I think this is the fundamental difference in our opinions, okielite. Many of us don't think public lands are a business. Many of us don't think they should be managed like a business or their success measured by the bottom line.
I agree 100%. They should not have to be self supporting. But there is no reason to essentially allow taxpayers to foot the bill for grazing that only a few people benefit from. That is the part about your opinion that is puzzling to me.
Getting fair vale for grazing doesn't hurt the recreational aspect of the land in any way. The cows will be there regardless of who is in charge of the grazing. In fact it gives the managing agency more funding to do conservations projects and increase recreational opportunities moving forward. So actually it helps accomplish maintaining that "treasure" we all enjoy using.
If you oppose giving states the opportunity to manage grazing resources on federal land you are entitled to your opinion. The states already manage much of the wildlife resources on federal land so it would have little if any effect on hunters. I'd like to see them get a chance as there is a lot of room for improvement IMO.
Why are you opposed to letting states manage more than just the wildlife resource on federal land? Specifically grazing?
I am saying your proposed solution is unrealistic and out of proportion to the problem. It is like using a canon to shoot a rabbit. I suggest you find another way to address specific issues such as the grazing issue.
I am saying your proposed solution is unrealistic and out of proportion to the problem. It is like using a canon to shoot a rabbit. I suggest you find another way to address specific issues such as the grazing issue.
So my compromise solution that adresses recreational and land sale concerns is unrealistic but the people running around claiming the states will stop all camping and then sell the land off and the land will be lost forever are being realistic? LOL. Nice try. It's pretty easy to see who is being reasonable in this situation.
How is letting the state administer grazing contracts shooting a rabbit out of a cannon?
I agree 100%. They should not have to be self supporting. But there is no reason to essentially allow taxpayers to foot the bill for grazing that only a few people benefit from. That is the part about your opinion that is puzzling to me.
Getting fair vale for grazing doesn't hurt the recreational aspect of the land in any way. The cows will be there regardless of who is in charge of the grazing. In fact it gives the managing agency more funding to do conservations projects and increase recreational opportunities moving forward. So actually it helps accomplish maintaining that "treasure" we all enjoy using.
Why do you have a "beef" with cattlemen? If it's so important to you that they make money off of public lands perhaps they should start charging all of us tresspass fees for recreation use? Yes I know we all paid taxes that go into the mangement of these land but I guess it's not enough of a profit margin for a buisness man such as yourself.
The companies I worked for did not care about anything other than the bottom line and how much profit they made.
Once again I will say that you are in a state that has less that 3% public land so the thing you propose would have no effect on your state.
Why do you have a "beef" with cattlemen? If it's so important to you that they make money off of public lands perhaps they should start charging all of us tresspass fees for recreation use? Yes I know we all paid taxes that go into the mangement of these land but I guess it's not enough of a profit margin for a buisness man such as yourself.
The companies I worked for did not care about anything other than the bottom line and how much profit they made.
Once again I will say that you are in a state that has less that 3% public land so the thing you propose would have no effect on your state.
I don't have any "beef" with cattlemen. Where did you come up with that?
Companies have to make a profit to exist. That is how they make payroll and operate. Clearly your perspective is not based on financial responsibility. That's the part I dont' get. It's like you don't realize that all the money that is left on the table with these contracts is money that could have been used for management of that land.
Try looking at this from a perspective beyond just your state.
I've noticed hunters struggle with this on these forums. They almost always end up in some personal insults about intelligence. Completely unnecessary IMO.
It's really bizarre to read some of the responses. The ones who are obviously government employees are the most entertaining. Gotta love government employees telling us how great they are at their job.
Take off the tin foil hats for a minute and look at facts instead of this crazy paranoia where you think everyone is anti hunting. I am not sadly mistaken, but you are.
That is nothing but a half truth and gross exaggeration and you guys know it. If you want credibility try a new tactic. States are not against camping and they do allow camping on some state land but not others, just like the feds to. You guys are as bad as the wolf crazies.
So my compromise solution that adresses recreational and land sale concerns is unrealistic but the people running around claiming the states will stop all camping and then sell the land off and the land will be lost forever are being realistic? LOL. Nice try. It's pretty easy to see who is being reasonable in this situation.
How is letting the state administer grazing contracts shooting a rabbit out of a cannon?
Just to clarify, I didn't say it would be like shooting a rabbit out of canon. I said it would be like shooting a rabbit with a canon. I'm saying your proposed solution to your unhappiness with grazing policy is so drastic and unrealistic that it would be like shooting a rabbit with a canon, not out of a canon (for the record, I would never do that to a poor little rabbit LOL). I'm sorry you missed my analogy. I trust most others got my point.
Just to clarify, I didn't say it would be like shooting a rabbit out of canon. I said it would be like shooting a rabbit with a canon. I'm saying your proposed solution to your unhappiness with grazing policy is so drastic and unrealistic that it would be like shooting a rabbit with a canon, not out of a canon (for the record, I would never do that to a poor little rabbit LOL). I'm sorry you missed my analogy. I trust most others got my point.
So allowing states to manage wildlife resources on federal land is fine but allowing states to manage grazing resources on federal land is "drastic and unrealistic"?
So allowing states to manage wildlife resources on federal land is fine but allowing states to manage grazing resources on federal land is "drastic and unrealistic"?
You have stated that you would like the government to turn over management of federal lands to the states and provide financial assistance to the states to help them manage. Yes, I think that is drastic and unrealistic! It is like shooting a rabbit with a canon when there is likely a better approach to address some specific issues.
Honestly, the grazing annoys the mess out of me. Things that happen cheaply on public out West affects prices all the way to the East Coast and all the way south to the Gulf. Historically, bison range has never really been good cattle range because of poor stocking rates and winter die-offs (see South Dakotas 2013), so IMHO, no reason for ranchers to be able to stock/expand more on public than they could on their own private land holdings.
That's the least of financial worries though concerning a transfer. The states with a ton of public require too much federal revenue to function as a state without tacking on additional expenditures.
I guess everyone here that disagrees with okielite is a government employee and we are all on the take. Sounds like something a delusional person would say because he sees what he wants to see.
I will bid okielite a good day and be done with this thread because it's like talking to someone who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings lalalalalalala so they won't hear anything.
I guess everyone here that disagrees with okielite is a government employee and we are all on the take. Sounds like something a delusional person would say because he sees what he wants to see.
I will bid okielite a good day and be done with this thread because it's like talking to someone who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings lalalalalalala so they won't hear anything.
You still never answered my questions about the so called "beef" with cattlemen. Where did you come up with that?
It's pretty clear that most people have their mind made up but some of us who can handle different opinions enjoy discussing and looking at different perspectives people have. It's actually a good thing if you can handle different opinions.
Sometimes you can look at a persons perspective and see that their position is likely the result of where they are coming from. I have noticed that government employees seem to have a certain response to anyone who questions how efficient the federal government operates. But that is understandable. I'd probably do the same thing if I was a government employee who was afraid of letting someone else have the chance to do my job.
So judging by your response I'm going to guess you are or were a government employee at some point. AMIRITE?
You have stated that you would like the government to turn over management of federal lands to the states and provide financial assistance to the states to help them manage. Yes, I think that is drastic and unrealistic! It is like shooting a rabbit with a canon when there is likely a better approach to address some specific issues.
Many people on this thread have expressed concerns about local control because of the tendency for locals to focus on for-profit management decisions while paying only lip-service to recreation. Your arguments regarding the grazing issue have been almost exclusively about money. Furthermore, you are so passionate about the issue that you are unwilling to listen to suggestions on how to address the issue without toppling the entire land management system in the Western United States. So while you have been arguing for more local control, I think you have actually provided more reason for us to be skeptical of local control: too much focus on profit and an unwillingness to listen to opposing points of view. While that may not have been your intention, I think that is what you have accomplished in the past few days. Thank you for helping us make our case!
I agree 100%. They should not have to be self supporting. But there is no reason to essentially allow taxpayers to foot the bill for grazing that only a few people benefit from. That is the part about your opinion that is puzzling to me.
This is not my opinion. I am not against raising grazing fees. I am against changing the ENTIRE management system model over one minor issue of grazing fee value.
As I mentioned before grazing fees mean very little to me. There are much bigger issues at stake here with the biggest being keeping public land public.
Actually it is much more likely under the federal system that they will reduce grazing permits, just as they did in the Absaroka Beartooths, which provided an immediate, noticeable improvement in game habitat.
okielite,
I understand why you advocate for state control. You believe public lands should be managed like a business. Most states manage under that model.
The federal management approach is the Teddy Roosevelt conservation model, which is more in line with most posters on this thread.
We believe the business model may make more money, but the non-financial costs are just too great.
With all that said, I still appreciate that you oppose transfer, and gladly stand by you in that opposition.
