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.
Comments
* 68 percent had a negative view of the federal government.
Obama administration = Federal Government
NPS administration = Federal Government
Most of the on ground NPS folks are good people, but I have heard many times "I don't agree with it either, but it's my job".
Can't do the simple thing can you Gary? You have shutdown so many threads here by your vitriol that I'd call you the vitriol Queen.
I'm talking about how he acts, specifically. And seriously, the 68% view goes beyond pointing the finger strictly at liberals. That's a mere strawman. Especially, considering this GOP controlled do-nothing house was recently polled as being one of the worst in the history of people's lives.
How cute referring to me as a "queen". At least i've got balls to use my real name here. What's your excuse?
And 75% of westerners had a favorable view of the NPS, specifically. While they maybe part of the federal government, they are obviously one of the more respected departments in the federal government. And Beach, your entire knowledge of the NPS is just railing against Cape Hatteras, which is definitely not in the west, and has nothing to do with this thread.
"Sorry to hear you guys are for the importation of Ebola and the stripping of Constitutional liberties from American citizens while being against teaching people how to safely handle a firearm."
Absolutely not. That's a prime example of your twisting of other people's words to try to "prove" one of your far out points.
No one wants Ebola here. No one wants to strip Constitutional liberties. I'm entirely in favor of teaching people how to safely handle a firearm -- in fact, I used to teach firearm safety classes in Utah's Hunter Safety program.
But I cannot, and will not support the kind of hate filled garbage I witnessed on your Tea Party website. I haven't seen that kind of pathetic filth since the day I went exploring in a white supremacist site.
We have problems to solve in this country. But we won't solve them with hate.
Lee...
That Ebola accusation is a prime example of how thin the social veneer is that the wild eyed nuttiness hides behind. Those sort of reckless word games are dispicable.
First - its not my site. It is the site of one group that espouses the Tea Party core principles.
Second, what exactly is the "hate filled garbage". You still haven't given an example. Again the only examples you gave were about Ebola, stripped liberties and gun education and yet now you claim you agree with them (the articles).
There is nothing worse there than what I see every night on TV from left wing orgs supporting their candidates (local news orgs have called the ads deceptive and unfair), from the likes of left wing commentators and from similar progressive websites. For that matter, I have seen more vitriol here by some but I certainly wouldn't demonize the entire NPS because of the comments of a few.
If what is on that website are the Tea Party "core principles," then everyone needs to have a chance to view that website to learn what the Tea Party really stands for. Your claim that I somehow agree with the articles on the website is just one more example of your bending, twisting and flipping the words of others that make it impossible to try to conduct any kind of reasonable discussion with you.
What is on the Tea Party website has to be fueled by pure paranoid fantasy, hate, and mental illness. I pity you and others who subscribe to it. While I used to regard the Tea Party with a sort of amusement, I now realize that we must actually fear it. It goes far beyond mere politics and ventures into the realm of ideological insanity. It is no different than the ideological insanity of the extremes of the Muslim religion.
Lee - you haven't produced any words to twist. You cited the articles as reasons to demonize the Tea Party. One could only assume you disagreed with the articles. But then when challanged you indicated you agreed with the artiticles:
No one wants Ebola here. No one wants to strip Constitutional liberties. I'm entirely in favor of teaching people how to safely handle a firearm
But when it was pointed out that is what the articles said, you call it twisting your words. What exactly "disgusts" you. Perhaps if you actually took a position people wouldn't "twist" your non-existent words.