Federal vs State

[slamdunk]

I'm on the fence whether it's better to have State managed government or federal for our public lands.

State level scares me because Cox will sell it all to developers and destroy even more valuable winter range, and yet Feds won't let us take care of our own forest lands and help curb the intensity of wildfires.

Insight please?

 

[Bluehair]

Follow the money. Who stands to gain the most by exploiting our public lands?

The USFS is burning the heck out of our woods right now. The cynic in me says I would rather see it burned than built on.

 

[Togwotee]

Federal management = poor management.

State management = For sale sign.

 

[Cam@strawberry]

The answer here is always federal. Burns and mismanagement are fixable. For sale signs are permanent.

 

[middlefork]

The state management so far has led to less management for federal.
Congress allocates money for forest/BLM management. It is our senators and representatives that don't allocate enough money for the Feds to manage correctly.
But I'm open to suggestions that the Feds would screw it up even if well funded.
I'm also opened minded enough to believe the state in no way could take over managing the public lands without totally screwing it up either.
Of the two I'll take Federal. It takes a lot more effort to turn the boat.

 

[elkassassin]

The State Would Sell The Whole SOB In A New York Second!

 

[slamdunk]

The State Would Sell The Whole SOB In A New York Second!

Exactly my worst fear.

 

[Themaddness]

Federal if you want to be able to live.