# Wilderness lands to be sold ?



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

Hello my fellow buzzards

It seems the U.S. senate on thursaday passed a bill that appears to allow for sale of wilderness lands.

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/1...dment/838/text

I am unsure how I feel about this.....I oppse the creation of more wilderness as most know.

I do not (at least yet) support the selling off of wilderness lands.

At this point, I would prefer the land stay federal, with significant use restrictions.....but I do think the current restrictions are to tight, especially in limiting the hands of environmental land mangement.

I leave for moab for the week today. I look forward to reading thoughtful comments on this hot bottom subject when I return 

Lets all respect those whos views are different on this subject !

Paddle on

Scott

Sorce my ohv buddies over at advrider

Amendment No. 838 (Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the disposal of certain Federal land) At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

This is the whole point. The Republican want to transfer the Fed land to the states and then eventually sell it to highest bidder. All this talk of the Fed "locking" people out of public land is bull. Once it is sold or leased to private parties you will be really be locked out...in fact tresspassing. BTW - State owned land is almost always far more restrictive than Fed land management.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

FrankC said:


> This is the whole point. The Republican want to transfer the Fed land to the states and then eventually sell it to highest bidder. All this talk of the Fed "locking" people out of public land is bull. Once it is sold or leased to private parties you will be really be locked out...in fact tresspassing. BTW - State owned land is almost always far more restrictive than Fed land management.


Hi frank

As a ohv user I am locked out of significant federal lands....many handicap folks are also effectivly locked out of wildrness lands as well ...it is a reality.,.. not bull.

Never seen or heard of any state lands with restrictions as tough as fed wilderness regulations are.....can you cite an example of where the state is tougher ?

Scott


----------



## AndTheLab (Mar 19, 2006)

You are not locked out of lands, your mode of transportation is.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

Scott, 
Moab come on step your game up and you can make it out to Blanding and help destroy some artifacts in the Recapture Canyon. I know your against more wilderness. How do you feel about trials cut through native american heritage sites?


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

Ummmm ......no.....if I am handicap, and require the assitance of an ohv to acess the back country...I am effectively locked out of wildrness lands.....to be fair...there are still large portions of the fed lands that are open to such a user.

But closing users out is the whole point of wildrness rules....there are few people that have the physical fitness + the skills & equipment + the time, to venture more than a few miles into wilderness land......no I maintain we are effectively lock out of this land.....I also maintain there should be lands with these level of reg.

scott


----------



## AndTheLab (Mar 19, 2006)

If I invite you and your wheelchair over to my house, but you cannot get up my stairs, you are not locked out. The invite is still there and the front door is open. If you would like to come in and play you will need to find a different way to come in to do so. Your ATV is locked out of some federal land, not you. You can still use it and visit it, but your ATV or motorcycle can not.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

You can't even drink a beer on State land in New Jersey or Pennsylvania. Grazing fees on State land in Utah and Nevada are much higher than Federal fees etc...

A quick look at any detailed map will show hundreds if not thousands of miles of legally accessable dirts roads in just the Southern Utah/Moab area alone. How are you locked out? It would probably take a lifetime to travel all these 4WD trails. If you don't agree with some specific BLM or FS land management issue then that is another issue. You don't need a road blasted up every canyon. It doesn't all need to be handicapped accessable. I am not physically fit enough to access the top of Long Peak but I certainly don't need a road to get me there.

BTW - I am a 4WD driver myself and have spent endless hours on the back roads and trails of Utah. I don't want to see it covered in Oil rigs and pipelines (like the now destroyed Big Flats area).


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

The motorized argument is bullshit. I just spent significant time arguing against it with regard to Browns Canyon. Motorized lands are consistently the most abused, degraded, and destroyed segment of our public lands system. I see it, I clean it... Not saying there shouldn't be designated trails and areas for ohv/dirt bike use, I am just not in agreement with the motorized argument against conservation.

Yes, this bill is a big deal. There was a significant campaign against it. Did you speak up? Here is one opportunity:
Sportsmen's Access - STOP THE SEIZURE OF YOUR PUBLIC LANDS!

Better yet, write a personalized letter to your representatives.


----------



## Tom Martin (Dec 5, 2004)

Hi Scott, Thanks for your post. I ran a shredder through 209 Mile Rapid in the Grand Canyon once. It was an absolute hoot! 

It is interesting to note that of the almost 2.3 billion acres of land in these United States, (2,300,000,000) only 109 million acres (109,000,000) are wilderness. Alaska has about 30% of that land. 

Thankfully, the Senate's work is non-binding. 

It might be good to recall why we have wilderness lands set aside at all. President Johnson, on signing the Wilderness Act with huge bipartisan support, noted " "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them something more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning." 

All the best, tom


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

swimteam101 said:


> Scott,
> Moab come on step your game up and you can make it out to Blanding and help destroy some artifacts in the Recapture Canyon. I know your against more wilderness. How do you feel about trials cut through native american heritage sites?


Hey swimteam

Thanks for the reply.

I will be heading to Blanding on this trip....our big ride day starts there...riding through the dark canyon, s 2 n ...then up lochhart basin rd 2 cain creek road into moab....looking forward to about 150 miles of backcountry riding that day !  You may be pleased to know, that this is the last season to enjoy this ride unrestricted. .....next season new restrictions will take effect....making it significantly more difficult to do this ride.

As to riding through native american heritage sites....I am unsure as to how they are defined.....to me my blanding 2 moab...is through lands that were native american.

I OPPOSE the destruction, missuse, or disrespect to any historic culutral artifacts, native american, or aztec, whatever ...makes no difference. ...I oppose it.

Swimteam...In your last reply to me (different tread ) you issued a direct insult at me.

In this post you smear my character by suggesting I would deliberately destroy or damage such important historical and cultural items !

The next time you try to smear my character or insult me here, I will report you to the moderator , and request you be sanction !,...perhaps a forced week or two holiday,....might encourage you to be more civil and respectful to fellow buzzards, whos views you do not share. 

I encourage you to express a view that is opposed to mine.

I object to you're use of personal insults and slander directed at me !


Now I got to go !.....Moab is calling 

Scott


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Scott

Here is a specific example of the kind of thing being pushed forward near Moab. Moab Times-Independent - Calif company again requests permit for hydroelectric dam project in Long Canyon

Long Canyon is one of the most popular 4WD trails in Moab. Kiss it goodbye. 

They also want to great expand the unsightly potash mining (seen from Dead Horse point) and put hundreds of oil and gas rigs around Arches and Canyonland NP. If they don't pass some conservation measure now this will surely come to pass. Nobody is advocating shutting down all the 4WD trail down and reverting it to designated wilderness. That is just misinformation and propaganda being pushed by the extractive industies.


----------



## FrankC (Jul 8, 2008)

Well Scott, Have fun in Moab and take a nice long look at the Lockhardt Basin when riding through. This is the next place they want to put in the oil rigs and potash mines. It will look like hell in 10 or 20 years if something isn't done about it. Your concern about a couple of single track motorcycle trails is really insignificant compared to this. How about we leave this area alone for future generation to enjoy like you are going to do this week.


----------



## shredder-scott (May 21, 2013)

My fellow buzzards! 

I got to go !

I support significant regulations on fed lands !

I do not support the sale of wildrness lands to non fed onwership

I have sympathy for states with significant fed land holdings....the states needs vs fed needs...it is tough balance.

My posting was NOT about ohv use.

It is about selling wilderness lands ! ! I am opposed to that !

This drive comes from user groups that feel locked out, both recreational and commercial. 

A better balance is needed, I feel.

Attacking me, for bring up the topic of fed land use and policy is silly !

To ignore that current policy is creating friction among user groups is also silly.

This bill, is not a solution to that problem.

Attacking me is not a solution to the problem,

Admitting there is a problem, and suggesting ideas to solve the problem...that is helpful...

See you all next monday ! 

Scott


----------



## treemanji (Jan 23, 2011)

shredder-scott said:


> Ummmm ......no.....if I am handicap, and require the assitance of an ohv to acess the back country...I am effectively locked out of wildrness lands.....to be fair...there are still large portions of the fed lands that are open to such a user.
> 
> But closing users out is the whole point of wildrness rules....there are few people that have the physical fitness + the skills & equipment + the time, to venture more than a few miles into wilderness land......no I maintain we are effectively lock out of this land.....I also maintain there should be lands with these level of reg.
> 
> scott


Classic, hiding behind handicap people so you fat asses can go tear up land on your fat ass wheeler. Every year I see clowns like you dumbfounded when we're packing out elk on our back, one texan even said yall need a quad yer makin mee tired just wachin yall. Your quad is why you're eating your tag go back to your hotel. No one wants to see or hear you in the wilderness stay in town.


----------



## swimteam101 (Jul 1, 2008)

shredder-scott said:


> Hey swimteam
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> ...


Nice itinerary but no trip to lake Powell to soak up the vista. 
People who value vehicular access over wilderness preservation are idiots in my book. I don't make life choices for other people it's up to them to chose their path and live with it. Moderate away Capt Houseboat


----------



## griz (Sep 19, 2005)

If you are too lazy or unable then buy a horse.



Sent from my iPad using Mountain Buzz


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

Where is the hot bottom???

And then someone got mad and got schmeared…. or is that what you put on bagels?

You have been so offensive so far in your other thread and wishing river accidents on people on such I don't even know where to begin. 

I do know that 4 wheelers cause more damage in the mountains around here than all other users combined. And most of them - not u Scott…. - have a brain capacity somewhere along the lines of three thoughts - ride, fu…procreate, eat. Of course you are against wilderness. That is awesome. Don't worry it's disappearing without your nurturing and support and soon will be all gone. Yeah. Ride 4 wheelers everywhere.


----------



## Jamie D. (May 25, 2004)

Scott. The OHV crowd has a well deserved image problem. The responsible users need to distance themselves from the drive everywhere crowd if they want their message to be heard. I dislike the just-moved-to-town do gooders as much as the next guy. But the facts are that motorized recreation can be extremely damaging to the environment. There is plenty of land to go around and I am not in favor widespread closures. If the motorized users hadn't fucked up so much of the access they already had, maybe there would be more political tolerance toward the current message of "we got no where to go".

Motorized users need to own that. It's the SXSs that ARE ruining the motorized single track. It's the ATV muzzleloaders that ARE blowing the archery hunt. It's the dirtbike riders that ARE treating the trail like the track that go roost the corners when it's muddy. Its the rock crawlers that ARE leaving fluids all over the campground. Its the snowmobilers that ARE poaching into the non-motorized areas on Rabbit Areas.

This shit is happening. It is what is creating the stereotype. It is the behavior that created the stereotype that the motorized crowd need to be addressing.


----------



## FishVailStevo (Jun 14, 2014)

Trying to learn here, but its not digesting.

So they want to expand "wilderness" which limits access to certain areas by MOTOR transportation?
But the disabled, like shredder, dont like it because then they cant go there?

Did I deduce this correctly?

Can someone with a level mind (all of you, right?!) please explain in laymans terms for me? OR i would Love a FACTUAL pros and cons list?

Seems to me like claiming "wilderness" is for the best. Its not like youre not allowed in there, just use other modes of transportation. As for the disabled, cant they have a big orange flag with a handicapped sign on it and have limited access?


Thanks.


----------



## soggy_tortillas (Jul 22, 2014)

I'm not sure Shredder's really disabled, but rather using the extreme example to defend his position. Maybe I'm off on that one, but that's what I got out of it. 
Take a hike  literally!

Why would anyone oppose more wilderness in today's ever-evolving world? Rising population.... diminished resources.... Shame on you. Where would you be without the wilderness?


----------



## adgeiser (May 26, 2009)

Jamie D said
Motorized users need to own that. It's the SXSs that ARE ruining the motorized single track. It's the ATV muzzleloaders that ARE blowing the archery hunt. It's the dirtbike riders that ARE treating the trail like the track that go roost the corners when it's muddy. Its the rock crawlers that ARE leaving fluids all over the campground. Its the snowmobilers that ARE poaching into the non-motorized areas on Rabbit Areas.


First I am adamantly opposed to selling off of any 'wilderness' land. 
We need places without motorized or mechanical access. 

As stated earlier I am a motorcyclist. 

Now to the above quoted bit. 
Why are you blaming archery season being ruined on the muzzleloaders?

Besides the FACT that Colorado has some of the strictest laws to limit and keep muzzleloading season as primitive as possible.... Besides that we all know that it is the compound shooters who are dumbing down and ruining archery season. 😄

I too am an archer (traditional archer), your points are not productive. 
With Colorado's regulations most responsible muzzleloader hunters will not take a shot much beyond 100-125 yards. Yet a routinely here stories at the archery range about compound shooters lobbing arrows at 56-60 yards. ( btw my favorite way to hunt small game is with my muzzleload shotgun)

These discussions have gotten so attackful and are missing the point. 

Once again laws are being passed that are only in the interest of $ making, $ making (sorry started to channel some B Boys there)


Continue to tear each other down instead of writing your respective representatives and letting them know that if they continue to push their own agendas instead of what is best for The People that they will no longer be in office. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Jamie D. (May 25, 2004)

I love all things with motors included the ones I mentioned. The muzzleloader comment was directed at the ATVs the muzzleloaders often use to access there hunt. I'm attempting to address certain behavior by certain motorized users that creates a stereotype. The existing stereotype of motorized users is the challenge that motorized users need to fight. My point is simply that what people who oppose motorized use "see" is the stereotype, not the rules and regulations following user.

Here is an example: I live in a place where most of the MTB trails have been burning in by dirtbikes. For 20 years plus, dirtbikes and MTB have coexisting including each user good extending courtesy to the other. 2 or 3 years ago, a handfull of new-to-town bad apples decided to poach a couple of trails marked as non-motorized. The trails are ruined with deep ruts. Now days, my rule following dirtbike riding friends (who also built the MTB trails) get all kind of shit from hikers and MTBers when they park at this trail head to ride legal trails.

Get it? It's the stereotype of bad apple motorized users that they are forced to deal with.


----------



## Issip (Apr 7, 2011)

*Inevitability*

All the wilderness will eventually be gone because humans are greedy and will eventually destroy it for profit, sell it to the highest bidder, etc.. Some of us fight along the way to slow the destruction - it is not preserved forever, it may make it one or two more generations.

As far as access to wilderness for the injured/mobility challenged, I'd like to say this. I was on crutches and in severe pain for a year of my life. One of the most difficult things to handle about that situation for me was my inability to enjoy the outdoors as I constantly do when I'm healthy. Were I permanently unable to easily go into the wilderness I would not want it destroyed because I was "locked out". I think it is really sick that anyone would try and make that argument about the less than 1% of land left in a "wilderness" state.

Look into adaptive equestrianism if lack of access to the tiny bit of remaining wilderness is your biggest concern, or appreciate our State and National parks that have access, but to advocate paving the world because some people are no longer ambulatory is disgusting and most mobility challenged people I know would agree with me. I happen to know quite a few as my wife is an OT. If you don't know what an OT is then you aren't mobility challenged.


----------



## phillersk (Apr 24, 2006)

Quickly, we as the public don't have any legal "right" recreate or use public land. The idea that public land is "ours" has been created to make us feel good about our federal lands and (hopefully) incentivize input on public land management. We can, of course, influence policy with our vote and voice. The original purpose of land management was economically based. Wilderness designation is a more biocentric approach to benefit land ecology (which also economically benefits us). 

So the topic at hand...
This bill includes language that would allow the sale, but primarily assigns public lands to the states. Of course, this appears to be an attempt to give private interests the ability to use "public land". Once transferred to the states, their management would apply. Of course states don't have the $ to operate and manage these lands effectively. They would "need" money from drilling, mining, forestry, etc. This kind of bill wouldn't affect most states outside of the west. As pointed out in this thread, Alaska's huge amount of public land would be at stake.
States receive federal payments for the federal acreage they contain. This is due to the large amounts of federal lands in the west. It diminishes the amount of property a state has to apply it's property taxes. States have much to lose if this passes.
Payments in Lieu of Taxes . 

It's unlikely to pass, most states are not interested in the consequences. However, the environmental and economic implications of selling the west off could be catastrophic.

To reiterate Imyers:
"Yes, this bill is a big deal. There was a significant campaign against it. Did you speak up? Here is one opportunity:
Sportsmen's Access - STOP THE SEIZURE OF YOUR PUBLIC LANDS!

Better yet, write a personalized letter to your representatives. "


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

@Shredder-scott, in addition to the comments others have made above, my thoughts are this....

Contrary to what most OHV users seem to think, SHOCKINGLY, not everyone enjoys the sound of two or four stroke motors ripping up and down and all around.

Many people enjoy going to places in nature so that we can enjoy something very rare in our modern world- SILENCE. The sounds of nature. Birds chirping. Babbling water. Wind in the trees. While YOU might enjoy the BRAP BRAP BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP of a dirtbike, to others, that is worse than nails on a chalkboard. It seems to be a common theme amongst OHV users (not all, but many) that because they enjoy it, then by golly, EVERYONE must enjoy it! And you would be surprised just how loud a dirt bike can be, and just how far that sound can carry. There's been times when we've been hiking and have heard dirt bikes from five or six miles away.

Why is it ok for you to demand your right to recreate on your OHV, but it's not ok for others to demand their rights to silence and freedom from the noise you generate?

As well, there is no denying that the noise generated from OHV use negatively affects wildlife as well. Nothing worse than seeing a deer, elk, etc, munching on grass in a meadow and then having it run off in terror because, you guessed it, BRAAAAAP BRAAAAP BRAP BRAAAAAP. Noise from OHV use prevents animals from accessing watering holes and food sources, and causes trauma and stress to creatures that, again, much like some humans, really don't enjoy the sound of a two or four stroke engine.

As others have pointed out, there is SUBSTANTIALLY more acreage for OHV use across this country than there is for Wilderness use. And yet you feel "Locked Out"? Sounds like it's all take and no give. If we are supposed to be ok with you demanding areas for your forms recreation, then are we so wrong to demand areas for our forms of recreation?

A big problem for me is this: there are many responsible, courteous, respectful OHV users out there. Many who are completely satisfied with the acreage they have, and understand the need for both sides of the coin to get what they need. Many of the users on this very forum are like that. However, there seems to be a MUCH higher percentage of OHV users who don't give a shit what anyone thinks, and they're "gonna drive wherever the goddam hell they want!! because this is a goddam free country!!" If you really want people to start respecting and take OHV use seriously, you don't need to get on wilderness users, you need to get on other OHV users and start working on your image as a user group on the whole!

You make some valid arguments and there is some nuggets of clarity in your posts here and there. But your continued insistence that YOU are losing out because of wilderness, whilst having BILLIONS of acres to recreate on, because of a few million acres is protected from your destructive form of recreation, is just illogical at best, completely idiotic at worse.

Oh, look, a porcup-*BRRRAAAAAAAAAP BBBRRRAAAAPPP BBBBBRRRAAAAAAAAAAP
BBRAAAAAAAP BRAP BRAP
BRAAAAAAAAAP
*


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

Wow, the amount of misinformation, assumptions, stereotypes and down right ignorance in this thread is dumbfounding. 

All I'll leave you with is that there's no way senators in DC know what's best for the land in our state. Lands (and the funds to manage them) should be left with the states. Keep the national parks and monuments with the Feds, give the rest to the people who actually know what's best and can properly manage it. 

And my 2 cents on wilderness- It's awesome when used properly, a tragedy when used improperly as a selfish land grab. There's plenty of the latter in case you care.


----------



## ukonom (Nov 21, 2008)

Here's some actual information on the recently passed budget amendment and what it could mean for future bills related to the sale/transfer of federal lands: Federal public land transfers get a Congressional boost — High Country News


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

GPP33 said:


> Wow, the amount of misinformation, assumptions, stereotypes and down right ignorance in this thread is dumbfounding.
> 
> All I'll leave you with is that there's no way senators in DC know what's best for the land in our state. Lands (and the funds to manage them) should be left with the states. Keep the national parks and monuments with the Feds, give the rest to the people who actually know what's best and can properly manage it.
> 
> And my 2 cents on wilderness- It's awesome when used properly, a tragedy when used improperly as a selfish land grab. There's plenty of the latter in case you care.


Hahahahahhaahahahaaahahaha. 

You don't know how wilderness is done, obviously, if you simply think its just Senators in DC doing what they want willy nilly. Further, you do realize that federal lands are actually managed locally, right? Ever been to a travel management planning session, scoping group, etc.? The federal organizations that manage public lands do so by the regional and local directors, agents, and staff, with local input. 

Wilderness is done the same way, with all the local stakeholders, often over a period of a decade or more. But you knew that, right?

The states have proven that have no interest in managing public lands; they didn't at the time of statehood, when they declined title for them, and they don't now, when they have explicitly stated they want to profit from them (by any means - development, resource, commercial sale, et al). They also realize they can't afford to manage them, especially in the status quo, so they're asking the Fed to subsidize the management, while also ceding all control to the states. El-Oh-El.


----------



## 2kanzam (Aug 1, 2012)

If the bill for fed land management was entirely passed on to the states, I guarantee that all of wv federal lands would turn into strip mines and well pads within a few years.


----------



## DesertRatonIce (Jan 1, 2015)

I love rock n roll.


Woke up this morning at 10:13.


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

Anchorless said:


> Hahahahahhaahahahaaahahaha.
> 
> You don't know how wilderness is done, obviously, if you simply think its just Senators in DC doing what they want willy nilly. Further, you do realize that federal lands are actually managed locally, right? Ever been to a travel management planning session, scoping group, etc.? The federal organizations that manage public lands do so by the regional and local directors, agents, and staff, with local input.
> 
> ...


 Yea, because that's what I said 

I know all too well how the process goes to get wilderness designated. And yes, senators from across the country can and do sponsor bills that are contrary to the interests of the local communities and wishes of the local people.


Oh, and right now the feds can't afford to manage them either. Given the same budget I believe the states could do a much better job than the feds are doing.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

GPP33 said:


> Yea, because that's what I said
> 
> I know all too well how the process goes to get wilderness designated. And yes, senators from across the country can and do sponsor bills that are contrary to the interests of the local communities and wishes of the local people.
> 
> ...


But the states wouldn't have the same budget, unless you're suggesting the Fed continue to pay for it.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Anchorless said:


> But the states wouldn't have the same budget, unless you're suggesting the Fed continue to pay for it.


Exactly. If the feds were to turn over the forest service to the states, but still fund it, I don't see anything changing. For example the San Isabel forest would still be managed locally, as it is now. I would like to know how people expect this to solve any problems? 

If the feds don't fund them then it won't work, states can't afford to manage them and will have to sell/lease public lands.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

GPP33 said:


> I know all too well how the process goes to get wilderness designated. And yes, senators from across the country can and do sponsor bills that are contrary to the interests of the local communities and wishes of the local people.


You know, this is the most common statement against public lands conservation I hear, but I simply don't see it. I'm sure it is the case somewhere, but Colorado overwhelmingly supports protecting public lands.

In the recent and long campaign to designate Browns a monument that was the argument presented by the opposition, but time and again showed they were a small group mostly made up of those with motorized access and mining interests. Polling, public scoping and public input meetings consistently showed 80-90% of Chaffee County residents supported the actions of the President using the Antiquities Act.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

phillersk said:


> Quickly, we as the public don't have any legal "right" recreate or use public land. The idea that public land is "ours" has been created to make us feel good about our federal lands and (hopefully) incentivize input on public land management. We can, of course, influence policy with our vote and voice. The original purpose of land management was economically based. Wilderness designation is a more biocentric approach to benefit land ecology (which also economically benefits us).
> 
> So the topic at hand...
> This bill includes language that would allow the sale, but primarily assigns public lands to the states. Of course, this appears to be an attempt to give private interests the ability to use "public land". Once transferred to the states, their management would apply. Of course states don't have the $ to operate and manage these lands effectively. They would "need" money from drilling, mining, forestry, etc. This kind of bill wouldn't affect most states outside of the west. As pointed out in this thread, Alaska's huge amount of public land would be at stake.
> ...


The PITLA funda are relatively miniscule for states like Utah. Just look at FY 2014 numbers. PITLA funds generated $38 million for Utah. SITLA, the agency responsible for the parcels given to Utah that are held within federal land, expressly designed to generate revenue, generated roughly $130 million in revenue that year. That is significant considering they are only 10% or less of the size of federal holdings. 

I find it inaccurate to make statements regarding who can best run public lands. We used SITLA lands for guiding and many are in excellent condition and not up for wholesale release to private ownership. In fact, in Utah, many SITLA lands are best managed as leased or permitted land as it generates more revenue in that fashion. That process is not that different from the use of federal lands which are used for commercial interest, wether that be guiding, harvest or extraction. Both know long term leasing and use often generate more revenue than a one time sale of lands. Just look at how federal agencies lease off management to resources like recreation.gov, commercial enterprise like lodges to Xanterra, etc. 

I think it also fair to expose how poorly funded federal lands have become over the last 2-3 decades. Having worked for one small national forest I can tell you how much disrepair is evident as funding is bipartisanly dimminished. Most people aren't aware how little of their NPS fees (yearly permit purchase) are legally allowed to go to personnel to maintain trails, infrastructure and side/backcountry inventorying. Ever wonder why there are often these massive visitor centers yet few rangers? So lets be honest about the scale of difference we may see in state versus federal ownership.

There is no doubt that transferring large swaths of land to the states, which I consider a poor idea to implement, is more about a philosophical paradigm shift than an actual change in management styles. There would be differences but I think its not as gargantuan as either side is broadcasting. Its fundamentally about centering power in different political locations which isn't inherently good or bad. Just consider how many resources are adequately managed in such a fashion, especially wildlife. There are plenty examples of states being able to manage wildlife for multiple stakeholders and conservation purposes. On the other hand this myththat the feds are just greedy mizers* that are just in it to expel people from "their" land needs to die as well. We have seen more democratic and open decision making processes within the federal land system than any other organization I have ever seen. The stringent requirements placed on federal land agencies is almost to the point of being counterproductive in many situations. 

I truly wish we could get out of this us-versus-them mindset and recognize that the stalemate between user groups is antiquated and harmful to the land and pursuits we love. The situation in Utah with WSAs is a prime example of what happens when this battle becomes so entrenched that no change is made for decades. But instead many of us continue to fund private interest groups whose primary purpose is to push agendas that inherently demonize everyone who doesn't fall lockstep in with their own narrow worldview. 

So it goes I guess. I have faith that we can change but I use the word faith as there is more evidence to the contrary then in support of that conclusion. Nonetheless I look for inspiration to those groups working to mitigate and bridge difference and there many success stories.

Phillip

* My grandfather was a prime example of a person who held this worldview. We are closing out their home and estate after my grandmother died last week. I am inheriting a couple collections they bought at auctions over the years. One such collection is a series of piggybanks that span about 100 years. Nothing valuable but they remain a connection to them, despite our huge difference in worldviews. One is an "Uncle Sam" piggybank that grabs your coin and then drops it into an IRS bag all the while mischievously smiling. I can only imagine the immense joy my grandfather found in mocking the feds this way.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

lmyers said:


> You know, this is the most common statement against public lands conservation I hear, but I simply don't see it. I'm sure it is the case somewhere, but Colorado overwhelmingly supports protecting public lands.
> 
> In the recent and long campaign to designate Browns a monument that was the argument presented by the opposition, but time and again showed they were a small group mostly made up of those with motorized access and mining interests. Polling, public scoping and public input meetings consistently showed 80-90% of Chaffee County residents supported the actions of the President using the Antiquities Act.


The last three Wilderness bills in Idaho were rallied, organized, and moved through by Republican legislators, who had the support of nearly all of the stakeholders, including ranching and the local communities. 

But sure, it's easier to speak vaguely about eastern, out of state interests dictating these matters.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

restrac2000 said:


> I find it inaccurate to make statements regarding who can best run public lands. We used SITLA lands for guiding and many are in excellent condition and not up for wholesale release to private ownership. In fact, in Utah, many SITLA lands are best managed as leased or permitted land as it generates more revenue in that fashion.


Keep in mind they are managed with completely different purposes and laws; federal land (generally) is managed for multiple use; state trust lands are managed to maximum the long term revenues. I'd also argue it's much easier to manage smaller, choice selected swaths of land than it is areas that are orders of multitude larger and more rugged.




restrac2000 said:


> That process is not that different from the use of federal lands which are used for commercial interest, wether that be guiding, harvest or extraction. Both know long term leasing and use often generate more revenue than a one time sale of lands. Just look at how federal agencies lease off management to resources like recreation.gov, commercial enterprise like lodges to Xanterra, etc.


But again, much different processes, rules, laws, and obligations. The state's mandate is much more simple: make money, period. 



restrac2000 said:


> There are plenty examples of states being able to manage wildlife for multiple stakeholders and conservation purposes. On the other hand this myththat the feds are just greedy mizers* that are just in it to expel people from "their" land needs to die as well. We have seen more democratic and open decision making processes within the federal land system than any other organization I have ever seen. The stringent requirements placed on federal land agencies is almost to the point of being counterproductive in many situations.
> 
> I truly wish we could get out of this us-versus-them mindset and recognize that the stalemate between user groups is antiquated and harmful to the land and pursuits we love. The situation in Utah with WSAs is a prime example of what happens when this battle becomes so entrenched that no change is made for decades. But instead many of us continue to fund private interest groups whose primary purpose is to push agendas that inherently demonize everyone who doesn't fall lockstep in with their own narrow worldview.


Well, it's probably those very stringent and labyrinthine standards that cause me to trust the federal government far above and beyond the state, who here in Idaho have not been shy about their intent to sell and transfer as much land out of the public domain as possible. User fees would increase, access would decrease, without doubt. This year our legislature passed a law that allows for private sponsorship of state parks. 

After the first wildfire wipes out the state management coffers, let's see how quickly the state starts to close or offload public lands. 

In this particular example I don't think the "hysteria" is unwarranted. It would be a complete disaster.


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Thx for your thoughtful reply. We likely have similar goals and philosophies. I just happen to have landed in a place in life shaped by experiences that emphasize the role and importance of "how" lands are designated. That very process shapes decades of social response. I would argue that rate of change in western land management plays a major role in the noticeable conservative backlash we are seeing now. I firmly believe that when we demonize other stakeholders and worldviews we often empower them politically and facilitate the erosion of the very goals we seek as conservationist. I am not delusional enough to believe we can educate all those in opposing camps to meet in the middle and even forfeit some access but I do believe if we spent even half as much time and money as we do in traditional special interest approaches we could affect lasting change. Instead, after only 50 years of conservation we are seeing a viable movement to reduce wilderness and protected lands. Our strategies and efforts on the land management left must be inventoried and held accountable for the role they play in that reality. If we don't I would honestly bet we will see a continued backlash that affects the very core of the bio-centric goals many of us espouse.

Hopefully I will be proven wrong.

Phillip


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Per the funding issue and the example of fire...

Let's be fair, the Feds haven't adequately funded wildfire in the west in ages. Our biological budget was raided every year under the guise of "fire spending". The Feds just get to sweep spending under the rug for the next generation to deal with our current deficits and debts. It's an unsustainable model.

Unless there is a major shift in how we tax and and budget monies at the federal level than user fees and permit costs will grow in use not decrease. I for one support that reality if it means creating healthier parks, sustains our resources and allows me to explore phenomenal places. We need to ditch this idea that "our" land is free and cheap as it's as responsible for degrading landscapes as individual politicians. Unless we start dumping tons more money into out lands they are going to continue to degrade exponentially.


Phillip


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Wildfires should be let burn unless they threaten a population center. They are natural and our over management of them over the last 100 years has put us in a position of having huge amounts of fuel built up. Lightning strikes and forest fires have been around longer than humans...

I see no reason to have to dump tons of money into public lands to protect them. You just need laws and rules to prevent consumptive and destructive uses. Management itself is relatively inexpensive if there is limited human infrastructure present.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

restrac2000 said:


> Per the funding issue and the example of fire...
> 
> Let's be fair, the Feds haven't adequately funded wildfire in the west in ages. Our biological budget was raided every year under the guise of "fire spending". The Feds just get to sweep spending under the rug for the next generation to deal with our current deficits and debts. It's an unsustainable model.
> 
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly: first, with fire funding (not to mention fire policy, as Lmyers points out); second, with increasing funding (through user fees, or other avenues available). 

However, my concern is that the state is even less likely to supply adequate funding than the fed, and would be far more likely (and able) to simply lease or sell much of said land to the highest bidder. I think this is quite obvious to us all, yes?


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

To me, and all my constituents in conservation, yes. To much of the country, apparently not so much...


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the Feds are inherently better at managing lands or that states are more likely to partake in wholesale privatization of lands. That said, from a bio-centric standpoint, having a more cohesive policy that largely ignores political state boundaries is more functional than divvying up lands at the state level and dealing with divergent philosophies and priorities. 

I see plenty of rational for releasing lands to states such as better accountability at smaller scales of government. It just doesn't outweigh my concerns for dealing with an already fragmented landscape. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## 2tomcat2 (May 27, 2012)

"One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am - a reluctant enthusiast, a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While its still here" E. Abbey

And we do prefer the term disabled, thank you.


----------



## marko (Feb 25, 2004)

The sale or transfer of federal lands to the states is being pushed by GOP/Tea Party politicians who are *literally* shoving through bills that are crafted by a corporate-funded think tank called, ALEC. Here is the list of corporations that fund ALEC.

Allow me to show you why I am not making this stuff up. In Colorado the Republican/Tea Party recently gained majority control of the state Senate, and they are currently pushing 12 legislative bills that are near mirror image legislation that was crafted by ALEC.

Here is Colorado Senate Bill 15-039 that deals with jurisdiction over federal lands in the state of CO. 

And here is the ALEC legislation that the Colorado Republican/Tea Party Senators copied nearly word for word. Check out both links and see for yourself.

Now the question should be asked for those who don't think that the states would be likely to partake in the privatization of the state's public lands. Do you really think that the oil, gas, coal and other extraction industries fund ALEC to craft legislation that is designed to protect and manage the state's public lands for the enjoyment of all its citizens? And do you really think that these same industries funded the campaigns of these GOP/Libertarians in the hopes that they would better protect and manage the state's public lands for the enjoyment of all its citizens?

These are not cynically-minded questions. This is a harsh reality. The GOP/Tea Party agenda might in all earnestness want to wrestle control away from the big bad federal gov't. But the problem is that they entirely ignore the massive economic concentrations of power that lies behind the scenes, and that would greatly benefit by drowning the government in the bathtub. The Federal gov't certainly has a lot of major problems (corruption, bloated bureaucracies, etc), but like it or not... this is the only institution that still offers citizens (weak) protection from these massive economic concentrations of power. And if anybody thinks these massive economic concentrations of power care about extending the progress of democracy, labor rights, human rights, etc... well, I've got this bridge I wanna sell you.



lmyers said:


> In the recent and long campaign to designate Browns a monument that was the argument presented by the opposition, but time and again showed they were a small group mostly made up of those with motorized access and mining interests.


The interesting thing here, Lmeyers, is that one of the people who showed up w/ Rep Lamborn at Salida's meeting for Browns canyon monument status is the press secretary for the CO state Senate Republicans. In other words, his boss is the one who sponsored the above ALEC bill. They are a small but very vocal group; and unfortunately they appear much larger than they are because they have huge amounts of financial resources to amplify their message - national PR companies and paid activists.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

Yeah, I don't think there's a shred of doubt that public lands management under the state would look radically different than management under the Fed. And by radically different, you can say goodbye to the multiple use / sustained yield mandate the Fed operates (largely) under. Really, there's just no question they'd give significant swaths of land away to mining, timber, grazing, resource development, and assuredly they would sell the choice lands nearly mountain towns, near rivers, lakes, valleys, and resorts. 

Why? Because people would buy that land, and that land could then be taxed to the counties. This would 100% happen - it's already happened with available land. The only exception would be vast tracts of BLM land, which would be simply leased or sold to industry and grazing. 

I fail to see how this is not glaringly apparent.


----------

