House votes to give away Forest Service lands

[Elkduds]

This from TRCP. Please notify your US congressmen of your opposition to disposal of your national forest lands.

UPDATE: House Committee Passes Public Land Transfer Legislation

June 15, 2016 By Kristyn Brady 7 Comments


Two bills up for committee vote are overt attempts to undermine public land ownership

UPDATE (June 15): The House Natural Resources Committee, for the first time in history, passed legislation that would sell off millions of acres of our public lands. Rep. Don Young’s H.R. 3650, which would sell land for the primary purpose of timber production and not recreational uses, passed the committee with a 23-15 vote. The only Republican member who defended sportsmen’s rights was Congressman Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.). Listed below are the recorded results:

NAY
Reps. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.)
Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.)
Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.)
Jim Costa (D-Calif.)
Gregoria Sablan (D-Northern Mariana Islands)
Niki Tsongas (D-Mass.)
Jared Huffman (D-Calif.)
Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.)
Alan Lowenthal (D-Calif.)
Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.)
Don Beyer (D-Va.)
Norma Torres (D-Calif.)
Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
Jared Polis (D-Colo.)
Lacy Clay, Jr. (D-Mo.)


YAY
Reps. Rob Bishop (R-Utah)
Don Young (R-Alaska)
Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)
Doug, Lamborn (R-Colo.)
Rob Wittman (R-Va.)
John Fleming (R-La.)
Tom McClintock (R- Calif.)
Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.)
Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.)
Dan Benishek (R-Mich.)
Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
Raul Labrador (R-Idaho)
Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.)
Jeff Denham (R-Calif.)
Paul Cook (R-Calif.)
Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.)
Garret Graves (R-La.)
Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.)
Jody Hice (R-Ga.)
Tom MacArthur (R-N.J.)
Alex Mooney (R-N.J.)
Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.)
Darin LaHood (R-Ill.)

—

H.R. 3650 is an overreaching bill that would allow each state to buy and manage up to two million acres of National Forest System (NFS) land. Most Eastern states – like Illinois for example, which only has 273,482 acres of NFS land – do not have two million acres of national forests land, leaving a high possibility that sportsmen could be unable to access their public land. Sportsmen contribute over $640 billion to the outdoor economy. We deserve to be represented correctly by our lawmakers.

[Swede]

The Forest Service used to produce billions of board feet of timber each year and produce great habitat for deer and elk. The forests were managed on a non-declining sustained yield basis so the timber resource was not depleted. The forests were also managed for multiple uses and still put millions of dollars back into the treasury. Then Congress in all of their wisdom started passing laws that ham-strung the Forest Service. The National Environmental Policy Act, The Endangered Species Act, The Antiquities Act, clean air, clean water, etc, etc etc. Now for the price of a postage stamp the nay-sayers can stop about anything they like after the Forest Service has made a huge investment into planning and studying a management proposal(s). Yep; all that was congress' work too.
I think selling off the land is a terrible idea but a way to try to undo the mess congress itself made. The problem is that when the land goes into private ownership, it is gone forever to free public access. Hunting will be the sport of kings or it will be like it is in Germany where you join a hunting club and go based on the conditions and price agreed to with the land owner.
I used to think that since congress made the mess, they could fix it. I have long ago given up on that bunch. That is far above their ability to deal with sensibly.

[Indian Summer]

The TRCP formerly TRCA isn't much of an organization. I find it nearly impossible to believe that they would do that for the simple reason that they can already use the resources for that. The Forest Service could get their hands in on it or they could simply sell the timber rights and go in, with a solid sustainable plan, and timber it just like they did in years past. Also... why would anyone want to pay all of that money for the land if they didn't have to? Most timber companies allow public recreation on their land anyway. I think it's a bunch of hogwash and half truths meant to get people worked up.

But if not... I've said it many times: When the rules are no longer truly ethical I don't pay any attention to them. If they tell us we can no longer hunt wolves legally then we hunt them ethically instead. I will hunt those mountains regardless of who the F thinks they own it and THAT is THAT!

We own that land. This is NOT the home of the rich and the privatized land of the free and to me it never will be. Try me.

[RAMMONT]

It seems to me that, like most topics of discussion, most people haven't read the bill itself, they just listen to their favorite pundits and follow the beating drums.

Personally I prefer that the states control the use of the land rather than the federal government since the people will have a more direct input on the land's use.

[Swede]

I admit I have not read the bill that Elkduds refers to. That said, in the past congress has tried to sell or give away Forest Service lands in large blocks. Some was to go to the States and some to private owners. The latest attempt that I am aware of was in 2015. What I read was that the president would not support the bill, so apparently it did not go anywhere. Indian Summer you are mistaken about the Forest Service's ability to sell significant amounts of timber at least in regions 5 and 6. That is basically Oregon, Washington and California. I have not heard about any big timber operation on F.S. land in other regions either. They have been blocked by the courts so many times, all they try to do is a little dab here and there. It is no longer forest management. I have seen millions of board feet of quality fire and bug killed timber just left to rot on areas that is or was "general forest" and supposedly open for timber harvest. It is not just the environmentalists that want to see the timber harvest stopped on the N.F. The large timber companies are most pleased to not have any competition.

[Elkduds]

IMO the move to give states ownership of federal lands within their borders is championed by, and designed to only benefit, business owners w the deepest of pockets. A few years ago in the depth of the Recession, CO could not pay for schools, emergency services, upkeep on state parks, infrastructure. If the state owned the BLM ground and national forests here, selling the land would have been an attractive option under that stress. That option would be easier to sell to voters in one state, than to voters across the country, who now own federal lands. Here are some of the many points in opposition to transfer of federal lands to states:

In almost every case, the land was federally owned before the state was created. So the states never owned most of the lands in question. The land historically belongs to you and me.

Stated do not control military bases, FBI, ATF, FCC, VA, FAA, CDC, or any other federal agency or installation within their boundaries. Federal activities exist in every state/territory.

Individuals/businesses have much more influence with state governments than with the Federal government. So they could influence states to dispose of public land by sale.

Federal laws recognize the interests of other states in the affairs of any state. For example, CO cannot change water laws that impact UT, AZ, CA.

Such a move would greatly reduce, if not end completely, state-licensed hunting on public lands.

The list could go on, but you can see my bias toward maintaining federal lands for the benefit of all citizens, not just those in any one state. I am writing all this to encourage you to make your voice heard in favor of preserving federal lands for use by all citizens. There are dissenting opinions, but I'm advocating for mine.


FROM NY Times online:
The Larger, but Quieter Than Bundy, Push to Take Over Federal Land

By JACK HEALY and KIRK JOHNSONJAN. 10, 2016


DENVER — Ken Ivory, a Republican state representative from Utah, has been roaming the West with an alluring pitch to cattle ranchers, farmers and conservatives upset with how Washington controls the wide-open public spaces out here: This land is your land, he says, and not the federal government’s.

Mr. Ivory, a business lawyer from suburban Salt Lake City, does not fit the profile of a sun-scoured sagebrush rebel. But he is part of a growing Republican-led movement pushing the federal government to hand over to the states millions of acres of Western public lands — as well as their rich stores of coal, timber and grazing grass.

“It’s like having your hands on the lever of a modern-day Louisiana Purchase,” said Mr. Ivory, who founded the American Lands Council and until recently was its president. The Utah-based group is funded mostly by donations from county governments, but has received support from Americans for Prosperity, the group backed by the billionaire Koch brothers.

The idea, which would radically reshape the West, is one that resonates with the armed group of ranchers and antigovernment activists who seized control of a wildlife refuge in Oregon more than a week ago. Ammon Bundy, the crew’s leader and the scion of a Nevada ranching family steeped in disputes with the federal government, said he and his sympathizers had gone to Oregon to give the refuge back to local ranchers.
Photo



State Representative Ken Ivory, right, Republican of Utah, with Gov. Gary R. Herbert in Salt Lake City in 2012 after Mr. Herbert signed a bill asking the federal government to extinguish its title to public lands and return them to the state. Credit Erin Hooley for The New York Times

Many conservatives — Mr. Ivory among them — criticized Mr. Bundy’s gun-toting tactics, but their grievances and goals are nearly identical. And the outcry has grown amid a dust storm of rural anger at President Obama’s efforts to tighten regulations on fracking, air quality, small streams and other environmental issues that put struggling Western counties at odds with conservation advocates.

In the past few years, lawmakers across the West have offered up dozens of bills and resolutions seeking to take over the federal lands inside their borders or to study how to do so. Some of the legislation has been aimed at Congress, to urge it to radically revise the laws that have shaped 550,000 square miles of national forests and terrain run by the federal Bureau of Land Management, stretching from the Great Plains to the Pacific.





The effort — derided by critics as a pipe dream that would put priceless landscapes on the auction block — has achieved little so far.

Utah is the only state to pass a law demanding that Washington hand over federal land to the state. That transfer never happened, so now, Republicans on a state land commission are pressing for a $14 million lawsuit to claim 31.2 million federal acres of canyons, scrub desert and rolling mesas. The state’s attorney general, a Republican, has said he is studying the case and will make a decision about whether to move forward.




Colorado’s experience illustrates how the land-transfer discussion far exceeds any concrete results. Last year, a Republican state senator from the agricultural eastern plains sponsored a bill to create a Colorado Federal Land Management Commission, to study turning over federal lands to the state. The measure never made it out of the Republican-controlled State Senate.

In Congress, Republicans have supported moves to set up a land-transfer fund and create a “framework” to hand federal acres to the states.

Last week, Representative Greg Walden, the Republican who represents the Oregon district where the Bundy takeover is playing out, stood up in Congress to deplore the tactics of the armed protesters, but sympathized with their frustration.

“More than half of my district is under federal management, or lack thereof,” Mr. Walden said, expressing anger at the Bureau of Land Management. “They have come out with these proposals to close roads into the forests. They have ignored public input.”



Life in the Sleepy Oregon County Where Armed Protesters Have Occupied a Wildlife Refuge

A small group of armed protesters have seized parts of a wildlife sanctuary — putting a rural Oregon county in the spotlight.






In July 2014, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas proposed preventing the federal government from owning more than half of any state’s land. (Five states are more than half federal land, according to a Congressional Research Service report.) And Representative Cresent Hardy, Republican of Nevada, whose district includes a ranch run by Mr. Bundy’s father, introduced a measure that would block the government from buying any new land unless it could pass a balanced budget.

But land experts say the movement offers few details about what would happen the day after the federal government handed over all its land. How would states afford hundreds of rangers, officers and administrators to keep the land safe and comply with complicated federal laws on environmental policy and protecting endangered species? Would the land stay public, or be sold off to the highest bidder?





“They conveniently avoid all the difficult questions,” said Martin Nie, the director for the Bolle Center for People and Forests at the University of Montana.

In its mission statement, the American Lands Council says its strategy for securing local control of public land in the West involves four tenets: education, negotiation, legislation and litigation.

In practice, local land disputes — fueled by deepening antagonism toward federal land agencies — now unfold like social-media passion plays. Last summer, armed groups intervened by providing security and standing guard at mines in Oregon and Montana that had received stop-work orders from the Bureau of Land Management. And in December, Phil Lyman, a commissioner in San Juan County, Utah, received a 10-day jail sentence after he led a protest ride on all-terrain vehicles through a federal area that had been closed to motorized use.

“All I did was drive down a canyon road,” Mr. Lyman said. “It seems to be getting worse, and the federal agencies, they are expanding. Their restraints are being overstepped. It’s not the way this country was set up. It’s not the founders’ design.”

Not surprisingly, environmental activists have opposed dismantling federal lands, but so have hunters and anglers who worry their elk-hunting grounds and trout streams would be sold to private hands and developed. Unlike the federal government, many states require that their land be used as profitably as possible.

About an hour’s drive from the wildlife refuge where Mr. Bundy’s group is facing off with the government, Erin Maupin and her husband, Jeff, pay the government each summer to feed their cattle on 19,000 acres of federally owned land. She said that like many ranchers, they wanted to work with the government, but that layers of grazing restrictions and environmental rules were getting out of hand.

“We want somebody to make sure we’re doing it right,” Ms. Maupin said. “But it’s got to the point where there’s no common sense in it.”

The resentments toward federal land managers feel sharpest in economically strapped rural counties from Arizona to Montana, where up to 90 percent of the lands are federally managed. People love the beauty that surrounds them, but seethe at policies that they say have whittled away logging and mining jobs, left national forests vulnerable to wildfires and blocked access to public land.

“The land policies now are, basically, lock it up and throw away the key,” said Leland Pollock, a commissioner in Garfield County, Utah, a county roughly the size of Connecticut with pine forests and stunning red-rock spires. “It’s land with no use. The local economy’s really suffered as a result. Grazing has been reduced. We used to have a thriving timber industry — that’s all but gone.”


Jack Healy reported from Denver, and Kirk Johnson from Burns, Ore. Julie Turkewitz contributed reporting from Denver.

A version of this article appears in print on January 11, 2016, on page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: A Quieter Push to Get Control of U.S. Lands. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe
Continue

[Swede]

And the ranchers have to pay $1.30 per animal unit month to graze their cattle on federal land. An animal unit month equals one cow and a calf for a month.

Mrs. Maupin says: "But it’s got to the point where there’s no common sense in it." That means she can't just do as she pleases on federal land and graze the grass down to the dirt.
If any rancher says the regulations are too onerous on them just as how much money they would require to purchase their grazing rights. It would shock you or they will claim they can't sell for some reason which is bunk.

[Elkduds]

This explains what is @ stake:

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk ... ost2521004

[mottlet]

It wouldn't even take a sorta bad fire season to drain state resources if they took over federal lands. Why do folks think Western politicians aren't smart enough to do simple math? Any elected official telling you that states would manage all these lands better than the feds is lying or so colossally misinformed about how budgets work that they ought not be drawing a public paycheck. They know they can't afford em, but they know more folks will rise up against em if they just come out and say that they want to sell em.

If TRCP ain't your flavor (not sure why), check out what RMEF has to say...

RMEF on Public Lands Transfer
MISSOULA, Mont.—In light of recent legislative efforts seeking the sale or transfer of federal lands to state ownership, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation strongly maintains its opposition to such proposals.

“Nearly one-third of our nation’s land is in public ownership and that includes the majority of key elk habitat,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “Transferring or selling these lands to states will do nothing to solve federal land management issues. It may also close the door to public access for hunters, anglers, hikers and others. We all want better public lands but this concept is not the answer. We take this issue very serious.”

RMEF Land Transfer Official Position

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation remains opposed to the wholesale disposal, sale or transfer of federal land holdings. Federal public lands comprise vital habitat for elk and other wildlife species. They are where we hunt, fish, camp, hike, ride and recreate. Transferring ownership of federal lands to states is not a solution to federal land management issues; it is a shell game to avoid the heavy lifting of establishing proactive land management policies in the US.

What is the core issue motivating the transfer of these lands?
Lack of Active Management. People are frustrated with public land management for a variety of reasons, including: catastrophic wildfires, diminished access for recreation and sustainable resource development, incoherent game management policies that favor individual species over balanced wildlife conservation, endless litigation preventing active land management, executive orders creating national monuments and more.

What prevents active management of these lands?
Lawsuits – This is the era void of adult conversations taking place, avoiding any balanced remedies achieved. There are others who subscribe to “keep land management issues tied up in litigation” while the clock runs out; no matter what, do not negotiate, compromise or work together and nothing changes. Sadly, this is the era of political posturing using our natural resources as pawns; meanwhile the greater American outdoors is losing and so is the public. An overreaching use of environmental agendas exists to eliminate any consideration of multiple use in many public forests and the health of those national forests is suffering as a result.

Lack of Resolve – Some within public land management fundamentally oppose active management of forest and range resources in favor of “preserving landscapes.” RMEF believes certain landscapes must be conserved and managed to develop the types of diverse ecosystems elk and other wildlife need to thrive. Man inhabits the landscape thus we have an obligation to steward and manage our natural resources. Additionally, there is a diverse public who wish to recreate in the outdoors yet many are being restricted or limited today by special interests and agendas that strive to either substantially diminish use of our public lands or eliminate it all together.

Why can’t states manage these lands?
States cannot afford to manage federal lands on multiple levels. Land transfer proponents argue states can manage lands at less cost per acre than do their federal counterparts, while at the same time generating revenues for economic development and public schools through a “best use” determination.

Recent studies show states would need to increase timber harvests, mineral and other resource development well beyond sustainable levels to afford the management of these lands. And states would be forced to defend the same frivolous lawsuits the federal government currently faces, not to mention adherence to overreaching uses of the Endangered Species Act and other federal policies are not being discussed.

One question not being addressed at all is what will happen to hunting, fishing, camping, trapping, grazing and other current public land uses in some states should those states assume control over 100 percent of public lands within their borders? The simple answer is those activities will soon cease, causing a cascade of other complications and issues for wildlife and our public lands. The simple truth is groups like the Humane Society of United States (HSUS) and others would relish the idea of exerting political influence and litigation in various states to eliminate many uses of our public lands. This must never happen.

What are the solutions?
First, acknowledging the true problem is a must. We have critical land management issues that require solutions. Second, a commitment to truly resolve these issues must supersede special interests. RMEF believes the solutions lie in addressing obstacles to pro-active land management and providing federal land agencies the leadership, tools and direction to properly manage lands for a variety of environmental, recreational and economic interests.

A true dialogue and course of action to provide real forest management reform and multiple uses of public lands and forests is a must. The shell game of transferring or selling public lands is not a solution. These are public lands, owned by the public and it must remain that way.

[Lefty]

All this stared when Clinton started shutting down public lands expanding national parks and and monument in Utah . Closing roads though vast public lands in Utah.
Im all for road closures,. but when they are the main though fare from one town to another thats a problem.

While I do believe some sorts of uses are not appropriate on all public lands other users we need to work with.
In the 90s Clinton was closing areas to nearly all uses unless you walked in on foot you were going to be breaking laws,
I recreate in some of those National Monuments. The problem was the plan was to protect those lands from nearly all use. Promoted by those that would never use the lands and other than arm chair expertise they knew nothing about the lands they thought they were protecting.

What was created was the Bundy rancher types. those that made their money from public lands that they were getting for nothing. On the other hand the spotted owl /sage grouse on the other extremist protecting all use.

[Swede]

I oversaw the road closure program on the Burns/Emigrant R.D. during The entire Clinton administration. Congress makes the budget and the president signs or vetoes it. I can assure you the budgets for road closures were so austere that you could not keep a rabbit trail closed for more than 15 minutes. We tried to close roads with signs because we could not afford anything more. It was a joke. The signs got pulled out and the roads were continually used. Sometimes the signs were placed on "open" roads where some genius decided they wanted their exclusive hunting area.
We took public input that was strongly in favor of more closures, but could not implement them. We had set a goal of reducing road density to 1 mile of road per square mile. We did not come close.
If Utah got significant money for road closures, they had someone in congress that made sure it was budgeted. We had a congressman that was anti-government and we got squat for our planned and approved road closures.

[bald9eagle]

We have very little in Alabama in the way of NFS land. One of our NF is Bankhead. During the Clinton years a large portion of it was closed off and deemed a wilderness area. Since that time there has been a pine beetle infestation that could not be dealt with, a forest fire that could not be properly handled, very, very sharp decrease in turkey numbers, and the introduction of feral pigs. The hogs tear up turkey nests but hunting the pigs is difficult because of the lack of roads to get to the middle of the area. Most hunters avoid going deep in the area for hogs alone. There have been some massive whitetails taken in there but that is more a product of selective harvesting than anything. Even though we are talking about north AL Bankhead is known for it's deep hollows and steep ridges. Most folks won't go to that kind of effort for a feral hog.

[Elkduds]

Bald9, you and all Americas also own "huge tracts of land" (wanna name that film, Phantom?) in CO, UT, WY MT, NM, WA, OR, CA, ID, AZ, NV, almost all of AK, and other states. Understand that if Nat'l Forest in UT (or anywhere else) gets transferred to that state, it is no longer yours or mine, or Indian Summer's. It is gone and will never be ours again. Then UT can sell it to Exxon, Peabody Coal, Donald Trump, the Mormon Church, Weyerhauser Lumber, as soon as the state budget gets tight.

Our children's children will look past barbed wire and No Trespassing signs to where we used to hunt, fish, camp, ride. The only people hunting on that ground will pay staggering sums to be there. And that will be the end of the North American model of conservation. The King's Deer will be off limits to us peasants, and Robin Hood won't be there to fix it.

Federal lands a thousand miles from your home, that you may never visit, are the flesh and bones of America the Beautiful. This land is still your land, until Republican legislators sell or give it away. Join conservation efforts, contact your legislators, tell them NO.

[Swede]

I was leading the planning effort on a large timber project covering about 20,000 acres when I was working at Twisp Washington back in the mid 1980s. One morning the ranger came to me and said, he wanted me to go with him on a drive out on the District. When we were well away from anyone in hearing distance, he notified me what he had done and said to adjust my project boundary. The night before he an another employee delineated part of the planning area, to be included as part of the Chelan-Sawtooth wilderness. It was going to be a part of a larger wilderness bill. My team had worked for a year on the project and were nearing completion. We had roads, timber boundaries and everything else planned in the area. The wilderness boundary cut across the planning area with no regard for the projects planned, and left areas inaccessible because the wilderness boundaries could not be crossed.
What happened was the Washington congressional delegation had an opportunity to get the wilderness included in a bill and there was very little time for those on the Okanogan National Forest to consider the matter. After work hours, two people drew up the proposed boundary and it was forwarded to the head shed, and sent on. Ronald Reagan and his whole administration had no idea about anything other than the Washington congressional delegation was in favor of the wilderness. President Reagan signed it into law and it is still there is all its glory today.
Does anyone think Ronald called me up and asked how the Chelan-Sawtooth wilderness was going to impact my project? He was clueless and may not have even known where that wilderness, or others were on a Washington map.

[RAMMONT]

I was leading the planning effort on a large timber project covering about 20,000 acres when I was working at Twisp Washington back in the mid 1980s. One morning the ranger came to me and said, he wanted me to go with him on a drive out on the District. When we were well away from anyone in hearing distance, he notified me what he had done and said to adjust my project boundary. The night before he an another employee delineated part of the planning area, to be included as part of the Chelan-Sawtooth wilderness. It was going to be a part of a larger wilderness bill. My team had worked for a year on the project and were nearing completion. We had roads, timber boundaries and everything else planned in the area. The wilderness boundary cut across the planning area with no regard for the projects planned, and left areas inaccessible because the wilderness boundaries could not be crossed.
What happened was the Washington congressional delegation had an opportunity to get the wilderness included in a bill and there was very little time for those on the Okanogan National Forest to consider the matter. After work hours, two people drew up the proposed boundary and it was forwarded to the head shed, and sent on. Ronald Reagan and his whole administration had no idea about anything other than the Washington congressional delegation was in favor of the wilderness. President Reagan signed it into law and it is still there is all its glory today.
Does anyone think Ronald called me up and asked how the Chelan-Sawtooth wilderness was going to impact my project? He was clueless and may not have even known where that wilderness, or others were on a Washington map.

A perfect example of why I'd rather see the land held by the state, both the state and the fed are full of incompetent/corrupt people so they are both prone to do stupid things but when the state does something stupid you have a better chance of hearing about it and taking action before they commit their act of idiocy. I don't understand why so many people think that the federal government is more trustworthy than the state, why do people assume that federal bureaucrats are more honest and intelligent. My wife and I have worked for the federal government in one capacity or another for a combined total of more than 45 years and our opinion is that you'll never eliminate corruption and incompetence, all you can do is rotate the fools in and out of office as often as possible so that they have less time to do their particular brand of damage. State employees can be removed from office far easier than federal employees so at least you can get rid of them when they prove to be out of touch with what the people want.

[Swede]

RAMMONT: Whoa buddy. I never said anything about federal employees being incompetent or corrupt. When the direction came down, there was no time (one evening after work hours) to delineate the wilderness boundary. There was no time to assemble a team and to study the matter. The ranger I worked for then was a dedicated, hard working and intelligent man. I would be pleased call him friend or to work for, or with him again if the opportunity came around. That ranger wisely chose to ask me to go out with him. He understood how I would take the news. I was devastated, but I did not blame him.
I worked with a lot of people and there were a few that were less than stellar performers, but there were some excellent highly skilled people around too. The State (private entities too) has no better employees and no more acceptance than the Feds. We do not control them any more than we do the Federal employees/programs. If there is anyone that has more complaints than the federal land managers, it is the State land managers along with the fish and game departments.
I remember several times in my career when someone came around and tried to tell me, they were tax payers and I worked for them. I politely told then I had one boss and a job description. I had my assigned area of responsibility and targets. I politely ended with, "You don't sign my time sheet, assess my performance, and I don't work for you."
The local saw mill manager came to my office one day and started railing about my employees. I knew about some of his mill employees, a few had been busted by local law enforcement, and replied, "I will compare my employees against yours any time." I knew the mill was struggling to stay afloat. He said "I agree with you". I was very proud of the accomplishments of my employees and still am.
As far as corruption is concerned, I can say this abut that. On a few rare occasions we found corruption among our fellow Forest Service employees. It was dealt with quickly and appropriately as best we could. On a few occasions, I thought we were a little too harsh, and a few times a little too lenient, but it was never tolerated. I did a lot of audits of employees and contractors to ensure we were protecting the government, the land, and those we served.

My point has not been to blame anyone for anything, especially the President either Republican or Democrat. I hate the direction the Forest Service is taking today. If it will be changed, it will be by people writing and taking a stand on what they specifically want from their government.

[RAMMONT]

No, you didn't use the words incompetent or corrupt, I did. Why would you immediately assume that I was calling you and/or the forest service employees incompetent or corrupt? I thought that it was obvious that I was referring to the decision makers, the ones above you that waited until the last minute to take action. But it seems to me that the word incompetent is an appropriate description of anybody that couldn't simply pick up the phone and call the team leader (you) for a recommendation on where to draw the boundaries; they had time to drive over to your house in the middle of the night after the fact it would have taken less time to simply call you before hand. I'm sure that you were more than capable of describing your team's preferred boundaries over the phone.

As for your comments about not being a public servant, well that just might be the reason you don't see the incompetence of your fellow bureaucrats. By definition, anybody that is a civil servant is a public servant. If you worked for the Forest Service then your pay was managed through OPM (Office of Personnel Management). The OPM pays government personnel with public tax dollars. Therefore you were a paid employee of the public - a public servant. While your day to day activities were managed by your department you still worked for the public. We all had to follow orders from our superiors when we worked for the government but we were in the public's service.

[Swede]

RAMMONT, I guess we just see things differently.

both the state and the fed are full of incompetent/corrupt people so they are both prone to do stupid things

I did not work with stupid or corrupt people. The vast majority of the people I associated with were excellent employees that more than earned their pay.
The Washington congressional delegation asked for the information and they obviously had a very stringent deadline. I don't know why.
Nobody drove to my house. My first meeting on the subject was the next morning in the office. I agree it was a mistake not to call immediately and ask about the boundary. The ranger knew about the multiyear project being planned in that area. He understood how the wilderness boundary would impact roads and harvest unit boundaries for the future. He knew that when he told me the next morning about his midnight work. He knew I would be upset. That was why he drove me miles out into the forest to break the news to me personally.
The ranger had people waiting up at night for his map. Still it was at worst a mistake. I knew the ranger well and I knew the Forest Supervisor some. I did not personally know any of the congressional staff, but I would never refer to anyone of them as incompetent or corrupt. The Okanogan managers were very good people. We did not always agree, and occasionally we argued, but we were professionals, and day in and day out we worked well together. Usually I argued and they chewed. It was never personal and we got our jobs done.
This matter reminds me of management of this forum. I like all of the people here. The managers are good honest, caring folks. I don't agree with anyone all the time, but I still like all of you folks. Hunting is big enough for a lot of opinions and experiences. There are numerous ways to get things done. Thankfully we do not all do things alike. Swede will never be a groupie. I will tell you what I think is right as best I can.
I did not take your post as personal and gave it no thought about it being a reflection on me. Best Wishes my friend.

[Elkduds]

Republican presidential platform calls for return of all federal lands to states:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/g ... the-states

Of course, this will show up in amendments to every bill that moves through congress: budgets, farm bills, transportation, infrastructure, civil rights...

[js80138]

This explains what is @ stake:

http://onyourownadventures.com/hunttalk ... ost2521004

I just watched the video and found that it is false and misleading. I do understand the overall emphasis but if your going to present something dont give me half truths. I hunt on STL and have for the past 5 years. What the author of the video presented regarding Colorado is simply untrue. He even gave a quote and offered a link exhonerating himself from this big reveal. He failed to offer another link that clearly states that STL land is available for recreation. http://cpw.state.co.us/placestogo/Pages ... Lands.aspx

I didn't say all land is available but he did claim that none of it would be available. The percentage available for recreation is a topic for another discussion.

[Elkduds]

From the 2016 GOP Platform:

https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazona ... T_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf

"The federal government owns or controls over
640 million acres of land in the United States, most of
which is in the West. These are public lands, and the
public should have access to them for appropriate
activities like hunting, fishing, and recreational
shooting. Federal ownership or management of land
also places an economic burden on counties and
local communities in terms of lost revenue to pay
for things such as schools, police, and emergency
services. It is absurd to think that all that acreage
must remain under the absentee ownership or
management of official Washington. Congress shall
immediately pass universal legislation providing for
a timely and orderly mechanism requiring the federal
government to convey certain federally controlled
public lands to states. We call upon all national
and state leaders and representatives to exert their
utmost power and influence to urge the transfer of
those lands, identified in the review process, to all
willing states for the benefit of the states and the
nation as a whole. The residents of state and local
communities know best how to protect the land
where they work and live. They practice boots-on-
the-ground conservation in their states every day.
We support amending the Antiquities Act of 1906 to
establish Congress’ right to approve the designation
of national monuments and to further require the
approval of the state where a national monument is
designated or a national park is proposed. "