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.

 

[notdonhunting]

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.

More money don't fix miss managment.

 

[2lumpy]

I have been opposed to seeing the Federal Government from turning it over to the State of Utah. I have changed my mine because I believe there is a movement by many in the Federal Government to eventually control all of food production and all the land, both public and private, like other socialist/communist counties have done.

There a changes at the Federal level, I’m very concerned about. That’s not to say I trust the State completely either.

I’m caught between a rock and a hard place and it hurts.

I love public land hunting/fishing/accessing and the Multiple Use concept but I value freedom and our Countries traditional values more than I value my personal passion/interests.

 

[Vanilla]

The state’s own study they commissioned talked about selling/leasing the land to cover the costs of managing lands if they were turned over to the state. So this is not just a fear, it’s actually part of their plan.

However, whether there is a house on it or a solar panel field, what is the difference to me? Both are trying to screw me. One or the other, or a combination of both, will likely succeed.

I posted this elsewhere a while back, but I think it’s worth reiterating here again. The west will be won again, but this time they won’t be leaving anything for the peasants. Enjoy it while you can fellas. Some on this forum may live to see the day where vast open public lands of today are simply no longer there.

 

[Packout]

Seeing as the Legislature already passed a bill that contains how they can sell the lands if they were to gain title, I believe Federal is better. Could the federal gov't sell it? Maybe, but that is very doubtful.

HB0276

le.utah.gov

Lines 294+ - may require special permits to hunt and would supersede the Wildlife Board- could public lands become something like a CWMU to generate funds?

Lines 469+ - The director may sell parcels under 200 acres with no over sight. Selling over 200 acres would require approval, but it could still be sold.

Vanilla makes a good point about solar farms and other leases, uses. It is tough wither way, but the final sale of lands is a bigger issue to me.

 

[ktg]

Although I hate the feds, at least we are mostly guaranteed access. The state could screw us all on access. One example is Colorado.

 

[Silentstalker]

I prefer the feds for the reasons mentioned above.

To your one point, Fire is not the issue. Our forests have been mismanaged so badly for decades we have millions of acres of 30 years worth of deadfall that any fire at this point is going to devastating. Fire should cleans the forest floor and burn itself out. Now days it leaves a path of scorched earth that takes a year or two to recover but it will.

I say let it burn and let’s manage better into the future. Nothing better for wildlife than a recovery burn area.