Oh, the irony!

[brymoore]

It’s weird to see folks from the west putting faith in politicians. I was raised on the wise advice of Ronald Reagan - The nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government, and I'm here to help."

I think Raul Labrador is a terrible politician for Idaho.

 

[ImBillT]

.

on a side note, the question reminds me of a conversation I had 20yrs ago on why we even need county governments. They have become largely irrelevant.

Having only city and state governments provide services to those outside of the city limits would be a train wreck. My interests cannot possibly be properly ascertained or met by state level politicians elected primarily voters living in major metropolitan areas. Issues like law enforcement levels and location of law enforcement officers, road maintenance, whether or not cattle should be fenced out of road ways etc. varies widely from county to county. If those living outside the city were only represented at the state level, they would be poorly/under served almost immediately.

 

[SAJ-99]

Dont put words in my mouth. Show me where I said a transfer would be just fine? I just think the whole "no camping" argument is laughable. Its sad to watch you gaslight yourself by making shit up.

Sorry, I don't want to put words in your mouth and acknowledge that you have said you are against it. I actually agree that WY would probably quickly make camping ok. But I think the point of the post you responded to was to show what happens when there is an immediate reclassification of land from Fed to state, by highlighting the various rules in the various states. You never argued it (a transfer) wouldn't happen or couldn't happen or shouldn't happen, just that you didn't like the argument that camping wouldn't be allowed. Like I said, that would be an easy change, but arguing only that point misses the point of this thread and just making it about the "camping in WY" argument lacks some intellectual depth.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

Like I said, that would be an easy change, but arguing only that point misses the point of this thread and just making it about the "camping in WY" argument lacks some intellectual depth.

Expecting intellectual depth from this old coal miner is a bridge too far. Happens to be the only point against transfer that I disagree with therefore my post. Arguing camping would end as we know it lacks some intellectual honesty.

 

[BrentD]

Expecting intellectual depth from this old coal miner is a bridge too far. Happens to be the only point against transfer that I disagree with therefore my post. Arguing camping would end as we know it lacks some intellectual honesty.

Arguing that it would continue as it is lacks more intellectual honesty.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I think Raul Labrador is a terrible politician for Idaho.

Over my head

 

[Matthew57]

Not all Western states sell their lands. WA has more now than at statehood.

Are you counting WDFW land and DNR land together? Because I believe they have two different philosophies for managing land. The DNR has to make money on the land, and where I live, lease land a lot of times. Quite frankly access to these lands is not clearly defined especially on smaller parcels. I've run into areas where the lessee has completely fenced off and blocked access to the ground. Whether you can camp or not is also pretty unclear to me.

WDFW manages land for the benefit of wildlife, and I think that's what you might be referring to. Every year lately it seems I see the DNR transferring land over to WDFW because it's not producing income.

If federal land was transferred to one of these two entities, I would strongly prefer WDFW. However, their budget would need to be increased a huge amount I would think.

 

[SAJ-99]

Expecting intellectual depth from this old coal miner is a bridge too far. Happens to be the only point against transfer that I disagree with therefore my post. Arguing camping would end as we know it lacks some intellectual honesty.

Money is the real issue. Snippet below for the TLDR-crowd, but it is worth the read.

"So far, the entire $39 million in Wyoming’s emergency fire suppression account has been used to fight this summer’s fires. This money, which first became available in July, was supposed to last two years.

In addition, Gordon has permission to pull up to $20 million from the Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account, also known as the state’s rainy day fund, which he said he’s been doing since draining the suppression account."

Gordon: Wyoming Has Burned Through Two-Year Fire Budget, Needs More Money

Gov. Mark Gordon said Thursday that he’s asking the Legislature for authority to spend more money on fighting Wyoming wildfires. The state has already…

cowboystatedaily.com

 

[Irrelevant]

Are you counting WDFW land and DNR land together? Because I believe they have two different philosophies for managing land. The DNR has to make money on the land, and where I live, lease land a lot of times. Quite frankly access to these lands is not clearly defined especially on smaller parcels. I've run into areas where the lessee has completely fenced off and blocked access to the ground. Whether you can camp or not is also pretty unclear to me.

WDFW manages land for the benefit of wildlife, and I think that's what you might be referring to. Every year lately it seems I see the DNR transferring land over to WDFW because it's not producing income.

If federal land was transferred to one of these two entities, I would strongly prefer WDFW. However, their budget would need to be increased a huge amount I would think.

I was viewing all WA state lands the same. WA is better than basically all other states in that we have a state constitutional mandate that any money generated from the sale of public lands be used to purchase other income-producing land. We have WDFW and State Parks where public access is a priority. The DNR actually has multiple buckets of land. And recently passed a mandate that recreation be considered for all trust lands where it can be a mutual use. Orchards? No, there are other regulations that prevent public access. But wheat lands? Yes, you absolutely can access those (as long as they are legally accessible).

WA has $1,500 bil in assessed real estate value. You could pass an incredibly small property tax to handle all funding and likely 2x or 3x the existing FS budget.

...I am currently participating in a collaborative work group regarding FS management of a wilderness area. They claim they have no money to fund this effort. They have 6 people in this meeting. We need some gd DOGE in this teams call, and maybe we could afford a facilitator.

 

[mukbowhunt]

You are viewing an either-or binary proposition, I’m not sure that it necessarily is.

Do you hunt public land in Wisconsin much or do you have your own deer lease?

This is just the beginning. They picked the low hanging fruit. State ownership is a shitty road to wander down unless you are a rich citizen or corporation ready to make large land grabs.

 

[Matthew57]

I was viewing all WA state lands the same. WA is better than basically all other states in that we have a state constitutional mandate that any money generated from the sale of public lands be used to purchase other income-producing land. We have WDFW and State Parks where public access is a priority. The DNR actually has multiple buckets of land. And recently passed a mandate that recreation be considered for all trust lands where it can be a mutual use. Orchards? No, there are other regulations that prevent public access. But wheat lands? Yes, you absolutely can access those (as long as they are legally accessible).

WA has $1,500 bil in assessed real estate value. You could pass an incredibly small property tax to handle all funding and likely 2x or 3x the existing FS budget.

...I am currently participating in a collaborative work group regarding FS management of a wilderness area. They claim they have no money to fund this effort. They have 6 people in this meeting. We need some gd DOGE in this teams call, and maybe we could afford a facilitator.

Forgot about that constitutional mandate, I’m sure glad we have that.

 

[TheTone]

For those in favor of a public land transfer what’s the plan for the 40,000 FS and BLM employees after the agencies they work for are killed off?

 

[SAJ-99]

For those in favor of a public land transfer what’s the plan for the 40,000 FS and BLM employees after the agencies they work for are killed off?

I have a feeling they are going to get DOGE'd way before they have to worry about any potential land transfer. I suspect Elon Musk hasn't spent a lot of time in a National Forest to even begin to understand the importance of the staff.

 

[TheTone]

I have a feeling they are going to get DOGE'd way before they have to worry about any potential land transfer. I suspect Elon Musk hasn't spent a lot of time in a National Forest to even begin to understand the importance of the staff.

You don’t think his first cuts would be to his own government contracts and subsidies?

Can we send him back to South Africa on an electric rocket?

 

[Treeshark]

Do you hunt public land in Wisconsin much or do you have your own deer lease?

100% public for me.

 

[Irrelevant]

In case those still haven't caught on, I'm only feigning PLT support to spite those who think they should own/control/manage all the wildlife on OUR collective public lands because they benefit the most from it. You can stop "@-ing" me. This is in fact a cold dead hands issue for me.

 

[Treeshark]

@Irrelevant … brilliant!

That would have never occurred to me to pull such a clever move, you sly dog you!

 

[Wildabeest]

In case those still haven't caught on, I'm only feigning PLT support to spite those who think they should own/control/manage all the wildlife on OUR collective public lands because they benefit the most from it. You can stop "@-ing" me. This is in fact a cold dead hands issue for me.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I have a feeling they are going to get DOGE'd way before they have to worry about any potential land transfer. I suspect Elon Musk hasn't spent a lot of time in a National Forest to even begin to understand the importance of the staff.

Two egoist with no formal governmental status will have zero influence on 535 members of congress stuffing the coffers of their districts/states. It’s just more Bread and Circuses.

 

[Southern Elk]

Two egoist with no formal governmental status will have zero influence on 535 members of congress stuffing the coffers of their districts/states. It’s just more Bread and Circuses.

This. I was just reading an article about this. They are working outside of the government and making recommendations to Trump on what to cut. I don’t see them having any real authority to do anything.