McMorris-Rodgers Expected to be named Interior Secretary

[bigtex]

It's not official yet but several news sources are reporting that Spokane's Congresswoman Cathy McMorris-Rodgers is Trump's pick for Secretary of Interior. She would oversee the Park Service, Fish & Wildlife Service, BLM, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs and some other smaller agencies.

The US Forest Service and Army Corps of Engineers are not in the Dept of Interior.

[Special T]

I know nothing of her. What is you feel on her?

[bigtex]

I voted for Trump but I would not be happy with this pick. McMorris-Rodgers is not known as a natural resource legislator, but rather a healthcare legislator. Below are all of the natural resource bills she has sponsored since being in Congress:

2016 HR 5861: Selling federal lands at Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area to private landowners
2015 HR 2178: Requiring each National Forest establish one active management area which would require logging (I'd support this one)
2011 HR 1719: Endangered Species Compliance and Transparency Act of 2011 basically requires power companies to show how much money they spend on ESA compliance.
2008 HR 6992: Reclamation Title Transfer Act of 2008 which would require the Bureau of Reclamation to sell BOR lands. FYI, most WDFW Wildlife Areas in Grant County are actually BOR lands.....

Of these four....none passed. So in 11 years she has had 4 resource related bills and none even passed the House let alone got signed into law.

It's obvious to me that #1 she doesn't really deal with resource issues and #2 she is not a supporter of federal lands, and it appears she would rather see them in private hands.

[NRA4LIFE]

I think she's kinda hot.

[Bob33]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathy_McMorris_Rodgers

[Special T]

Seems like a strange pic

[dwils233]

It's disappointing given her strong position on the sale of public land. I stand firmly against anyone who wants to sell public land or transition it to the state instead of developing better use and management at the federal level

 I don't much care for her as our representative either because with the exception of veterans she really doesn't petition much on behalf of her constituency but instead just plays DC politics.

[bigtex]

It's disappointing given her strong position on the sale of public land. I stand firmly against anyone who wants to sell public land or transition it to the state instead of developing better use and management at the federal level

 I don't much care for her as our representative either because with the exception of veterans she really doesn't petition much on behalf of her constituency but instead just plays DC politics.

[KFhunter]

She's represented her base quite well, which has always been Eastern Washington.  She listens to loggers and ranchers, and most of them would like limit federal land ownership. 

I differ in that I want to see most of the federal lands stay open to the public, which means not letting private or state ownership since they tend to not give a crap about access.

[Special T]

I think multiple use and access are the 2 main issues that most people agree on the Feds aren't getting it done, selling the land won't, but if held in trust by the state much like the DNR does we may get somewhere.

[bigtex]

I think multiple use and access are the 2 main issues that most people agree on the Feds aren't getting it done, selling the land won't, but if held in trust by the state much like the DNR does we may get somewhere.

One issue is not all states are like WA DNR. In Colorado for example state lands are closed to public access unless opened. The vast majority of the state is closed. Those that are open have an open period season so it's not 24/7/365 like most DNR areas. There are other states with similar regulations.

All of the proposed land transfer bills that have been drafted have exempted Park Service lands, wildlife refuges, and wilderness areas from transfer to states. That's mainly because they were established by Congress. So in terms of access, it's not like the Alpine Lakes Wilderness would be transferred to DNR and we'd be driving up there. It'd remain under USFS management.

[Special T]

As usual  you a wealth of information.
How does our neighbors to the south and east do it?

[dwils233]

One issue is not all states are like WA DNR. In Colorado for example state lands are closed to public access unless opened. The vast majority of the state is closed. Those that are open have an open period season so it's not 24/7/365 like most DNR areas. There are other states with similar regulations.

Its also my understanding that some states have statues which are written in that lands are to be managed in the must fiduciary responsible way, meaning that they are obligated to sell them or only allow the use that is most financially beneficial to the state.

[bigtex]

As usual  you a wealth of information.
How does our neighbors to the south and east do it?

Idaho, Oregon, and California are all similar to WA DNR in terms of access.

Oregon got some heat because they're looking to sell (may have already been completed) an entire state forest (82,000 acres) to a private timber company. Oregon is different from DNR in that they almost entirely consist of large blocked up lands which are almost all timberland, virtually no ODF land east of the Cascades.

Idaho's makeup is similar to DNR in that they have large blocks but also small parcels throughout the state. However, Idaho has a longstanding history of selling state lands, this has been cited in numerous articles.

California actually has little CDF (equivalent to DNR) lands. They only have like 4 forests statewide with virtually no small parcels.

As you start to go east from the coastal states is where you start to see the restrictions.

[bigtex]

One issue is not all states are like WA DNR. In Colorado for example state lands are closed to public access unless opened. The vast majority of the state is closed. Those that are open have an open period season so it's not 24/7/365 like most DNR areas. There are other states with similar regulations.

Its also my understanding that some states have statues which are written in that lands are to be managed in the must fiduciary responsible way, meaning that they are obligated to sell them or only allow the use that is most financially beneficial to the state.

WA DNR is actually not that far off. WA DNR's purpose is to generate $ for schools. DNR is constantly selling lands that generate little to no revenue. DNR sold their chunk of land on Vashon Island because it would cost too much to log it. DNR want's to rid itself of the lands in the San Juans.

I've had more than one DNR employee tell me that the agency really wants to eliminate their desert land and be solely in timber because that is where the $ is. The desert land generates no revenue other than grazing and agricultural leases and compared to timber that's a drop in the bucket.