Sell-off of public lands is happening.

[Bean Counter]

Would you like to federalize your local police force like Al Sharpton wants to do? How about have the feds regulate all gun rights?

Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia 

[wolfbait]

Would you like to federalize your local police force like Al Sharpton wants to do? How about have the feds regulate all gun rights?

Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia 

"Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C."

Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land

Elected officials from across the American West, from top lawmakers to county commissioners, held a historic gathering in Utah in recent days to discuss how Western states could wrest control of the almost 50 percent of land in the region currently claimed by the federal government. Aside from constitutional concerns — with a few exceptions, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ownership or control over land by the political class in Washington, D.C. — the Western leaders and legislators cited economic harm, environmental degradation, loss of tax revenue, and numerous other reasons for the effort.
Read More @
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18104-western-states-want-feds-to-surrender-federal-land



State lawmakers push to take over millions of federal acres
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-26/states-rights-federal-land/53786490/1

Arizona Wilderness Coalition  http://www.azwild.org/documents/AZWILD1105.pdf 

Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter  http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/021914_environment_day/enviros-pack-capitol-back-wolves-parks/

 Instead of managing public lands the federal government has crawled in bed with the environmentalists who make billions of dollars suing to shut down public lands using the ESA. Look at the $$$ going up in smoke every year do to the lack of forest management, look at the wolf introduction etc..

I agree 100% with Bean Counter


Look at the whole story, not just the fear mongering articles by environmentalists.

Senate Votes To Help States Sell Off Public Lands
BY CLAIRE MOSER - GUEST CONTRIBUTOR POSTED ON MARCH 26, 2015 AT 4:56 PM
Public opinion research has found that a majority of Westerners oppose land grab efforts and believe that transferring public lands to state control will result in reduced access for recreation; higher taxes; increased drilling, mining and logging; and a high risk that treasured public lands will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
Claire Moser is the Research and Advocacy Associate with the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. You can follow her on Twitter at @Claire_Moser.
HTTP://THINKPROGRESS.ORG/CLIMATE/2015/03/26/3639683/SENATE-SELL-OFF-PUBLIC-LANDS/

[JimmyHoffa]

Would you like to federalize your local police force like Al Sharpton wants to do? How about have the feds regulate all gun rights?

Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia 

Still mixed on it.  For WA, can't forget that King County could/would be in control.  So, the Feds might actually be a more common sense landlord.  Speaking of local agencies, which is more extreme Washington Dept of Ecology or the EPA?  But my priority for public land is hunting, at least under fed control other state's senators and reps can help keep a balance for an issue like hunting. 

[grundy53]

Would you like to federalize your local police force like Al Sharpton wants to do? How about have the feds regulate all gun rights?

Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia 

Still mixed on it.  For WA, can't forget that King County could/would be in control.  So, the Feds might actually be a more common sense landlord.  Speaking of local agencies, which is more extreme Washington Dept of Ecology or the EPA?  But my priority for public land is hunting, at least under fed control other state's senators and reps can help keep a balance for an issue like hunting.

Agreed

[bigtex]

Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.

[stuckalot]

Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.

These lands used to PRODUCE INCOME! Until the *censored*s and their anti everything policies made any real management of resources impossible.

[jackelope]

Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.

Would that hold true after the expense of a major fire like the Carlton Complex?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

[Bean Counter]

I won't sell my birthright for a bowl of beans.

Neither would I sell my sovereignty to make the state budget a bit cheaper, either.

[wolfbait]

Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.

Would that hold true after the expense of a major fire like the Carlton Complex?

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 If the states knew they would be responsible for their own screw-up, instead of the never ending federal $$$ I would think they would be in to putting the fires out immediately instead of the let it burn policy, which is what happened with the fire's in the Methow.

As far as the financial burden, the USFS is allot so much money each year to manage different departments, if they do not spend the allotted money for the year then they don't get it back for the next year, which creates an incentive to waste money, and they do.

I am quite sure with the right people involved the states could manage their lands far better then the bloated federal government, and the revenue would then go to the states instead of the bottomless pit. 

[wolfbait]

Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.

These lands used to PRODUCE INCOME! Until the *censored*s and their anti everything policies made any real management of resources impossible.

"These lands used to PRODUCE INCOME!"

  And they could agin!

[bigtex]

As far as the financial burden, the USFS is allot so much money each year to manage different departments, if they do not spend the allotted money for the year then they don't get it back for the next year, which creates an incentive to waste money, and they do.

Every government agency (at least in WA) is ran that way too. Come the end of the budget year you see agencies buying tons of office equipment and stuff they may never need. Why? Because you have to use it or lose it. I know of some departments who had their budgets cut because they decided to not use that money and be responsible and return it to the overall general fund, the next year the department was cut by that savings amount.

A relative of mine works for a school district in WA. Every year his school uses their end of the year money on paper, etc. Well they have so much paper that they end up throwing it in the garbage because it's been in a box so long it's faded. You have white Xerox paper looking yellow. If it happens with the "cash strapped" school districts, imagine what it's like with other agencies.

[WAcoyotehunter]

The land would end up in private hands and we would lose access to it.  This idea is horrible for the people of our country.  I agree that our federal lands could be managed differently, but this is not the tool to get us there.  Very short sighted

[wsmnut]

 

The land would end up in private hands and we would lose access to it.  This idea is horrible for the people of our country.  I agree that our federal lands could be managed differently, but this is not the tool to get us there.  Very short sighted

Wsmnut

[bigtex]

What the states and feds need to do is a land exchange to eliminate checkerboarding of federal and state lands. If you think it's confusing for a citizen to figure out which agency owns the land, and then what you can/can't do on the lands, imagine how big of a management headache can be for the agencies managing those lands.

My best example is the Lower Crab Creek area: http://wdfw.wa.gov/webmaps/gohunt/wildlife_area_pdf/WLAU_1000907.pdf

In this area you have WDFW, DNR, US Bureau of Land Management, US Fish & Wildlife, and the US Bureau of Reclamation all owning lands. To top it off, many of those WDFW lands are actually owned by BOR but managed by WDFW. So that means in just that one area you have personnel from 5 different agencies working/managing the lands.

A land exchange could easily eliminate some of those agencies, in fact the USFWS has said they want out of the Lower Crab Creek area. Common sense would be to have those lands go to WDFW. Along the Horse Heaven Hills you have mainly BLM lands with some BOR and DNR. Common sense would say to have those lands go to BLM.

DNR's mission in WA is to generate $, not provide for recreation. Yet there is a lot of DNR desert land in eastern WA that has no means of generating revenue, yet it sits in DNR ownership. You have landlocked timberland in WA (mainly NE) owned by BLM when BLM has said in WA they mainly want to be in the recreation business and to get rid of their landlocked timberland. Hmmm BLM is mainly known as the desert agency and DNR is known for trees...sounds pretty simple to me....

[grundy53]

The land would end up in private hands and we would lose access to it.  This idea is horrible for the people of our country.  I agree that our federal lands could be managed differently, but this is not the tool to get us there.  Very short sighted

There is a lot of state land that is not in private hands and we have a lot of access to state land.