Land Swap

Long time lurker/watcher/hunter with my first post.
I live in Meeker Colorado and I feel live in one of the greatest places with the availability of recreation and hunting and fishing access. The reason that I post today is because of the concern that I have for this public land swap that we have going on here. There has been a lot of secrecy and movement out of the public eye, as well as(in my opinion) misinformed facts concerning the exchange of lands and the value of each land. What the blm is proposing is that the BLM will exchange Prime habitat land that is adjacent to the buffalo horn ranch that had minimal access for Land that is not prime habitat, and the value for each parcel of land is not equal and I feel none of it benefits the public. There is access to the parcels in questions, No you cant drive your truck and pull your camper, but for those who are willing and able to seclude themselves it provides a great area that is secluded and pristine. I hunt these areas am familiar with the pro's and con's of each. My intent today is to put this out to a public forum which I don't think has been done where others like myself are aware of what we have happening in our area here. What I see is a group that already owns 60,000 acres wanting more for themselves at the expense of the public. The owners of the Ranch is the Cerberus Capital Management comprised of Dan Quayle, Jon Snow, Stephen Feinberg(big money)



https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front...me=dispatchToPatternPage&currentPageId=101844

https://www.craigdailypress.com/new...d-exchange-in-moffat-and-rio-blanco-counties/

https://www.theheraldtimes.com/buffalo-horn-blm-try-for-land-exchange-again/rio-blanco-county/

https://www.theheraldtimes.com/letter-edinger-discusses-land-exchange/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/

https://www.theheraldtimes.com/comments-on-buffalo-horn-land-exchange-due-june-6/rio-blanco-county/

https://www.theheraldtimes.com/lett...lo-horn-claims/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/

https://www.theheraldtimes.com/watc...oncerns-over-land-exchange/rio-blanco-county/

I'm afraid there isn't much I can do as a non-resident, but I wish you good luck. I have driven through Meeker and it is one of the idyllic places I've seen while driving cross country and I often tell my wife that buying that ranch in Meeker would be my dream. Good luck; access to the are is definitely worth preserving.

I wish the people good luck in that area that the BLM is going to screw over if/when they more than likely go through with the land swap. Your timing posting this is a little late for anyone else to get involved since June 6 was the cutoff in that very short time period for the public to comment on the proposal. I went through this procedure along with a Wyoming resident in a similar type proposal that was so unbalanced in favor of the private property land owner that it was absolutely ridiculous and easy to see that the biggest rancher in the county had the BLM employees in his pocket. The reason I say that is because I and my friend followed every procedure in filing written notices that we opposed the swap and exactly why because the BLM side was false in every aspect of why the public land should be traded. We lost at the state level and then continued our battle of opposing the swap at the Federal level in DC. While that was in process the law requires that the swap not move forward until the Federal Judges final ruling on the matter. We both won at that Federal level based on our reasons why the public was not gaining a single positive thing in the swap. What was unbelievable was that Mr. Bennett, who was in charge of the BLM at the Wyoming Office in Cheyenne, allowed the property to be transferred anyway and the deeds were signed at the County Courthouse BEFORE the Judges ruled in our favor! We both received a letter from the Judges involved and in it the BLM was chastised for not following procedures spelled out by law. However, the final paragraph apologizing to us for the infraction stated that there was nothing the Judges could do since the deeds had been transferred and signed already and we were informed that we would have to file an expensive law suit on our own challenging the illegal transfer! I had already spent many hours and had quite a bit of money tied up just in the certified paperwork that had to be sent to a number of places at each step, so there is no way I was going to hire an attorney to do what they stated and every time I read about a swap like the OP has posted I get sick to my stomach!

You are correct when you said this may be a little late. If I would have thought about this sooner I would have done it. I wrote my letters and did went to the meeting along with a lot of people. What they did was posted the last time to write in a response, but did not publicize it. My opinion is that they tried to fly under the radar to get this pushed through to the benefit of the landowner. I felt that this was a good forum to post at to bring a little awareness. There are many other people fighting this ans hoping it wont go through, as was posted on the links I provided.

And the 2 stories described above is where I run into my biggest heartburn when the BHA and others advocate keeping the federal government in charge of all public lands. All it takes is some back-room dealing with one individual in charge of vast quantities of public lands and the public gets hosed.

I don't know whether to fully back moving the public lands to the state level or keep it at the federal level. Both situations worry me. And these back-room deals like this just make me fume. SMH

Wish we could apply some old west justice on some individuals when dealings like this are found out.

The state of Montana made the right call on this proposed similar land swap in the Bitterroot. Local involvement was the key.

https://ravallirepublic.com/news/article_6c220feb-149d-547d-a577-8dfb88ced1af.html

gregh said:

You are correct when you said this may be a little late. If I would have thought about this sooner I would have done it. I wrote my letters and did went to the meeting along with a lot of people. What they did was posted the last time to write in a response, but did not publicize it. My opinion is that they tried to fly under the radar to get this pushed through to the benefit of the landowner. I felt that this was a good forum to post at to bring a little awareness. There are many other people fighting this ans hoping it wont go through, as was posted on the links I provided.

Click to expand...

My post in no way was meant as anything negative towards yourself just because of the time frame involved. IMHO 30 days for public comment is a ridiculously short amount of time on something so important. I will pray that there are still enough people pressing the BLM there not to proceed with any plan and to leave things as they are. It sounds like there is a massive negative feeling to go forward just like there was several years ago when the first proposal was published. All I know is that one top dog in Cheyenne violated the law and the trust that he should have been working for the majority of the public. He violated the law and my Dad had a saying of what goes around comes around. Within a couple years of that misdeed Mr. Bennett was diagnosed with cancer (pancreatic I believe) and from what I heard through the grapevine died a very painful death!

Buff Horn ranch has asked for similar BLM transfers previously. I have submitted comments in opposition to these swaps each time. The owners have nothing but time, and continue to knock on the land swap door. Stay vigilant, and send a comment if you oppose their proposal.

widnert said:

And the 2 stories described above is where I run into my biggest heartburn when the BHA and others advocate keeping the federal government in charge of all public lands. All it takes is some back-room dealing with one individual in charge of vast quantities of public lands and the public gets hosed.

Click to expand...

How is that a federal government problem? It would be even easier to back-room deal if it was just "your buddy Ted" down at the county courthouse controlling the decision.

Wildnert,
Although the federal government is very inefficient and bureaucratic, that is also exactly why they’d have such a hard time selling off our land someday, as compared to a state. They have a lot of law and policy that must be followed.

Small town governments, county commissions and state politicians can be and in some places are about as corrupt as they come too. And they don’t have near the tape to keep them from acting on it.

State management would not be better, states like Wyoming have no money to manage those lands and would try to sell them off right and left.

Similar land swaps are proposed throughout the country. Well over half the time that these "projects" go through the general public gets hosed. Typically there isn't a clear cut benefit to both parties. Unfortunately the federal government and the public are typically on the losing end.

MTGomer said:

Wildnert,
Although the federal government is very inefficient and bureaucratic, that is also exactly why they’d have such a hard time selling off our land someday, as compared to a state. They have a lot of law and policy that must be followed.

Small town governments, county commissions and state politicians can be and in some places are about as corrupt as they come too. And they don’t have near the tape to keep them from acting on it.

Click to expand...

Exactly the point I was making though. I don't know which one is less prone to corruption like this, than the other. At the federal level, they'll post public-comment notices that no one ever see's and its a done deal. Local/state level, back room handshake, a little palm greasing and its done. To stand and say keeping these lands locked-in at the federal level is absolutely no guarantee that this doesn't happen - as evidenced above. Neither is moving it to a state level - although, one would "think" at the state level they can only give away those lands within a state. It is just frustrating to us peons to have to deal with the results of this type of corruption. Like I noted - some old west justice may go a long way toward curbing these kinds of thoughts - if the punishment was severe enough.

widnert said:

Exactly the point I was making though. I don't know which one is less prone to corruption like this, than the other. At the federal level, they'll post public-comment notices that no one ever see's and its a done deal. Local/state level, back room handshake, a little palm greasing and its done. To stand and say keeping these lands locked-in at the federal level is absolutely no guarantee that this doesn't happen - as evidenced above. Neither is moving it to a state level - although, one would "think" at the state level they can only give away those lands within a state. It is just frustrating to us peons to have to deal with the results of this type of corruption. Like I noted - some old west justice may go a long way toward curbing these kinds of thoughts - if the punishment was severe enough.

Click to expand...

Couple comments, to this and your previous post.

1. It shouldn't be hard to figure out that a majority of the States have made the decision to not trade, but out-right SELL a lot of their State land holdings.

2. Get used to dealing with these issues, they aren't going away and only going to get worse as time goes on. Its up to ALL of us to stay in the loop, and groups like BHA have a lot of eyes and ears out there watching this stuff. I can tell you that 10-20 years ago, a lot more chit slipped through the cracks than it does now. We all have to be vigilant in keeping up with proposed land exchanges, land sales, etc. at both the Federal and State level. In the information age, the only people to blame for not knowing is ourselves. In the amount of time you spent making these two posts, you could have googled the proposed land exchanges in Montana and/or Wyoming.

3. I can say for certain that the process is much more likely to benefit the average Citizen if the lands are Federal rather than State. It wasn't that long ago that Montana denied access to all State lands for the recreation unless permission was granted by the leasee. Its also fair to note that State lands are not mandated to be managed for the greatest good, for the greatest number, for the longest time. Many are managed to maximize revenue to the State School Trust, etc. Further, as in the case of Wyoming, the State Land Board, made up of the top 5 elected officials, can arbitrarily do things like deny us all the ability to camp or have a camp fire on State land. Wouldn't it be great if you couldn't roast a frickin' hotdog or marshmallow over an open fire on State public land anymore? Or camp over-night? That's exactly what the State Land Board decided to do, we cant camp or have campfires on State land.

Wouldn't it be even better if the State decided to start charging a couple grand a year for recreational use of State lands?

This is really a no-brainer...State control will lead to nothing but grief and more and more privatization of public lands, it already has.

Right again, thanks Buzz.

Does anyone know if this land swap was approved? I was looking through old threads and stumbled on this. Wish I would have known about it at the time. I have taken elk off one of the BLM parcels that were proposed to be traded and would be very sad to learn it was no longer public. Did the land exchange go through??

Is this the area in question?

FamilyMan said:

Does anyone know if this land swap was approved? I was looking through old threads and stumbled on this. Wish I would have known about it at the time. I have taken elk off one of the BLM parcels that were proposed to be traded and would be very sad to learn it was no longer public. Did the land exchange go through??

Click to expand...

Colorado Wild Public lands filed another “stay” mid-October. Not sure what the timing for another decision is.