Bob Beauprez mentioned as possible Interior Secretary

[rideold]

Just saw this in the news this morning. I don't understand what powers the interior secretary has but it's disturbing to see someone potentially being in the position that has made no bones of getting rid of federal lands. I was able to find some campaign info from his 2014 run for governor:

I will seek to reestablish the rights and duties of the state, in accordance with the Tenth Amendment. We will:
Create a coalition of like-minded governors--in particular Rocky Mountain West governors--to push back against federal encroachment on issues that are properly state concerns.
Establish a process for taking control over public lands back from the federal government.
Source: 2014 gubernatorial campaign website, BobBeauprez.com Jan 1, 2014​

 

[Nameless Range]

Seems like it is time for people like Jason Hairston of KUIU, who rode the Trump train on the premise that being buddies with Trump's sons and knowing they were hunters implied hunters didn't have anything to worry about, to speak the hell up.

Once the pieces are in place come January, things could get nuts real quick, and "I told you so" will be meaningless.

 

[LuketheDog]

From a recent interview with Mr. Beauprez:
"he professed a more middle-of-the-road approach, calling for more “balance” between allowed uses and conservation of public lands."

I don't see the sky falling yet...

 

[rideold]

The thing that gets me about the public lands issue is that there seems to be a lot of talk regarding this politician or that one supporting "conservation of public land" but I hear almost no clarity on what that really means to them (or us). I don't see the sky falling either but I am disturbed by the trends. Kind of like being on a peak and seeing a large thunderstorm an hour away. It might pass over, it might not but that doesn't mean I don't get prepared. Seems like this is the same situation. Maybe the real work needs to be on the state level to secure legislation that would direct what happens to federal lands if/when they are transferred to state control and addressing not selling them off or leasing them to pay the bills. The fight to keep lands public on a federal level is still important but out-flanking and doing something that would ensure continued access and preservation of lands on the state level seems prudent. I for one would like to see Colorado state trust land opened up to public access! I just keep writing my representatives.

 

[Oneye]

His short list for Interior director is terrible. I don't think people fully understand the point we are at now the next 4 years. I will again repeat, the republicans have the senate, the house, and the presidency. In 2018 the democrats have 7 very vulnerable seats in the senate and there is a very good chance republicans take a super-majority in the senate which will fast track anything they want to pass through congress to the presidents desk. That means we will be putting full faith in Trump who makes a decision on an issue every five minutes, then makes the opposite decision five minutes later, to veto bad public land bills. Sorry, but that is an absolute terrible place to be. The sky isn't falling......yet, but its got some significant cracks in it so far. You have to have full faith in Trump to believe the next 4 years may not be very bad for public lands, and anyone who has full faith in that man is mad. Republican congressional members are going to try land bills, I can promise you that, and in 2 years it could get even worse if democrats lose even more seats. Putting full faith that Donald Trump will veto his own parties bills, is not anything I would ever place a bet that mattered to me on. Sportsmen better be ready to get involved, contact their reps, join organizations, and apply extreme pressure on the public lands issue, if you stay silent in the next 4 years or don't get involved, its gonna be an irreversibly bad 4 years for sportsmen in the west especially.

 

[airlocksniffer]

But his son is a hunter! He'll have daddy's ear.

Really though I keep seeing Forrest Lucas as frontrunner for Interior, which is pretty bad.

 

[Big Fin]

I'm not into the game of Ds v. Rs, as much as this bad legislative agenda is all slanted to the Rs. If we go the route others have, where we feel we need to pick one side or the other as the savior of our cause, we marginalize ourselves and our issues, whereby we end up losing in the end.

The goal, as much work as it might be, is to make both sides understand the importance of the issue and create advocates on both sides that we can count on. That requires finding ways to reach those who might be interested in our cause and convert them to our way of thinking, whether with honey or vinegar. That is a most sustainable approach for the long-term.

As tempting as it is to hitch the wagon to one side or the other, it is a temptation we must resist. If Rs see this issue as potentially damaging for their political future, they will put up some resistance to the crazies among them. Odds are those Rs will come from places other than the west.

For the next two years, nothing can pass the Senate without Daines (MT) and/or Gardner (CO) voting for it. Since both of them live in states with a split Senate reputation and very heavy outdoor economies, they need to be "shown the light." In the interim, converting other Rs who are undecided that our cause is their cause.

Sometime in the next two years, a western Congressional delegate will "step in it" when it comes to this issue. And when he/she does, the wrath of hell needs to come down upon them and serve as warning to any other western delegates, that supporting this issue is like supporting more gun control. When that happens, hunters better be ready to knock out some political teeth, regardless of whether they voted for the person and/or associate with that person's party. Nothing gets their attention more than if those most inclined to vote for them are the ones kicking the teeth out.

In the mean time, I'm doing what the old buffalo hunters would say, "Sharpening my blades."

 

[Southern Elk]

For the next two years, nothing can pass the Senate without Daines (MT) and/or Gardner (CO) voting for it. Since both of them live in states with a split Senate reputation and very heavy outdoor economies, they need to be "shown the light"

Randy, do you have a read on where these two stand as of now?

 

[rideold]

The response I received from Gardner when I inquired is as follows:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the transfer of federal lands to states. I appreciate you taking the time to write. It is an honor to serve you in Congress and I hope you will continue to write with your thoughts and ideas on moving our country forward.

Growing up in Colorado has given me a profound appreciation for the natural beauty of our state. Much of this beauty is found on federal lands, which are protected from forms of development which might destruct or diminish their grandeur. I strongly believe that we must preserve this natural beauty for our children and grandchildren, and I remain committed to the conservation of our great state.

In recent years, there has been much debate over the transfer of federal lands to state control. Colorado was touched by this controversy last year during discussions regarding Colorado National Monument and its designation as a national park. I applaud former Senator Mark Udall (D-CO) and Congressman Scott Tipton (R-CO) for seeking community input and engaging with local Coloradans to address their concerns about the national park proposal, and I strongly believe that local communities must be involved in the administration of the federal lands in their communities. While there is currently no legislation before Congress or the Colorado state legislature addressing this issue, I will certainly keep your thoughts in mind should it come before the Senate in the future.

Again, thank you for contacting me, and do not hesitate to do so again when an issue is important to you. ​

 

[Oneye]

As sportsmen the time is now and whenever possible to get involved. If you don't belong to BHA or RMEF, join as soon as you can and keep your membership up to date. RMEF is $35 a year, BHA is $25 a year. Cable TV cost more than that every month. If you're already a member, buy a gift membership for someone you know, it's the holiday season after all. Send emails to companies, such as KUIU or gohunt and let them know they need to do what they can to help protect our public lands which in large part make their companies able to exist. I don't need Sitka gear, KUIU, or goHunt if I don't have anywhere to hunt or I have private land I have to pay for access to. A lot of companies don't realize how vital the giant expansion of public lands we have mean to their business. Contact all your representatives, from county commissioners to congressmen whenever you can and keep in their ear, let others know they need to do the same thing. With broad republican support it is going to take pushback to cut the head off this snake once and for all. At this point we can either be the generation that ends this terrible idea to dispose of public lands once and for all, or we can be the generation that loses them. Time to make or choice.

 

[Big Fin]

Randy, do you have a read on where these two stand as of now?

Daines claims to be against Transfer or anything that results in disposal of these lands. I, and other Montana hunters, regardless of party or voting history, plan to keep him singing that tune. I can think of no other Republican Senator who needs to be on the right side of this issue more so than Senator Daines. When he has made good votes on some public land issues, he has been thanked. When he has strayed to the edges, he has felt the heat.

I think Senator Daines could be one of those folks who can explain to his caucus just how stupid this idea is. We just need to make sure that we support him when he does that, just as we will communicate to him if he does not stand against what is a very strong current caused by some other Western Senators.

 

[dcopas78]

I heard Jan Brewer(NM) and Mary Fallin(OK) are also both on the short list of potential DOI secretary. Anybody know anything about where they would stand?

Edit: Jan Brewer is from AZ not NM

 

[Southern Elk]

Daines claims to be against Transfer or anything that results in disposal of these lands. I, and other Montana hunters, regardless of party or voting history, plan to keep him singing that tune. I can think of no other Republican Senator who needs to be on the right side of this issue more so than Senator Daines. When he has made good votes on some public land issues, he has been thanked. When he has strayed to the edges, he has felt the heat.

I think Senator Daines could be one of those folks who can explain to his caucus just how stupid this idea is. We just need to make sure that we support him when he does that, just as we will communicate to him if he does not stand against what is a very strong current caused by some other Western Senators.

Thanks for the info. Would it do any good for out of staters to write or call him?

 

[u1299]

I think I know what it means but I'll ask the question anyway (what does kicking their teeth out really mean?), voting the SOB's out of office correct?, I mean what other option is there? What in this last election cycle especially in Montana would lead anybody to believe hunters/anglers/recreationists etc. have any intention of kicking their teeth out. This public land transfer BS didn't just start last year, it's been going on since at least the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980's and James Watt to my recollection. We've had 40 damn years to figure this out and make sure our political enemies who support this transfer agenda don't get elected and have failed miserably in my opinion in that regard. In my home state of Montana we seem to be making almost zero progress in electing anyone other than Steve Bullock and Jon Tester who has the same respect for our public lands that we do. We are actually going the wrong direction, electing even more public land enemies and by even wider margins than ever before. Given the last several legislative sessions in Montana with the crosshairs being settled squarely on hunter/conservationists temples I have no logical explanation how this can be. Fool me once shame on you, fool me 2,3,4 and 5 times shame on me.
I appreciate the optimism some have that if we just make it known to the politicians there will be hell to pay if they don't do as we wish, and you can count on me to help in that effort in any way I can, but honestly I don't share your optimism. November 8 has made me more pessimistic about a lot of things than at any time in my 61 years on this earth. I really fear we may have reached the tipping point where we can turn this Transfer idea thing around, they have all the momentum and we are hanging on by our fingernails.

 

[James Riley]

I think I know what it means but I'll ask the question anyway (what does kicking their teeth out really mean?), voting the SOB's out of office correct?, I mean what other option is there? What in this last election cycle especially in Montana would lead anybody to believe hunters/anglers/recreationists etc. have any intention of kicking their teeth out. This public land transfer BS didn't just start last year, it's been going on since at least the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1980's and James Watt to my recollection. We've had 40 damn years to figure this out and make sure our political enemies who support this transfer agenda don't get elected and have failed miserably in my opinion in that regard. In my home state of Montana we seem to be making almost zero progress in electing anyone other than Steve Bullock and Jon Tester who has the same respect for our public lands that we do. We are actually going the wrong direction, electing even more public land enemies and by even wider margins than ever before. Given the last several legislative sessions in Montana with the crosshairs being settled squarely on hunter/conservationists temples I have no logical explanation how this can be. Fool me once shame on you, fool me 2,3,4 and 5 times shame on me.
I appreciate the optimism some have that if we just make it known to the politicians there will be hell to pay if they don't do as we wish, and you can count on me to help in that effort in any way I can, but honestly I don't share your optimism. November 8 has made me more pessimistic about a lot of things than at any time in my 61 years on this earth. I really fear we may have reached the tipping point where we can turn this Transfer idea thing around, they have all the momentum and we are hanging on by our fingernails.

I agree with you.

 

[Straight Arrow]

I also concur.
A Thanksgiving gathering political discussion highlighted federal government misconceptions mostly perpetuated by the talk show media to garner support for the right "less government" radical element. It is widely believed that no local or state influence is present in public land decision-making ... all decisions are unilaterally made in Wash DC. When you inform folks that BLM and USFS personnel, particularly managers and directors, live, work and hunt in the various states effected by the decisions, they seem to be almost in disbelief. When you describe the public input process and the extensive transparent decision-making process, these folks suddenly appear to wake up. When you tell folks about public lands personnel volunteering as coaches, school board members, and in so many capacities at the local level, suddenly they realize that the public lands administration is not this faraway onerous government entity out to ignore the local concerns.

When you explain that the timber industry is so highly impacted by the market factors and trade agreements, not as much by USFS logging projects, they then start thinking more rationally. (ie: less expensive Canadian lumber from subsidized timber harvests north of the border is delivered by the trainload, with empty cars returning north!)

When you explain that the largest factor in the downturn of the coal industry is the lower cost of natural gas (again market-driven) then their eyes start to show some hint of realization.

'Point is that the factual and real information concerning the federal government and public lands somehow has to be widely disseminated, so folks will get off this "let's make all decisions locally" bandwagon.

 

[hank4elk]

i also concur.
A thanksgiving gathering political discussion highlighted federal government misconceptions mostly perpetuated by the talk show media to garner support for the right "less government" radical element. It is widely believed that no local or state influence is present in public land decision-making ... All decisions are unilaterally made in wash dc. When you inform folks that blm and usfs personnel, particularly managers and directors, live, work and hunt in the various states effected by the decisions, they seem to be almost in disbelief. When you describe the public input process and the extensive transparent decision-making process, these folks suddenly appear to wake up. When you tell folks about public lands personnel volunteering as coaches, school board members, and in so many capacities at the local level, suddenly they realize that the public lands administration is not this faraway onerous government entity out to ignore the local concerns.

When you explain that the timber industry is so highly impacted by the market factors and trade agreements, not as much by usfs logging projects, they then start thinking more rationally. (ie: Less expensive canadian lumber from subsidized timber harvests north of the border is delivered by the trainload, with empty cars returning north!)

when you explain that the largest factor in the downturn of the coal industry is the lower cost of natural gas (again market-driven) then their eyes start to show some hint of realization.

'point is that the factual and real information concerning the federal government and public lands somehow has to be widely disseminated, so folks will get off this "let's make all decisions locally" bandwagon.

word!

 

[Matt R]

With respect to Cory Gardner, I believe we have a Republican here in Colorado who has shown, even as a neophyte senator, that he's willing to listen to his constituents and vote against a resolution that was widely espoused by his party (Lisa Murkowski's (AK) BLM proposal - He was one of only (3) republicans to vote against Sen. Murkowski's measure). Yes, Sen. Gardner realizes that he represents a state that has now, for the first time in over 100 years, voted for a democratic presidential candidate in three consecutive elections but I'm hopeful that we have someone here that will vote his conscience (and that of his constituency) regardless of what political capital he may gain or lose on the state or national levels.

 

[BruinPoint]

I had occasion to talk one-on-one with Sen. Gardner earlier this year. Without making a short story long, he seemed genuine about keeping public lands in public hands.

 

[Irrelevant]

I also concur.
A Thanksgiving gathering political discussion highlighted federal government misconceptions mostly perpetuated by the talk show media to garner support for the right "less government" radical element. It is widely believed that no local or state influence is present in public land decision-making ... all decisions are unilaterally made in Wash DC. When you inform folks that BLM and USFS personnel, particularly managers and directors, live, work and hunt in the various states effected by the decisions, they seem to be almost in disbelief. When you describe the public input process and the extensive transparent decision-making process, these folks suddenly appear to wake up. When you tell folks about public lands personnel volunteering as coaches, school board members, and in so many capacities at the local level, suddenly they realize that the public lands administration is not this faraway onerous government entity out to ignore the local concerns.

When you explain that the timber industry is so highly impacted by the market factors and trade agreements, not as much by USFS logging projects, they then start thinking more rationally. (ie: less expensive Canadian lumber from subsidized timber harvests north of the border is delivered by the trainload, with empty cars returning north!)

When you explain that the largest factor in the downturn of the coal industry is the lower cost of natural gas (again market-driven) then their eyes start to show some hint of realization.

'Point is that the factual and real information concerning the federal government and public lands somehow has to be widely disseminated, so folks will get off this "let's make all decisions locally" bandwagon.

I don't know who you talk to but when I mention those things I often still get the same glazed over half crazed look of someone too focused on Fox News and their Anti-Obama Memes to comprehend the most basic components of govt. let alone something as complex as reality.