02-09-2017, 09:25 AM
I look forward to spring time as well Bovine. In the meanwhile, I would like your HONEST opinion about some things.
1. It's clear you don't think federal management is perfect but do you really think the states actually do a better job managing public lands? If so, what do you like about their management(don't tell me what you don't like about federal management...tell me about a specific state park or two in Utah or some other Utah public land and what you like about how they manage it).
2. If you really think state management of public lands is currently better than federal management, do you think that the state could maintain their "higher standard or quality" of management if they theoretically inherited all of the federal public lands?
From my personal perspective I'll tell you this related to both questions. I have yet to land a federal job(I don't really care who I work for, it's more about what the job is). That being said, I won't go into details here but I have worked state jobs. I will tell you from an insider perspective that with all the "complaining", they hear, you sure wouldn't think that our state is doing a better job managing lands. It's actually kind of
how depressed and burned out a lot of state employees are because of public dissatisfaction. A lot of management issues people have with federal public lands have to do with stupid things people do. For instance I've heard you mention fires on federal lands before...most fires occurring on public lands whether they are state or federally managed are human caused. It's not a case of poor state or federal management...it's a case of someone being an idiot and doing something like throwing a lit cigarette onto dry grass on a hot summer day.
The majority of management issues people have with federal lands also has to do with money. My insider perspective has let me learn that the states have less money to work with. There's a reason why a few years ago fishing license prices went up. There's a reason why this year our state has actually used up its budget for snow plowing and removal. Both state and federal government run primarily on taxes; a lot of people don't like high taxes. So our low tax rates aren't helping either state or federal management at all but the feds are much stronger financially than the states. Federal management has financial issues, but their funding is strong enough where they can at least manage their land even if it's not perfect despite having to pay employees and other related expenses. The states can't afford to maintain or manage all of our federal lands in addition to paying the state employees and all other related expenses. When they can't, they get sold.
This is random but for any of you that hunt besides fish and participate in the dedicated hunters program with the DNR, I suggest you ask the project leaders perspective and opinion on state vs. federal management of public lands.
[signature]
1. It's clear you don't think federal management is perfect but do you really think the states actually do a better job managing public lands? If so, what do you like about their management(don't tell me what you don't like about federal management...tell me about a specific state park or two in Utah or some other Utah public land and what you like about how they manage it).
2. If you really think state management of public lands is currently better than federal management, do you think that the state could maintain their "higher standard or quality" of management if they theoretically inherited all of the federal public lands?
From my personal perspective I'll tell you this related to both questions. I have yet to land a federal job(I don't really care who I work for, it's more about what the job is). That being said, I won't go into details here but I have worked state jobs. I will tell you from an insider perspective that with all the "complaining", they hear, you sure wouldn't think that our state is doing a better job managing lands. It's actually kind of
how depressed and burned out a lot of state employees are because of public dissatisfaction. A lot of management issues people have with federal public lands have to do with stupid things people do. For instance I've heard you mention fires on federal lands before...most fires occurring on public lands whether they are state or federally managed are human caused. It's not a case of poor state or federal management...it's a case of someone being an idiot and doing something like throwing a lit cigarette onto dry grass on a hot summer day. The majority of management issues people have with federal lands also has to do with money. My insider perspective has let me learn that the states have less money to work with. There's a reason why a few years ago fishing license prices went up. There's a reason why this year our state has actually used up its budget for snow plowing and removal. Both state and federal government run primarily on taxes; a lot of people don't like high taxes. So our low tax rates aren't helping either state or federal management at all but the feds are much stronger financially than the states. Federal management has financial issues, but their funding is strong enough where they can at least manage their land even if it's not perfect despite having to pay employees and other related expenses. The states can't afford to maintain or manage all of our federal lands in addition to paying the state employees and all other related expenses. When they can't, they get sold.
This is random but for any of you that hunt besides fish and participate in the dedicated hunters program with the DNR, I suggest you ask the project leaders perspective and opinion on state vs. federal management of public lands.
[signature]