as much in mineral royalties. I know. I ran the software systems that distributed those funds and they were far ahead of the states you think of, like Alaska and Texas. The per capita amount of oil and gas royalty payment going to WY is very significant when you consider the entire state has fewer people than elk and that WY takes in more royalties than the next three to five states combined as I recall. Without those funds, the state's infrastructure would have never been built, there simply aren't enough people to distribute the costs in the form of taxes. Throughout the recent recession, Wyoming has been one of the only states unaffected by the revenue disasters seen in places like Colorado, Arizona and California.
Second the State of Wyoming is one giant oil/coal boom-town mixed with a blend of powerful ranchers given exceeding generous access to public lands. I don't know if you've ever noticed this when driving to Yellowstone, but there are schools in Wyoming that were built in the 80s, abandoned in the 90s when the children of the boom town grew up and moved away. They sit there moth-balled waiting for the next boom I guess, at which time, the state's coffers will be so flush with cash that they'll just build a new school.
Third, Wyoming has been playing political games with this piece of land from the very beginning. If you watched the Ken Burns National Park series, there was quite a bit of content on the fight over the Tetons. They're very practiced at this game. They got the Federal Government to relinquish the use of the antiquities act in WY. When the federal government is willing to trade 800,000 acres (1250 sq miles) for 1360 (2 square miles), there should be an opportunity to get equal revenue streams, especially when you've been leasing these two sections for a measly $3K/yr. This game is very much like the old Washington Monument syndrome, playing out between two governments.
In the end, Wyoming will win no matter what on this issue and the rest of us will get screwed. They're either going to get way more than the land is worth from the feds (aka all of us), or some big environmentalist players like Nature Conservancy will snatch up that land in the bidding process (ironically leveraging Federal grant funds to do so).
I totally agree with Mel. I work as a consultant to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality they are the sole reason my company was swamped with work when everyone around me was getting laid off. Their pockets are deep with oil and gas money and they'll get what they want.
Discussion
13 replieshttp://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/06/wyoming-grand-teton-national-park
Obama vs. the Gov
Still, there are other considerations like wildlife migration to consider. Someone with a Wyoming atlas should be able to pinpoint the parcels - they're two 1sq. mile state-owned parcels near Moose. Supposedly a couple of smaller parcels are also included - those could be worse.
First off, the State of Wyoming could only be financially "beleaguered" due to gross mismanagement of the state coffers. No other state in the union collects as much in mineral royalties. I know. I ran the software systems that distributed those funds and they were far ahead of the states you think of, like Alaska and Texas. The per capita amount of oil and gas royalty payment going to WY is very significant when you consider the entire state has fewer people than elk and that WY takes in more royalties than the next three to five states combined as I recall. Without those funds, the state's infrastructure would have never been built, there simply aren't enough people to distribute the costs in the form of taxes. Throughout the recent recession, Wyoming has been one of the only states unaffected by the revenue disasters seen in places like Colorado, Arizona and California.
Second the State of Wyoming is one giant oil/coal boom-town mixed with a blend of powerful ranchers given exceeding generous access to public lands. I don't know if you've ever noticed this when driving to Yellowstone, but there are schools in Wyoming that were built in the 80s, abandoned in the 90s when the children of the boom town grew up and moved away. They sit there moth-balled waiting for the next boom I guess, at which time, the state's coffers will be so flush with cash that they'll just build a new school.
Third, Wyoming has been playing political games with this piece of land from the very beginning. If you watched the Ken Burns National Park series, there was quite a bit of content on the fight over the Tetons. They're very practiced at this game. They got the Federal Government to relinquish the use of the antiquities act in WY. When the federal government is willing to trade 800,000 acres (1250 sq miles) for 1360 (2 square miles), there should be an opportunity to get equal revenue streams, especially when you've been leasing these two sections for a measly $3K/yr. This game is very much like the old Washington Monument syndrome, playing out between two governments.
In the end, Wyoming will win no matter what on this issue and the rest of us will get screwed. They're either going to get way more than the land is worth from the feds (aka all of us), or some big environmentalist players like Nature Conservancy will snatch up that land in the bidding process (ironically leveraging Federal grant funds to do so).