Most voters -- except those in Utah and Wyoming -- oppose efforts to transfer federal lands, such as this area of Canyonlands National Park, over to the states/Kurt Repanshek
A public opinion poll of eight Western states has produced somewhat contradictory results when it comes to federal lands in those states. While strong numbers voiced positive views of agencies such as the National Park Service and U.S. Forest Service, equally strong numbers held their state governments in higher esteem than the federal government. Overall, though, a slight majority opposes proposals to turn federal lands over to the states.
The polling conducted earlier this month comes as legislators in Utah are threatening to sue the federal government if it doesn't hand over federal lands in the Beehive State and as some congressional delegations in the region chafe at federal land ownership and management.
In Utah, state Rep. Ken Ivory two years ago sponsored the Transfer of Public Lands Act and Related Study, which was signed into law by Gov. Gary Herbert in March 2012. The bill established a deadline of this coming December 31 for the federal government to turn over Utah's nearly 20 million acres of public lands to the state, or it will sue. (It should be noted, though, that Utah's Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel advised the Legislature that the measure has "a high probability of being held unconstitutional.")
According to the Center for American Progress, which conducted the polling, similar legislative efforts are under way or in development in seven other Western states. And yet, the group's polling Sept. 10-14 found that 52 percent of the 1,600 voters contacted oppose a transfer of federal lands to their states. That majority feared, the pollsters said, that such a transfer would lead to higher state taxes or would lead their legislatures to sell off the lands rather than bear the costs of managing them.
'In New Mexico, we have a deep connection to our public lands. They are part of our history, our culture, and our economy,' said Sen. Martin Heinrich in a release outlining the polling results. 'These lands belong to all of us, and it is imperative that we keep it that way. Efforts to seize or sell off millions of acres of federal public lands throughout the West would bring a proliferation of closed gates and no trespassing signs in places that have been open and used for generations. These privatization schemes would devastate outdoor traditions such as hunting and fishing that are among the pillars of Western culture and a thriving outdoor recreation economy.'
* 76 percent of the respondents thought the National Park Service was doing a good job managing the parks;
* 73 percent approved of the jobs being done by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service;
* 48 percent approved of the job being done by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (vs. 34 percent who disapproved);
* 68 percent had a negative view of the federal government.
Among the states surveyed -- Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon and New Mexico -- only Utah and Wyoming respondents favored a transfer of federal lands to their states. In Utah, 52 percent of the respondents were in favor, while in Wyoming 48 percent backed such a proposal vs. 46 percent opposed. Overall, a slight majority (47 percent vs 44 percent) of respondents who had never visited a federal landscape during the past year were in favor of the lands transfer.
Another aspect of the polling found that a strong majority of respondents (72 percent) "consider public lands like national forests and BLM lands to be more 'American places' than 'state places.''
You can find the questions for the survey here.
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
The concern about closed gates and no tresspassing signs is incredibly funny. Where have you been? The National Forest is full of "no tresspassing" areas. They are called "Wilderness" and "Roadless Areas". The travel management plans effectively lock most of the people out of the national forests. If you need some type of motorized transportation to access the national forests you are out of luck, and the areas off limits keep growing by leaps and bounds. In the past I was against state control, but have now moved over to being a supporter. The states could not possibly do a worse job than the feds at managing the land, and at least in some states there may be people who understand the concept of "multiple use."
Interesting article. The more the federal govt "locks" people out of public lands the more I see this sentiment increasing. Whether it be through fees or just in the name of "environmental protection" the feds should take note. 52 percent is slim. I see that number increasing with the likes of Jarvis at the helm of the NPS. His "civic engagement" ruses have worn thin here on the eastern seaboard and the recent attempts to standardize fees for public lands fell flat. Ironically it was Bishop who orchestrated that pig. And it flew back in his face. This whole movement is a result of public perceptions of federal mismanagement. The NPS has little to no oversight and what exists is just token. So I am glad that the states are making their voices heard. Jarvis and his cabal should take note. Public lands are just that. And we don't owe the DOI any "thank you's" for allowing taxpayers to use it.
I think the flaw in the survey is that it implies an all or nothing proposition. I believe the survey would have been far more favorable to transfers on a question about whether some lands (rather than all) should be transferred. The fact that 17% felt state parks were a better experience than federal lands vs 7% that thought they were worse would support that belief.
irene, if you will do some checking, you will find that ALL of the No Trespassing signs are marking inholdings, or pockets of private property within the national forests. There are NO signs forbidding access to wilderness.
But then, I'm sure you already know that. Travel management plans are attempts to protect forests, watersheds, archaeological sites and other resources from people who, in the past, have caused significant damage to those areas.
The article names Utah Senator Ken Ivory, but does not tell us that Ivory is one of the most notorious land developers in Utah. Most of his proposed land use bills in the Utah legislature are obvious self-dealing. If there's a dollar to be gained, Ivory will seek it. He's one of the developers who are currently trying to move the Utah State Prison at huge taxpayer expense to open the land it occupies to private development. Senator Ivory is a leading Utah GOP Socialist. Their motto is simple: Socialize Expenses - Privatize Profits.
The study cited in this Traveler article was sponsored by The Center for American Progress, which is generally a pretty well balanced organization. But their study seems to contradict some of the findings by The Colorado College State of the Rockies Project. Here is a summary of their most recent survey which shows that in this study, at least, most Utahns do not support transfer of public lands to the tender loving care of Utah. Other polls have shown similar results.
Consistently throughout the data, Utah voters demonstrate their strong connection to public lands…
And what in those finding contradicts the subject study?
Lee - I didnt respond immediately to your attack on Ivory since I knew nothing about him. But, I did suspect your claims and did a little research. I could find nothing that suggest Ivory is a land developer much less a notorious one. According to his bio, he is a lawyer. From his website:
Nor could I find any evidence that he would directly benefit from any of the bills he has proposed.
Perhaps you would like to substantiate your claims.
And the Center for America Progress is not a "pretty well balanced organization." It's a liberal think tank.
Are you sure you have the same Ken Ivory of Ivory Homes? (Correction: it's Representative Ivory, not Senator)
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=31132428&itype=storyID
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=31364016&itype=storyID
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=31155041&itype=storyID
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/opinion/58143192-82/lands-state-utah-federa...
To present another side, here is an op-ed by Ivory himself: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605306/Public-lands-Why-the-differ...
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=30963975&itype=storyID
http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=31036159&itype=storyID
Yes, but a liberal think tank is much more balanced than others. ;-}
Then again, is it liberal or is it non-partisan. To one who an ideologue, non-partisan is anathema.
I have the Ken Ivory that is a Utah Representative
http://le.utah.gov/house2/detail.jsp?i=IVORYK
His profession is Attorney and mediator.
Perhaps you have the wrong Ken Ivory.
Ivory homes was founded by Ellis Ivory and is currently run by Clark Ivory
http://www.ivoryhomes.com/?mID=19
It's a family thing.
Really? Please demonstrate that he has had anything to do with Ivory Homes. Also waiting for you to identify the bills that represented "self-dealing"
I believe you owe Rep Ivory an apology for your slander.
Come to Utah. It's more like the Ivorys owe Utah an apology.
Because you make false accusations?
You falsely claimed he was a " notorious" land developer, which he is not and falsely claimed he was self dealing as a Rep which he has not.
You had the wrong guy but are too vain to admit it.
And yes, that last sentence is my opinion.
The Ivory family has a very negative reputation. Whether it's Ken or his kin. Ken Ivory sponsored a bill a few years ago that inserted a one-sentence amendment into a Utah consumer law that forbids any new homeowner from suing the builder, developer, architect, or others involved in construction of a home they have purchased. Happily, it hasn't worked very well, because attorneys have found way to get around it. But it does make it much more difficult and expensive for people who purchased lemons for homes to take any action.
I may have been wrong about the first names, but I'm certainly not wrong about the reputation this bunch has built for themselves.
You ask for proof that there has been no self-dealing. I ask for proof that there has not. Wouldn't it be nice if only honest people ran for government office? But in Utah we have a bumper crop of those who don't fit that bill.
You made specific allegations about Ken which were false. What his family - if in fact it is his family - has done is totally irrelevant.
Typical- you make an allegation and then ask others to prove it isn't true. Fact is you don't have any basis for the allegation or you would provide it.
Kurt - I apologize for this digression but when people make baseless, defamatory and slanderous allegations, I believe they need to be called out. I did it with Smokies who is attacking the NPS and I am doing it with Lee who nominally is on the other side.
ec, Utah's politics are filled with good ol' boy self dealing that is so convoluted and well hidden that it's nearly impossible for anyone but a seasoned investigative reporter to sort any of it out. But it's there. And the Ivory family is an active part of it. The recent indictments of our last two attorneys general are but a tip of the iceberg that floats on the surface of Utah's political scene. There are plenty of basis for legitimate allegations, but the power and wealth of the network make it nearly impossible to expose it. You and I can argue forever, but the truth is that throughout Utah -- and the rest of America, unfortunately -- there is a culture of political corruption that has existed since the beginning and will probably never be stopped.
How about calling out the corrupt politicians? You might do much more good if you would.
When I have evidence of corruption I will call them out. But I won't stoop so low in the name of idealogy to make unsubstantiated accusations of fact against politicians with which I disagree.
Okay. Give my regards to the ol' boys in Colorado.
Here's how "non-partisan" the CAP is. Its board of directors includes Tom Daschle, Carol Browner and Tom Steyer. Ted Strickland is on its executive committee. Even the New York Times calls it liberal. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/us/major-research-groups-given-low-marks-on-transparency.html?_r=0
And, Mr. Bick, in which world of yours is 'liberal' a swear word?
It's not a swear word at all. Someone called CAP nonpartisan. I pointed out that it's not. If you saw a poll on the use of public lands from an oil company, you'd question the poll, right? Same thing here.
We live in a world of relative and overwhelmingly subjective definitions. To most Americans moderately conservative Republicans are considered moderately conservative Republicans, however to the Tea Party extremists they are derided as RINO's. News sources that I - who self-identifies as a long-ago former conservative but current for many year progressive - consider fairly objective, folks on the far right consider "commie-lib" whatevers. I was just trying to get some context in how you're using the term.
Could you define what is extreme about the Tea Party platform?
Not germane. But then, you who defends Tea Party wholeheartedly and who also refuses to be linked to them when accused, are perfectly on time with your response. I'm surprised it took you half an hour.
Just write it off to my being a pollyanna commie-pinko gadfly and move on about your day.
Oh. " I was just trying to get some context in how you're using the term."
I guess that works for you but not for others.
Hi ec--I have heard many commentators refer to the Tea Party as "extreme". It ususally boils down to a couple core beliefs: !. Anti abortion even in cases of threats to a woman's life or for those who become pregnant because of rape or incest; 2. Theatening the separation of church and state by promoting the teaching of so-called Christian values in public schools; 3. Distrust or disbelief in scientific analyses regarding climate change, evolution. 4. Believing that God created the world 6,000 years ago; 5. Failing to admit that the President was born in Hawaii and is not Muslim; 6. Trying to transfer Federal lands to state control; 7. Proposing to eviscerate major conservation legislation such as the ESA, the Antiquities Act, Clean Air Act; 8. Desiring to deport all people who have been here for years, pay taxes, etc. but who do not have a green card (the last estimate I saw was 11,000,000) and militarize the border; 9. Opposing anything that even hints of gun control.
I could go on but you get the idea. These core values are outside the mainstream of political thinking in this country. In my opinion, that's what makes them extreme. And don't get me wrong. There are extremists on the left also.
Rick
Not in the Tea Party platform
Not in the Tea Party platform
Not in the Tea Party platform
Not in the Tea Party platform
Not in the Tea Party platform
This could reasonable be contrued as part of its platform. It is consistent with the goals of our Constitution and certainly not an "exteme" view.
I think it would be more fair to say they want those functions moved to the states than to eviscerate them.
You mean protecting our borders as mandated by the Constitution. Absolutely. Again there is nothing extreme about that.
Yes - again what is exteme about living up to our Constitution?
I think for the most part, your response confirms that many of you have no idea what the Tea Party is or what it stands for. Try a read of this:
http://www.teaparty-platform.com/
I suppose you are right, asking it like that.
Within your belief system, they aren't extreme.
***
edited to add - this response was posted before the long denial listing I just read
***
I just hate to think of Timothy Tentpeg out there, tea bags hanging off of his costume hat, thinking he is fighting against The Man when he is really just following these guys.
Can we get back to the parks?
The original tea party way back before palin, and the koch brothers came in and played puppet masters were created from those real western libertarians that believe in limited government, and a hands-on do-it-yourself approach. They were pretty much against what the Bush administration represented, as well as what the Obama administration became. It's been hijacked many times since. Now it's just a facade for corporatist neocon republicans playing the oil/warmongering game and using faux news as their mouth piece. The original tea party would have fought against the rovians and they did, but they didn't have enough power and were eventually overcome by those neocon forces. Main Street is just not powerful enough to go up against Wall Street and it never will be. I think anyone can get behind lowering the deficit and keeping the countries debt at sane levels, but once the bigots, religious fanatics, and anti-education and science folks came flying in under the gadsen flag, the movement was hijacked by the swarm. That value system isn't in step with real western libertarian ideology.
And from my experiences in the west, i'd say most do support public lands over complete privatization of those lands. And because the west is perhaps the most transient place in this country, people aren't as beholden to the state level (hence why more see it as Federal lands, and not property of a state or county). Although that movement is around, especially in some rural pockets where the population is a bit small, provincial and sheltered.
Polling shows most Westerners have a negative view of the Federal Government which is aligned with the rest of country. No one should be surprised by that. I am surprised by the approval numbers of the NPS. The dishonest and oppressive Feds are pushing folks to want State control. I am hearing more and more about the want for States to regain control of lands managed by the NPS, in my view a quickly growing trend...
Yet, they have a favorable view of the NPS, and USFS with over a 70% margin. So, when I went to school 75% is > 25%.
Hi again ec--Those items may not be in the written platform of the Tea Party, but they are certainly on the minds of those who identify themselves as Tea Party members. One only has to look at the problems that Boehner has controlling his own caucus to see that.
There is certainly nothing extreme about the Constitution. What is extreme is how some people interpret it, again from both sides. The Tea Party, however, is making the most noise now.
Rick
Are there some Tea Party members that believe some of those things. Absolutely. But then there are standard Republicans, RINOs, Dems and independants that do as well. The Tea Party movement is not a movement based on social issues. Its focus is on fiscal discipline, limited government, states rights and adherence to the Constitution. It is the left and even some Republicans that have painted the Tea Party as a social movement in attempt to demonize it. You have fallen for that ruse. As I indicated before, I think you were reasonably accurate on items 6-9 of your list but given current polling, the Tea Party positions could hardly be deemed extreme on those issues.
Here's a little first-hand information.
http://www.teaparty.org/about-us/
How about this one?
http://www.teaparty.org/michael-savage-blames-president-obola-virus-u-s-...
Or this:
http://www.teaparty.org/afp/
And finally, this gem. Take time to watch as the photos scroll past:
http://www.teaparty.org/hottea/
To my way of thinking, hatred is dangerous no matter where it comes from. I'm afraid these people are as much a danger to America as any Muslim extremists. Maybe even more. This is the American Taliban.
Complicit or duped, they're dancing to the Koch tune.
As opposed to the Harry Reid mellody, yep.
Hmm Lee - I don't see any of Ricks first five points in any of those links. I do see 6-9 and agree with all of them.
What about the rest of the website, ec? Do you agree with all that?
You would have to be more specific. What specifically do you find objectionable?
I asked a simple question. Have you actually looked at and explored the Tea Party website? Do you, or do you not, subscribe to the views expressed there?
I subscribe to the 15 core principles expressed on the home page of that cite. I haven't read every page but I am sure there are some things with which I don't agree. But then there probably isn't a single politician, party or organization with which I would agree 100%.
Also there is no "the Tea Party website" Since there is no official Tea Party this cite merely reflects one person's (or group's) views and/or the views of the articles it has linked.
But - if you have a specific issue from this cite that bothers you, I would be happy to discuss.
In EC's defense, there is definitely a difference between the original tea party and what it has become when the neocons hijacked it and turned it into a vehicle for the fundies and established Necons. The original tea party was all about government fiscal responsibility, like EC stated, and I agree with that. Once Palin, Glenn Beck, etc started calling themselves tea partiers the movement morphed into something else entirely. Now it's been hijacked by the guns, gods, we-hate-gays and minorites groups. There is a big difference between western libertarianism, and the far-right in the southeast, and midwest that seems to clamor for a theocracy. Since EC is in a state that is fairly libertarian, I suspect he's more closer to the original than what it is seen after it was taken way out of context.
The tea-party hijacking..
Whatever the case may or may not be, I don't know. But I do know that what is contained on that website which claims to belong to the Tea Party is some of the most disgusting crap I've seen in a long time. Whether or not this website is "official" or not isn't for me to determine. But it claims to be the Tea Party's work, so I'll accept that as fact. I'm thinking that sane Americans need to try to make sure that others see what the Tea Party website looks like.
I wish you would be more specific. It seems telling that you can't identify anything. All you have done so far is link to a story about lax handling of the Eboli outbreak, a story listing areas where presidential actions have stripped away American liberties and a story about training youth on how to properly handle a gun.
What do you find "disgusting" about those stories?
I think you just answered my question.
Lee -- there is no possible middle-ground result to this.
Rick, have you looked at any of those links I provided? What's your reaction?
Lee - 30-some years ago I was one of those people. I grew a conscience, and started looking behind the rhetoric. I agree with you on the cleansing power of daylight and exposure. I agree with everything you've said on this topic.
I also know the dynamics of debating ideologues online, and am usually willing to allow those to whom it is important to thump their chests in victory, just to get my digits out of the Chinese finger traps.
Pages