Our public lands need balanced — not extremist — leadership

Interior Secretary Zinke, (AKA, the TR poser), is looking to install a radical anti-public land, anti-BLM attorney as the new BLM Director.

The swamp creature Zinke, is continuing his assault on OUR Public Lands.

Patrick Shea wrote this opinion piece in The Hill. Mr. Shea is a past Director of the Bureau of Land Management.

Here is the piece in it’s entirety:

As a citizen you own more than 245 million acres of public land. It is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the U.S. Department of Interior. In 1976 Congress passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and determined that these lands were to remain in public ownership.

The law further emphasized that the lands serve multiple uses, in a “combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.” I was honored to be selected by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to be BLM director. I fully embraced and believe in the agency’s mission "to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.”

As director of the BLM, one must steward much of America’s incredible public lands and outdoor heritage for current and future generations. As a lover of our public lands, it’s an amazing job I was privileged to have.

Directors need to be open-minded when it comes to embracing the ever changing needs of Americans. Whether it’s expanding outdoor recreational opportunities that provide financial boosts to local economies, promoting policies to prevent wasting methane gas, or supporting the president’s use of the Antiquities Act to permanently protect sensitive habitats and tribal resources.

But President Trump and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s recent attacks on national monuments and public lands have me more worried than ever about their future and that of the BLM. I am specifically troubled by the rumors about Secretary Zinke’s choice for BLM Director — Karen Budd-Falen.

“Federal and state agents threaten the life, liberty, and happiness of the people of Catron County. They present a clear and present danger to the land and livelihood of every man, woman, and child.”

It is remarkable therefore that Budd-Falen herself worked in Washington, D.C., for the federal government. For three years she was a bureaucrat at the U.S. Department of the Interior, as special assistant to the assistant secretary for Land and Minerals Management. Budd-Falen’s advocacy for ignoring federal authority and assuming local control of public lands mirrors the positions of extremists such as Cliven Bundy, the Nevada rancher who refused to pay grazing fees for over 20 years and had a standoff with BLM agents. In fact, Budd-Falen was once Bundy’s lawyer, defending him when he refused to keep his cattle away from endangered species habitat. Budd-Falen has represented grazing and local government interests in several other cases involving public lands and at-risk species.

As director, I swore to uphold the values of the BLM — to serve with “honesty, integrity, accountability, respect, courage, and commitment to make a difference.” I was committed to balance on the landscape and fairness within the agency, and I deeply respected the job, the employees with whom I worked, and our collective mandate to manage public resources for the greater good.

Budd-Falen’s narrow perspective and alignment with fringe interests makes her uniquely unqualified to lead an agency charged with managing multiple uses across a diverse landscape. Our nation’s next BLM director should follow in the footsteps of Gifford Pinchot, Theodore Roosevelt, Governor Cecil Andrus and Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt who all called for managing our public lands for "the greatest good for the greatest number."

I hope that President Trump will continue to search for a candidate who strongly values keeping public lands in public hands for the benefit of all Americans. As the Americans who own these public lands, you deserve as much.

Patrick Shea is a private attorney, research professor of biology and a champion of public lands with extensive government service including director of the Bureau of Land Management and deputy assistant secretary for Land and Minerals at the Department of the Interior. He lives in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Fight back against Zinke and the rest of the swamp creatures who want to sell out OUR Public Lands to the Extraction Industry. Call your Congressional Leaders today 202-224-3121

Cheers,

Mark

Ye Shall Be Free To Roam....

Fair and balanced as always. Be honest, did Zinke pick on you in jr high or something?

JWP58 said:

Fair and balanced as always. Be honest, did Zinke pick on you in jr high or something?

Click to expand...

Idiotic response.

If you even slightly care about public lands (which you claim to, but is highly suspect with the posts you make), the fact that Karen Budd-Falen is even being considered for the BLM director should leave you wondering just how far off the rails that really is.

Maybe try offering up a position on the point of the thread instead of attacking the OP with your crap.

What BuzzH said!!!

Cliff's Notes version, without the swamp/Zinke tangents.......

Karen Budd-Falen is a train wreck for public land hunters. No other way to state it. She has been anti-public land on most all of her cases, writings, and opinions. She is the darling of the Utah delegation.

A few points I think need some clarification on the continual "Zinke this, Zinke that" ramble. Making your points without the continual Zinke rants would be far more effective. You do no favors to the pro-public land position by making every topic a focal point for your hatred of Zinke. Avoiding the predictable "I hate Zinke and I'm here to prove it" diatribe and sticking to facts would be far more helpful.

Zinke is a Bureaucrat, a term he despises. He takes orders from the top. He comes from a military background, so he understands chain of command. He excels at taking orders better than most any "bureaucrat."

The folks at the top are handing over public land policy to the Utah delegation in exchange for them being good soldiers on all other topics; immigration, Russian investigation, tax reform, deregulation, lower air/water standards, etc. There is not a single person in the Utah delegation who holds public land positions that are good for the long-term interest of public land hunting.

This next sentence is not a defense of Zinke, but a fact we must deal with - Zinke has no say in that decision to reward Utah with the keys to the public land gate. He has no say in who is getting appointments in his agency, short of maybe the aides and administrative staff. He is not going to buck the chain of command and he will follow his orders. Getting all pissed at Zinke is fine, but what are we going to do that combats the source of the problem?

The guy at the top, Trump, has no interest in our issues; just a function of his life experiences of living in NJ and having his alter-residence in FL. He is probably considered good on issues for those want less regulation, lower taxes for some, isolationism, and other topics that rate higher on the list for his supporters than does public land hunting. His view of the outdoors being what he can see out the window of Trump Tower doesn't give him life experiences where he will understand the perspectives of those who hold these lands in highest regard. It is for that reason that he handed off the public land policy topics to others who find it more appealing; Utah and other anti-public land zealots. As such, it is not a surprise that he would view public land issues, conservation, clear air/water, as bargaining chips for other items that through the lens of his life experiences seem to be much higher priority than those dry desolate places he would never visit.

The chatter of his son(s) being advocates for our cause are just that, chatter; a good head fake to keep hunters giving them the benefit of the doubt. I laughed when hunters were shouting to the roof tops when Trump and his sons impressed the hunting media with all their claims. Those claims will end up the same as "Mexico will pay for the wall...." Just a fact of the situation. I wish it was different, but his sons have very little say in the bigger policy issues, with public land policy already being the domain of Orin Hatch, Mike Lee, and Rob Bishop. His sons cannot swing enough power to overcome that deal, even if they had understanding of how most of us hunt. And looking at the hunting crew the Trumps sons have surrounded themselves with, I would opine that they are not a good cross-section of public land hunting advocates. Again, just a fact of the situation.

All of this is a predictable outcome. No surprises. Karen Budd-Falen, the chosen child of the Utah delegation, will get her position, and it will be bad news for those who value public lands, whether that public land user is an R or D or I.

This is not a discussion that benefits from "I hate Zinke" or the "Well, it could have been Hillary" rebuttals. Zinke is just a cog in the wheel. Hillary is not President. We find ourselves dealing with some difficult realities; the reality that public lands are in the crosshairs with the Utah delegation pulling the trigger, deals have been made with public lands as the bargaining chips, and the anti-public land train is heading down the tracks at a pretty good clip.

The question is, "What are hunters, an important group whose bell curve on the political spectrum peaks right of center, going to do to advocate for the long-term interest in public lands?" Dividing ourselves into camps that makes everything a personal attack or makes irrational defenses of bad public land policy hardly seems like a good strategy for the cause of public lands and the future of hunting those lands. Rationalizing any support for appointments such as Karen Budd-Falen is surely not in the long-term interest of public lands.

As usual, you really hit the nail on the head Randy. All aspects of your post are spot on.

It's unfortunate some can't add anything of intelligence or thought to a conversation, but I think anyone who is even remotely objective can see Karen Budd-Falen is not a good choice for public land hunters. In the converse, if someone does think she is a good choice, it would be nice for them to bring facts to the table supporting why rather than focus on a message clouded in political bias. It's rather hypocritical to attack the MO of delivery from one person, yet never offer any substance in return.

Elections DO have consequences, no doubt. And, at some point in time most everyone's ox will be the one to get gored.

Perfectly said, Randy. This sure is a depressing time for public land hunters. The midterm elections can't arrive soon enough.

I must say that I had some real misconceptions as the last election was held and was mostly thinking anyone but Hillary and probably am still thinking that way. However, I believe I and probably a lot of other passionate conservationists and hunters got hoodwinked in thinking that Trump' sons would lead him down the right path when it comes to our public lands and hunting in general. I think the post Randy put up couldn't have been said any better than he did, as usual, and it will be interesting to see if this Karen Budd-Falen does indeed get the BLM post. If it happens, it will then be more than interesting to see how bad things can develop during the rest of the Trump term and just maybe the anyone but Hillary thoughts will come back to haunt us!

This passionate hunter and conservationist was not hoodwinked...

As Randy pointed out, and I posted in a recent thread, you cant take someone that has lived his entire life in a concrete jungle and expect them to care about hunting, public lands, wildlife, etc.

In particular when they've spent their entire lives developing the very places we all hold in high regard. Trump looks at a national park, an awesome piece of public land, and he doesn't see the intrinsic values, the wildlife, the habitat, etc. that make the place special...he sees hotels, golf courses, condo's, high end restaurants and the like.

Just a whole different perspective...nobody should have been hoodwinked if they thought about it for a minute.

Leopards don't change their spots, and Trump is never going to care about wildlife, public lands, and hunting like I do. I never expected him to or thought he would. Exactly why I didn't vote for him and exactly why I never would, his values don't align with mine. No question mine don't align with his.

It happens, no reason for anyone to lose their mind, just take the appropriate action to stand up for what you believe in.

The one comment that leaves me sort of shaking my head, is the one Fin made about Zinke not liking to be called a Bureaucrat...WTF was he expecting when he took the DOI position? If he really was that naïve on what he was becoming, he probably should have passed on the job.

Spot on BF!
Some here in the west do see where this train is going,regardless of who's at the throttle & brakes.

My prediction has been and still is, Utah will be the litmus test for transferring Federal lands to the State. The continual Republican rant is that states can better manage the resources such as logging but they always, conveniently leave out the fact that State Land isn't Public Land and your right to access isn't open to public debate.

Today’s political climate is pretty simple to view when forming a decision as a hunter and/or public lands/wildlife advocate.

If you desire less government, lower taxes, federal lands paying for themselves (transfer to state ownership, increased resource extraction, privatization, access fees, paid hunting, etc.) then vote Republican. Those are entrenched party ideology, spelled out by clearly expressed and widely held party goals.

If your values set high priority for preservation and conservation of public lands and public wildlife, then vote Democrat.

For those of us who have heretofore voted as moderate Republicans for decades, it was a real dilemma for awhile. But no longer. Today the decision is clear and simple.

A breath of fresh air Randy. I try to avoid these threads like the plague. Sometimes I open them read a little and move on thinking I learned nothing and wasted x minutes of my life. The fact of the matter is there are lots of people in concrete jungles and who came from concrete jungles that care greatly about the special places we all hold dear. The hard part is getting all sportsman on the same page about the issues that matter in each state. The people who are well spoken on the facts do that I think. Thanks again.

I appreciate you saying this BigFin. I have tired of the personal attacks veiled in public land poilitics. I don't like what Zinke has done in some instances, and when he moves in directions that do not promote public lands he should be held accountable.

I wish BHA would also learn this tact. Instead of uniting a hunting brotherhood, it will divide.

Quackillr said:

A breath of fresh air Randy. I try to avoid these threads like the plague. Sometimes I open them read a little and move on thinking I learned nothing and wasted x minutes of my life. The fact of the matter is there are lots of people in concrete jungles and who came from concrete jungles that care greatly about the special places we all hold dear. The hard part is getting all sportsman on the same page about the issues that matter in each state. The people who are well spoken on the facts do that I think. Thanks again.

Click to expand...

A serious question, Quackillr.
Do you also avoid these issues and/or getting personally involved in them? Or is it just internet forum stuff that pertains to sportsmen's issues that turn you off?
Just wondering.....
There are more than a few who weren't at all fooled by the current administration as they bullshitted their way into whatever you call what we now have........

BuzzH said:

Idiotic response.

If you even slightly care about public lands (which you claim to, but is highly suspect with the posts you make), the fact that Karen Budd-Falen is even being considered for the BLM director should leave you wondering just how far off the rails that really is.

Maybe try offering up a position on the point of the thread instead of attacking the OP with your crap.

Click to expand...

Thanks buzzard, i knew youd have an opinion. The op doesnt want an opinion offered, he just wants to whine about the same cast of characters that he hates.

Heres a position for your own amazing take. If your premise is correct, that Trump could only be bad for the outdoors because he grew up in the "concrete jungle", you think Hilary would be different? How about comrade Bernie? Ya fledgling outdoorsman they are lol

I dont take the op's post too seriously, its more entertaining than anything.

jwp, I am one who admits to not minding stirring up the shit if I think the stirring can serve any purpose whatsoever.
But, unlike you, I do not like to actually crawl around in it purely because I enjoy the taste.
You do help me to see what "we" are up against, though - I mean that with all sincerity - so thanks(?)........................

JWP58 said:

Thanks buzzard, i knew youd have an opinion. The op doesnt want an opinion offered, he just wants to whine about the same cast of characters that he hates.

Heres a position for your own amazing take. If your premise is correct, that Trump could only be bad for the outdoors because he grew up in the "concrete jungle", you think Hilary would be different? How about comrade Bernie? Ya fledgling outdoorsman they are lol

I dont take the op's post too seriously, its more entertaining than anything.

Click to expand...

Do you think Karen Budd-Falen is a good choice to head the BLM?

Do you think Trump cares about the public land hunter?

Do you think you, as a public land hunter have more or less of a voice about public land management than you did two years ago?

Do you think Zinke is truly acting the mold of Teddy Roosevelt?

You seem to like to inject snark without adding any intellectual matter to a conversation. Serious questions for you, without any name calling or political insults.

JWP58,

I guess you missed Fins post, so I'll just quote him to answer your questions.

The short story is, in something you will perhaps relate to, appointing Karen Budd-Falen to lead the BLM is about like appointing Al Capone as chief of police.

The guy at the top, Trump, has no interest in our issues; just a function of his life experiences of living in NJ and having his alter-residence in FL. His view of the outdoors being what he can see out the window of Trump Tower doesn't give him life experiences where he will understand the perspectives of those who hold these lands in highest regard. It is for that reason that he handed off the public land policy topics to others who find it more appealing; Utah and other anti-public land zealots. As such, it is not a surprise that he would view public land issues, conservation, clear air/water, as bargaining chips for other items that through the lens of his life experiences seem to be much higher priority than those dry desolate places he would never visit.

The chatter of his son(s) being advocates for our cause are just that, chatter; a good head fake to keep hunters giving them the benefit of the doubt. I laughed when hunters were shouting to the roof tops when Trump and his sons impressed the hunting media with all their claims. Those claims will end up the same as "Mexico will pay for the wall...." Just a fact of the situation. I wish it was different, but his sons have very little say in the bigger policy issues, with public land policy already being the domain of Orin Hatch, Mike Lee, and Rob Bishop. His sons cannot swing enough power to overcome that deal, even if they had understanding of how most of us hunt. And looking at the hunting crew the Trumps sons have surrounded themselves with, I would opine that they are not a good cross-section of public land hunting advocates. Again, just a fact of the situation.

All of this is a predictable outcome. No surprises. Karen Budd-Falen, the chosen child of the Utah delegation, will get her position, and it will be bad news for those who value public lands, whether that public land user is an R or D or I.

This is not a discussion that benefits from "Well, it could have been Hillary" rebuttals. Zinke is just a cog in the wheel. Hillary is not President. We find ourselves dealing with some difficult realities; the reality that public lands are in the crosshairs with the Utah delegation pulling the trigger, deals have been made with public lands as the bargaining chips, and the anti-public land train is heading down the tracks at a pretty good clip.

The question is, "What are hunters, an important group whose bell curve on the political spectrum peaks right of center, going to do to advocate for the long-term interest in public lands?" Dividing ourselves into camps that makes everything a personal attack or makes irrational defenses of bad public land policy hardly seems like a good strategy for the cause of public lands and the future of hunting those lands. Rationalizing any support for appointments such as Karen Budd-Falen is surely not in the long-term interest of public lands.

Sorry, I’m not well versed in how all this works. Does a BLM director position need congressional approval? Should I be calling my congresswoman again?