A Wyoming Senate panel is demanding that Congress give the state all federal lands and mineral rights in the Equality State, except Yellowstone National Park.
The Agriculture, State and Public Lands and Water Resources committee voted 4-1 for a resolution that demands Congress confirm by Oct. 1 its intent to turn over the property. Senate Joint Resolution 2, “Resolution demanding equal footing,” covers some 30 million acres “that derive from former federal territory.”
That amounts to about 47% of the state’s land area, the resolution’s lead sponsor Sen. Bob Ide, R-Casper, told the committee. The property in question includes Grand Teton National Park, Devils Tower National Monument, the Bridger-Teton, Shoshone, Targhee, Black Hills, Bighorn and Medicine Bow-Routt national forests, plus the Thunder Basin National Grassland and Bureau of Land Management acreage.
In addition to seeking property belonging to all Americans, the resolution demands federal mineral rights in Wyoming, which amount to 69% of the rights in the state.
Citing the Constitution, Ide said “Congress shall have the power to dispose,” of the land. He interpreted what that means.
“It’s a mandate to dispose,” he said. “They don’t have the authority not to dispose.
“You can’t do the opposite of something that’s specifically directed in the U.S. Constitution,” Ide said.
“By virtue of your oath [to uphold the Constitution] you are required to vote in favor of this resolution.”
Scott Brown
He agreed with Scott Brown, who told the committee during public testimony that, “by virtue of your oath [to uphold the Constitution] you are required to vote in favor of this resolution.”
Sens. Tim French, R-Powell; Troy McKeown, R-Gillette and Laura Pearson, R-Kemmerer, backed the resolution. Sen. Barry Crago, R-Buffalo, voted against it.
Misreading
The resolution claims two violations of the U.S. Constitution, including that federal ownership puts Wyoming on an unequal footing compared to other states and that federal control of land in Wyoming violates the Bill of Rights.
Those arguments have been part of the foundation of a revived Sagebrush Rebellion that most recently culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition by the state of Utah. The Beehive State sought 18.5 million acres of Bureau of Land Management property.
But Utah’s arguments are based on “wrong-headed assumptions,” made by an advocate who misreads and misinterprets the Constitution and cherry picks definitions, according to a widely cited article by John D. Leshy, a professor at UC Law in San Francisco.
Alec Underwood, program director for the Wyoming Outdoor Council, agreed. The Supreme Court’s rejection “is based on over 100 years of case laws showing that this is impossible legally,” he said.
Ide saw the Supreme Court rejection differently. “They sent it back to district court and told them to kind of work their way up the ladder,” he said of the court’s 12-word order that reads only: “The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.”
If Congress acquiesces to the resolution’s demands, Wyoming would be willing to negotiate turning some property back to the federal government, Ide said. The resolution states that Wyoming would create a new designation — state public lands — that’s different from school trust lands where camping, fires and other activities are restricted.
Aside from constitutional questions, the Senate committee heard worries about the fate of mineral rights, the cost of managing the lands, the prospect of Wyoming selling the acreage, the cost of grazing, potential loss of access, response to wildfires, the loss of $30 million in annual federal payments in lieu of taxes and more.
100 years of lawsuits
Ide couldn’t say whether mineral rights would belong to Wyoming or overlying landowners should the panel get its wishes. “How do we figure out where that goes without creating 100 years’ worth of litigation,” Crago asked him.
Ide, who said he was formerly “a mineral title land man,” agreed the proposal “could get very messy on the mineral estate.
“I’ve had a 40-acre parcel,” he said, “that had 200 different mineral owners on it, and you try to track them all down and you can spend a month of work … and still not find half of the mineral owners.”
Crago also warned that grazing costs could increase if the state comes to own federal lands. Outdoor council representative Underwood said grazing leases on state land cost $5.52 an animal-unit month versus $1.35 on federal property.
Crago said Wyoming is restricted by its own constitution on how little it can charge for grazing, and “we’re probably at the bottom of that number right now.”
Noting that outdoor recreation accounts for $2.2 billion and 15,000 jobs annually in Wyoming, Underwood posed an overarching question.
“How would the state of Wyoming take on management of millions of additional acres of lands,” he asked, and “have a robust enough budget to do so, absorb the major financial shortfalls from loss [of] federal funding streams and ensure that grazing permittees somehow have continuity … while also ensuring that the public has access to public lands and that the habitat for wildlife be maintained?”
Other conservation representatives said the resolution is essentially half baked.
“I feel like you should probably do a little bit more research on this before voting to support it,” said Josh Metten of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Greater Yellowstone Coalition representative Richard Garrett agreed and said a fulfilled resolution would lead to “an urge by the state to sell off these lands.”
Carp of the day
The meeting provided panelists an opportunity to carp about federal actions, tout their proposal and offer their perspectives.
Sen. French said Wyoming stands to gain “billions upon billions of dollars … if those lands come back to the state.” Wyoming has never owned the property in question.
He repeated common Wyoming gripes about federal managers closing two-track roads to protect resources. “It happens all over the place,” he said.
Sen. Pearson sided with him. “Thinking that [on] federal lands you have access, you really don’t,” she said.
McKeown targeted federal firefighting. “Do you have any comments on why BLM let a lot of [land] just burn?” he asked one conservationist. “There are many cases where the state was ready to put out fires and not only did … the federal government come late to the aid, they wouldn’t let [Wyoming firefighters] on there to do it.”
French also discounted the prospect of Wyoming selling land it might acquire. “I do not believe the people of this state, the Legislature, the whoever, are going to sell off the Shoshone National Forest to the highest bidder,” he said.
Balance must be restored 🤺⚖️🕊️🇺🇸
The premise of the federal public land system by the federal government beginning over 100 years ago was for the primary purpose to hold in public ownership the public lands for the use of present and future generations.
Not including Yellowstone, these public lands amount to about 30 million acres managed primarily by the U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), primarily for multiple use purposes that includes livestock grazing, oil/gas/mineral extraction, ORV use on designated routes, hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, recreational shooting and many other uses.
These are currently OUR public lands for our present enjoyment and for our children and grandchildren to also use and enjoy in the future. It is an amazing asset Wyoming presently has.
Unfortunately, Wyoming Senate resolution found in SJ0002 demands these public lands be converted to State of Wyoming ownership. Presently you can’t even camp on Wyoming’s State Trust Lands. Additionally these lands, if transferred to Wyoming, could potentially be sold to the highest bidder at some point in the future. As an example, the State of Wyoming recently sold a state parcel adjacent to Grand Teton N.P. for 100 million dollars ironically to the federal government.
At a January 30, 2025 public hearing on SJ002, one Wyoming legislator did not believe that potentially transferred parcels would be sold, such as the Shoshone National Forest. With all due respect, what a politician says one day could result in the exact opposite result in the future.
It is my opinion we need to collectively tell the Wyoming legislature and the Governor’s Office SJ0002 is a very bad idea because the resolution is not in the public’s best interest. OUR public lands must remain PUBLIC for present and FUTURE generations. Simply put, the State of Wyoming can’t guarantee that, regardless of who says what.
Thank you and may the FREEDOM to utilize our public lands last forever!
Eric G. Decker Worland, WY
The state acquiring federal lands would be really stupid.
Wyoming cannot even elect decent legislators. Whatever makes its people think they can manage lands properly?
Keep federal public lands federal.
Why is this land to be sold to the highest bider for profit to them this land is owned by all Americans we bought this land this land is not the state ,and should be given to the people! Not to the rich what about nations of native peoples? That were there why just greedy politicians, and the rich outfitters, we would like the land we payed for our freedom not to be told let rich get richer as we git poor. How foolishness,and greed consumes you all this land is protected by federal laws.
God forbid. The state doesn’t have the best track record for managing public lands or wildlife. The oil and gas industry would have oil derricks next to Devil’s Tower if it meant more revenue.
Only the very corrupt Wyoming Legislature would come up with this idea. The oil and gas companies already run most of WY. now they want to complete the project.
Please check out the Keep It Public, Wyoming! coalition to help with the fight. https://keepitpublicwyo.com/
If that happens then Wyoming ranchers and Oil and Gas. Will be in charge of public lands.
Not living in Wyoming I’m not sure which side of the argument is best. Wyoming is a beautiful state with many areas that need protection. Can you trust Washington not to pose some stupid idea that could endanger these beautiful areas? Can you trust your state legislators to protect these areas? Given Washingtons environment today probably going with state protection is a better deal, but, it will be expensive and I wouldn’t want to see some of that land sold off. Good Luck!
This underhanded move is unconscionable to me and dangerous to Americans for access to our public lands.
Though Sen. French is “Sure” that land aquired from the BLM, particularly Shoshone or the Big Horns, would never be sold “too the highest bidder”, I’m not so sure. I’ve had plenty of issues with the Fed/BLM, but…
I’m all in for “States Rights”, and us controlling all within our borders. But then again, I do see the rezoning issues we are up against here in Park County and elsewhere in the state and I’m sure there is a bid out there that couldn’t be refused sadly. Greed & corruption is a serious issue…
It appears that Bob Ide does not understand the meaning of the word “dispose”. When something is at your “disposal”, that means it’s your property, to do whatever you want with (within the Law). You can keep it, or sell it, or give it away. In a narrower sense, the property owner may “dispose” of the said property by selling it or giving it away. But that potential “disposal” of the property is not an obligation or a requirement. Bob Ide is indeed “misinterpreting the law” and cherry picking definitions”.
Additionally, the text says that Congress “shall have the power to dispose,” NOT “shall dispose.”
Two very different sentiments.
No one in their right mind could possibly believe this clown posse ain’t higher than a kite! Random urine tests for the whole bunch starting immediately!
There are 334 million American citizens, most of whom remember that the US is a nation and not a collection of state fiefdoms, who would have trouble with the Wyoming Senate panel’s “demand” for federal public land that Wyoming never owned in the first place.
Regarding Mr. Ide’s insistence that “shall have the power to dispose” means the same as “must dispose”: his interpretation of the Constitution is skewed by his ideology and rebutted by the English language. (I imagine the gentleman would be displeased if informed a real estate contract that gave him “the power to dispose” of his house actually forced him to do so.)
Regarding this comment by an individual who insisted: “By virtue of your oath [to uphold the Constitution] you are required to vote in favor of this resolution.” This rhetoric is reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s, and a reminder that when you don’t have facts or law on your side, speak authoritatively and belligerently.
Few States in the Union have over the decades benefitted more financially from its federal lands–yet complained more about them–than Wyoming.
Exactly. Having the power to dispose of lands is not the same as requiring the disposal of lands.
The state of Wyoming couldn’t afford to maintain the federal public land, subsidize overgrazing, manage petroleum and mineral exploitation at a loss, manage wildlife, fight wildfires, and do all the work the Feds do at present. The legislators who voted for this are either ignorant of basic math or irresponsible.
Both ignorant AND irresponsible.
Other nearby states have wanted to take over the federal lands in their state. Montana did a study on what that would cost their state to take care of that land. They discovered that one BAD fire season would bankrupt their state. Think about that.
History tends to repeat itself and once again various interests, under the guise of “State takeover”, are after OUR public lands. The history of State takeover does not bode well for public land users. NV was given 2.7 million acres of Fed. Lands at Statehood and all but 3,000 acres have been sold. UT has sold off more than 50% of its lands and ID has sold 41%. OR was granted 3.4 million acres and has about 776,000 acres left. WY received 4.2 million acres at Statehood and has sold about 800,000 acres. Frequently the State lands were sold to meet short-term budget shortfalls, but sadly, in most cases, public access was forever lost.
Sen. Crago, thank you for for representing the vast majority of your constituents on this and not succumbing to peer pressure from the other three members of the Committee, who obviously had not adequately researched the proposal.
In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court said, “The powers of the legislature (congress) are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Sounds good, but in 1976 the Court said that congressional power over the public lands of the State of Wyoming is “complete,” “supreme,” “without limitations,” and “analogous” to the municipal and police powers of the States themselves. I’m having trouble reconciling the Congress of 1803 with the Congress of 1976. How can this be? Was there some constitutional amendment that I have yet to discover?
As a past employee who was involved in property management for the then owner of over a million acres of land grant property across southern Wyoming, I have to wonder if the Senators have any idea of the HUGE organization or bureau that they will have to establish in order to properly maintain this property. The property the Senators are talking about is even more complex with its forests, wildlife, national monuments, roadways, recreational areas, leases, and much more. I also think the proposals should show how Wyoming will make “billions and billions” on this property.
They won’t have to. They’ll sell it off to the loggers, drillers and ranchers and there will be no recreation land left in Wyoming.
Random observations and one question: “The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution.” Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) citing Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816). On August 12, 1803, President Jefferson wrote a letter to Senator Breckinridge. In the letter, Jefferson spoke to the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase which had just been completed on July 5, 1803. Jefferson had this to say about the newly acquired federal territory: “The Constitution has made no provision for holding foreign territory, still less for incorporating foreign nations into our Union.” The Property Clause of the Constitution delegates to Congress the “power to dispose” of territorial lands acquired by the United States. The Court has said that “It must have been the intention of those who gave these powers, to insure, so far as human prudence could insure, their beneficial execution.” McCulloch v. Maryland,17 U.S. 316 (1819). Finally, every elected official in the Wyoming legislature has sworn an oath to defend the Constitution. The dilemma that every elected official and every citizen is faced with is this. Which Constitution is going to be defended? Is it that of the Framers or is it the “living constitution” that means today whatever the popular sentiment of the day says it means? Just asking.
Thanks for confirming how those grazing on Fed. lands are receiving a SUBSIDY (i.e., a form of welfare): “Crago also warned that grazing costs could increase if the state comes to own federal lands. Outdoor council representative Underwood said grazing leases on state land cost $5.52 an animal-unit month versus $1.35 on federal property.”
And what—$15 on private land?
So ranchers who must buy and maintain their private lands are forced to subsidize their competitors?
This property was never Wyoming’s property. For decades taxpayers of the United States has paid Wyoming county seats millions of dollars. Why does Wyoming think they get this land for free? Seems to me Wyoming would have to pay back all that tax money to the federal government at a minimum. Guaranteed Wyoming would sell this land to the billionaires as they would not be able to afford to maintain the property or if they need extra money in their coffers it’s best to leave the land to the ones who own it and who have paid for it.
I would think the Shoshone and Arapahoe would be in a better standing than the freedom pinheads.
Who do you think would benefit from this? Bob Ide, that’s who. You Wyoming voters put people in office that are all about themselves. Are you unable to see that?
You mean trump? Yeah, they did that
Exactly!
In order to make America great again, we must return to the intent of the Constitution, and that includes reducing the size of the federal government AND the size of the budget to the point that it is balanced. In other words, every state will need to tighten their proverbial belt as they ween themselves off of the impractical and unsustainable programs/subsidies that the bloated federal government has used to make all of US and our individual states dependent on it. We should’ve known better years ago!
In fact, we ignored the warning JFK and his Democrat controlled Congress gave us when they put the ’45 Communist Goals’ into the Congressional Record in January 1963. It told US how the Communists planned to take US over “without firing a shot.” Since then, we allowed them to accomplish almost all of those goals. Read it. It’s easy to find and easy to read, and it’s a short read.
With the overwhelming election of Trump, we the people sent a mandate to our governments at every level: city, county, state and federal… that we want what President Trump campaigned on… his agenda is our agenda! Just do it… and that includes confirming his nominees!
America is and has always been great. Trump was voted for overwhelmingly in Wyoming. The nation wide popular vote, not so much. The public land belongs to all the people of America, not just Wyoming. If you want to balance the budget, charge the appropriate amount of money for grazing, and cut out the money that goes to the wealthy- including the money that goes to president muskrat and the orange side kick.
You’re about to get your big wish. If you’re complaining about the Federal Government being too big how will you feel about having no government at all ? The current administration is busy dismantling institutions that protect ALL of our citizens & our environment. That includes Wyoming. You’re going to wake up one morning, very soon I reckon, and wonder how a coup took place orchestrated by someone who wasn’t even on the ballot. Sadly, a whole lot of people are going to be suffering, including many citizens in Wyoming. Thanks a lot.
As others have said, this is a terrible idea and a waste of time. The Federal Government might not be the best land manager, but the State of Wyoming would be much worse. On the other hand, the more time they waste on this bill, that is less time they have to work on other bills that have a chance of passing and would do real damage.
One simple word. “NOPE”
Maybe Ide needs a new boat.
Thank you Senator Crago for standing up for sanity to this crazy resolution. Makes me wonder about the other four legislators on the committee; are they just proposing weird stuff to waste time in Cheyenne? I want our federal lands to stay in federal hands.
Thank you for some sanity. I agree that these wild cards trying to refocus on things other than Trumpism. Enough of the “Blame Game”. Results for the coming for 4 years???????
Federal land has not been treated as “the peoples”, for a very long time. I would love to see the GTNP law enFORCEment “rangers” gone for good. The Smokey Bear hats and a smile have been replaced by a gun, a bullet proof vest and an attitude that everyone has broken the “law”, they just have to figure out which one, and cite the offender accordingly.
Park Rangers used to be there for everyone’s benefit for an enjoyable park experience. Federal park rangers now are simply Thin Blue Line thugs with a gun, a badge, and a Praetorian attitude of superiority.
I’d like to see more of them.
Have you seen the difference between a state ran park and a national park? Enough said. Common sense people, this is not common sense.
the fox is in the hen house
Exactly! This state and Montana and Idaho caused rhe near extinction of grizzlies in the first place! All Americans have invested in grizzlies recovery through our tax dollars. The grizzlies beling to all of us. These bears do not belong to these 3 states to decimate again. I agree with the fox in the hen house as I have been saying the same thing!!
The rube from WY Senate District 18, Mr. Tim French, wants to seize public lands that never belonged to the State of Wyoming? Mr. French, a big Gub’mint hater but yet in the shadows cashes big subsidy checks again wants something for free? Senator French is a Heart Mountain Irrigation District farmer and if you want a first hand look at how his ilk treat federal property, tour the public lands, Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Land Management properties that are adjacent to the Heart Mountain Canal. Garbage dumps, the surface pock marked and irreversibly damaged by continuous over-grazing and other scars on the land is what you’ll see. A big NO to this cabal of Bumpkins trying to take something that was never theirs in the first place
The aspirations of a hick with an ulterior motive to yet once again, get something for free of the backs of the citizenry. Yep, the ‘pride’ of Northwest Wyoming.
Republicans love to complain about how bad and evil government is, then they get elected and show us.
Same old tired argument about fear of the feds. Aren’t we AMERICANS that are the government? I’m sure sick of the selfishness or whatever you’d call it of the people behind this shortsighted effort. Why not spend time doing something to actually help our citizens?
You may not believe the state would sell off public land if it acquires it, BUT where is the guarantee in WRITING that this could never happen??? This is an absolutely terrible idea. “Congress shall have the power to dispose”, Scott Brown and Bob Ide’s interpretation of this in the constitution is a juvenile attempt to swing things in their favor. It clearly states congress has the power, but it does not clearly state that they must use it. Otherwise they simply would have said “Congress shall dispose”.
Some of these people also have a history in reality, and I would not put it past them to buy or sell some of our public land if given the opportunity.
Sorry Wyoming, but us 346,500,000 other Americans say, “no.”
Wyoming Statehood – 1890
Roosevelt/Fed Land Grab – 1908
“No this isnt public land, it’s Federal Land”. Spoken by many a LEO ranger/etc.
Land grab? The land was already federal. It acquired designation in new departments i.e. the Forest Service, to better manage it. The US government retained the ownership of federal lands in all western states.
We have a bunch of extremists in the legislature. Bob Ide sounds like a person who would like to see our lands sold to the highest bidder and take a hunter’s privilege away for what could simply be a mistake. Remember these peoples actions next time the ballot box is open.
These people are just wasting time, resources and state dollars. Please focus on something that matters and is actually feasible.
They don’t want to do anything for the people. They want to take things from the people and control us. Vote this goofball out.
“It’s a mandate to dispose,” “They don’t have the authority not to dispose. This takes on the definition of paradoxical phrase. “Catch 22”