# Advocate for selling public lands ascends to the top of the BLM



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060787775

This is pretty bad, and frankly should be insulting to anyone on this board that this Administration put the fox in the henhouse. No one who hates the fact there are public lands should be the one overseeing those public lands.


----------



## stillhunterman (Feb 15, 2009)

This fellow makes me cringe more than a bit. His appointment seemed to fly under the radar, for the most part, I haven't seen much of anything from the major news outlets on this. Hopefully his tenure will be short lived, as many of this administrations 'appointees' are...

On a more positive note, I see Bishop isn't seeking re-election, and that's a good thing for public lands. But I'm sure he'll still have his fingers into it in some form or another.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Just making a blanket off-the-cuff statement, selling of public lands in large quantities will collapse the outdoor recreation industry as we know it.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Here is an article he wrote, the title "The government should follow the constitution, and sell its western lands"

This is a slap in the face to any sportsmen who hunts on public lands or anyone who enjoys them in any way. This is not the person who should be in charge of the largest public land management agency.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016...should-sell-western-land-follow-constitution/


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

In plutocratic America, the western public lands will be sold sooner or later. But not to worry, the rich are only interested in the nice stuff. Don't think for one minute that there are not people/families out there that are fully capable of purchasing the entire Unita mountain range and still not bust their recreation budget.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> Just making a blanket off-the-cuff statement, selling of public lands in large quantities will collapse the outdoor recreation industry as we know it.


Absolutely correct. I would guess on any given weekend just along the Mirror Lake hyway alone there is probably $10 million worth of campers/trailers/5th wheelers utilizing this public land, and this doesn't take into consideration the Razors and coolers, and fish poles and backpacks, and tents, and hiking boots, and binoculars, etc, etc.
In short, no public land, no outdoor industry. And most important, no outdoor activity.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

BPturkeys said:


> Absolutely correct. I would guess on any given weekend just along the Mirror Lake hyway alone there is probably $10 million worth of campers/trailers/5th wheelers utilizing this public land, and this doesn't take into consideration the Razors and coolers, and fish poles and backpacks, and tents, and hiking boots, and binoculars, etc, etc.
> In short, no public land, no outdoor industry. And most important, no outdoor activity.


I wouldn't say that, just look at Texas where just under 96% is private and there is a large outdoor industry.

Utah is lucky in that there is only 24% private but a lot of that is attributed to the desert landscape that isn't worth much more than a livestock grazing area. I guess that living in the west we just get spoiled.

I don't agree with it but facts don't lie.

https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentages-by-us-states/186111


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

> - only a week after joining the agency.


 How in the hell did THAT happen?!?

edit:


> Among the temporary BLM leaders was Brian Steed, who like Pendley was also deputy director of policy and programs before leaving last month for a Cabinet-level position in Utah Republican Gov. Gary Herbert's administration


UGH! Herbert want's to sell off our public lands and plow even MORE roads through the backcountry.


----------



## MuscleWhitefish (Jan 13, 2015)

BPturkeys said:


> In short, no public land, no outdoor industry. And most important, no outdoor activity.


Look at Morgan county. Almost no public land, but a huge outdoor industry.

There are issues here, but I do not think that you can make the argument that there would be zero outdoor activity if there were zero public lands.

I think the limiting factor would be those getting to experience the outdoors without a lot of disposable income.

I think another thing to mention is how CWMU sell more tags than they put out to the public. That the public will be shut out of the draw. Or like a unit like chalk creek where they give out 5,000 tags for 500 acres of public land and except people to be successful.

My point is there are a lot of arguments that can be made, but exclaiming that the outdoor industry will falter is not one of them.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

This guy is certainly no friend of public lands and I am not thrilled by his presence in this post. However, since the "D"s control the House, and that is where the disposition of Federal lands is decided, I don't expect he poses much of a real threat. If he has the same shelf life as most of Trumps other appointees, he won't be there long either. Hey, he couldn't be worse than Mike Noel, who was also rumored to be in line for that position. 


As for the argument that loss of our public lands would collapse the outdoor industry, of course there would be some residual industry remaining, in some sectors, possibly fairly robust. However, the opportunities would markedly change for most of us, especially those of more limited means. The people that would be hurt the most would be poor, rural folks, who often depend on public lands for a big part of their lifestyle.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I actually think this near constant turnover in leadership is worse. It's hard to be on the offense against a constantly moving target. One of the reasons we have single leaders is for symbolic responsibility; hard to lay responsibility on anyone when there's been so many "acting" heads.

And we know Presidents exert a ton of discretion, ala executive orders, without Congressional approval. I don't have much faith that such ideological leadership won't find the means to effect the change they desire. Without an injunction against executive policy they can do lasting damage before any courts process legal challenges. 

We are watching the steady and open assault of the public lands "administrative state". Those lands and regulatory structures are critical for a sustainable North American Model of hunting


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Federal bureaucracy has gotten bloated. There's too many alphabet agencies in which the overpowered executive branch can enact "Rule changes" with. Unless I'm mistaken, any president only needs to go through congress to enact new laws/legislation, but doesn't when altering/changing existing regulations. For that, they go tap the heads of whichever applicable alphabet agency.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Mostly agree. Those regulations are supposed to be limited by law but over the last few decades we've seen just about every administration expand the role of executive discretion within agencies. And that is my concern with an individual like we are discussing. With enough people in the right places a department can interpret the law in favor of their ideology. Having Congressional oversight for cabinet nominations was supposed to check that possibility; it hasn't functioned that way in a while but the current level of acting deputies and directors is unprecedented. 

Regarding "alphabet agencies" they were often created by or ratified by Congress. And some of the alphabetical organizations came about because of our needs as fisherman and hunters, like USFWS. We are often far separated from their work but their histories and policies are often why we have healthy fisheries and ecosystems today. Many were created by our sports own "founders" and figures. Many of our sport animal and fish populations would have collapsed without those agencies.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Critter said:


> I wouldn't say that, just look at Texas where just under 96% is private and there is a large outdoor industry.
> 
> Utah is lucky in that there is only 24% private but a lot of that is attributed to the desert landscape that isn't worth much more than a livestock grazing area. I guess that living in the west we just get spoiled.
> 
> ...


TX is managed differently for outdoor recreation and outdoor activities. A lot of TX'ns also recreate out of state and those who don't hunt a lease or find "ranch agreements" that allow public hunting.

Imagine if the entire west were that way...?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> We are watching the steady and open assault of the public lands "administrative state". Those lands and regulatory structures are critical for a sustainable North American Model of hunting


There is no argument that the Trump administration has done this, either by active action or chaotic neglect. (His inability/lack of interest in filling multiple department head positions, not just with the interior dept) However, don't you think it would be a priority of a new "D" administration to change that very quickly upon taking office? The "D" base would not stand for things as they are now. Of course, then the "locals" in some quarters like Utah's 435 will scream "overreach" as they have for decades when a "D" is president. The neverending give and take of our system. :roll:

Obviously, I'm no fan of Trump, but except when he can take direct executive action, as he did with the monuments, he cannot unilaterally transfer public land, no can his minions. As of yet, we have lost no public lands during the Trump administration and with "D"s controlling the House, we are unlikely to do so. I was worried there might be a substantive challenge when the "R"s had all 3 chambers, but it didn't happen.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

I think the core problem is a "good ole boy" being at the head of an agency who can enact rule changes for his friends. That's a problem regardless of what letter is behind a sitting presidents name.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Catherder said:


> There is no argument that the Trump administration has done this, either by active action or chaotic neglect. (His inability/lack of interest in filling multiple department head positions, not just with the interior dept)


Could you clarify for me...did you mean to say what is above or to agree with me? I ask as the parenthetical statement seems to contradict the first sentence if I'm understanding it correctly.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> Could you clarify for me...did you mean to say what is above or to agree with me? I ask as the parenthetical statement seems to contradict the first sentence if I'm understanding it correctly.


I'm not totally sure what you are going after but I will try again.

The Trump administration has hampered different administrative agencies in 2 ways.

1. By direct action or directive. Agencies such as the EPA come to mind. Here Trump or more often surrogates have come out saying that the actions previously pursued will no longer be dealt with as they were in the past. Previous rules that were standards of action would be dealt with differently. This has resulted in frustration among many lifetime employees that disagree with such a stance. Of course, folks on a certain end of the political spectrum may agree with these acts.

2. The second way many public agencies have been damaged is by what I termed "chaotic neglect". (My term, and possibly a bad one) Here many agencies simply do not have leadership or directions from above. The rank-and-file are left confused and likely doing little or going off on their own. The reason for this is the Trump administration simply hasn't bothered to appoint leaders, directors, ambassadors, and others. The reliance on "acting directors" has been mentioned here and in the article. It is not from a declaration that they won't eventually appoint leadership, they just haven't. The reasons are unknown. Apparently, the State department is profoundly affected in this way. I would submit this is more debilitating than #1 above, but correctible under a different administration.

Clear as mud?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Thx for clarifying. I thought we were in agreement but I have seen the "no argument" phrase used in a way to state something along the lines of "impossible to claim". Sorry for any confusion, just wanted to verify.

And I agree on most of what you described. I've heard from friends in federal agencies about the impact over the last two years and the long term implications are disheartening. To your previous question, I have no doubt a (D) in office will change direction again, not always in ways I agree with, but when it comes to land management these decisions that take 2-8 years to implement can have decades of influence. I also worry that our current system is so broken that basic checks and balances won't stop blatant disregard for Congressional authority if it happens to be convenient for one party (R now, D in the future).

It's the nature of the beast. Its just been a long time since we've seen this type (scale and content) of dismantling of regulatory agencies and policy. I'm not sure how we recover given most ecological and land management milestones came from overwhelming bipartisan support in the past. I just don't see that happening for a while.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Readin' between the lines, I can't wait until 2020 is over and done with. I've tried to remain non partisan, but apparently not everyone can resist getting their jabs in. In the interests of civility I'm doing my best to not respond in kind.

More on topic, apparently BHA managed to get 10,000 protest signature/letters in yesterday regarding Pendely's appointment.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Lone_Hunter said:


> More on topic, apparently BHA managed to get 10,000 protest signature/letters in yesterday regarding Pendely's appointment.


Sadly I'm not sure what signatures will do. Without a lawsuit or ethics inquiry I'm not sure anything will change. And Pendely is a lawyer so I imagine they have proactively assessed any legal challenges regarding the Vacancies Act, which should limit his tenure to 260ish days. The way in which they "promoted" him hints that they are trying to evade the mandates of that law.

I think he could do substantial damage in less than a year but can't imagine what will happen if he gets 5.5 years. The ability to spend years writing internal legal memos/interpretations itself is damaging.

Congress really needs to flex it's muscle better but they are going on recess now.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Lone_Hunter said:


> I think the core problem is a "good ole boy" being at the head of an agency who can enact rule changes for his friends. That's a problem regardless of what letter is behind a sitting presidents name.


No good ever came, or comes, from the "good 'ol boy" clique. Or the friend wives club for that matter...


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

backcountry said:


> Sadly I'm not sure what signatures will do. Without a lawsuit or ethics inquiry I'm not sure anything will change. And Pendely is a lawyer so I imagine they have proactively assessed any legal challenges regarding the Vacancies Act, which should limit his tenure to 260ish days. The way in which they "promoted" him hints that they are trying to evade the mandates of that law.
> 
> I think he could do substantial damage in less than a year but can't imagine what will happen if he gets 5.5 years. The ability to spend years writing internal legal memos/interpretations itself is damaging.
> 
> Congress really needs to flex it's muscle better but they are going on recess now.


I'm afraid your right. About the only thing anyone can do, is make a huge massive stink over it, enough to where it gets attention. But that kind of ruckus will involve a level of engagement that probably isn't there. Most people assume that the wild places of America will always be there. I know I did up until a few years ago. The more time you spend in the outdoors, the more you realize it if you can see the effects of private property, but most people, your average joe citizen, doesn't spend that kind of time in the outdoors.

Glossing over the initial article, what worries me is cabinet level positions in Utah. This guy has probably been looking for a way to inact the changes they want for years, and what better way then from within. You dang well he has likeminded friends. This jackwagon could turn BLM on it's head if he plays his cards right. (obviously I hope he doesn't)


----------

