Sell-off of public lands is happening.

[jackelope]

I may have missed this on here but if not.....
This happened last week.


The new chair of the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee secured a vote Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate on a controversial proposal to sell off America’s national forests and other public lands.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment, which passed by a vote of 51 to 49, is now part of the Senate’s nonbinding budget resolution. The proposal would support and fund state efforts — which many argue are unconstitutional — to seize and sell America’s public lands. These include all national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments.

Murkowski’s amendment, which would need further legislation to become law, follows a similar proposal from House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-UT) to spend $50 million of taxpayer dollars to fund the sale or transfer of U.S. public lands to states.

The land grab proposals in Congress this year appear to echo the calls of outlaw rancher Cliven Bundy, best known for his armed standoff with federal officials last year, who has infamously refused to recognize the authority of the federal government, including over public lands.

Murkowski’s proposal to sell off public lands, however, is meeting stiff opposition from other western senators. On a conference call yesterday, Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Michael Bennet (D-CO) said that they are determined to turn back legislative attacks on the outdoors. Bennet called efforts to sell off lands to reduce the federal deficit “an assault on our public lands.”

Senator Heinrich also introduced an amendment Wednesday which would block any effort to sell off public lands to reduce the federal deficit. Heinrich said that “selling off America’s treasured lands to the highest bidder would result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations.”

Public opinion research has found that a majority of Westerners oppose land grab efforts and believe that transferring public lands to state control will result in reduced access for recreation; higher taxes; increased drilling, mining and logging; and a high risk that treasured public lands will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.
 
Over the past few months, sportsmen’s groups have also been battling state efforts to seize and sell off public lands by rallying in state capitols across the West. Land Tawney, Executive Director of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, thanked Senator Heinrich for introducing his amendment and fighting for public lands.

“American hunters and anglers have consistently stood up in support of U.S. public lands since Theodore Roosevelt set them aside for all Americans more than a century ago,” Tawney said. “Today, Congress has responded.”

[jackelope]

There is an amendment in the works to stop this craziness.....

WASHINGTON -
Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) introduced an amendment to the Senate's budget resolution Thursday that would protect America's parks and public lands, including national forests, wildlife refuges, and conservation lands, from being sold off as what they called "a deficit-reduction tactic."


The amendment is cosponsored by Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.).

"Americans depend on clean water and treasure wildlife habitats and the quality of life that public lands offer," Wyden said. "I'm proud to support this amendment with my colleagues to protect our public lands that in turn, protect wildlife, tourism and outdoor recreation that supports local businesses and local economies."

"Selling off America's treasured lands to the highest bidder would result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations. This would devastate outdoor traditions like hunting, camping and fishing that are among the pillars of Western culture and a thriving outdoor recreation economy," Heinrich said. "Our natural heritage is not for sale. America's forests, wildlife refuges and conservation lands are part of the fabric of our democracy. Let's keep them that way."

"New Mexicans have treasured our public lands for hunting, hiking, and camping for generations. This is our shared heritage -- selling off our public lands would be devastating for businesses and communities that depend on tourism and our thriving outdoor economy," Udall said. "This amendment protects our heritage, and I'm proud to vote to support our outdoor economy and Western way of life."

"Public lands drive economic growth in Colorado and all across our country,"  Bennet said.  "On top of the economic benefits, wilderness areas, national monuments, and national parks are a fundamental part of the fabric of our country and its history. It is important to preserve these lands for our kids and our grandkids, just as our grandparents preserved them for us."

"Our public lands help drive the economy in rural America and countless small businesses depend on the millions of folks who access our public lands each year," said Sen. Tester. "This amendment protects our public lands for future generations and builds on our outdoor legacy."

[ghosthunter]

This is already happening in a way in the Skagit Valley. Hunting sites owned by the public are being turned over for flooding.
The WDFW will tell you they have a no net loss policy which is not true.

They flood sites where generations have hunted and have provided no replacement sites.

[baldopepper]

Every outdoors person should be up in arms over what Bishop and Murkowski are proposing.  Frankly, they want state control so vast stretches of public ground can be turned over by the states to private control. Bishop would love nothing more than to take huge chunks of the southern Utah area and allow exploration and privatization of some of the most scenic and untouched areas left in the lower 48 states.  I don't consider myself a greenie, but what these two have in mind is an outrage and, if allowed, future generations will look back on their rape of these areas with incredible distain. There is no limit to what these two would do if a dollar can be made from it. Do the people in these rural areas honestly think that the huge sums generated by these transfers would come back to their rural areas?  Short term greed and further lining of already rich pockets is what these two represent.

[bigtex]

Every outdoors person should be up in arms over what Bishop and Murkowski are proposing.  Frankly, they want state control so vast stretches of public ground can be turned over by the states to private control. Bishop would love nothing more than to take huge chunks of the southern Utah area and allow exploration and privatization of some of the most scenic and untouched areas left in the lower 48 states.  I don't consider myself a greenie, but what these two have in mind is an outrage and, if allowed, future generations will look back on their rape of these areas with incredible distain. There is no limit to what these two would do if a dollar can be made from it. Do the people in these rural areas honestly think that the huge sums generated by these transfers would come back to their rural areas?  Short term greed and further lining of already rich pockets is what these two represent.

[JimmyHoffa]

Blowback from many years of feds fighting corporate interests.  Looks like it is only sale to states.  So, whatever money states have to buy with.  Then it would be up to the states how to either lease or sell the lands.  Wonder if a corporation could pay a lease before the state even bought the land, then direct the states to which parcels they want. 
Alaska picks some real winners over the years...Murky, Stevens.....

 

[Special T]

I would much prefer the DNR own most of the USFS land. at least there would be SOME logging going on.

[jackelope]

Blowback from many years of feds fighting corporate interests.  Looks like it is only sale to states.  So, whatever money states have to buy with.  Then it would be up to the states how to either lease or sell the lands.  Wonder if a corporation could pay a lease before the state even bought the land, then direct the states to which parcels they want. 
Alaska picks some real winners over the years...Murky, Stevens.....

What's the states going to do when they can't afford to keep the land maintained?
Sell to private timber companies and the like.

[HunterStrait]

Oh boy...

[JimmyHoffa]

Blowback from many years of feds fighting corporate interests.  Looks like it is only sale to states.  So, whatever money states have to buy with.  Then it would be up to the states how to either lease or sell the lands.  Wonder if a corporation could pay a lease before the state even bought the land, then direct the states to which parcels they want. 
Alaska picks some real winners over the years...Murky, Stevens.....

What's the states going to do when they can't afford to keep the land maintained?
Sell to private timber companies and the like.

Don't know Jackelope.  I'd imagine it would vary by state.  A state like WA or CA I don't think so; ID or NV probably sell surface rights to timber, mineral rights to miners, water rights to industry, wind rights to a turbine company, etc.  I don't like the idea of a big sell off that could lead to further sell offs.  Mostly I was just pointing out that corporations are like coyotes--they'll try anything to get into the yard and eat the chickens. 

[jordanwlee]

This whole thing is led by Bishop and backed and lobbied by the Koch brothers. Go figure. Corporations want to buy up land to develop for selling natural resources such as oil, fracking, and deforestation. It's really sad. We need a unified voice about this and raise hell to our politicians!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ghosthunter]

Its all money.

The states refuse to live with in their means. There will never be enough to suit them.

As for DNR controlling lands, sorry no way. DNR answer is to lock out access. I can live without the logging. Although logging in some Nataional forests seems to be increasing.

[X-Force]

Land passed from federal to state is it a bad thing? Wouldn't lobbying efforts for land management be more efficient? Wouldn't policy makers know more about the affected parcels? Policies like wolf reintroduction, grizzly reintroduction, national park expansions, as well as hundreds of miles of roads closed in the cascades are federal policies. 30% of this state is owned/controlled by the federal government.

I don't blame any western state for wanting there own land back. NV 84%, UT 47%, ID 50% federally owned and managed.

[Bean Counter]

Land passed from federal to state is it a bad thing? ...I don't blame any western state for wanting there own land back. NV 84%, UT 47%, ID 50% federally owned and managed.

 

[JimmyHoffa]

Land passed from federal to state is it a bad thing? ...I don't blame any western state for wanting there own land back. NV 84%, UT 47%, ID 50% federally owned and managed.

 

It doesn't have to be a bad thing.  But from a hunter's perspective I think a more than a few fear the worst.  That being a state selling to someone that shuts off access.  Under status quo, the feds might be underutilizing (understatement ?) the land and not understand 'multi-use', but at least for proposed lands they allow hunting and it isn't super expensive.
I think this was brought about by Al Barack Hussien wanting to designate another 10+ million acres in Alaska as wilderness.  Murky wants that land transferred to the state so it can be drilled.