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
Lee, those are really thin. Savage's rhetoric might sound to be over top but he has a point. They stopped flights to Isreal but won't stop flights from Ebola affected regions? If he had, the Texas incident might not have happened.
Youth Firearm training is bad? I remember getting firearm and hunting safety classes in highschool. Of course the TP is doing this to help with thier fight to protect the 2nd amendment but I fail to see this as disgusting.
Sorry, but I still stand by my accusation of your baseless demonization.
Having a child pointing a gun at a camera with the slogan "Take your globalist ideas and get out" reminds me very much of those extremists in places like the DRC, Afghanistan, and Somalia that use children as pawns to fight wars. Of course you wouldn't see anything wrong with that. It's one thing if that article had rhetoric other than constantly harping the terms "FIGHT, BLAST, THROW THEM OUT LIKE GARBAGE, TRAITORS" all while having kids pointing guns at a camera. I think the message is clear. This isn't about training kids to hunt bambi, it's training for them to fight librals' during their revolution. But hey, I obtained my edumakation at one of those scary liberal universities in media, so I can see right through the tongue-in-cheek connotations. I'm obviously their enemy.
Now if the kid was pointing the gun away from the camera, with the old white guy helping him point it properly, and it said "teach children proper gun safety before going out on a hunting trip", the connotations and imagery would take on a much different meaning. But, I get it loud and clear. Welcome to Teaberia, where old crazy extremists are brainwashing their kids how to shoot guns at liberals! And then you wonder why there is this big divide between the two.
I guess you missed the 18 other pictures that were doing exactly that. And no, the kid wasn't aiming at the camera, he was aiming down range and the photographer wanted to get a front shot and moved into position to do so.
You have quite the imagination.
Nice attempt to divert once again, EC. That seems to be your best talent, but the image is crystal clear in the middle of the page. It doesn't use any of those other images. It uses the one with the kid pointing the gun at the viewer. Isn't that a very bad example of gun safety, or was it just poor choice by the editor? Or maybe it was intended? By the way, I'd rather have an imagination over a complete lack of one.
At least Gary gets it.
Hopefully there are others out there, too.
True patriots don't have to use inflammatory hateful rhetoric to get their points across.
Those who do are frightening to those of us who are at least more or less sane.
And apparently they haven't since you haven't identified any.
yet here are snipetts from your posts Lee and Garys?
Well wild places, if stating that the tea party is a facade for corporatist neocon republicans playing the oil/warmongering game, and they dupe a hateful intolerant group of bigots, religious fanatics, anti-education & anti-science folks by promoting an agenda of guns, gods, and xenophobia, then i'm guilty as charged. Because that is exactly what the tea party has morphed into.
Also there are a few members of the tea party in the do-nothing house. Finally, I don't care if i'm a patriot, or considered one. And to keep with the thread, I enjoy going into federal public lands, and want to see them remain protected from the clamoring hands of the tea party extremists.