Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is Wyoming so under-populated? According to the newest U.S. Census, there's more people in my California county than in Wyoming. Also, I look at Google Earth at times and it looks like Wyoming doesn't have any big cities. What's there to do in Wyoming?
Location: formerly Gillette, WY now Sacramento, CA
203 posts, read 712,571 times
Reputation: 93
We are moving to Wyoming in a week and I am happy that there are no big cities. We have houses in Las Vegas and San Diego so I have done the big city thing. Wyoming has amazing beautiful landscape from mountains to plains also with lots of geothermal activity. Rumor says that WY in the best kept secret in the US. People prob don't want to move there because the weather can be cold but I can honestly tell you the people of Wyoming that I have personally met have been some of the best people I have EVER met and that is why we are moving.
There's been a lot posted on the Wyoming threads about quality of life and activities here on C-D, and the local climate, and the recreational opportunities.
Again, the reasons why much of Wyoming is sparsely populated, if at all:
1) Over half the state is government land which is not available for development ... parks, state owned land, national forest, BLM, etc. The topography in some places makes development impractical; it's hard to build up the sides of hills you can't easily access when snow or drifts blocks any roads for 4-5-6 months of the year. Add in water quality/availability issues, and you've got much of the state which simply isn't a place for building towns or cities.
2) Much of the state is a high altitude desert, with limited water and vegetation. It's very sparsely productive. You can put it in the perspective of how much land it takes to support animals; well over 110 acres for each cow/calf unit. The average ranch land holding in SE Wyoming was historically 6 sections of land for a very small ranch; that's 3,840 acres, so sounds like a lot of land to many outsiders. But you have to consider that it's minimally capable of supporting 30-odd head of cattle which is hardly enough to make a living on ... and that's in good years of moisture when the cool and warm season grasses are productive. You might see that really good forage growth once in 7 to 10 years ... where you could have had more livestock supported, only you can't just instantly build up a herd for those few opportunities. Compare this to areas of the country where it's not uncommon to run 40 head of cattle per acre on natural forage.
3) Folks from out of the area don't understand that the "green" forested areas of this state are very limited; much of the state is "brown" for most of the year. If you're expecting low altitude lush wet area deciduous tree stands, it's not here. I get a laugh out of heading East to low elevation forests where you use a shotgun for deer because that's the visibility you have through the dense tree stands in the woods; in WY, I've got friends who are tired of trying to get shots in the 200-300 yard range and are using custom rifles that are capable of good one-shot kills in the 1,000 yard range for antelope or elk.
Of the "green" areas, some are well developed, such as Jackson, or the Star Valley ... at rather high dollar values which aren't supported by job incomes in the area. You're not going to move to a $1mil condo in Jackson (a starting price) on your $15/hour job without bringing in outside independent income.
4) Much of the state's available land is suitable only for ranching and is held in large blocks because the ranches needed that much land to support a livable income size livestock herd and forage production. Most of historical large ranches are held by folks who derive a living from them or are able to own them as a recreational property (hunting, fishing, trail riding, just "open spaces" for themselves and guests to enjoy).
Take a sampling of the ranches listed today for sale in the state; you'll see places that are asked in the multi $mil. A quick glance in The Fence Post (a regional ag oriented newspaper/advertiser), and you've got everything from 62 acres (with 5 modest rental houses) and live water with a 12 acre lake at $2mil, to a "7,605 acre" ranch (with only 5,170 deeded acres, that's what you actually own instead of the leased balance) at $5.5mil.
Another, a close neighbor of mine with a little cow operation and some pivot irrigated farmland (240 acres under two pivots, raises hay), is 1,280 acres with the 100 year old farmhouse and some outbuildings and his fences. Priced at $1.2mil. Let's see ... 240 acres at 4 ton/acre x $120 ton yields a gross income of $115,200; figure in expenses to irrigate, fertilize, two (maybe three) cuttings, farm insurance, equipment costs, fuel costs, hay delivery costs ... and I'll bet he's not netting $30,000 from that gross income. And that's if he sells all of his hay in a good year ... how much is he using to feed his own cattle through the winter months and others when he doesn't have forage available? You're simply not going to buy and pay for a $1.2mil place on $30,000 per year farm income and the 900 acres of grazing (that's only able to support 8 cow/calf units in a good year). You know that he's got to be feeding his cattle from his irrigated farm hay production. I think he runs about 40-50 head year-round. At today's cattle prices (last week's sale barn slaugher cattle report of $40 to $47 per hundredweight), selling the "ideal" 800 lb cow ... that's $3,760 gross per head at top dollar ... he might be netting $600 per head after two years of all the work, vet bills, feed and supplements. Yowwee ... got maybe 30-40 head to haul to the sale barn each year, for an income of $24,000 and a very full-time job. Add it up, between farming and ranching, the place might yield a net income of $50,000 in really GOOD to GREAT years. That type of income makes sense when you bought the place for $150 per acre awhile back (as his family did), but not when it's priced at $1,000 an acre.
Yet another ranch, up by Douglas. 7,127 acres ... of which only 2,227 are deeded. The rest is all leased land from the Forest Service. Understand that you have no guarantee of renewal of the lease, and that the Forest Service tells you each year how many AU's (animal units) they'll allow on their land (depending upon their evaluation of the forage/land quality) and for how many months of the year's lease you paid for (some years, you might only get to graze on the land for 90-120 days and then must have all your cattle off the land). Of course, you get to maintain the infrastructure (fencing, cow water supplies) on the leased land for your cattle at your own expense ... no matter how much you get to use that leased ground for your livestock. There's a very modest ranch headquarters house with some little line shacks for your hired help to live in, and no ag (farm) ground. You're strictly on very open, very sparse ... thinly wooded, at best ... flat ground and some mountain sides with a lot of vertical land (tough for you to hike, let alone a cow to graze). It's scenic vistas and rough charms will not yield one penny of productive value to your operation. Priced at only $3.75mil.
OK, how about one that's mostly deeded acres? 10,696 acres, with 10,176 deeded and 7miles of live creek running through it to water your livestock or for your viewing pleasure. Can't use any of the creek water for crops, only livestock ... and you have to be very careful that your cattle aren't a source of contamination to the creek (can't have them peeing or sh**ing in the creek anymore due to environmental rules now in effect). Almost no trees anywhere, just seasonal native grasses out in the pastures and some cottonwood trees along the creekbed. You can bet that the wind just howls around this place for most of the year, so that few trees can get established, and your shelter belt around the house is a tough proposition to keep alive each year. Only $5.3mil. So let's say, for discussion sake, that you can bring 100+ head of saleable cows to market each year off this place .... that's still only $60,000 income per year. For the sake of further discussion, let's say my numbers are way off and you can net $1,000 per head and bring in 150 head to the sale barn each year; that's still only $150,000 per year income. Yet even more extreme, let's say you're an exceptional operator and know how to really cut corners and maximize profit and production, and somehow come up with $250,000 income each year. You're not going to pay much on that $5.3 mil purchase at that rate. (Don't forget you've got annual insurance costs and taxes to pay on this place, too). You can play with the numbers all you want, but it's still not going to show productive value per acre anywhere close to the asked purchase price. You're buying a piece of prestige, an escape, a playtoy, a hunting/fishing resort property ... but not a viable business property. And you're not going to tear up one acre more than needed for roads, infrastructure, or recreation, because you know that every acre you take out of production costs you.
There's many more ranches and farms available, priced at these kinds of numbers. Unless you've got a piece of property with mineral rights ownership (very unlikely), in an area that's producing extractive industry value (coal, methane, minerals, oil) ... you most likely are looking at land that cannot justify it's purchase price by it's productive value.
In our own case, we bought the last piece of property sold for it's productive value in the area. The balance of the ranch is on the market in 40 acre parcels, asked at $3,500 per acre. Only they don't have the irrigation water that we do for our cropland, and are limited by covenant to 4 head of large livestock. That's 4 horses, or 4 cattle. The 40 acres will not support either by grazing; you must bring in hay. You'll spend $100/month (or more) per head in feeding them (that's just the hay cost, not your labor) with small squares (more expensive than round bales per ton by a large factor). There's no way you'll be making much money buying a $100+ per hundredweight feeder cow and keeping it for 24 months at that expense, and then selling it for $45 per hundredweight. You'd do it only to raise your own beef, which will cost you a bit to get processed and turned into freezer packages. You might make it at $4/lb for your overall cost for beef into the freezer (oh, and you do have a freezer capable of taking 300+ lbs of beef, don't you?) ... that's $4/lb hamburger and stew meat, in addition to those wonderful (but few) primal cuts at only $4/lb, and short ribs at $4/lb. Just how many T-bones and sirloins and porterhouses (maybe 4!) and flank steak and rump roasts do you think you get out of one cow? The only way we justify this cost is that we have complete control of what we're raising and eating ... natural, free-range, hormone-free, dry aged and cut to our spec ... beef.
4) When you look at some of the very sparsely developed areas in the state where land is now being parceled up for little "ranchettes", you have to appreciate that these places present a very remote environment with limited water, limited vegetation, limited livestock or wildlife, and a very tough climate to live in. Without trees, without much vegetation, just a lot of wind howling around ... and no amenities of a city within a reasonable drive away. Hot in the summer, cold in the winter, too. You're not going to have anything there that you didn't bring in for yourself ... food, power, entertainment, shelter. Even at a modest cost of several hundred dollars per acre for the land, the overall costs will be high for what you get. It's a survival existence, not a life for most people. Yes, the land is there and wide open ... but's it's appeal to most folks simply isn't going to encourage economic development and "cities" of population.
WOW! Great answer. How true can this be for other states nearby? (Montana, N & S. Dakota etc.) I've always thought of Wyoming as lush green vegetation and wondered why the population was so sparce. (Sheep and cows everywhere....my ignorance of course.)
WOW! Great answer. How true can this be for other states nearby? (Montana, N & S. Dakota etc.) I've always thought of Wyoming as lush green vegetation and wondered why the population was so sparce. (Sheep and cows everywhere....my ignorance of course.)
Very much the same factors for the adjacent states.
Unless there's a major economic factor, such as a mining area (Gold! in the Black Hills), or a lower elevation wetter climate for crops ... it's also very sparse country. Or a tourist attraction area, such as Yellowstone, or the Black Hills, or the Devil's Tower.
You can't discern much difference heading north out of Wyoming into Montana, nor the Black Hills in Wyoming into SDakota, or the rolling hills heading south into Colorado, nor the eastern prairie heading east into Nebraska. If you'll take the time to look at a regional map, you'll see many counties through the area that have but a couple of towns in the whole county ... the roads just run for miles between nothing but open spaces that may have a mine or a bunch of ranches or open government land.
Many of the "towns" that you'll drive through have limited facilities or commerce because there's almost no population (under 100 people); you can spot the regional economic centers by the population increase in the area. For example, Rapid City is the economic powerhouse of the Black Hills area, and with the exception of a few mining town districts (Lead), the rest of the towns in the Black Hills are predominantly tourist oriented to the forest attractions (Mt Rushmore, Crazy Horse Monument, etc). Head there for the year end, and you'll find that most of the restaurants and tourist attractions (and many businesses, motels, retail stores ... even the restaurant in the Alex Johnson Hotel, a major downtown Rapid City anchor business) are closed during the winter season. When you see the major motel chains operations closed for the winter and recognize the capital investment sitting non-productive for 5 months out of the year, that tells you how the local economy is based. Mt. Rushmore didn't go away for the winter, but the tourists sure have .....
We drove through Spearfish last week, and the only restaurants open were the usual suspects (chain fast food places) on the north side of town by the interstate. Downtown restaurants were closed for the season; there's not enough local population support to justify keeping them open during the winter. We kept on heading south to Rapid City, where we (unfortunately) chose an open local brewpub restaurant for lunch that served their house specialty with a cold to luke-warm microwaved entree over a bed of partially cooked rice. I guess their chef takes off for the winter, too. Just what I wanted for lunch (NOT) ... and the place was busy because most of their competitors were shut down for the winter.
Driving through the area, you realize that the Black Hills area ends abruptly at the prairie that's adjacent at lower elevation ... somewhat like cliffs on a seashore. Once you're out of the Black Hills, you're really out of them into a very sparse region, again. It's not green, it's not loaded with sheep or cows, and it's not very productive land except in isolated pockets of activity. Water availability and quality is a major factor, in addition to a fairly harsh climate ... hot in summer, cold in winter. Did you happen to catch the winter storms reports of this winter ... severe snowfall that paralyzed some of the region for several days. And that's in an area where folks understand winters and are prepared for them, unlike shutting down a Seattle region with 1/2" of snow.
IMO, you won't find a huge demand for folks to move to this area for a retirement unless they're already acclimated to some very hard living conditions/climate. There's a reason why the "sun belt" portions of the country are so attractive for this segment ... no snow to shovel just for the sake of being able to continue normal living (it's not like you're going to have snow based recreation, like a ski resort town) for 5-6 months of the year. So the primary attraction of the region has to be the ability to make a living, which will center on the available natural resources (farming, ranching, extractive industries) or tourist areas, or transportation centers (Cheyenne, for example, as a railroad town). There's little justification to attract other types of businesses to the area, so folks aren't moving in for manufacturing jobs or other big capital investment type industries.
In general, the intermountain west (from the east side of the Sierra Nevada range) to the east side of the Rockies is very high, frigid desert. From the east side of the Rockies to the 100th Parallel on the eastern boundary, is only slightly less dry, high plains.
The only "lush" areas in the west are within about 50 miles of the Pacific coast, or are very high mountain valleys fed by snowmelt in the growing season.
The only real, viable use for this ground is as grazing lands during the spring, summer and fall. Environmentalists would have people believe that this is wrong for the land, but it comes down to this: graze it with bison or graze it with cattle. Take your choice, that's about all you can do with a great deal of the land in the west. Water is scarce, the growing season short, killing frosts are possible on any particular day of the year (including July nights) and you really have a very limited set of things that will withstand this environment.
Since most people seem to prefer living within 100 miles of the coasts or large bodies of water (eg, the Great Lakes) and we have none of that in the west (unless you count the Great Salt Lake as such), most people don't want to live here. There is no hugely desirable weather (it gets colder than a brass monkey's buttocks in the winter) and it can get hotter than hades in the summer, with wide, wide variability at all times of the year, rapid weather changes, snow, wind, floods, the occasional tornado, some earthquakes thrown in for good measure... and quite simply, most people don't find this to be their cup of tea.
And that's just fine with those of us who do like it.
I have been following a lot of your (very well articulated) posts here on the forum. Perhaps you may be able to steer our decision making process by outlining a few options based around some criteria that my wife and I have.
First off, we are Christians and (politically speaking) conservatives who are looking for a state in the union where we can be left alone. We are not interested in the Gov't buying our junk cars, magnamously giving us health care or easy credit on buying a house with no money down. We would like to keep our guns, our freedom, our money.
With that, where can someone who runs an internet business settle in WY where we can get 5-10 acres of land to raise some livestock and grow some crops to support ourselves? We would be looking for land that is arable (obviously), where we can access water and have the least (relative term to be sure in WY) risk of loosing crops to frost. I have read your very informative posts about water rights, but we would not be looking for an ag well, really just something to support ourselves. I am aware from your posts that the laws govern all water the same, but I am hoping that there would be a place in WY for us where we can be left alone to raise our children.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Sincerely, [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Sbc4me[/SIZE]
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
