I know public land access comes up on here a fair amount, and I, too, have increasingly become more interested in the issue since listening and reading to Randy Newberg. Trump is set to appoint Cathy McMorris Rodgers as the Interior Secretary. She doesn't have the most pro public land track record. What are your thoughts? Curious to hear from both sides of the aisle (I know we have both pro public land guys and those who want land in states hands).
From what I've read, she seems to be pretty center. while she has supported selling of federal land, it has been pretty selective what land. She is for forest management and supports the delisting of the wolves. Seems like "environmentalists" don't like her which is a + in my book.
I'm not much of a fan of federal "ownership" of lands. With a few exceptions; I'd rather have the states control it. I'm just glad he didn't pick Palin. Not that I hate her but everything she did would be a lightning rod and create massive hysteria and media meltdowns...wait, that might not be a bad thing.
There is not one solid case in the history of our country of Federal Land being turned over to the State's and it turning out good for public access. If they truly are being selective and only selling off checker boarded land locked pieces then I can see why it wouldn't be a big deal.... that isn't the case.
I do think we should do more to decrease the financial burden of our public lands on the taxpayers... but I don't think selling the lands is the answer. Trim down on how many employees we have, streamline the bureaucracy of these departments, look into selective foresting to increase the health of the land overall, and as much as I hate to say it... land use fees. I adamantly believe public lands should stay public, but I also believe that everyone as a whole shouldn't have to pay for my free access to these lands. State DNR's are self sufficient by issuing licenses and tags, I feel that public land can operate in a similar manner. And for the love of God, QUIT contracting out the only profitable parts about all of our national parks. Makes no sense for us to maintain the parks in all aspects, then allow private companies to run the bus tours, own the lodges, etc.
I think we jumped the gun...this just got posted by the Theodore Roosevelt partnership foundation. Trump taps Montana congressman Ryan Zinke as interior secretary - The Washington Post
Ryan Zinke a good as you can hope in a Republican on this issue. Land Tawney, president and CEO of the Montana-based Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, described Zinke on Tuesday as “a straight shooter” who has established credibility with outdoors enthusiasts in the state. During a recent meeting with him at a distillery in Whitefish, the congressman’s hometown, Zinke walked into the place in flip-flops. “You wouldn’t know he’s a congressman,” Tawney said. “He really prides himself on being a Theodore Roosevelt Republican, and he lives that a little bit more than other people.”
Good to hear. I wasn't finding too much in the way of official confirmation at the time of posting. Wyoming's governor would have been a good choice as well. Sent from my Turbo 2.
I am very pleased with this appointment. Next to Mead I think Ryan is an excellent choice. Hearing Randy speak well of him as well as Land I value their opinion highly. This is excellent news in the unfortunate climate we find ourselves in and I think Trump so far has lived up to his rhetoric of being anti land transfer. Now let's see what happens if a bill lands on his desk.
Reposted via Big Fin ( Randy Newburg) Congressman Zinke, from my state of Montana, is the best of those under consideration for Secretary of Interior; at least in my opinion. His nomination was being pushed by many in the hunting community. Most involved would say that the nomination of Congressman Zinke was aided by the influence of Donald Trump, Jr. Congressman Zinke is a hunter. Zinke has stood against the crazies who have promoted the position of selling the public lands of the west. His critics will point to his positions about reform of land management rules, his opinions on litigation reform, and his emphasis on forest management. If it is like most nominations, everyone will find something in his record of which they are critical. Those of us who pushed for his nomination are thankful to see it come to fruition. He will be on a hot seat, as the left will not like his positions on land management policy reforms and his strong defense of keeping public lands in public hands will make him a target for the fringe elements in his own party.
the underlined parts are diametrically opposed. Hiring all these new federal employees would add to the public burden. Federal pensions, benefits...who is going to pay for all that? Think of the US Postal Service, my friend. Amtrak. Billions in dollars in debt, and for what? A public "service" that hardly anyone wants or is outperformed by the private sector. I think the feds could turn over most of the lands to the states - as some sort of public trust. Private owners do it all the time. As for those in Commiefornia....sorry about your luck. Best advice I can give is to vote with your feet, and take your tax dollars elsewhere if you can.
You think companies like Aramark are losing money by running the tours and lodging on our National Parks? They profit off the only profitable parts of these lands and leave the rest for us. I agree it can't be run the way the current government runs things but we are talking of what reforms we want right? USPS shouldn't be done away with, but prices should go up and delivery days cut in half etc. there are ways for government to provide services without hemorrhaging money. I do understand that my stance on public land is starkly opposite of my overall stance in favor of smaller government. It's just an important part of what makes us a great nation IMO and should be preserved since we already have it. The actual appointee is a far better choice than the woman rumored for the past week IMO. I hope he gets approved Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
"I recall FWP recently stating there are around 140 verified packs, which represents a number far greater than the original target. I have talked to ranchers and hunting guides across the state and they put the population in the 2500-3000 range. No doubt, the woods now belong to the wolf, and the game and other predators are feeling the pressure. First, we need to get an accurate number so they can be effectively managed. Second, we need to protect the ranchers and restore the depleted game herds by reducing the number and range of the wolf. Third, we need a sustainable state and locally controlled management plan based on ground truth and common sense," Ryan Zinke
I am not a tinfoil hat guy but I think the gov't employees that are in charge of estimating the wolf population in different states are either pathetically incompetent or they are lying thru their teeth.
