The verdict is in on Zinke
- Thread starter mfb99
- Start date
- Status
Funny when the 24 hour guys don't get the same crazy support here as the do over there.
Zach
Well-known member
I'm asking a question. Is the department really underfunded or is there a lack of getting the most from funds. If underfunded, how much more do they need? Where should it be appropriated?
I actually agree with Buzz, the appointed officials should do their jobs. Problem is, a majority don't, regardless of party affiliation. The leopard only has spots on the other side of the aisle, right?
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Yes.There's a dozen HT threads expounding on this. Especially when fire suppression costs are considered. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Do you have any evidence whatsoever that, in your words, "properly funded = blank check"?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 20812
Guest
http://www.hcn.org/articles/captive-breeding-sage-grouse-wont-work
Guess we'll see how hard Zinke pushes hatchery grouse.
Guess we'll see how hard Zinke pushes hatchery grouse.
BuzzH
Well-known member
I read that article yesterday, and have a few comments on it.
First off, there is NO question that trying to raise sage grouse like pheasants isn't going to work. The article is correct on that.
Now on to what played out in regard to this goat rope and what I hope Zinke knows about how the law came to pass in Wyoming.
WYBHA strongly opposed the grouse farming bill (IIRC sf271) and we asked the legislature as well as Governor Mead to kill the legislation. The Wyoming Sportsman's Alliance also asked the legislature and Governor Mead to oppose it.
In a face to face with Governor Mead, that myself and others within WYSA were in, we expressed our disapproval of the bill as well.
Now, in this article, Governor Mead is acting like he isn't complicate in this entire thing, he is. He was asked by WYSA to veto the bill once it passed in the legislature and he didn't do it. He let it pass without his signature in an attempt to "ride the fence" by not upsetting a campaign contributor (Diemer True), who recommended this crap, and also trying to placate the Sportsmen's community by letting the legislation pass without his signature.
IMO, Governor Mead received poor advice, and ultimately made a poor decision, based 100% on politics and really put himself in an awkward position. What he risked is years worth of collaborative efforts and the case study in exactly what to do in regards to sage grouse management. For what? To keep Diemer True happy?
I'm the first to say that Governor Mead has done a lot of good things for Wildlife in Wyoming, been great for Sportsman generally...but he flat got this one wrong, and IMO, has lost credibility over not vetoing the bill. He's now making it sound like he's "listening to the science", which is almost laughable...he had the chance to support the science and strengthen his position on his highly successful sage grouse recovery plan...by using his veto powers.
Angus Thuermer and wyofile should not be providing cover for the poor decision that Mead made here.
As much as I don't agree with things that Zinke has said already, this one isn't all his fault. Mead had the chance to send a message, and didn't...now we have Zinke saying raising sage grouse in a pen is a good idea as a result.
Last edited:
Zach
Well-known member
No, that's why I was asking the sniffer... His claim is that the agency isn't properly funded. Well, what is, in his words, "properly funded"?
There are several threads on the same subject multiple times over here, doesn't stop anyone from starting another.
BuzzH
Well-known member
There is no question the agencies are not properly funded or there wouldn't be the huge back-log of work that we currently have.
News flash...managing 640 million acres of public lands costs money, and there's lots of work that needs to be done.
News flash...managing 640 million acres of public lands costs money, and there's lots of work that needs to be done.
airlocksniffer
Member
https://www.fs.fed.us/blogs/cost-fighting-wildfires-sapping-forest-service-budget
I guess I would call that being underfunded but perhaps you have a different interpretation of math. Per the linked article:
Last edited:
Not to mention unfilled positions, many of which were unfilled for a long time prior to the hiring freeze put on in January...
Zach
Well-known member
How did it get to this point? I know, I know, climate change... That can't be the only contributing factor and I can't believe it's even a very big percentage(yes, I'm a climate denialist, in the sense of why/who's making the climate change)
Since 1995 BOTH parties have had congressional and Presidential control. To blame the snowball when it reaches the bottom of the hill is disingenuous. The ball on government bureaucracy has been rolling a long time. Every year it runs more and more people over.
There is a breaking point as to how much land can the USFS reasonably manage/maintain on their given budget. Is the answer more money, or less land? I don't know. Robbing Peter to pay Paul has created a huge deficit and I for one don't feel like being pick-pocketed any more. Neither party has taken less, they both take more. Just a matter of where the appropriate it to...and who that makes happy.
So, if they were unfilled for a long time prior, did the freeze really have an effect in the last 5 months?1_pointer said:
Nameless Range
Well-known member
Non sequiturs, red herrings, and false dilemmas.
Annual National Deficit: 587 Billion.
BLM Annual Budget: 1.2 Billion
USFS Annual Budget: 5.8 Billion
NPS Annual Budget: 3 Billion
Total: 10 Billion (1.7% of the Annual Deficit)
Annual National Deficit: 587 Billion.
BLM Annual Budget: 1.2 Billion
USFS Annual Budget: 5.8 Billion
NPS Annual Budget: 3 Billion
Total: 10 Billion (1.7% of the Annual Deficit)
BuzzH
Well-known member
Really?
Land Management expenditure: 10 Billion
Economy generated from outdoor recreation on public lands: 646 Billion.
You "don't know" if we need more or less public lands? Or if we should continue funding management of public lands?
Seriously?
jryoung
Well-known member
$887 billion now Buzz, $646 was from the 2012 study.
shoots-straight
Well-known member
Zack, your in the "Don't get it" boat. Most Trumpsters are in that boat too. It's sometimes hard to see the Mountains because of the trees.
The one sure fired way to make a case for transfer is to defund the agencies so much that your line of thinking makes sense, somewhat.
The one sure fired way to make a case for transfer is to defund the agencies so much that your line of thinking makes sense, somewhat.
elkduds
Well-known member
$ to resolve underfunding of federal land agencies is available from charging gas/oil lease rates on federal lands, that are competitive to those charged on state and private lands. Without increasing the amount of federal land leased for drilling.
Fat chance the Kochs/Trump/Marathon/Williams et al will support it, but here is how the Congressional Budget Office described it as of 4/16:
Chapter 2:
Selected Policy Options to
Increase Federal Income
Legislative and administrative proposals to amend the rules governing access to oil and
natural gas on federal lands often involve changes intended to raise additional federal
income. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office focuses on policies that would
increase the income associated with development and extraction of given volumes of
oil and gas, by changing either the qualitative rules for the auctions—in particular, the
auction type and nomination process—to increase the competition for available
parcels, or the quantitative terms of the auctions and leases, such as the minimum bid,
the rental fee, and the royalty rate. The policies analyzed here would generate
additional income to the federal government (net of payments to states) ranging from
less than $25 million to $500 million over 10 years, CBO estimates, with negligible
effects on production over that period or later. For comparison, CBO’s March 2016
current-law baseline includes $20 billion in net federal income from onshore oil and
gas leasing between fiscal years 2017 and 2026 and $72 billion from offshore leasing
over that period.
Quantitative lease terms can be changed to a lesser or greater degree, so CBO
selected particular changes to illustrate the potential effects on federal income. The
options considered here are relatively small changes, chosen to minimize the likelihood
that oil and gas producers would be induced to shift operations from federal to
nonfederal lands. Larger or smaller changes could have larger or smaller budgetary
effects; larger changes could lead to decreases in production, which could affect other
policy objectives that are beyond the scope of the analysis. One such objective—
increasing the ability of U.S. households and businesses to accommodate disruptions of
supply in energy markets—was evaluated in another CBO report.30 Other objectives
include increasing the flexibility to choose not to import oil from countries associated
30. See Congressional Budget Office, Energy Security in the United States (May 2012), www.cbo.gov/
publication/43012.
CBO
OPTIONS FOR INCREASING FEDERAL INCOME FROM CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS ON FEDERAL LANDS APRIL 2016 19
with terrorism or from countries that might seek to use their exports of oil to influence
international affairs; reducing the price of oil or gas in the United States; and avoiding
negative environmental consequences that may result from greater production of oil
and gas. Estimates of the budgetary effects of larger changes would be subject to
greater uncertainty because the size of any decreases in production would depend on
future market conditions (for example, a particular change might have little effect on
production when prices are high but a large effect when they are low) and on
responses by other parties (including states and private landowners).
Two other approaches to increasing federal income from oil and gas produced on
federal lands are outside the scope of this report. One approach would be to
immediately open additional onshore and offshore federal lands for leasing; in 2012,
CBO estimated that doing so would increase receipts (before any revenue sharing with
the states) by about $7 billion over 10 years (see Box 2-1).31 The government could
also attempt to promote oil and gas production in general—on private, state, and
tribal lands as well as federal lands—by changing the tax treatment of oil and gas
development (for a brief examination of that approach, see Box 2-2).
Options for Onshore Oil and Gas
The fiscal process governing onshore oil and gas production was largely promulgated
in 1987 under an amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act and has not been changed
since (see Table 1-1). Recent advances in technology and changes in the terms offered
by state agencies and other governments for access to their oil and gas resources may
offer the Bureau of Land Management an opportunity to increase federal income,
albeit by small amounts, with minor or negligible negative effects on production (see
Table 2-1). One category of policies would change the process by which BLM leases
parcels. For example, BLM could be authorized to do the following:
Adopt an alternative form of auction that would encourage more intense
competition between firms for parcels and thus generate more income, or
Use discretion to set terms that are more advantageous for the government on
parcels that are more likely to have oil or gas reserves underlying them. If
implemented similarly to approaches used by state governments, that option could
allow BLM to increase the minimum bid, rental fee, or royalty rate only when such
increases were most likely to boost federal income with negligible effects on
production.
A second category of policies could require BLM to adjust the specific terms of the
leasing process—for example, by making these changes:
31. Congressional Budget Office, Potential Budgetary Effects of Immediately Opening Most Federal
Lands to Oil and Gas Leasing (August 2012), www.cbo.gov/publication/43527.
CBO
OPTIONS FOR INCREASING FEDERAL INCOME FROM CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS ON FEDERAL LANDS APRIL 2016 20
Increasing the minimum bid,
Establishing a new fee for nonproducing leases, or
Raising the royalty rate for all leases.
Much more to this report:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51421
Fat chance the Kochs/Trump/Marathon/Williams et al will support it, but here is how the Congressional Budget Office described it as of 4/16:
Chapter 2:
Selected Policy Options to
Increase Federal Income
Legislative and administrative proposals to amend the rules governing access to oil and
natural gas on federal lands often involve changes intended to raise additional federal
income. In this report, the Congressional Budget Office focuses on policies that would
increase the income associated with development and extraction of given volumes of
oil and gas, by changing either the qualitative rules for the auctions—in particular, the
auction type and nomination process—to increase the competition for available
parcels, or the quantitative terms of the auctions and leases, such as the minimum bid,
the rental fee, and the royalty rate. The policies analyzed here would generate
additional income to the federal government (net of payments to states) ranging from
less than $25 million to $500 million over 10 years, CBO estimates, with negligible
effects on production over that period or later. For comparison, CBO’s March 2016
current-law baseline includes $20 billion in net federal income from onshore oil and
gas leasing between fiscal years 2017 and 2026 and $72 billion from offshore leasing
over that period.
Quantitative lease terms can be changed to a lesser or greater degree, so CBO
selected particular changes to illustrate the potential effects on federal income. The
options considered here are relatively small changes, chosen to minimize the likelihood
that oil and gas producers would be induced to shift operations from federal to
nonfederal lands. Larger or smaller changes could have larger or smaller budgetary
effects; larger changes could lead to decreases in production, which could affect other
policy objectives that are beyond the scope of the analysis. One such objective—
increasing the ability of U.S. households and businesses to accommodate disruptions of
supply in energy markets—was evaluated in another CBO report.30 Other objectives
include increasing the flexibility to choose not to import oil from countries associated
30. See Congressional Budget Office, Energy Security in the United States (May 2012), www.cbo.gov/
publication/43012.
CBO
OPTIONS FOR INCREASING FEDERAL INCOME FROM CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS ON FEDERAL LANDS APRIL 2016 19
with terrorism or from countries that might seek to use their exports of oil to influence
international affairs; reducing the price of oil or gas in the United States; and avoiding
negative environmental consequences that may result from greater production of oil
and gas. Estimates of the budgetary effects of larger changes would be subject to
greater uncertainty because the size of any decreases in production would depend on
future market conditions (for example, a particular change might have little effect on
production when prices are high but a large effect when they are low) and on
responses by other parties (including states and private landowners).
Two other approaches to increasing federal income from oil and gas produced on
federal lands are outside the scope of this report. One approach would be to
immediately open additional onshore and offshore federal lands for leasing; in 2012,
CBO estimated that doing so would increase receipts (before any revenue sharing with
the states) by about $7 billion over 10 years (see Box 2-1).31 The government could
also attempt to promote oil and gas production in general—on private, state, and
tribal lands as well as federal lands—by changing the tax treatment of oil and gas
development (for a brief examination of that approach, see Box 2-2).
Options for Onshore Oil and Gas
The fiscal process governing onshore oil and gas production was largely promulgated
in 1987 under an amendment to the Mineral Leasing Act and has not been changed
since (see Table 1-1). Recent advances in technology and changes in the terms offered
by state agencies and other governments for access to their oil and gas resources may
offer the Bureau of Land Management an opportunity to increase federal income,
albeit by small amounts, with minor or negligible negative effects on production (see
Table 2-1). One category of policies would change the process by which BLM leases
parcels. For example, BLM could be authorized to do the following:
Adopt an alternative form of auction that would encourage more intense
competition between firms for parcels and thus generate more income, or
Use discretion to set terms that are more advantageous for the government on
parcels that are more likely to have oil or gas reserves underlying them. If
implemented similarly to approaches used by state governments, that option could
allow BLM to increase the minimum bid, rental fee, or royalty rate only when such
increases were most likely to boost federal income with negligible effects on
production.
A second category of policies could require BLM to adjust the specific terms of the
leasing process—for example, by making these changes:
31. Congressional Budget Office, Potential Budgetary Effects of Immediately Opening Most Federal
Lands to Oil and Gas Leasing (August 2012), www.cbo.gov/publication/43527.
CBO
OPTIONS FOR INCREASING FEDERAL INCOME FROM CRUDE OIL AND NATURAL GAS ON FEDERAL LANDS APRIL 2016 20
Increasing the minimum bid,
Establishing a new fee for nonproducing leases, or
Raising the royalty rate for all leases.
Much more to this report:
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51421
Last edited:
BuzzH
Well-known member
Zach
Well-known member
Even using your numbers, aren't you comparing apples and oranges? Isn't the economy generated coming in private sector dollars? The expenditures in public(govt) dollars?
Or if we should continue funding management of public lands?Not sure where the hat is you pulled that rabbit out of, but I'm guessing it's a good magic trick!
Seriously, I happen to have different priorities that I think the Federal Government should tend to first. C'est la vie.
Zach, see it's only 1 letter different(boy I sound like Jose). Not a trumpster either, but IMHO he's a better choice than the other ticket put forth.
BuzzH
Well-known member
So, 887 billion in economic activity, for an expenditure of 10 billion, doesn't provide anything in federal taxes to the US treasury? State and local taxes?
What about the revenue and economy based on extraction of resources from public lands? Does that count?
Where does your hatred of our public lands come from?
What about the revenue and economy based on extraction of resources from public lands? Does that count?
Where does your hatred of our public lands come from?
- Status
