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
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...