Will Trump get rid of Zinke?

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/07/trump-sessions-administration-departures-973692
Sounds like Zinke may be next to be let go.
Will we get another hunter friendly interior secretary?

you might think this one is hunter friendly but anyone who forsakes the environment for dollars couldn't realy give a shit if there is anything left to hunt.Bears elk moose caribou need lots of ground not oil and other development to flourish.I think we can extract these resources but not at the profit that they are used to some of it must go to protect rhose resources

What has Sec Zinke done that you feel is most detrimental to the environment? ..................FWB

Trump made a statement, that he has no intentions of firing Zinke. At least for now.

he has shrunk several wilderness areas in Utah and Nevada allowed several mining operations to release chemicals and hydro mining sludge to be released into waterways his utter disregard for the environment is apalling

crudeoildude said:

he has shrunk several wilderness areas in Utah and Nevada allowed several mining operations to release chemicals and hydro mining sludge to be released into waterways his utter disregard for the environment is apalling

Click to expand...

I thought this had the western world already behind it-untreated sewage into the rivers.
Where is the protest of the hunters, the fishermen, the do-gooder?
A shame, this world is squeezed out like a lemon.
Where do you throw it, when nothing goes out anymore ?
Foxi

crudeoildude said:

he has shrunk several wilderness areas in Utah and Nevada allowed several mining operations to release chemicals and hydro mining sludge to be released into waterways his utter disregard for the environment is apalling

Click to expand...

do you have some links to some reputable sources on this?

everything I have seen and read about Zinke, is exactly the opposite..

In May he proposed to open up a quarter million acres of new land to hunting and fishing opportunities
https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/s...hunting-and-fishing-opportunities-30-americas

In September he took action on the above and opened up bird hunting in a refuge in Utah specifically
https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/09/10/us-interior-department/

He actually STOPPED the BLM from selling off public land to a mining operation in Utah earlier this year..
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2018/08/17/interior-secretary/

And approved a ban on new mining claims in Montana just last month..
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ryan-z...ining-claims-on-public-land-near-yellowstone/

Dave.........my own brief meeting with the Secretary was similar. The Bears Ears National Monument. Proposed by 25 Indian Tribes at 1.9 million acres. Approved by Obama at 1.35 million acres. Make no mistake, this was about to become a playground for every one.....but hunters. The Tribal coalition wanted to help "Manage" ancestral hunting rights...and claimed them. The mining and grazing practices were uneffected by the Obama mandate. On the gates in the West, there are chains with many locks. In this case, mining, ranchers, Tribal members all had keys. Guess who was left out? Hunters. Zinke reversed this. I hunted on it last year. In Idaho, slick Willie ( The sex abusing President), enlarged Craters of the Moon Natl Monument from 55000 acres to 410000 acres. He transfered control to the NPS......they immediately closed the entire 410K acres to hunting. We hunters and our senators got it re opened. Of course, like most National Monuments, the original 55K acres remains closed to hunting, camping and even most foot travel. This is what would have happened to the Bears Ears in Utah. IMO. We need places to hunt. But they can easily be "de facto closed". Technically legal, but actually impossible.........................this is my only experience with The Secretary. I reserve judgement.........FWB

Trump has bigger fish to worry about.

most of the federal ground here in wyo is managed by the BLM we have several politicions that want this ground turned over to the state to manage,I have first hand experience on how the state cannot effectively manage there state trust land that was set up many years ago to insure thate the school systems had enough money to function.since coal and nat gas and oil have all bottomed out our mineral severance has dwindled severely if this state took control off the Blm and forest service ground it wouldn't be 1 whole year until it was sold to highest bidder for gas,oil timber or minerals and it would be locked up tighter than a bulls ass at fly time,we would no longer have access we have grown accustomed to,one of the main reasons to live in this state is to be able to teach your kids to hunt or fish or just enjoy the mountain or plains without have to kiss someones backside to access private ground.If I sound bitter its because I am I retired because I hated seeing the politicians in Cheyenne cry because they had no money while they sat on several billion dollors of a rainy day fund and tried to figure out how to make the residents make up the short fall.

I actually like Zinke as he's a guy who cares for nature, doing stuff like opening more public access land and studying migration corridors.

I think what your talking about is him throwing hunting a bone to chew on check out some of the things he has done for mining and oil in comparison montanna didn't seem to sorry to see him leave,see who has been in line to benefit from most of his moves

I guess I'm still not seeing it.

Zinke is pro mining. There is question about that. He has admitted that publicly before.

That said, he appears to be pro sensible mining. Again, look at the links above. He has on more than one occasion blocked new mining and the sale of public lands to mining companies in the short period of time he has been in office.

I have tried googling to validate the claims you have made that he has been involved in making decisions that allow hydro sludge and chemicals to be released into waterways.. but have found nothing in the national news outlets or the news outlets local to the areas in question. With the very liberal, and clearly anti Zinke MSM you would think there would be references everywhere.. even some attacking him and the current administration when it might not be deserved.. but I can not find any.. if you have some links or credible references, I would like to read what they have to say (I say that sincerely).

The discussion of turning BLM land over to the states was a platform discussion point of POTUS' campaign. This discussion was going on for 2 years prior to Zinke ever being tapped for the Dept of Interior job, and is part of a much larger debate over how large or small the federal government should be and how much more or less control the states should have over their own destiny. It should also be noted that Ronald Reagan is who first made this a major issue in the 1980's, even going so far as labeling himself "The Sagebrush Rebel". Reagan pushed very hard during his presidency for the return of BLM land to the states. Trump simply picked up the mantle and began running with it (not unlike he did with numerous Reagan ideas and initiatives.. hell, Reagan is who first coined "Make America Great Again" during his 1980 presidential campaign.. Trump didnt come up with that..).

In Wyoming, it appears the State Senate, as early as January 2017 (2 months before Zinke was appointed as SECINT) was already working on a joint resolution to amend the State Constitution to determine how it would manage lands that it is given by the federal government.

Zinke has on multiple occasions actually blocked the turn over of BLM land since he has been in office (see links in prior post).

So.. I guess Im just not getting it.. How is Zinke directly linked to the issues you are raising? And what exactly are the issues you are raising (the specifics of who/what/where/why/when)? I cant find any evidence of them occurring despite spending a bit of time both yesterday and today looking for them..

let me do a little research and see if I can retrieve a couple articles Ill be back

This is a little tangential to the thread topic, but.......all pro hunting decisions made by this administration (if any) will be entirely negated if BLM or NF land is turned over to the states. It is not a question of states deciding their own destiny....whatever that is.....but of selling the land. They have two compelling reasons to sell BLM land, 1) the money from the sale, and 2) the property taxes paid yearly after the sale. Federal land now provides no property taxes to the state or county Govt. All states have been and will be in a financial bind.....and all have sold state land before. Try to find a large private ranch in the West that is open to public hunting.....it can be done, but most are leased to outfitters or other groups, and are posted. (The State of Idaho has said that 95% of large ranches in the Panhandle are leased for whitetail and/or elk hunting). So once the BLM land is sold, hunting as we know it, will cease. The Secretary of the Interior will hopefully be our advocate................................good hunting..........FWB

Being a BHA member I'm accustomed to a distrust of Republicans in their view, but even getting Zinke info through them I haven't heard some of the things being claimed.

flatwater bill said:

This is a little tangential to the thread topic, but.......all pro hunting decisions made by this administration (if any) will be entirely negated if BLM or NF land is turned over to the states. It is not a question of states deciding their own destiny....whatever that is.....but of selling the land. They have two compelling reasons to sell BLM land, 1) the money from the sale, and 2) the property taxes paid yearly after the sale. Federal land now provides no property taxes to the state or county Govt. All states have been and will be in a financial bind.....and all have sold state land before. Try to find a large private ranch in the West that is open to public hunting.....it can be done, but most are leased to outfitters or other groups, and are posted. (The State of Idaho has said that 95% of large ranches in the Panhandle are leased for whitetail and/or elk hunting). So once the BLM land is sold, hunting as we know it, will cease. The Secretary of the Interior will hopefully be our advocate................................good hunting..........FWB

Click to expand...

I agree with much of this..

While I am very much a fan of Reagan.. and have so far been reasonably pleased with Trump (dont agree with him on everything.. but I'll take him over the last few POTUS's we have had).. The idea of selling off of public lands is something I think is severely flawed... and I frankly dont trust the states not to sell land off 30 seconds after ownership is transferred from the BLM...

Both Oklahoma and Texas have it figured out fairly well (not without flaw albeit) - OK has 750k acres that they own (and more mineral interest) that they lease out. It generates a good bit of income for the state and still allows the citizens to utilize. I know because the first deer lease I had was a couple hundred acres I leased from the state. Many farmers leased for crop land or grazing, and obviously hunters leased a fair bit too. Texas has over 2 million acres they manage, and if you don't think it benefits anyone but the politicians, go look at the campus of Texas, Texas A&M or Texas Tech. There is a reason they have beautiful campuses and virtually all new buildings.

Again, not saying every state would manage the land the same, but it can be done!

Good points Cag..............but Texas is 1.8% Federal land. Idaho is 61.6% Federal land. Idaho, where I live, has never had a successful oil well. Which state do you think would be more likely to sell Federal land? The only way Idaho would get money from the land transfer is to sell it. And they would do just that. Especially where oil and gas revenues don't exist, and large highways thru federal land that still need to be maintained. Air ambulances and Police still need to be paid for. Along with massive snow removal in a spread out area with no tax base. All these requirements exist on highways thru non-revenue paying BLM and NF lands. No Texas Tech campus here. Just lots of public land waiting to be sold to the highest bidder if the so called "Sagebrush Rebellion" takes place.................FWB

I may have to consied a little on Zinke it appears he has helped out the lion ban some what