Educate Me on BLM and USFS Management

[MTGomer]

I live in the State of Utah, heart of the Public land transfer uproar. I know Utah is spending $14 million to sue the Federal Government for a public land transfer. My question is why does Utah think they should have this public land transferred to them? Is the USFS and BLM really corrupt as people say it is? What is the BLM and USFS doing wrong in Utah's eyes or in Nation's eyes? I am full support of public land and that is where i do all my hunting and fishing. I don't want to see our public access be taken away.

Why? rich people are paying the proponents big money to lobby for it. It will pay large dividends in the future.
Is the USFS and BLM corrupt? Probably. Is any large federal bureaucracy not? As people say? That depends on who's saying it.
What are they doing wrong in Utah's eyes? Everything. But it doens't really matter how much they improve or don't improve. The financial interest of those pushing for transfer will remain, and it will still be pushed for.

Above, the word 'transfer' is synonymous for 'auction'. They have the same meaning in this situation.

 

[antlerradar]

James. I don't think that trashing or selling is the answer ether. You and I value public land far more than the value of our 320 millionth.
I wouldn't be giving PLT folks any ideas. Say the land would sell for 250 an acre. That would mean a family of 4 would get two grand. I would not want to put that up for a vote. Those that value public land could very well lose that vote to those that just wanted the money.

There are some used of public lands that I have little use for. Feral horse's and ATVs come to mined. The transfer debate has caused me to reevaluate those positions.

 

[el unit]

My opinion

 

[quarterhorse]

I agree with the patch above to an extent, but they are really no worse than any other government agency. They all need to step it up a notch. Local, state and federal government all have the same issues. As far as corruption goes I believe worse things happen at the local and state levels just because there is less oversight. As far as not appreciating what the federal public land offers - people need think about how they will appreciate the no trespassing signs of the future instead of the public land of today...

 

[MTGomer]

Local governments can be beyond corrupt. I saw firsthand how underhanded and backwards small-town politics were doing land development in western North Dakota during the oil boom a few years ago. When the same person who owns the bank, is invested in a development, and his brother is state Attorney General, and the city planner a relative, you can imagine how certain projects get fast tracked while others get bogged down in an endless circle jerk of regulation and bureaucracy intended to ruin them.
Or when a county commissioner is the founding member of a major engineering consulting firm in the region, you can imagine how the public's money always ends up going to the only form that manages to be the 'lowest competent' bidder, even when they're the highest bidder. Etc

I could exceed the maximum character limit allowed in this post 20 times telling of the corruption that I witnessed. Corruption that unethically made some people millions, while driving others into bankruptcy.
Fed's atleast have a diverse group of people from all walks of life working for them. In a federal agency, you probably aren't indebted to your coworker because of some bad deal grandpaps made in the Great Depression.

The stories of how corrupt ive seen local government be are endless.
Quarterhorse is absolutely right.

 

[James Riley]

James. I don't think that trashing or selling is the answer ether. You and I value public land far more than the value of our 320 millionth.
I wouldn't be giving PLT folks any ideas. Say the land would sell for 250 an acre. That would mean a family of 4 would get two grand. I would not want to put that up for a vote. Those that value public land could very well lose that vote to those that just wanted the money.

There are some used of public lands that I have little use for. Feral horse's and ATVs come to mined. The transfer debate has caused me to reevaluate those positions.

Agreed. Some of the worst uses I hate to see are better than no longer owning the land at all. My Dawes Act analogy was simply to show how the mind operates when it comes to Fking people. It was sold as good thing, knowing full well what was going to happen and who would benefit. The PLT crowd will be pulling out every possible "Want some candy little girl" and lots of little girls will go for it.

Edited to clarify: I don't mean to imply the Indians were little girls or fell for the Dawes Act. It was shoved down their throat. While they were treated paternalisticly, it was the rest of America that thought it was a good idea once it was pitched to them by the molesters.

 

[BuzzH]

When discussions like this start, I often wish that a basic course in Resource Policy was a prerequisite to commenting.

Pretty tough to complain about decisions the agencies make, without understanding the policy/mandates they are required to follow.

I also often hear the argument that all the land management decisions are made by bureaucrats in D.C. That's just pure BS. Forest Supervisors, District Rangers, etc. are afforded a lot of control on management decisions on the forests and districts they are in charge of.

I also have grown tired of the fact that 99% of the people that blame the agencies for everything and anything, don't attend a public meeting, have no idea who their local District Ranger is, and really aren't engaged at all in the process.

Its been my experience that if you want change or things to go a certain way...getting involved rather than just bitching is a very critical and important first step.

I've had a mixed bag of results on getting things done on issues, but even when things didn't go my way, I understood the process and how/why the decisions were reached even if I may not agree. That's called life, and we don't always get our way. Its a process for adults and if acting like a spoiled child is how one chooses to conduct business, expect to be disappointed and frustrated.

 

[vanish]

On the topic of the effectiveness of the BLM/USFS:

Those in Congress who favor PLT, saying the gov't agencies aren't doing a good job, are also those voting to cut the government agencies' budgets, which prevents them from doing a better job. Its all circular.

 

[James Riley]

On the topic of the effectiveness of the BLM/USFS:

Those in Congress who favor PLT, saying the gov't agencies aren't doing a good job, are also those voting to cut the government agencies' budgets, which prevents them from doing a better job. Its all circular.

This is true. It's been going on so long, and the debate is so "polite" and "politically correct" that no one gets to the meat of the issue. We need a politician who can say "Well then, why don't you fund them, STUPID?" Just like that, verbatim. Of course, the corporate media would then get all verklempt. But it takes the cloths off and would compel the respondent to either argue about waste or the fact they don't like the mission of the agency. That is a good thing. Because it gets us past the illogical diversion about agency incompetence and on to something we can argue about.

As much as I disagree with and dislike Ollie North, I did take great pleasure in watching him make Congress his bitch. We need more of that. Those who don't like it would do well to get their shit together *before* it gets to that point. They bring such zealous push-back on themselves. If the establishment likes peaceful, honest, respectful discourse, then by God they better act peaceful, honest and respectful. And drop the passive aggressive, politically correct BS.

End rant.