Today is the vote. GAOA

[BigHornRam]

C'mon kids, play nice.

Imagine how they would play if the vote didn't go their way.

 

[SAJ-99]

Highly probably the House will approve and the President will sign it. Cory Gardner and Steve Daines have to have this bill and Republicans need to keep the senate. That doesn't mean they care about an infrastructure plan to improve National Parks or LWCF. Just good old fashioned politics. It also isn't going to stop the Administration from defunding the EPA or taking away designations from other currently protected areas. It is just a bill with some positive language toward the LWCF. I tend to tone down the excitement because I read the bill. This is only a step in the right direction. The funding is just for maintenance of National parks and such. It even says that funds can't be used to buy land. To even say it "permanently funds" the LWCF is a little misleading. The summary points out the process for determining the amount that goes to LWCF will remain the same. I'm not dancing in the streets on this one. Like most Bills, if you are suspect of the messenger, make sure you read the message closely.

"Additionally, the bill makes funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) permanent. The President shall annually report to Congress specified details regarding the allocation of funds to the LWCF. Congress may provide for alternate allocations using specified procedures."

 

[azelkhntr]

The House will likely add so many Amendments to it that it’ll die. And why is BIA education allocated 5%? So, not to derail the thread but I’m under the impression that anything politics is a forbidden subject here. Or is it only politics the < troops agree with? So confusing.

 

[bennirio]

Yeah I'm with ya, but I kinda feel bad for UT, NV & AK. The gov't owns so much land that it really impacts the States ability to prosper. Would Zion, Bryce or Canyonlands really be any less if UT was able to control and make money directly off it? IDK? People today want modern 21st century conveniences when they visit the NP's. Why not let private enterprise provide those wants?

Yes the federal government owns loads of land. Which is good in many ways because it keeps it open to all. Bad because those states don't have much control over them. I wouldn't mind the state controlling the land or managing it, but I fear that it will be treated like the trust lands and be required to be "profitable". Also this is another budget expense for the state and might not get funding either. It's a complicated issue. I think a combination of both would be good. Keep it federal land with the feds matching whatever funds the states put into their budgets to maintain those lands, including the National Parks, allow the feds to staff them because they have the infrastructure already. With the hopefully increased budgets the maintaining of the parks and federally controlled land will improve. I agree that people want the modern conveniences of the day when they "go camping" in these NP's. A private public venture might be beneficial. If it's well managed. I almost cried when we opened up our cabin for the summer and I had cell service where I once didn't. So I like them to be primitive.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The House will likely add so many Amendments to it that it’ll die. And why is BIA education allocated 5%? So, not to derail the thread but I’m under the impression that anything politics is a forbidden subject here. Or is it only politics the < troops agree with? So confusing.

Politics isn't forbidden. Topics or threads that are purposely decisive are banned, stirring the pot is banned.

 

[MTGomer]

Without public lands, Utah would just be a place with Mormons and bland food.

 

[azelkhntr]

Yes the federal government owns loads of land. Which is good in many ways because it keeps it open to all. Bad because those states don't have much control over them. I wouldn't mind the state controlling the land or managing it, but I fear that it will be treated like the trust lands and be required to be "profitable". Also this is another budget expense for the state and might not get funding either. It's a complicated issue. I think a combination of both would be good. Keep it federal land with the feds matching whatever funds the states put into their budgets to maintain those lands, including the National Parks, allow the feds to staff them because they have the infrastructure already. With the hopefully increased budgets the maintaining of the parks and federally controlled land will improve. I agree that people want the modern conveniences of the day when they "go camping" in these NP's. A private public venture might be beneficial. If it's well managed. I almost cried when we opened up our cabin for the summer and I had cell service where I once didn't. So I like them to be primitive.

No surprise Romney voted no. He’d be more than happy to privatize much of Utah’s public lands. You don’t think he actually moved there to be closer to the temple right?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Yes the federal government owns loads of land. Which is good in many ways because it keeps it open to all. Bad because those states don't have much control over them. I wouldn't mind the state controlling the land or managing it, but I fear that it will be treated like the trust lands and be required to be "profitable". Also this is another budget expense for the state and might not get funding either. It's a complicated issue. I think a combination of both would be good. Keep it federal land with the feds matching whatever funds the states put into their budgets to maintain those lands, including the National Parks, allow the feds to staff them because they have the infrastructure already. With the hopefully increased budgets the maintaining of the parks and federally controlled land will improve. I agree that people want the modern conveniences of the day when they "go camping" in these NP's. A private public venture might be beneficial. If it's well managed. I almost cried when we opened up our cabin for the summer and I had cell service where I once didn't. So I like them to be primitive.

1. 9/10 states are the ones who restrict hunting and access not the fed. State transfer is just bad news all around. You mentioned the cost component, in CO every agencies has to pay for itself... can you imagine if CO has to front the costs for paying for fires? Your state park pass would cost $2k a year.

2. My family ran a national park concession for 3 generations... gonna be a hard pass for me on private companies having anything to do with our public lands.

 

[Hilljackoutlaw]

Without public lands, Utah would just be a place with Mormons and bland food.

What about fry sauce?

 

[azelkhntr]

Without public lands, Utah would just be a place with Mormons and bland food.

And lousy beer.

 

[noharleyyet]

What about fry sauce?

Puckey.....

 

[Woodrow F Call]

And lousy beer.

I had some good beer from Hopkins Brewing in SLC last year.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I find it hard to believe that both my Senators, Barrasso & Enzi voted against this bill. I'll e-mail them with my thoughts about what they did to Sportspeople in Wyoming and where they can go. There has to be some campaign donation money at stake here for them. I have no doubt that if they're against it then our lone representative Liz Cheney will be a nay vote too. They all sold out to big money years ago.

 

[BigHornRam]

Politics isn't forbidden. Topics or threads that are purposely decisive are banned, stirring the pot is banned.

Decisive or divisive? Stirring the pot is allowed but you have to lick the spoon afterwards.

 

[geetar]

Let alone get Orange Man to sign it. More whining to come when that happens.

 

[badkarma6]

Very happy both Arkansas senators voted in favor of this! Makes me think that the encouragement of a few of us down here has made a difference.

Very sad to see the names of a few senators that I respect for non-hunting related issues show up as a Nay for this. Just shows that no matter who you vote for, and for whatever reason, do NOT stop advocating for the things that are important to you.

I’ve sat in a duck blind with Senator Boozman before. He’s solidly on our side. Good dude. Good Senator.

 

[Wildabeest]

And lousy beer.

Huh?

 

[1_pointer]

Yes the federal government owns loads of land. Which is good in many ways because it keeps it open to all. Bad because those states don't have much control over them. I wouldn't mind the state controlling the land or managing it, but I fear that it will be treated like the trust lands and be required to be "profitable". Also this is another budget expense for the state and might not get funding either. It's a complicated issue. I think a combination of both would be good. Keep it federal land with the feds matching whatever funds the states put into their budgets to maintain those lands, including the National Parks, allow the feds to staff them because they have the infrastructure already. With the hopefully increased budgets the maintaining of the parks and federally controlled land will improve. I agree that people want the modern conveniences of the day when they "go camping" in these NP's. A private public venture might be beneficial. If it's well managed. I almost cried when we opened up our cabin for the summer and I had cell service where I once didn't. So I like them to be primitive.

Though it's been over a decade ago, some folks at Utah State University did an economic analysis of turning over the non-National Parks or DoD lands to the state. IIRC, they concluded that they only was the state could afford them would be to sell the best 1/2 to be able to possibly keep the worse 1/2. Lots of the ground you now can enjoy as public land would no longer be public land if federal lands in UT became state lands.

 

[Gerald Martin]

Though it's been over a decade ago, some folks at Utah State University did an economic analysis of turning over the non-National Parks or DoD lands to the state. IIRC, they concluded that they only was the state could afford them would be to sell the best 1/2 to be able to possibly keep the worse 1/2. Lots of the ground you now can enjoy as public land would no longer be public land if federal lands in UT became state lands.

Yes, but if you would sell half and develop half, the other half left over would be great, just really wonderful and the federal government wouldn’t be in control of it. All those people doing study thingies aren’t doing the math right.

 

[SAJ-99]

Yes, but if you would sell half and develop half, the other half left over would be great, just really wonderful and the federal government wouldn’t be in control of it. All those people doing study thingies aren’t doing the math right.

I think that is sarcasim.? Hard to tell on the internet sometimes.
Here is the study. all 800pages of it. Math seems pretty robust although the revenue estimates are probably way too high because of the assume market price of oil and gas.
https://gardner.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/1.-Land-Transfer-Analysis-Final-Report.pdf