Post by: jackelope on April 10, 2015, 07:35:03 AM
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.”
Post by: jackelope on April 10, 2015, 07:36:33 AM
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."
Post by: ghosthunter on April 10, 2015, 07:51:15 AM
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.
Post by: baldopepper on April 10, 2015, 08:29:13 AM
Post by: bigtex on April 10, 2015, 09:31:15 AM
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.:yeah:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 10, 2015, 09:43:59 AM
Alaska picks some real winners over the years...Murky, Stevens.....
Post by: Special T on April 10, 2015, 03:21:49 PM
Post by: jackelope on April 10, 2015, 03:44:20 PM
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. :yike:
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.
Post by: HunterStrait on April 10, 2015, 03:45:10 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 10, 2015, 03:52:37 PM
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.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. :yike:
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.
Post by: jordanwlee on April 10, 2015, 07:27:01 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: ghosthunter on April 10, 2015, 07:45:04 PM
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.
Post by: X-Force on April 10, 2015, 08:14:23 PM
I don't blame any western state for wanting there own land back. NV 84%, UT 47%, ID 50% federally owned and managed.
Post by: Bean Counter on April 10, 2015, 10:25:22 PM
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.
:yeah:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 10, 2015, 10:50:54 PM
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.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.
:yeah:
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.
Post by: Bean Counter on April 11, 2015, 12:41:08 AM
Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia :yike:
Post by: wolfbait on April 11, 2015, 09:08:12 AM
Would you like to federalize your local police force like Al Sharpton wants to do? How about have the feds regulate all gun rights?
Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia :yike:
"Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C."
Western States Want Feds to Surrender “Federal” Land
Elected officials from across the American West, from top lawmakers to county commissioners, held a historic gathering in Utah in recent days to discuss how Western states could wrest control of the almost 50 percent of land in the region currently claimed by the federal government. Aside from constitutional concerns — with a few exceptions, the U.S. Constitution does not authorize ownership or control over land by the political class in Washington, D.C. — the Western leaders and legislators cited economic harm, environmental degradation, loss of tax revenue, and numerous other reasons for the effort.
Read More @
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18104-western-states-want-feds-to-surrender-federal-land (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/18104-western-states-want-feds-to-surrender-federal-land)
State lawmakers push to take over millions of federal acres
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-26/states-rights-federal-land/53786490/1 (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-03-26/states-rights-federal-land/53786490/1)
Arizona Wilderness Coalition http://www.azwild.org/documents/AZWILD1105.pdf (http://www.azwild.org/documents/AZWILD1105.pdf)
Sandy Bahr, director of the Sierra Club's Grand Canyon chapter http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/021914_environment_day/enviros-pack-capitol-back-wolves-parks/ (http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/021914_environment_day/enviros-pack-capitol-back-wolves-parks/)
Instead of managing public lands the federal government has crawled in bed with the environmentalists who make billions of dollars suing to shut down public lands using the ESA. Look at the $$$ going up in smoke every year do to the lack of forest management, look at the wolf introduction etc..
I agree 100% with Bean Counter
Look at the whole story, not just the fear mongering articles by environmentalists.
Senate Votes To Help States Sell Off Public Lands
BY CLAIRE MOSER - GUEST CONTRIBUTOR POSTED ON MARCH 26, 2015 AT 4:56 PM
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.
Claire Moser is the Research and Advocacy Associate with the Public Lands Project at the Center for American Progress. You can follow her on Twitter at @Claire_Moser.
HTTP://THINKPROGRESS.ORG/CLIMATE/2015/03/26/3639683/SENATE-SELL-OFF-PUBLIC-LANDS/ (http://HTTP://THINKPROGRESS.ORG/CLIMATE/2015/03/26/3639683/SENATE-SELL-OFF-PUBLIC-LANDS/)
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 11, 2015, 09:33:52 AM
Would you like to federalize your local police force like Al Sharpton wants to do? How about have the feds regulate all gun rights?Still mixed on it. For WA, can't forget that King County could/would be in control. So, the Feds might actually be a more common sense landlord. Speaking of local agencies, which is more extreme Washington Dept of Ecology or the EPA? But my priority for public land is hunting, at least under fed control other state's senators and reps can help keep a balance for an issue like hunting.
Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia :yike:
Post by: grundy53 on April 11, 2015, 09:48:46 AM
AgreedWould you like to federalize your local police force like Al Sharpton wants to do? How about have the feds regulate all gun rights?Still mixed on it. For WA, can't forget that King County could/would be in control. So, the Feds might actually be a more common sense landlord. Speaking of local agencies, which is more extreme Washington Dept of Ecology or the EPA? But my priority for public land is hunting, at least under fed control other state's senators and reps can help keep a balance for an issue like hunting.
Its far easier to affect accountability on a state level than it is through D.C. If I understand a lot of you guys it seems as though you prefer a large chunk of your state to be managed in D.C. and not in Olympia :yike:
Post by: bigtex on April 11, 2015, 07:05:04 PM
Post by: stuckalot on April 11, 2015, 07:14:59 PM
Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.
These lands used to PRODUCE INCOME! Until the *censored*s and their anti everything policies made any real management of resources impossible.
Post by: jackelope on April 11, 2015, 08:49:40 PM
Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.
Would that hold true after the expense of a major fire like the Carlton Complex?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
Post by: Bean Counter on April 12, 2015, 12:20:53 AM
Neither would I sell my sovereignty to make the state budget a bit cheaper, either.
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2015, 09:06:11 AM
Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.
Would that hold true after the expense of a major fire like the Carlton Complex?
Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2
If the states knew they would be responsible for their own screw-up, instead of the never ending federal $$$ I would think they would be in to putting the fires out immediately instead of the let it burn policy, which is what happened with the fire's in the Methow.
As far as the financial burden, the USFS is allot so much money each year to manage different departments, if they do not spend the allotted money for the year then they don't get it back for the next year, which creates an incentive to waste money, and they do.
I am quite sure with the right people involved the states could manage their lands far better then the bloated federal government, and the revenue would then go to the states instead of the bottomless pit.
Post by: wolfbait on April 12, 2015, 09:11:46 AM
Most, if not all of the states that have truly looked into this idea have found that the state could not financially take on the burden of the federal lands in their state.
These lands used to PRODUCE INCOME! Until the *censored*s and their anti everything policies made any real management of resources impossible.
"These lands used to PRODUCE INCOME!"
:tup: And they could agin!
Post by: bigtex on April 12, 2015, 09:30:02 AM
As far as the financial burden, the USFS is allot so much money each year to manage different departments, if they do not spend the allotted money for the year then they don't get it back for the next year, which creates an incentive to waste money, and they do.Every government agency (at least in WA) is ran that way too. Come the end of the budget year you see agencies buying tons of office equipment and stuff they may never need. Why? Because you have to use it or lose it. I know of some departments who had their budgets cut because they decided to not use that money and be responsible and return it to the overall general fund, the next year the department was cut by that savings amount.
A relative of mine works for a school district in WA. Every year his school uses their end of the year money on paper, etc. Well they have so much paper that they end up throwing it in the garbage because it's been in a box so long it's faded. You have white Xerox paper looking yellow. If it happens with the "cash strapped" school districts, imagine what it's like with other agencies.
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on April 12, 2015, 04:06:58 PM
Post by: wsmnut on April 12, 2015, 06:54:48 PM
The land would end up in private hands and we would lose access to it. This idea is horrible for the people of our country. I agree that our federal lands could be managed differently, but this is not the tool to get us there. Very short sighted
Wsmnut
Post by: bigtex on April 12, 2015, 07:46:30 PM
My best example is the Lower Crab Creek area: http://wdfw.wa.gov/webmaps/gohunt/wildlife_area_pdf/WLAU_1000907.pdf (http://wdfw.wa.gov/webmaps/gohunt/wildlife_area_pdf/WLAU_1000907.pdf)
In this area you have WDFW, DNR, US Bureau of Land Management, US Fish & Wildlife, and the US Bureau of Reclamation all owning lands. To top it off, many of those WDFW lands are actually owned by BOR but managed by WDFW. So that means in just that one area you have personnel from 5 different agencies working/managing the lands.
A land exchange could easily eliminate some of those agencies, in fact the USFWS has said they want out of the Lower Crab Creek area. Common sense would be to have those lands go to WDFW. Along the Horse Heaven Hills you have mainly BLM lands with some BOR and DNR. Common sense would say to have those lands go to BLM.
DNR's mission in WA is to generate $, not provide for recreation. Yet there is a lot of DNR desert land in eastern WA that has no means of generating revenue, yet it sits in DNR ownership. You have landlocked timberland in WA (mainly NE) owned by BLM when BLM has said in WA they mainly want to be in the recreation business and to get rid of their landlocked timberland. Hmmm BLM is mainly known as the desert agency and DNR is known for trees...sounds pretty simple to me....
Post by: grundy53 on April 12, 2015, 07:50:02 PM
The land would end up in private hands and we would lose access to it. This idea is horrible for the people of our country. I agree that our federal lands could be managed differently, but this is not the tool to get us there. Very short sightedThere is a lot of state land that is not in private hands and we have a lot of access to state land.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on April 12, 2015, 09:19:03 PM
Post by: bigtex on April 12, 2015, 09:44:17 PM
Have there been any attempts to sell off State Parks? I think they've been in the red for a while now. Even being subsidized by other lands with the Discover Pass, they are struggling.Quite a few State Parks in WA have been turned over into county, tribal, and private ownership.
Need to remember that most of the State Parks issues began when the legislature decided to turn State Parks from a largely tax funded agency into an agency that's largely user funded.
Post by: NumaJohn on April 12, 2015, 09:48:16 PM
But your point about state parks continuing to struggle makes me even less interested in federal-to-state tranfer of lands. If they cannot keep things out of the red, even with the addition of increased fees and decreased services and access, I wouldn't predict that things would get better with more land to manage. Unless, of course, they bypassed the interests of hunters and other outdoor enthusiasts who have recreated, worked, and traveled on those federal public lands for decades.
I will do everything I can as a citizen to oppose the transfer of federal lands to states, but I heartily agree with BigTex that it would be wonderful to see some land exchanges that would reduce the checkerboarding that prevents the public from accessing public lands.
By the way, I do hunt DNR and WDFW, and I have had success on state land, but the vast tracts of now-federal forestland would be in real jeopardy if a state acquired it and then hit lean(er) times. Big oil, mining, and timber would come a knockin' and what was land that formerly belonged to all U.S. citizens would never be available in the ways it has been for decades. That's not fear, it's logic.
The feds are far from perfect, but because the mission is different than individual states, they can, thankfully, hold the corporate tycoons at bay. By the way, I realize we all need wood, oil, and minerals. I am not anti-extraction, per se. But the large corporations are no one's friend, in the end--not even the friends of the loggers, mill workers, miners, geologists (like my own brother) who work in our local communities in the West.
John
Post by: Brushbuster on April 12, 2015, 11:35:08 PM
http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFOpposesSaleorTransferofFederalPublicLands.aspx (http://www.rmef.org/NewsandMedia/PressRoom/NewsReleases/RMEFOpposesSaleorTransferofFederalPublicLands.aspx)
Post by: Brushbuster on April 12, 2015, 11:41:49 PM
http://www.trcp.org/media/press-release/sportsmen-mobilize-to-stop-transfer-and-sale-of-public-lands#.VStkaJV0xjo (http://www.trcp.org/media/press-release/sportsmen-mobilize-to-stop-transfer-and-sale-of-public-lands#.VStkaJV0xjo)
Post by: timberfaller on April 13, 2015, 09:16:48 AM
In all my "land" dealings and JOBS, ITS always been the FEDS who screwed things UP with the help of the Greenie Wheenies and their attorneys.
Local control did a better job from the get go!!! "Boots on the ground" always trump "paper pushers in high raises"
Post by: flcracker on April 13, 2015, 09:42:06 AM
Local control did a better job from the get go!!! "Boots on the ground" always trump "paper pushers in high raises"
As long as the land would stay public I believe the state would do a better job managing it if they were capable of taking it on. The feds have so much red tape that they have to go through to accomplish anything on the land that its easier for them to just abandon roads and then spend billions to fight the extreme wildfires that will soon come