Federal Land Transfer info

[Gerald Martin]

Politics and conflict are like a pendulum. When the pendulum of frustration swings too far, people make drastic decisions without understanding the consequences of what those decisions involve. That's what I see happening here average person who supports the theory of transfer.

They are frustrated by inefficient management, overreach, and the continual litigation that keeps these issues tied up in court for way too long. I agree completely with your perspective, Randy.

The extreme anti-logging, anti-multi use crowd has been at this for so long they fail to see how their hard line stance and continual litigation will be one of the major factors that will work in the pro-transfer crowd's favor.

While they claim to love wilderness and wild things, their ideology won't let them accept the fact that multi-use is the law concerning most public lands. Eventually, it becomes all about themselves, and their cause, regardless of what is good for public lands and the public.

Even though they are on the other side of the road from the extreme-anti wolf movements that sought to torpedo the Simpson/Tester bill, they are just as much in the ditch.

 

[James Riley]

Even though they are on the other side of the road from the extreme-anti wolf movements that sought to torpedo the Simpson/Tester bill, they are just as much in the ditch.

That is a good analogy. If the answer is to get back on the reservation though, the ditch can be an attractive alternative. To mix metaphors, the reservation is a piece of pie that is thinner than the blade we propose to cut it with.

 

[Arch Stanton]

At this link from the state land board website, you will find the following, some of which is news to me.

http://www.oregon.gov/dsl/DO/Pages/aboutcsf.aspx

Thank you. What was the information that shocked you/ was new to you?

I live in Central OR (The folks in Portland-Salem-Eugene call us Eastern Oregon). 90% of our population lives in 10% of the land and the other 10% of the population lives everywhere else. The 2 groups seem to have very different ideas about the land.....

Thanks

 

[Oak]

AZ State Rep. Brenda Barton says that AZ residents don't know what they don't know about federal land transfer to the states.

 

[Big Fin]

AZ State Rep. Brenda Barton says that AZ residents don't know what they don't know about federal land transfer to the states.

Holy crap, Arizona found someone more self-righteous and indignant than Montana's Senator Jennifer Fielder.

Last month, Colorado College’s Conservation in the West poll found 65 percent of Arizonans oppose the transfer of federal public lands to state control.

Barton brushed off the results of the poll, suggesting that the public misunderstands the mechanisms and benefits of such a land changeover.

“They tend to overreact,” Barton said. “They don't know what they don't know.”

 

[Matt/VT]

Randy, I stole the information from your original post here to educate some easterners in another forum. Quoted you. I hope that is all right. If it is not, let me know and I will remove it. Thanks,
Matt

 

[shootbrownelk]

Two bills dealing with public lands were defeated in the Wyoming legislature. HB126 sponsored by Rep. Dan Laursen R. Powell, would have required a study of "restricted access" to public land.
HB142 sponsored byRep. Scott Clem R. Gillette, would have instructed the United States to transfer the Federal land in the state to Wyoming ownership. We have the R's to thank for these introductions...and they will be back, make no mistake about it.

 

[Paul in Idaho]

Another article, from the Idaho Statesman, on politicians and public lands: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/election/article61349767.html

 

[Big Fin]

Another article, from the Idaho Statesman, on politicians and public lands: http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/politics-government/election/article61349767.html

That article does a good job of summarizing the positions of the candidates.

This is a troubling statistic they quoted ....

In the recent Boise State University Public Policy survey, 67.3 percent of Idaho Republicans responded in favor of transferring public lands from the federal government to the state. Even with the caveat that such a transfer could cost the state millions annually in taxpayer dollars, 50.8 percent of Republicans favored it.

I feel part of the reason that support would be so high in Idaho is that of all the western states, Idaho's rules regarding access and use of State Trust Lands is as close to the current uses allowed under Federal regulation. And, Idaho has sold less state land than any of its neighbors. All of this probably makes Idaho folks view this as not much of an issue.

But, given their State Land Board is mandated to make a profit off these lands, I wonder if they have thought about the end result of this transfer idea "cost the state millions in taxpayer dollars" will be that the State Land Board is mandated to dispose of those lands costing the state millions of dollars.

Again, the other side has the easy sell with short soundbites. We have the harder sell to ask people to think about the outcome when it is actually implemented.

 

[shoots-straight]

We get the word out, pretty well, amounst our brothers that participate in recreational activities that are similar to ours. Where we're missing the boat is on the rest of the people. They have no clue what's going on. Maybe more LTE's and other media to get the word in Idaho will be needed.