Well, yes, he owns a ranch. But a working owner he is not. He's a pharmaceutical industry titan.
In a more just society, frankly, he wouldn't own the ranch at all. It'd be owned by those who actually derived a living from it.
Also of interest, Iron Bar Holdings, the petitioner, is represented by Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP of Denver, with Robert Reeves Anderson as counsel of record. The respondent is represented by a local Wyoming firm. I note this as there's no reason that the common attorney bullshit claim "I'm only doing my job" really ought to hold, for civil litigation. If you run into a Colorado attorney in Wyoming, ask them who they work for. if they work for this outfit, tell them to go home, we don't want them here.
For that matter, if you are a Colorado user of public lands, as they want to take part of what you own, there's no reason to accommodate them with a seat at the table, literally. "Want a cup of coffee sir? Drive to Texas. . . ."
At the trial court level, Iron Bar had been represented by Gregory Weisz, who is a Wyoming attorney. He's left private practice and is with the AG now. A lawyer with his firm took his place, but the case was well developed by then, and in the appeal stage, so they really had no choice.
So, what am I saying. Well, I'm saying that people who don't derive their income principally form a ranch, ought not to own it. And I'm saying that by representing carpetbaggers, you are a carpetbagger. The old lawyer bromides about serving the system are BS. Regular people, including other lawyers, don't have to excuse your choice of clients when you are taking on a plaintiff. It's not like being assigned a defendant.
It appears the Big Ugly Bill with Mike Lee's scheme to sell public lands that fall within the former putative state of Deseret, which he acts as if he represents, will occur today or tomorrow.
Call you people in Congress today and inform them you are opposed.
If you live in Wyoming, inform them that they better start putting in their resumes for post Congressional punditry right now, as you'll not vote for them for anything ever again. They aren't representing you if they vote for this.
Sen. Lee is apparently offering something, but it's not clear what, and the opposition is saying no. I'm saying no as well. I adamantly opposed transferring public lands away from public hands.
Congressman Hageman responded, or somebody working for her did, to a letter I wrote. It may of course be a form letter.
Dear Mr. Yeoman
Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.
On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development.
There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.
First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers.
Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis.
Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.
This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.
I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
Well, at least its a response.
A few things.
I've taken at look at the bill, and I had before I received this letter, contrary to Congressman Hageman's suggestion that I, and others opposing this didn't.
This proposal still sucks. I have no interest, for example, in reducing checkerboard land patterns, particularly if we are now able to corner cross, as it sees we can. This land just opened to the public and now
Nor do I have any interest in disposing of Federal lands for an alleged "housing crisis" that largely doesn't exist in the form these things suggest. There's no requirement in any of these proposals to restrict sales of land to those really in need of housing. A process already exists to transfer lands where such things really exist. Sales for "fair market value", in the areas where this would apply in Wyoming, would result in transfers of land in Wyoming for castles for the rich, which I do not support. There's nothing to suggest the land would go to state and local governments given that, and I don't want state in local governments in the housing business to start with.
More than anything, this is the wolf's nose in the door. Once its passed, it'll push its way into the house.
Frankly, for Wyomingites in general, and more specifically for the users of public lands (hunters, fishermen, outdoor recreationist, ranchers), this ought to be it in regard to political support.
If anyone of our three Congressional reps vote for this, they shouldn't receive our votes after this.
Voters need to remember who favored this horrific action to privatize public lands in 2026. All over the West there seems to be a view that you have to vote for Republicans. You don't, if they aren't voting for you. There are other options, or there can be if people consider what's being done and oppose it.
The views of average Wyomingites, by a huge margin, are clear on public lands. We want them to remain public.
And yet our Congressman voted to transfer 500,000 of FEderal land in Arizona and Utah over to private hands. It's clear that at least one of our Senators is okay with doing something similar in Teton County.
Wyomingites aren't in favor of this at all. Indeed, one of the most rabid Trumpites I know actually expressed bewildered opposition to this.
So here's the problem, and the question.
Why are Wyomingites still supporting the people who support this?
Politics are varied and complicated. The reasons that Wyoming has gone so far to the right in its recent politics are as well. A lot of it has to do with social issues, abortion, transgenderism, immigration, and so on, and much of that, here, has to do with the death of the Democratic Party and there being, seemingly, no where else to go.
But at least on the local level there certainly is, and what Wyomingites are presently doing is not in their own best interest.
Much of what they're currently doing is, frankly, based on a host of lies. Donald Trump was not the victim of a stolen election with Joe Biden won. Joe Biden won. Global warming is not a fib. The long drift away from coal cannot be arrested. The state's petroleum industry was never under any governmental assault (leases went up under Biden). There is no war on the West. The region's agricultural sector isn't under governmental attack, but rather under real estate developer attack. The Democrats really weren't advancing gun control.
But we've been bought off on a bunch of dramatic assertions designed to cause the rise up of what plaintiff's lawyers call our "lizard brain".
Well, now we have a whole host of legislators, many from out of state, who don't share local values at all, and a Congressional delegation that is more interested in supporting the agenda of the far right and its ostensible leader, a nearly 79 year old real estate developer suffering from dementia, than paying attention to what we actually believe.
And that's because that's exactly what we let them do.
In reality, those close to the inside know that John Barrasso doesn't believe what he's supporting. It's pretty clear from her past that Cynthia Lummis doesn't either. Harriet Hageman, well she probably does, as she's a political family that has always had this set of views. Having said that, and importantly, she intends to run for Governor next election and Chuck Gray, who is a Californian with very little connection to Wyoming, will run for House.
In the next election Wyomingites have a chance to make their views known, although they really need to start doing so right now. That can have an impact. John Barrasso, in the last election, adopted a whole host of new views he probably doesn't hold at all to hold off an attack from his right. Lummis just quietly mostly didn't say what her views actually are the last time she ran, which she could do under the circumstances, and which leaves her room to maneuver.
Maneuvering will, it must be noted, need to occur. In 2026 the House is going to be Democratic and the MAGA reign will be over, save for in Wyoming, where there's every reason to belive it will keep on keeping on.
The Wyoming Freedom Caucus of its day, the Johnson County invaders.
Much of this, we'd note, is perfectly consistent with Wyoming's history. Early on Wyoming sent a solidly Republican group of legislatures to our solon in Cheyenne in spite of its association with large outside agricultural interest which were oppressing local interest. That didn't end until the invasion of Johnson County in 1892 which briefly swept the Republicans out of power, and brought Democrats into the legislature and which sent Governor Barber packing, although not until after he tried to actually remain as Governor a la Trump insurrection in a way. That event, however, shows the electorate can react. It also shows us that politicians can too, as Francis E. Warren managed to survive the event, career entact, when really she shouldn't have, by changing views.
And this is happening in Montana, which was a little in advance of Wyoming in tilting to the far right, right now.
Just sitting and complaining "well that's not what we think" won't get much done.
Politicians from any party ought to represent the views of their state. They ought to also intelligently lead. There's not much intelligence being manifested in the populist far right, which is mostly acting with a primitive response on a set of social issues combined with false beliefs, andy in Wyoming, with views they brought up from their own states which don't have much to do with us here. We aren't Sweet Home Alabama.
But that won't happen unless Wyomingites educate themselves as to the truth, and what is truly going on, and how they're simply being fed raw meat for the dogs. Until that occurs, we're going to go further into the abyss.
Remember that some things aren’t for sale: Wyoming's congressional delegation should review the "Code of the West" before they sell off our public lands, attorney Ryan Semerad writes.
Going Feral: Disaster.: Federal Land Can Be Home Sweet Home Wall Street Journal America needs more affordable housing, and the federal government can make it ha...
America needs more affordable housing, and the federal government can make it happen by making federal land available to build affordable housing stock.
The Interior Department oversees more than 500 million acres of federal land, much of it suitable for residential use. The Department of Housing and Urban Development brings expertise in housing policy and community development. Together we are creating the Joint Task Force on Federal Land for Housing to increase housing supply and decrease costs for millions of Americans.
Under this agreement, HUD will pinpoint where housing needs are most pressing and guide the process by working with state and local leaders who know their communities best. Interior will identify locations that can support homes while carefully considering environmental impact and land-use restrictions. Working together, our agencies can take inventory of underused federal properties, transfer or lease them to states or localities to address housing needs, and support the infrastructure required to make development viable -- all while ensuring affordability remains at the core of the mission.
Streamlining the regulatory process is a cornerstone of this partnership. Historically, building on federal land is a nightmare of red tape -- lengthy environmental reviews, complex transfer protocols and disjointed agency priorities. This partnership will cut through the bureaucracy. Interior will reduce the red tape behind land transfers or leases to public housing authorities, nonprofits and local governments. HUD will ensure these projects align with affordability goals and development needs. This isn't a free-for-all to build on federal lands, although we recognize that bad-faith critics will likely call it that. It's a strategic effort to use our resources responsibly while preserving our most beautiful lands.
This is about more than building houses. We want to build hope. Overlooked rural and tribal communities will be a focus of this joint agreement. We are going to invest in America's many forgotten communities. As we enter the Golden Age promised by President Trump, this partnership will change how we use public resources. A brighter future, with more affordable housing, is on its way.
