Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 08:40:16 AM
The US Forest Service and Army Corps of Engineers are not in the Dept of Interior.
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2016, 08:54:33 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 08:58:25 AM
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.
Post by: NRA4LIFE on December 09, 2016, 08:58:31 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 09, 2016, 09:00:45 AM
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2016, 09:18:12 AM
Post by: dwils233 on December 09, 2016, 11:57:17 AM
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.
Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 12:34:15 PM
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:yeah:
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.
Post by: KFhunter on December 09, 2016, 12:46:52 PM
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.
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2016, 01:30:07 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 01:49:00 PM
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.
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2016, 01:54:25 PM
How does our neighbors to the south and east do it?
Post by: dwils233 on December 09, 2016, 02:07:42 PM
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.
Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 02:44:21 PM
As usual you a wealth of information.Idaho, Oregon, and California are all similar to WA DNR in terms of access.
How does our neighbors to the south and east do it?
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.
Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 02:49:17 PM
:yeah: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.
Post by: csaaphill on December 09, 2016, 07:33:21 PM
Post by: Special T on December 09, 2016, 08:03:07 PM
If range land generates no $ then they should raise the rates or trade it off. Part of what people fail to understand is that if there is $ to be made the land will be taken care of and maximized. Truthfully this is my main complaint with the USFS.:yeah: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.
Post by: dwils233 on December 09, 2016, 08:09:57 PM
If range land generates no $ then they should raise the rates or trade it off. Part of what people fail to understand is that if there is $ to be made the land will be taken care of and maximized. Truthfully this is my main complaint with the USFS.:yeah: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.
I don't think that everything must generate a profit or a return on investment to be of value. In our society some things should operate at a break even or ecen a loss. IMHO, public land is one of those things
Post by: JDHasty on December 09, 2016, 08:17:18 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 08:28:47 PM
The state rates are several times higher than the federal rates. In WA the grazing rate for cattle is $13.19 per head of cattle per month. Idaho's is $9.01. The federal rate is $2.11. The feds have tried to increase the rate but ranchers blow a gasket every time they try.If range land generates no $ then they should raise the rates or trade it off. Part of what people fail to understand is that if there is $ to be made the land will be taken care of and maximized. Truthfully this is my main complaint with the USFS.:yeah: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.
In the 2015 Fiscal Year DNR generated $108 million in timber revenue. In comparison, DNR generated $21 million in agricultural leases which includes grazing, orchards and vineyards, and irrigation leases. I don't know the individual breakup within that $21M. In total DNR generated $302 million from all types of sales, leases, etc. Which means agricultural leases make up 7% of DNRs revenue compared to timber which makes up over a third of revenue. Several have said DNR is completely a self supporting agency, that's not true. In 2015 they brought in $302 million, but spent $331 million.
Post by: pd on December 09, 2016, 09:34:35 PM
Simply, don't you agree we would all be better off with an advocate for outdoor issues inside the Trump cabinet???
Post by: WAcoueshunter on December 09, 2016, 09:51:28 PM
Simply, don't you agree we would all be better off with an advocate for outdoor issues inside the Trump cabinet???
I think the concern is she's not an advocate.
Post by: bigtex on December 09, 2016, 09:59:36 PM
:yeah:Simply, don't you agree we would all be better off with an advocate for outdoor issues inside the Trump cabinet???I think the concern is she's not an advocate.
She hasn't tried to really do anything for natural resources. Four resource related bills in 10 years? You have some members of Congress of both parties who do that in one year. To top it off, of those 4 bills two would transfer federal lands into private hands.
Obviously we have no idea why this would be Trump's pick but here's my take. She's high up in the republican party, she's from a western state (Sec. of Interior always comes from the west), her district includes tribal lands, oil/gas friendly (not saying that's a bad thing), and that's really it.
Post by: Jimmybelltown on December 09, 2016, 11:34:49 PM
Post by: wsmnut on December 10, 2016, 07:22:58 AM
Not much swamp draining.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 10, 2016, 09:18:06 AM
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.
Thanks Chris and being from KF you most likely know some people with personal experience with her ( Bob Morton for example)
Would that be federal ownership, or restrictions? (As far as loggers and ranchers)
Do any of us think about the fact that she just might be able to get leverage on the lock it up greenie, lower Bureaucrats that have created the tinder box (pun intended) and get some changes that are needed to be made? And they DO
Post by: Jonathan_S on December 10, 2016, 09:43:06 AM
Post by: 81husky on December 10, 2016, 10:40:28 AM
More swamp draining I see. Really curious who we will get in her seat now.
From KREM news:
"Spokane City Council President Ben Stuckart and Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich and State Sen. Michael Baumgartner announced their intention to run for representative on Friday. Dave Wilson, a former independent candidate for the 5th District also said he was considering a run."
Post by: bearpaw on December 10, 2016, 10:48:11 AM
Post by: andersonjk4 on December 10, 2016, 11:49:09 AM
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.
:yeah: And farmers. She has been a big advocate for the farmers. I haven't heard anything from her saying she is really pro or con federal land transfers to the states. I have heard that she has pushed for better funding for the USFS and BLM to help fight fires and to increase logging to help prevent catastrophic fires. I think she would be a decent pick for the position.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 10, 2016, 02:45:29 PM
She worked her way up through local politics in my legislative district and I once told her I thought she could make it into national politics due to her ability to avoid controversy. Since becoming our congresswoman she has become more establishment than I prefer, but she is pro small business, pro logging, pro 2nd Amendment, and perhaps it was necessary for her to work within the establishment to get things done? She understands small business must make a profit and she has been an outspoken advocated for logging to reduce forest fires and for multiple use of our forests, she doesn't have the lock-it-up mentality that's been running our public lands the last couple decades. I think overall she will be very good and hopefully can work closely with whomever becomes Secretary of Agriculture to revamp the USFS logging and access policies as well as the BLM over which she will directly administer. I think Trump is making another good choice!:tup:
http://www.inlander.com/Bloglander/archives/2016/12/09/9-things-you-should-know-about-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-trumps-interior-pick
Post by: huntnphool on December 10, 2016, 02:51:00 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 10, 2016, 09:46:57 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on December 11, 2016, 07:46:45 AM
Post by: bigtex on December 11, 2016, 07:50:09 PM
She worked her way up through local politics in my legislative district and I once told her I thought she could make it into national politics due to her ability to avoid controversy. Since becoming our congresswoman she has become more establishment than I prefer, but she is pro small business, pro logging, pro 2nd Amendment, and perhaps it was necessary for her to work within the establishment to get things done? She understands small business must make a profit and she has been an outspoken advocated for logging to reduce forest fires and for multiple use of our forests, she doesn't have the lock-it-up mentality that's been running our public lands the last couple decades. I think overall she will be very good and hopefully can work closely with whomever becomes Secretary of Agriculture to revamp the USFS logging and access policies as well as the BLM over which she will directly administer. I think Trump is making another good choice!I'm sorry but a lot of what you said means she's a good congresswoman, but what about Secretary of Interior? She hasn't really done anything directly (being the prime sponsor) to improve resources.
She sponsored a bill to sell NPS lands at Lake Roosevelt, sponsored a bill to sell Bureau of Reclamation lands, sponsored a bill which basically would show us how much power companies on ESA compliance (whoopee!), and sponsored a bill to allow more areas to be logged (I'd agree this is good). That's it in 10 years!
She's pro-2nd Amendment..Ok? Good for her but how would that impact her role as Secretary of Interior? Congress took authority over regulating firearm possession on DOI lands away from the Sec. of Interior when they legalized guns in parks and wildlife refuges. So a Sec. of Interior can't wake up one day and order that the possession of guns at Mt. Rainier is illegal.
I'm not saying she's a bad person, it just would be nice if Trump would've appointed someone to lead the natural resource agencies who....had a history with these issues/agencies.... If she helps farmers and wants more logging it seems like a better job for her would be Sec. of Agriculture where she would oversee the Forest Service, Farm Service Agency, Natural Resource Conservation Service, etc.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on December 11, 2016, 08:04:53 PM
Post by: JLS on December 11, 2016, 10:08:08 PM
Since she's from NE corner, maybe she's heard enough about the wolf problem and will be helpful in controlling them. From what I seem to remember, weren't there only supposed to be 100 wolves/10 breeding pairs in the entire Northern Rockies? Maybe the all the excess can be eradicated.
She wouldn't change wolf management in Washington at all. The state management plan will keep them listed as an endangered species regardless of federal designation (see the eastern third).
Also, the USFWS has handed management of wolves over to the state of Montana, which in turn eliminates the federal role in wolf management unless there was a reason to re-list wolves as an endangered species.
Post by: JLS on December 11, 2016, 10:27:19 PM
She worked her way up through local politics in my legislative district and I once told her I thought she could make it into national politics due to her ability to avoid controversy. Since becoming our congresswoman she has become more establishment than I prefer, but she is pro small business, pro logging, pro 2nd Amendment, and perhaps it was necessary for her to work within the establishment to get things done? She understands small business must make a profit and she has been an outspoken advocated for logging to reduce forest fires and for multiple use of our forests, she doesn't have the lock-it-up mentality that's been running our public lands the last couple decades. I think overall she will be very good and hopefully can work closely with whomever becomes Secretary of Agriculture to revamp the USFS logging and access policies as well as the BLM over which she will directly administer. I think Trump is making another good choice!I'm sorry but a lot of what you said means she's a good congresswoman, but what about Secretary of Interior? She hasn't really done anything directly (being the prime sponsor) to improve resources.
She sponsored a bill to sell NPS lands at Lake Roosevelt, sponsored a bill to sell Bureau of Reclamation lands, sponsored a bill which basically would show us how much power companies on ESA compliance (whoopee!), and sponsored a bill to allow more areas to be logged (I'd agree this is good). That's it in 10 years!
She's pro-2nd Amendment..Ok? Good for her but how would that impact her role as Secretary of Interior? Congress took authority over regulating firearm possession on DOI lands away from the Sec. of Interior when they legalized guns in parks and wildlife refuges. So a Sec. of Interior can't wake up one day and order that the possession of guns at Mt. Rainier is illegal.
I'm not saying she's a bad person, it just would be nice if Trump would've appointed someone to lead the natural resource agencies who....had a history with these issues/agencies.... If she helps farmers and wants more logging it seems like a better job for her would be Sec. of Agriculture where she would oversee the Forest Service, Farm Service Agency, Natural Resource Conservation Service, etc.
All excellent points.
I'm also skeptical of her because of her lack of involvement in natural resource issues. She is a big advocate of hydroelectric dams, which isn't all bad. However, the issue of ESA fish in the Snake River system can't be overlooked, and the federal judges that have presided over this issue have made it very clear that no action is not suitable. Hopefully she is willing to look at issues holistically and not just from a party platform standpoint.
Post by: JLS on December 11, 2016, 10:46:25 PM
Still sounds like more experienced than the current Secretary of Interior.
I for one care about protecting our lands and waters, and I think that Sally Jewell has done a good job as Secretary of the Interior. Government is about ebbs and flows, and the pendulum isn't always exactly where you want it to be. There is a definite value in responsible energy development, and moving forward with an environmental conscience isn't a bad thing.
https://www.outsideonline.com/2139866/sally-jewell-future-department-interior
Quote
Sally Jewell on the Future of the Department of the Interior
During her four-year tenure as Secretary of the Interior, Sally Jewell, a former oil-industry engineer and CEO of REI, has helped designate 18 new national monuments, increase youth engagement in the national parks, and limit access for energy exploration. As a Trump administration with very different views on conservation prepares to take the reins in Washington, Christopher Keyes sat down with the secretary to discuss her legacy—and the uncertain future of America’s public lands.
By: Chris Keyes
Nov 29, 2016
Outside
KEYES: It’s now nine days after the election. What’s the mood like at Interior?
JEWELL: Well, let’s say it was a reflective day for all of us. Back in 2008, when I was at REI, the worst quarter I had was when President Obama won the election. Our sales were down 20 percent. I ended up laying off 800 people. At the Department of the Interior, we had a minerals-management service that was accused, rightfully, of illegal activity with the oil and gas industry. About a year into his presidency, we had the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. I think that there’s certainly disappointment about the election, but when I reflect on what we inherited eight years ago, I feel good about what we’re handing over to the next administration.
The Sally Jewell Interview
Chris Keyes in conversation with outgoing Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell
Listen to complete conversation here→
In President Obama’s first meeting with President-elect Trump, he advocated for Obamacare. If you were sitting down with your successor, what would you fight for?
I hope I do have that opportunity, because once you’re sitting in this chair, and you understand the size and complexity of your work, you look at it a little differently than when you first came in. So what I would say to that new secretary: We all come with a set of skills, and those are useful but not sufficient, so surround yourself with people that help fill that gap. Second, this job is about listening deeply to different points of view. You can’t go in with a fixed frame.
What about a specific policy?
The most pressing issue of our time is climate change. You cannot be the Secretary of the Interior and deal with the wildfires and the droughts and the invasive species and coastal erosion without recognizing that climate change is real. I would discuss that.
And if that person is a climate-change denier?
No matter what beliefs a person comes into this position with, the job has a way of showing you what’s really going on.
During the campaign, Trump promised to “streamline the permitting process for all energy projects.” How quickly might his team be able to undo your efforts to place certain areas off-limits?
What businesses want is certainty. You don’t mind playing by the rules, but you want to know what the rules are. And when the rules are stretched, like the environmental-impact statements that are required, you will get challenged in court. What we’ve done in this administration is identify the areas that are appropriate to develop and the areas that should be off-limits to development, and we codified some of that, with, for example, national monument designations. That’s not going to get rolled back, because those decisions remove the conflicts surrounding those areas in advance. It’s expensive for companies to be involved with protracted litigation.
Will the debate over the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be back in play?
There’s little doubt that there’s oil under the coastal plain of ANWR, but I believe there are some places that should remain off-limits. It took decades to update the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s comprehensive conservation plan, which said that the area should not be developed because disturbance would have irreparable impact on caribou. It would have to be redone if oil and gas development is to be supported. Or Congress would have to step up and say, We see the science and we’re going to ignore it. And I believe the American people will hold their elected officials accountable for that.
But a lot of these issues never even get talked about in the campaigns. The idea that we’ll hold elected officials accountable for environmental policy hasn’t played out.
It’s our responsibility to make our positions known. If people don’t make their voices heard, those who do will be the squeaky wheel. Before I took this job, I went to Washington, D.C., with other people from the outdoor industry to make the case to members of Congress, and I wondered, Is anybody really listening? I will say that, from this side now, yes, people are hearing you. And if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu. If we’re not talking about environmental issues, if the only things being discussed are trade policies and health care reform and taxes, we can’t be surprised when it doesn’t come up as a major issue in the campaign.
As you mention, the outdoor industry has been flexing its muscles recently. The Outdoor Recreation’s Economic Contributions Act, which requires the government to account for the estimated $646 billion economic contribution of the outdoor economy, passed the House this week.
Yes, the first outdoor-industry study based on hard data showed that the recreation economy is almost as big as pharmaceuticals, motor vehicles, and motor-vehicle parts combined. That is extraordinary. That narrative has been lost, oftentimes, to the value of public lands for extractive purposes. But what the REC Act begins to do is to monetize the value of lands in conservation. This is an industry that employs millions of people. It supports rural economies. The legislation will ensure that it continues.
In addition to pressure to increase oil and gas leasing, there is a growing idea that our federal lands should be given back to the states to be managed locally. Why is that a bad idea?
The reality is that state budgets are not in great shape. One Republican western governor, and I won’t name names, said to me, “Sally, I don’t want to take over control of the lands you manage. You spend more on firefighting in my state than I spend on education and criminal justice combined.” So the people making that case are ignoring the fact that the firefighting and the invasive-species management and the permitting—that doesn’t come for free. Without federal funds, it leaves states with lands that you’re going to have to support either through increased taxation or by selling the land to the highest bidder, and we think that’s dead wrong.
You’ve stressed the need to expose more youth and minorities to our public land. Why is this so important?
We have got to create an environment where children feel welcome and safe in the outdoors. I’m Caucasian. I grew up playing in the outdoors, and that’s generally who I see there. That is not a reflection of the American population. When I moved to Washington, D.C., it was very evident to me that we have a lot of Civil War heroes, most of them male, most of them on horseback, at many of the intersections, but I saw very few women, almost no people of color. I’m really proud of the fact that [this administration] created the César E. Chávez National Monument, created the Harriet Tubman National Monument, and the Stonewall National Monument in New York City that talks about the struggle for LGBT rights. We’ve also done a lot of work to help kids become comfortable in the outdoors, which starts with just getting out there. We launched Every Kid in a Park, enabling four million fourth-graders to go to all of America’s lands and waters for free.
Will that continue? My daughter is in fourth grade next year.
It will get funded. The incremental cost of the program is relatively minor, and it’s a program that makes so much sense. When you take that nine- or ten-year-old child and you remove that one barrier, and you say you can take a whole carful of people, that instills a great sense of pride. But then there is the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps, our modern version of the Civilian Conservation Corps. It’s not funded by the federal government in total, but in the course of the time I will have been here, we will see 100,000 young people out doing volunteer service or paid service on public land. It’s connecting them to a place that will never leave them.
When your term comes up in January, you and your husband plan to get in your Prius for a long road trip back to Washington State. What will you miss about this role as you drive away?
Well, one slight correction. We did actually trade in our Prius for a Subaru Outback. The kind of public lands I want to get out in require more ground clearance!
You know, this is an intense job, a job that has meant the world to me. I don’t know yet how to put this incredible knowledge to good use. I’m getting a break, but I’m not done. What does not done look like? There is no better place to figure that out, to get clarity, than Mother Nature.
Filed To: National Parks, Politics, Environment
Post by: bigtex on December 13, 2016, 02:32:54 PM
Instead Montana's sole representative in the House will be our next Secretary of Interior. He is a lifelong hunter and fisherman and is a staunch supporter of federal lands and has fought any bill to transfer federal lands out of federal management. This may be a great pick for everyone!!
Post by: Brushbuster on December 13, 2016, 03:08:11 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/ryan-zinke-interior-secretary-trump-232590
Post by: Boss .300 winmag on December 13, 2016, 03:18:37 PM
Ryan Zinke sounds like a great choice. :tup:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/ryan-zinke-interior-secretary-trump-232590
:yeah:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 13, 2016, 03:30:30 PM
Quote
He .... is a staunch supporter of federal lands and has fought any bill to transfer federal lands out of federal management. This may be a great pick for everyone who isn't an ardent defender of states rights!!
:)
Post by: JLS on December 13, 2016, 04:49:07 PM
Post by: westsidehntr on December 13, 2016, 04:53:18 PM
IMO, there are lots of "convenient conservatives" on here.
Post by: JLS on December 13, 2016, 04:54:53 PM
I think Zinke is a very good choice.
Post by: Bean Counter on December 13, 2016, 04:58:46 PM
I love recreating outdoors, and I especially like free access. I also understand that there's a risk that public access could be lost or become pay-to-play if land is transferred to states and auctioned off to private owners by fiatt. I wont sell my birthright for a bowl of beans, nor am I going to abandon my Constitutional principles for a few days of free hunting every year, either. :twocents:
Post by: Bean Counter on December 13, 2016, 05:00:35 PM
I wonder if anyone who supports Feds owning large tracts of land also supports small, limited government.
IMO, there are lots of "convenient conservatives" on here.
It doesn't end there. Lots of red-state, Tea Party conservatives are currently keeping their mouth shut about the mere possibility of Russian infiltration of our election process. How would they have reacted had the POTUS election gone the other way??
Post by: Bean Counter on December 13, 2016, 05:05:17 PM
https://truebluenz.com/2011/02/11/spotted-owl-die-out-billions-lost-when-logging-falsely-blamed/
"...The spotted owl was listed as an endangered species in 1990 after Oregon environmentalists declared it was dying out due to environmental damage caused by logging. The listing sharply curtailed harvests on federal forests. That put more logging pressure on Oregon’s limited state forests, caused mills to shut down all across the state and cut the state’s total harvest in half. In 1988, Oregon loggers cut 4.9 billion board feet of timber on federal land. The 2009 federal harvest was 240 million board feet.
So for all this sacrifice, loss of jobs and economic downturn, what happened to the spotted owl? It continued to die out at the same rate. About 2.9% a year. 20 years later, we know it was not the logging that was the cause of the decline..."
... oops :o
Oregon loggers be like:
Post by: westsidehntr on December 13, 2016, 05:10:02 PM
I wonder if anyone who supports Feds owning large tracts of land also supports small, limited government.
IMO, there are lots of "convenient conservatives" on here.
It doesn't end there. Lots of red-state, Tea Party conservatives are currently keeping their mouth shut about the mere possibility of Russian infiltration of our election process. How would they have reacted had the POTUS election gone the other way??
Trust me...I know how rampant "convenient conservatives" are. :(
Post by: Special T on December 14, 2016, 08:48:42 AM
Post by: Bob33 on December 17, 2016, 08:41:52 PM
FRIDAY, DEC. 16, 2016, 6:03 P.M.
By Jim Camden
jimc@spokesman.com
(360) 664-2598
As news organizations around the country proclaimed Cathy McMorris Rodgers a sure bet to be the next interior secretary and politicians in her Eastern Washington district quickly announced campaigns for her congressional seat, the person most in the dark was McMorris Rodgers herself.
In her first extended remarks on the events of the last few weeks, the congresswoman said she never got a call from President-elect Donald Trump or his transition team saying she was going to be offered the Cabinet position before or after reports from unnamed sources said she was the likely pick. She also never got a call several days later that Rep. Ryan Zinke of Montana was nominated for the job.
“My colleagues were coming up and congratulating me on the floor” of the House when the first reports surfaced, McMorris Rodgers said Friday. “I said, ‘There has not been an offer.’ ”
The Eastern Washington Republican met with Trump, first in New Jersey before Thanksgiving after receiving a call from Mike Pence, the vice president-elect and chairman of the Trump transition team. She was named a vice-chairwoman of the team, and met with him again in Trump Tower in New York City this month.
That spot on the transition team didn’t give her any special insight into who would be nominated for interior secretary.
In neither conversation did Trump offer her the job of interior secretary and the discussions were much broader, she said. They talked about issues the department handles, including better management, expanding access for uses like recreation and hunting, and opening up more partnerships with states and the tribes.
“He wanted to know what steps we could be taking,” she said. “He’s very interested in more access on federal lands.”
But they also talked about other subjects, like jobs and the economy. “When you spend time with the president-elect, it is rapid fire,” McMorris Rodgers said.
So when national news organizations started quoting unnamed sources with the transition team late last week that she was the leading candidate for the Cabinet post, McMorris Rodgers said it was completely unexpected. She and her staff refused to comment when reporters from around the country called because “we didn’t have any news.”
That continued into this week when the name of Zinke, a one-term congressman from Montana, surfaced – again based on unnamed sources – and later was officially confirmed as Trump’s pick.
Asked if she thought that was an odd way to handle the transition, McMorris Rodgers replied: “It’s up to the president-elect as to how he will do this.”
A Wall Street Journal report on Friday quoted unnamed “people familiar with the pick” as saying Donald Trump Jr. influenced his father’s choice of interior secretary because Zinke and the younger Trump are avid hunters, and sportsmen’s groups preferred the Montana congressman over McMorris Rodgers. There were also concerns, the newspaper’s sources said, of her support for a 2011 bill that called for selling off surplus federal lands in 10 Western states.
Zinke and McMorris Rodgers both met with Trump on Monday, and Journal sources also said the president-elect asked the congresswoman to address some of her past criticisms of him.
In her meeting with Trump and his son, “Mr. Trump cited a ‘long list’ of things the congresswoman had criticized him for and asked her to address them, according to multiple people familiar with the meeting,” the Journal reported. “Ms. McMorris Rodgers didn’t walk back her comments.”
McMorris Rodgers was not an early supporter of Trump; she did vote for him in the state’s presidential primary, after he was all but assured of the nomination, but said she wasn’t enthusiastic about it. After a tape of Trump making lewd comments about women surfaced in the fall, she condemned the remarks but said she still supported his candidacy.
“I made it clear that I supported him throughout the campaign and that I continue to support him,” she said Friday. “When candidate Donald Trump said things that I didn’t necessarily agree with, I would call him on it.”
That will continue, she said. Asked if Trump agreed with that, she replied: “I’m not sure I can speculate on that.”
The selection of a new Cabinet is proceeding “under budget and ahead of schedule,” but it is taking place in a much more public fashion than previous changes in administrations, she said.
“It’s playing out in real time,” she said, and reflects Trump’s fondness for digital media. But that also provides extra transparency when decisions are made, she added. “I think it says he is shaking things up. He’s doing things in a new way and I think that’s why he was elected.”
It also means that rumors of an appointment get quickly reported. Some House colleagues began angling for her GOP leadership position and three Republicans and one Democrat in Spokane announced plans to run for her not-yet vacant congressional seat. Asked about the rush to replace her, McMorris Rodgers laughed and said: “It’s great that there’s such a strong bench.”
She added she’s concentrating on working with Trump on issues as a member of Congress.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/dec/16/rep-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-i-was-never-offered-the/ (http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2016/dec/16/rep-cathy-mcmorris-rodgers-i-was-never-offered-the/)
Post by: KFhunter on December 27, 2016, 03:39:56 PM
Post by: bigtex on December 27, 2016, 04:21:12 PM
I knew Donald JR would be good for us hunters :tup:We still have some anti-public lands congressmen in powerful positions such as the House Natural Resource Committee Chair who oversees the budget for resource agencies and legislation.
The Montana congressman is a great pick but he will have a battle with Chairman Bishop.
Post by: bearpaw on December 28, 2016, 09:33:26 AM
I knew Donald JR would be good for us hunters :tup:
:yeah: both the older trump boys are hunters, this is going to be the best administration for hunters in many years :tup: