I am opposed to the constitutional amendment proposal (SJR3) put forward by the state legislature because it fails to first consider whether Wyoming residents would even support a transfer of federal public lands (USFS, BLM, USFWS, NPS, BOR, BLM and others) to the state.
I, like many others in the state of Wyoming, am strongly opposed to any transfer of federal land to the state. Wyoming would be unable to afford the cost of management. Additionally, sportsmen and recreational users would likely face reduced access to the places they hunt, fish, recreate and overnight camp.
The constitutional amendment proposes strategies for the management of land use, access and land exchanges. This amendment is based on a hypothetical transfer of federally managed public lands to the state for ownership or management. With this in mind, why should we waste our time with a constitutional amendment that addresses an imaginary land transfer that, as Gov. Matt Mead has stated, is, “…legally and financially impractical….” (Dec. 12, 2016, Casper Star-Tribune).
It seems to me that the Wyoming Select Federal Natural Resource Management Committee has the cart before the horse. This is especially true when one considers the $90,000 cost associated with notifying the public in the newspapers what will be on the ballot, let alone the actual cost of taking a constitutional amendment to the voters. It would be wise for the legislature to first ask Wyoming residents whether or not they would endorse such transfer.
Sweetwater County residents love the wide open spaces of their federally managed public lands. Even though we do not always agree with federal land management policies or actions, we have established a long tradition of working closely with our federal agencies to resolve differences and to strive for balanced solutions.
These federally managed public lands form the very foundation of our heritage and economy. They are the places where we make our living and places where we teach our children and grandchildren to hunt and fish, ride and camp. They are lands where we can simply enjoy sunrises and sunsets.Top of Form
Bottom of FormThe constitutional amendment is a diversion from working on real solutions for public land management, such as Sweetwater County working with stakeholder groups and the BLM to develop a plan for responsibly managing oil and gas development, especially in the Greater Little Mountain Area
The idea of a constitutional amendment divides Wyoming residents, which is not good for our federal public lands or our state. These public lands are our places and we intend to keep them in federal hands. Merely passing an amendment, which doesn’t allow a net loss of public lands, does not protect the places that we rely on and cherish. In fact, it would only embolden those in congress and the state who wish to enact a scheme for transferring public lands out of federal control to the state.
The constitutional amendment does not clearly prohibit the sale of federal lands acquired by the state, and the provision to allow value for value land exchanges does not account for the impact of such exchanges on communities, hunting and fishing and other recreational opportunities. Without an agreed-upon definition of multiple use or sustained yield in the proposed amendment, it is difficult to tell whether transferred lands will have the same multiple use opportunities or sustain yield requirements as they have had under federal control.
I strongly believe that Wyoming should reject any efforts, plans or schemes for the transfer of federal lands to the state, whether for ownership or management, and I oppose the proposed constitutional amendment.
Wally Johnson serves on the Sweetwater County Commission. This is his personal opinion and is not meant to represent the Commission as a whole.