Page 11 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 259
  1. #101
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    16
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
    Congratulations
    0
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for 30 years (wife for 25 years), I have seen the usual amount of government mismanagement, probably no better or worse than the feds. But what scares me is the rather large political swings that have taken place with the change in governor over the years. I fear that if the state had control, that some of these lands could be sold if a budget crunch were to develop or if a future governor simply had a ax to grind with the feds. Therefore, state ownership would not provide the protection that federal ownership does. Transferring the land to the state would be a slippery slope. I value my access to my public lands way too much to take a chance on this.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to highplainsdrifter For This Useful Post:


  3. #102
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,145
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 690 Times in 242 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 28 Times in 11 Posts
    This is how Haynes intends to handle the issue.

  4. #103
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,252
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 338 Times in 255 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 47 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for 30 years (wife for 25 years), I have seen the usual amount of government mismanagement, probably no better or worse than the feds. But what scares me is the rather large political swings that have taken place with the change in governor over the years. I fear that if the state had control, that some of these lands could be sold if a budget crunch were to develop or if a future governor simply had a ax to grind with the feds. Therefore, state ownership would not provide the protection that federal ownership does. Transferring the land to the state would be a slippery slope. I value my access to my public lands way too much to take a chance on this.
    Good post and IMHO right on! MM must not have time to read much on this because there has been plenty on it that just make ne shudder. The ones that want to seel off Federal lands are as ScottR stated. They are Congressment and Senators in DC , as well as radical at the state levels that think the states can manage the lands better. There are many woho have come right out and espoused getting the federal lands and then selling it to private interest to ease their state budgets, etc. What they fail to realize is that no state, even if they kept and didnt sell the sizeable tracts of Federal lands in some of the western states, has enough money even for fire control measures in a bad year. How in the world they think they could do a better job with less money spent is beyond me even though the feds probably waste a lot of money. It would seem that's the case at all levels of government nowadays if you asked the average citizen about their thoguths on the matter. As sure as God made littler green apples, if the states took control and had a harder fiscal time in the future than they already do, the first thing on the board would be a sell of of the public land to the highest bidder. That would effectively close it off forever to hunting and many other uses just ike the biggest share of private property already is. Keep it where it is right now and work on doing a better job with it, rather than having a fire sale!

  5. #104
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,252
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 338 Times in 255 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 47 Times in 8 Posts
    ScottR---Are the techs working on putting an edit additon to this Forum like we talked about a day or two ago? I just read my last post and it has all kinds of spelling errors I can't correct after I posted it and it drives me nuts. I guess if it stays this way I'm going to have to really slow down and triple check what I post!

  6. #105
    Eastmans' Staff / Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,145
    Thanks
    55
    Thanked 690 Times in 242 Posts
    Congratulations
    1
    Congratulated 28 Times in 11 Posts
    Yeah, I am. I messed with the settings the other day but can't seem to find where that is set up. So yes, I am working on it, no it hasn't happened yet. But it will.

  7. #106
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,252
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 338 Times in 255 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 47 Times in 8 Posts
    Thanks for your efforts!

  8. #107
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by highplainsdrifter View Post
    As a retired management consultant who has worked with the state for 30 years (wife for 25 years), I have seen the usual amount of government mismanagement, probably no better or worse than the feds. But what scares me is the rather large political swings that have taken place with the change in governor over the years. I fear that if the state had control, that some of these lands could be sold if a budget crunch were to develop or if a future governor simply had a ax to grind with the feds. Therefore, state ownership would not provide the protection that federal ownership does. Transferring the land to the state would be a slippery slope. I value my access to my public lands way too much to take a chance on this.
    Good points.

    To me I think it depends on the situation. In a state like Oklahoma with limited federal land I think the state could likely do a better job of managing that land and do it with less cost to the taxpayers. I also think states might be able to avoid some of the red tape/lawsuits that seem to be a part of managing this land. The states also have more incentive to operate in a more financially responsible manner and to control the tourism industry. I know South Dakota inquired about operating MT Rushmore during the gov shutdown. In that situation the state had a lot to lose if Rushmroe was closed so they wanted to open it back up for the benefit of the state.

    Aside from cost savings I think the states could do a better job. Has anybody ever heard of someone using over 100k acres of state land for 20 years without paying a dime? Then turning it into a PC nightmare/disaster, cluster funk? Nope. But that did happen on federal land recently.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_Ranch_standoff
    Has anybody ever heard of a state allowing a private individual to build a house on a road easement that blocked access to public land? It's happened on federal land recently.
    http://billingsgazette.com/news/stat...0e5955b96.html

    At the end of the day our federal government is inefficient and quite frankly not good at doing much of anything except wasting money.

  9. #108
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,252
    Thanks
    110
    Thanked 338 Times in 255 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 47 Times in 8 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post
    Good points.

    To me I think it depends on the situation. In a state like Oklahoma with limited federal land I think the state could likely do a better job of managing that land and do it with less cost to the taxpayers. I also think states might be able to avoid some of the red tape/lawsuits that seem to be a part of managing this land. The states also have more incentive to operate in a more financially responsible manner and to control the tourism industry. I know South Dakota inquired about operating MT Rushmore during the gov shutdown. In that situation the state had a lot to lose if Rushmroe was closed so they wanted to open it back up for the benefit of the state.

    Aside from cost savings I think the states could do a better job. Has anybody ever heard of someone using over 100k acres of state land for 20 years without paying a dime? Then turning it into a PC nightmare/disaster, cluster funk? Nope. But that did happen on federal land recently.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_Ranch_standoff
    Has anybody ever heard of a state allowing a private individual to build a house on a road easement that blocked access to public land? It's happened on federal land recently.
    http://billingsgazette.com/news/stat...0e5955b96.html

    At the end of the day our federal government is inefficient and quite frankly not good at doing much of anything except wasting money.
    The Feds didn't turn that into a PC nightmare. Bundy lost several court case and was inviolation of courts orders to remove hisa cattle form federal lands. He didn't do it and the feds finally moved in to do the job. A bunch of extremists then created so much chaos that it was necessary to protect themselves and as it escolated when the wackos came in from other states with semi-automatic weapons the Feds stood down to avoid shootign. That case will be settled sooner or later and Bundy should be behind bars, which is where he should have been years ago. The other case is too sketchy, but it sounds a little more like PC grandstanding and something that was not unusual toher than who it is that the feds are into it with. Yes, the Feds spend way too much money with poor results in many instances. However, I don't believes the states are much better. They are just dealing with a lot smaller things in most instances and if things were increased by giving some of these states millions of acres to deal with IMHO they would go bankrupt in short order or want to sell the land to avoid it. If the latter happened and it fell into private hands everyone in the country would lose.

  10. #109
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    colfax, wa
    Posts
    5,223
    Thanks
    1,282
    Thanked 668 Times in 573 Posts
    Congratulations
    199
    Congratulated 24 Times in 11 Posts
    It doesnt seem to fit into the fed budget either by looking at how the Deficit is growing every day.

    Would anyone want to do away with the state wildlife agencys and turn management over to the USFWS?

    As for Bundy I feel that him and 50 other ranchers in Clark county NV were the victim of the misuse of the ESA which was used as a tool to get ranchers off the land they held leases on.
    "Now two flags fly above my land that really sum up how I fee. One is the colors that fly high and proud The red, the white, the blue. The other one's got a rattlesnake With a simple statement made "Don't tread on me" is what it says and I'll take that to my grave. Because this is me. I'm proud to be American and strong in my beliefs. And I've said it before but I'll say it again 'Cause my family's always fought and died to save this land. And a country boy is all I'll ever be."

  11. #110
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    1,746
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 233 Times in 176 Posts
    Congratulations
    45
    Congratulated 30 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottR View Post
    This is how Haynes intends to handle the issue.
    First I'd read on the guy. I'm as conservative as they come, but he fell off the turnip truck.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •