I second Your Mountain for deep dives into a lot of western issues. Dave and Nephi have a ton of real world experience with policy and present it in a easy to understand way.
Utah People, thoughts on this?
- Thread starter KingOfTagSoup
- Start date
I second Your Mountain for deep dives into a lot of western issues. Dave and Nephi have a ton of real world experience with policy and present it in a easy to understand way.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
My letter to the editor:
Montana Political Choices
As an independent moderately conservative Montanan with no party affiliation, voting choices are confusing.
However, as a lifelong hunter-outdoorsman and advocate for wildlife and public lands, party choice today has become clearer.
Montana Republican party platform June 2024, page 13.
Federally Managed Public Lands
The Montana Republican Party supports relinquishing federally managed public lands to the states in order to secure statehood equality and provide for better management of public lands.
Montana has difficulty funding management of what lands are now under state control. To think that public lands such as USFS lands with huge budgets for management of campgrounds, trails, roads, fire mitigation and suppression, law enforcement ... and on and on, would be better managed by the state lacking the monies required is a foolish idea.
Montana cannot even afford to implement life saving traffic safety measures to mitigate the continuous frequent car, truck, and motorcycle crashes, many with human fatalities, which occur on Die-way 191 near Gallatin Gateway!
To propose taking on management of Custer Gallatin National Forest or any other vast tract of federal public land is absurd!
Montana Political Choices
As an independent moderately conservative Montanan with no party affiliation, voting choices are confusing.
However, as a lifelong hunter-outdoorsman and advocate for wildlife and public lands, party choice today has become clearer.
Montana Republican party platform June 2024, page 13.
Federally Managed Public Lands
The Montana Republican Party supports relinquishing federally managed public lands to the states in order to secure statehood equality and provide for better management of public lands.
Montana has difficulty funding management of what lands are now under state control. To think that public lands such as USFS lands with huge budgets for management of campgrounds, trails, roads, fire mitigation and suppression, law enforcement ... and on and on, would be better managed by the state lacking the monies required is a foolish idea.
Montana cannot even afford to implement life saving traffic safety measures to mitigate the continuous frequent car, truck, and motorcycle crashes, many with human fatalities, which occur on Die-way 191 near Gallatin Gateway!
To propose taking on management of Custer Gallatin National Forest or any other vast tract of federal public land is absurd!
ismith
Well-known member
I’m not a fan. It’s no better than plastering solar panels and windmills all over Federal land.
That was interesting to hear the moderator bring up. Of course, Vance had no real answer for them other than there are a lot of federal lands that are just doing nothing or something to that effect.
They come from states that sold all their Federal lands.
No idea of what Our Public Lands mean to most folks.
Me, for sure.
Goes to show how out of touch most of these douche bags are with the average person.
Growing up in Indiana with very minimal public lands, and now living out west, our accessible public lands mean the world to me.
Pucky Freak
Well-known member
JDV: “Well, what Donald Trump has said is we have a lot of federal lands that aren't being used for anything. They're not being used for national parks. They're not being used. And they could be places where we build a lot of housing. And I do think that we should be opening up building in this country. We have a lot of land that could be used. We have a lot of Americans that need homes.“
For reference, NPS manages just 12% of federal land…the rest could be open for “building”
For reference, NPS manages just 12% of federal land…the rest could be open for “building”
YZF-88
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2012
- Messages
- 75
When it comes to corruption for anything adjacent to wildlife resources, I don’t thing any state is in the same league as Utah (wealth tags, SFW, corrupt outfitter free passes, etc). No way I’d trust the state to “manage” public resources.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Yep, just think of the vast open lands potential of the breaks around the CMR Refuge ... and the "good" roads for subdivision access are already in place!
davinski
Well-known member
Boil it all down to the bone, and I always go back to this: the threshold for corruption is highest with the federal government when compared to state and local. What I mean is, after decades of consulting for and around .gov at local, state, and federal levels, I think the lower the level of govt, the easier it is to corrupt. That's a broad and pessimistic brush, and I know and love many people working for .gov at many levels who do great work, but I've seen it over and over. I am vocal in criticism of BLM and USFS, but the prospect of any state managing that same land terrifies me. I hope this fails in UT.
ismith
Well-known member
What kind of consultant were you, if you don’t mind me asking?
davinski
Well-known member
Engineer, mostly transportation projects. All our work was contracted with cities and counties while we dealt with states' DOTs, the fed DOT, BLM, USDA, and a few other lettered agencies for the bulk of the funding. A couple decades of that gives one surprising insight to what works and what doesn't at the local govt level, and a long look at trends from the feds that ebb and flow with the color of the executive branch. Some of the land management projects inside the state in question were the ones that bugged me the most as a taxpayer.
Last edited:
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
Wyoming political clowns joining the ranks:
cowboystatedaily.com
Hageman, Gordon And Legislators Want Federal Lands Turned Over To States
Rep. Harriet Hageman, Gov. Mark Gordon and 26 members of the Wyoming Legislature want federal lands turned over to states. They’ve all filed briefs with…
cowboystatedaily.com
SAJ-99
Well-known member
Not a shock. Can’t wait to read it. You have to be drinking antifreeze to make sense out of the logic in the statement below.Wyoming political clowns joining the ranks:
Hageman, Gordon And Legislators Want Federal Lands Turned Over To States
Rep. Harriet Hageman, Gov. Mark Gordon and 26 members of the Wyoming Legislature want federal lands turned over to states. They’ve all filed briefs with…
“Hageman and the Utah delegation argue that the federal government’s ownership of land in Western states denies them equal statehood and representation when compared to other states with less federal acreage.”
wyoelkfan15
Well-known member
Hey Harriet, you mean all those states that have in comparison have barely any public land. If your intent is to privatize it all then yeah, we aren't on equal footing, and your constituents love it that way.
Wyoming backs Utah's quest to seize BLM land, may want other fed property - WyoFile
Cheyenne says its support for Western states to take over federal land could extend to national parks, forests and wilderness areas.
wyofile.com
Looks like legislators in multiple states are now supporting this. There must be some campaign donors making noise.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
There is a more extensive list in the article below. (Apparently all that Federal land in Iowa is a problem for that state.) It isn't donors, it a core party principle. Eventually people will believe politicians when they say they are going to do something. By then it will probably be too late. It seems all we can do is cross our fingers that this SCOTUS chooses not to hear the case. Some of the bigger HT legal minds might be able provide something with more optimism.Wyoming backs Utah's quest to seize BLM land, may want other fed property - WyoFile
Cheyenne says its support for Western states to take over federal land could extend to national parks, forests and wilderness areas.
Looks like legislators in multiple states are now supporting this. There must be some campaign donors making noise.
12 states get behind Utah’s lawsuit to take over millions of acres of federally-controlled land • Utah News Dispatch
Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska and other states are supporting Utah's effort to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its public lands lawsuit.
utahnewsdispatch.com
KingOfTagSoup
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2022
- Messages
- 160
This could turn into a huge problem. Remember how some states don't allow public hunting on state lands? (Looking at you CO) If the state takes ownership of the federal lands what happens to access then?
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,977
I feel like the snakes laying in the grass are finally revealing themselves. Hopefully people vote accordinglyThere is a more extensive list in the article below. (Apparently all that Federal land in Iowa is a problem for that state.) It isn't donors, it a core party principle. Eventually people will believe politicians when they say they are going to do something. By then it will probably be too late. It seems all we can do is cross our fingers that this SCOTUS chooses not to hear the case. Some of the bigger HT legal minds might be able provide something with more optimism.
12 states get behind Utah’s lawsuit to take over millions of acres of federally-controlled land • Utah News Dispatch
Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska and other states are supporting Utah's effort to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear its public lands lawsuit.
