Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Trump may pick McMorris-Rogers for interior
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Klapton
Member
Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
Klapton
Member
PostThu Dec 15, 2016 3:48 pm 
Grannyhiker wrote:
Federal land is a national treasure and a national heritage. I'm not sure why those of a certain party can push to privatize Federal lands and at the same time claim to honor the memory of Teddy Roosevelt!
They don't honor the memory of Teddy Roosevelt. He betrayed their party, formed his own, and ran against them.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostThu Dec 15, 2016 4:50 pm 
Klapton wrote:
He betrayed their party, formed his own, and ran against them.
Hmm, can't put my finger on it, but there's something about this historical context that feels hauntingly current... uhh.gif

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
graywolf
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 808 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim
graywolf
Member
PostThu Dec 15, 2016 5:28 pm 
up.gif agree.gif

The only easy day was yesterday...
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 7:20 am 
I see. So the federal government owns the perfect amount of land. Not too much, not too little. They stopped homesteading and delegating it over to state control at just the right amount. Perfect!

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 1511 | TRs | Pics
thunderhead
Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 9:30 am 
Looks like a pretty good amount of federal land to me. That system works great. No need to change it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 12:12 pm 
An article in The Guardian indicates that the shift from Rodgers to Zinke was in large part due to Zinke's opposition to transfer of Federal land to states and his support by sportman's groups.
Quote:
But Trump disagreed with that anti-Washington fervor during the campaign, telling Field & Stream magazine that he would not support proposals to divest federal lands to the states. “I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do,” the New York billionaire said in January. “I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land.”

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
grannyhiker
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Jul 2006
Posts: 3516 | TRs | Pics
Location: Gateway to the Columbia Gorge
grannyhiker
Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 1:12 pm 
If this is true (hard to believe anonymous statements from the transition team), I hope they use the same criterion for SecAgriculture!

May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view.--E.Abbey
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 5:29 pm 
WANative wrote:
So the federal government owns the perfect amount of land. Not too much, not too little. They stopped homesteading and delegating it over to state control at just the right amount.
In 1965, Congress determined the answer was "No" and established the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Congress has since funded $11 billion to repurchase lands for NPS, USFS, BLM and FWS, from a fraction (currently about 1/8) of Federal oil and gas revenues. This is a tiny fraction of the Federal costs of acquiring lands for military bases, highways, buildings, etc. LWCF land acquisition is about 1% of what the gov't spends on nonmilitary intelligence or on homeland security each year. Whether this is too much or too little, you may debate. It's roughly 2 to 4% of the amounts Americans choose to spend on cosmetics, or on carwashing, or on dog grooming, or on costume jewelry, or on bottled water, or on body art, or on motorcycles, or on firearms. Depends on what makes you feel good.

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 5:55 pm 
WANative wrote:
So the federal government owns the perfect amount of land. Not too much, not too little.
I would guess that were I to study land ownership maps, I would be able to find some Federal land that I wouldn't mind being sold/given to states. These would tend to be isolated Federal patches surrounded by development or by other state lands, for example. The resistance to the concept doesn't come from believing that the current balance is perfect, but that those who advocate for the change have publicly stated motivations that are counter to my preferred policies.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 9:46 pm 
Selling off federal land is a boondoggle meant to enrich select campaign contributors and short term make the federal balance sheet look slightly better so that tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1000 families in the country will pass Congress. As for states being better able to manage forest lands than the feds. There is a specific problem here in WA, the state constitution stipulates that state owned forest lands be managed to produce revenue for state schools. Which is different than the mission of the USFS which has provisionsome for preservation and conservation. Besides who here thinks the DNR really does a better job than the USFS???

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
WANative
Member
Member


Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
WANative
Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 11:07 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
There is a specific problem here in WA, the state constitution stipulates that state owned forest lands be managed to produce revenue for state schools.
How is that any different than just simply charging for access?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MyFootHurts
Huge Member



Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 912 | TRs | Pics
Location: Kekistan
MyFootHurts
Huge Member
PostFri Dec 16, 2016 11:13 pm 
RandyHiker wrote:
Selling off federal land is a boondoggle meant to enrich select campaign contributors and short term make the federal balance sheet look slightly better so that tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest 1000 families in the country will pass Congress.
Can you give any specific examples of this? Which campaign contributors got rich buying federal land and what tax cuts are you talking about that only went to the 1000 richest families? Or are you just making up fake news on the spot?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RodF
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Sep 2007
Posts: 2593 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim WA
RodF
Member
PostSat Dec 17, 2016 2:33 am 
RandyHiker wrote:
As for states being better able to manage forest lands than the feds. There is a specific problem here in WA, the state constitution stipulates that state owned forest lands be managed to produce revenue for state schools. Which is different than the mission of the USFS which has provisionsome for preservation and conservation.
Perhaps this isn't fair? About 20% of the DNR managed forest lands in Washington (and about 1/3 on Olympic Peninsula) have been withdrawn from production for preservation and conservation, primarily as riparian reserves, wildlife and bird habitat, due to potentially unstable slopes, or as natural or recreational areas. Ref: DNR p. 18 Only about 2.1 million acres or 38% of the total 5.6 million acres of forest and aquatic lands managed by DNR are in timber production. However, not all states share our balance of priorities for their state-managed lands.

"of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt" - John Muir "the wild is not the opposite of cultivated. It is the opposite of the captivated” - Vandana Shiva
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Jake Neiffer
Member
Member


Joined: 07 Dec 2011
Posts: 825 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lexington, OR
Jake Neiffer
Member
PostSat Dec 17, 2016 8:48 am 
Where does the idea that if forest is preserved, federally protected, it is automatically better managed stem from? I started a thinning project on private ground over Thanksgiving. The trees look like corn, 2 of us are making progress of a 1/4 to 1/2 an acre a day. The adjacent federally protected ground looks the same, it has no chance of developing into old growth. Literally its depressing walking through it. How we can claim that the system is working well, I do not understand. I'm certainly not saying the answer is transfer of public lands, but we should at least be honest in the status of how things sit currently. The amount of federally protected forest in dire straits is debated, but I think most agree that its an awful lot.
Quote:
But, with an estimated 120 million acres of U.S. forests still needing restoration to be healthy and resilient (to fire, climate change and beetles), more aggressive thinning schemes and resources are needed.
Seeing the (overcrowded) forest for the trees

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1376 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
Member
PostSat Dec 17, 2016 9:39 am 
I would avoid blanket statements of any kind about Federal or state lands. Take national forests. While regulations and laws come from the other Washington, it is pretty obvious if you visit enough of them that there are pretty radical differences in how they are managed and what their priorities are. Nobody in the area where I live sees the Mt Hood NF and the Gifford Pinchot NF in the same light. Complaints that Federally-owned land would be better managed by local people avoids the obvious fact that to a large degree it is local people who make most of the decisions, even if they are not life-long local people. Similarly state lands vary quite a bit within a state and across different states. So I return to my previous point. Most of the people who advocate for the Federal government to transfer land either to states or private ownership are quite open in their desire to lessen environmental protections and/or to increase resource extraction, and so I assume that if they are successful that is what will happen to those lands. Since I don't favor those changes, I oppose their policies. Now what if a Federal government determined to undermine the ESA or drill and mine more and more agreed to sell land to a conservation organization that guaranteed to protect it?

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > Trump may pick McMorris-Rogers for interior
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum