Moderator: HAZ - Moderators
Yes and no. Zinke doesn't sound like an outright extremist on federal land ownership issues, like some of those Utah folks. But Zinke did just vote to make turning over federal lands to the states "cost free" in budget accounting, which could grease that process somewhat. Also, Zinke's proposals to expand drilling, mining, logging, etc. may be just as bad as giving the lands to the states; my fear about turning over federal lands to states (shared by most people who don't want federal lands given to the states) isn't that state ownership is bad per se. It's that the states will see these lands as a cash cow for logging, mining, drilling, etc., and state environmental protections are generally much weaker than federal protections. Zinke can reduce federal environmental regulations and make a lot of that resource exploitation happen with the stroke of a pen while keeping the land federal.Tough_Boots wrote:I think Zinke was just pandering during his nomination hearing since he made these comments while being grilled by a Utah senator. Looking at Zinke's history, he's not at all in line with that "states reclaiming federal land" garbage that Utah has been pushing for the last few years-- and that's what this pressure from Utah is really all about.
Or how he ever landed one of Montana's senate seats. That state is a prime example of the negative effects of mining and global warming on the environment.flagscott wrote:This is why I don't get why all the hunters' groups got behind Zinke so fast.