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
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.
And what in those finding contradicts the subject study?
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…
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.