Interesting ... but not really relevant to nor supportive of your previous assertion of "allow the states to oversee management for multiple use, public access, preservation of resources."
Laffin'...
Sounds like you need to get Mike Lee off his ass and have him fund the park service.
It's hard to listen to crap like this... Strip funding from agencies that manage the land, for years and years, then complain that they don't have the resources to manage them?! This has been a conscious strategy employed by many on the right, who want less federal land. And the American people are not on board (which is why sneaky chit like this is seen as necessary by the Mike Lee's of the world).
Backseat Buzz offers soundbites for the minions!!
Leslie Knope would disagree!
County Parks & Rec will need to have an epic bake sale to cover their firefighting costs after a few bad drought years.
All it takes is funding, real simple.
What work has the UT delegation done to address this? Have any efforts been made to earmark a portion of revenues for park maintenance?
How so? Outfitters can already get special use permits to guide on BLM, I can't think of any way this would affect hunting becoming a money game.
and windmillsLots of sheds being built out on the BLM lands.
Limit supply?? Increased regulation increases costs to the end user
The proposed leases will have essentially zero effect on supply, demand, or any regulations affecting cost to hunt or really hunting in any way. I think most people really are misunderstanding what this proposal is and isn't.
