Geno, for the most part, you have to have the entire context, then look at what was meant by it.
It's already happened.
It was to stop the abuses of the Antiquities Act by presidents Obama & Clinton, in the large land grabs.
Wrong again.
The idea of public land transfer has been going on for a long time, and ramped up wayyy before Trump was elected to office.
Monument designation of Bears Ears wouldn't have transferred the land away from the BLM, the same agency would have managed the Monument. You like to whine and cry about "facts", and "fear mongering" and then make posts like that...unbelievable. Try to educate yourself, as you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Monument designation and the RNC platform of public land transfer are not in any way the same.
The RNC platform agenda is 100% about transferring all BLM, FS, and USFWS lands to the States, which would immediately become a fire-sale to private ownership. Apparently you've been playing Rip Van-Winkle the last 5-6 years as State Legislatures in MT, ID, WY, etc. have been wasting tax payer money funding studies to determine the feasibility of transferring Federal Lands to the States.
One such study, by the land grab capital of Utah, concluded that the costs of fire-fighting alone, would force the State of Utah to sell off lands. The consensus of the study, payed for and hand picked by the dominate Republican party of Utah, concluded that Utah would have to sell the most profitable half of their newly acquired lands to manage the less profitable remaining half.
Similar study conducted, and again from a hand picked Republican dominated legislature in Wyoming, concluded the same thing...that the only feasible option in Wyoming acquiring Federal Public Lands would be to sell at least half of it.
Of course, there's the State Enabling Acts that the brain trust in the RNC has chosen to ignore, that under the agreement of becoming a State, they gave up the right of claim to all parts of the unoccupied Federal Lands within their borders. In exchange they received every section 16 and 36...and in some cases, more than that (Utah).
Its also not surprising that many States have squandered their State Land assets and very few have even close to 100% of their State Land Grants anymore. In the case of Nevada, all but a few thousand acres have been essentially given to private land owners. Most States at least sold some of their State land rather than giving it to their cronies. Either way, its land that is no longer accessible to the public, and unless sale proceeds of the land were put into an endowment or Trust, is land the State no longer receives revenue from.
There's only one Party waging war on public lands and part of their platform. They cant act surprised, when many within their own Party hand them their ass on the issue and in many cases are choosing to vote for the "other team" to ensure their public land legacy. Until such time that the R's get it right on public lands, I predict their "team" will continue to lose elections over the issue...has happed many times in the last few years in many local and national races.
Public land users vote...and positions on public lands have consequences.
Just the way it is, and exactly why Tester beat Rosendale.
