REI to DOI

Snerk. 

This is interesting from the article:

The 57-year-old Great Britain native started her career as an oil industry engineer and has a degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Washington. She is married to Warren Jewell and they have two adult children.

Before joining Kent, Wash.-based REI in 1996 as a member of the board and becoming CEO in 2005, Jewell was a commercial banker for Washington Mutual, a major insurance carrier.

Rather a juxtaposition.  She's now going to have the authority to approve or deny energy development particularly on BLM and be knowledgeable to know why she's approving or denying instead of just having staffers tell her what they recommend. 

I think it's a good move.  (**hear that? that's the sound of my Right Wing Nut Job card being torn in two**)

Banish him!

I hope she is successful in her job. I think the national parks are on the way to being defunded so much that they won't be able to adequately maintain them.

And how the heck does that happen?  I don't think the Parks were ever set-up to break-even.  I think the BLM land was supposed to help pay for the Parks through grazing, mining, and Energy leases.  But with a 4 year Sec Interior term, the individual departments can wait-out the boss rather than operate as 1 team.  I think they should completely revamp the DOI/USDA (Forest Service)/DOE to modernize those departments. 

Rick Perry agrees...

Why does it scare you?  I'm not being sarcastic, I'm trying to figure out how I feel about it.  

I figure we are headed for a "pay as you go" type deal on many/most/all public lands.  I have mixed feelings about that, on principle, but I've seen that type of program put in place on local/state lands with no change in "user-days".

You're right.  I wasn't thinking about Sierra Club and her affiliation.  Would you have a problem with a "pay as you go" policy?  Basically, user fees to keep parkswilderness operable and accessible?

Their provisions state specifically otherwise in regards to bicycles, but yes, I do have to agree that they tend to lean heavily toward declaring everything a wilderness in actual practice.  I think that's more in order to garner the most protection.  As opposed to say a national forest designation where logging and mining are allowed.

Gotcha.....I agree with you.  I was asking because of your "access for all" comment, thinking you were talking about "free" access, as had been  the case for years on govt. lands.  I think those days are about over....and I'm fine with it as well.

I was actually agreeing with you just clarifying a finer point or two.  It goes  a bit deeper into semantics of the wilderness act of 1964  The park services and land management have some culpability in it, but the forest service is the only one that OK'd it so far.  It's not all sierra club.  But they clearly favor declaration of a wilderness over any other classification.

I'm having trouble following the bold statement. 

The Forest Service has designated "wilderness areas" but the forest service was established to raise revenue for the federal government from logging and other land-uses.  They don't seem to remember that their job is to raise revenue.  They think they're another park service.  I really think an entire re-designation of Federal Lands is called for.  Protect the stuff we need to protect, use the land we need to raise revenue from, and stop wasting money with a system put in-place 60-107 years ago.

As for Sierra Club (of which I'm a member, I have my bobcat card in my wallet next to my NRA card ha!), the thing that I cringe with them is how supportive they are of unions.  Union workers are some of the most anti-environmentalist organizations because most Union jobs are connected with "polluters".  I get the liberal connection to Unions, I just never understood how they can be so against pollution and so in-favor of labor unions who oppose limits on pollution. But that's for a different thread I guess.

and here I thought it was merely a sarcastic comment you forgot to make sarc font? (access for all considering REI members get benefits and access that non members don't.)

I was thinking the same actually.  You're not alone.

Too many folks within the various agencies are doing the same job, at the same place, with the same outcome.  I sit in meetings where I am working with people from BLM or NPS and I am doing the same job as they are, just on my department's lands.  When there are large scale projects we are always working with our "partners" (i.e. other fed agencies), which results in duplication of efforts.  For example, turn over land management to the BLM and scrap the office of surface mining, recreation to NPS, all water and power to BOR, scrap WAPA and roll USGS into BOR.  The consolidation of agencies would require fewer employees, and the same work would be done.  The idea has been discussed, but not for 10-15 years.  Should they consolidate agencies, I see a lot of cost savings to the American people.  

Of course, it isn't that simple, but that is the gist of what I am talking about. 

I'm sorry, I said national forest.  I meant Bureau of Land Management.  The parks and forest service said no and added verbage stating as such.  The land management said nothing basically OK'ing it IMO.

Yep, reclassify lands by use/wilderness. I'd disagree on WAPA. They're one of the best run federal agencies in my experience. Drop BOR and let Western take power.