# Federal Land Give-Away Starts



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Sad!!


----------



## restrac2000 (Mar 6, 2008)

Been trying to shine light on this as well, here and the hunting community. Utah is going to be a focal point, as well as Nevada. They have already resurrected old bills and brought them to committee. Anyone interested in fair and equitable access to public lands should be roused to action by now. Attempts will be made, it will just be a matter of how transparent they will be.


----------



## bgarnick (Nov 16, 2006)

*Lake County, Montana looking at proposing 60,000 acres*

Lake County in Montana held a meeting in December to discuss transferring management of 60,000 acres of Swan Valley national lands to Montana for the purpose of producing income for the Lake County Conservation District. We need to all weigh in on this issue as it poses a very real threat to our long term recreational use of federal lands. 

A group called the American Lands Council is dedicated to pushing for small pilot projects that transfer management of public lands to the states. This is an initial step towards full transfer and eventual privatization.


----------



## mr. compassionate (Jan 13, 2006)

Andy H. said:


> Just in case anyone doubted, the first move by our new congress to begin giving away or saelling off Federal lands has begun. The first thing they've done is to prevent any discussion of what the fiscal impacts of land divestment. This basically prevents any kind of cost-benefit analysis from being part of the decision.
> 
> House GOP rules change will make it easier to sell off federal land
> 
> ...


So you're against allowing grazing and energy extraction on the land but if the feds want to sell you want to take into consideration said value? The land is only costing the federal govt money if we don't allow use on it. Why not sell and use the money to pay down debt. No reason the feds should own almost 90% of NV or any other state.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

mr. compassionate said:


> So you're against allowing grazing and energy extraction on the land but if the feds want to sell you want to take into consideration said value? The land is only costing the federal govt money if we don't allow use on it. Why not sell and use the money to pay down debt. No reason the feds should own almost 90% of NV or any other state.


I don't see anyone on this thread taking a position that grazing and energy extraction should be eliminated on federal lands.


----------



## T.O.Mac (Jun 6, 2015)

mr. compassionate said:


> Why not sell and use the money to pay down debt. No reason the feds should own almost 90% of NV or any other state.


personally I feel like the public lands are mine, as a public land owner. if, however, we pass them first to the state and then to private hands, we will lose access to our rivers, our hunting lands, and OUR lands as Americans...


----------



## flite (Mar 31, 2013)

I'll say it. fuck using public lands for energy extraction and I'm still on the fence about the grazing issue but leaning toward NOT. Allowing private businesses to trash public lands to make a profit is absurd. And the government selling these public lands to the same businesses is fuct. Why would we sell our public lands to big oil?? to repay debt...bullshit. From a business perspective this makes no sense at all. For example if i owed a million dollars and had land worth a fraction of that, selling it would only put me in a worse position. 

I have to go read to a cute 6 year old....one of the people that will be most effected by these atrocities your governing body is committing. We are in for some very devastating times. I believe the next four years will be disastrous to this country and its citizens and the environment. Please get your greedy heads out of your asses and realize we need to make a change and start co-existing with this planet before it kills us in revolt. We are blessed with a country full of possibility please open your eyes.


----------



## flite (Mar 31, 2013)

Oh and Eff Nevada too (sorry to my friends that live there but) In on of the largest human caused environmental disasters in the history of man we screwed that up a long time ago


----------



## heytat (Jan 5, 2009)

*But trumps son likes to hunt and fish!*

LOL That is what my trumpette friends said to defend the orange dictator in discussions of this exact topic.....

Sad

Bigly sad....


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

mr. compassionate said:


> So you're against allowing grazing and energy extraction on the land but if the feds want to sell you want to take into consideration said value? The land is only costing the federal govt money if we don't allow use on it. Why not sell and use the money to pay down debt. No reason the feds should own almost 90% of NV or any other state.


Read the article, mr. c. Bishop and his crowd don't to sell it, they want to GIVE it away.

"Many Republicans, including House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah), have been pushing to hand over large areas of federal land to state and local authorities, on the grounds that they will be more responsive to the concerns of local residents."

So much for reducing the debt.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

Our country is upside down in debt. Me, You, Pension Funds, Obamacare, Social Security, FDIC, the Local Governments, the State Governments, the Federal Government and all its' Senators. The list goes on and on.

How can we ever say we can't pay that debt if we are holding a jewel ?

When rates rise, all the jewels will need to be sold.


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Who could disagree with you on the debt. It's worrisome for sure, but you don't give the land away in the hopes that someday the federal government will get a little pocket money from tax revenue. 

I read where economists at U of U looked at whether the state of Utah could make as much money from managing the lands owned by the feds as they receive from Payments in Lieu Of Taxes (Billions) and they determine that the only way to do it was to start selling it to private interests. So, giving the land to Utah or other states does little to reduce federal dept.


----------



## ColoradoDave (Jun 3, 2010)

Define Private...

My definition is anything other than a formal fiduciary government entity.

And the terms of each party are negotiable and can play out many ways.


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

ColoradoDave said:


> Our country is upside down in debt. Me, You, Pension Funds, Obamacare, Social Security, FDIC, the Local Governments, the State Governments, the Federal Government and all its' Senators. The list goes on and on.
> 
> How can we ever say we can't pay that debt if we are holding a jewel ?
> 
> When rates rise, all the jewels will need to be sold.


One important correction: Social Security is absolutely NOT in debt. Neither is "Obamacare", which is a law, not an institution or an account. But there is a great deal of public and private debt. The problem with your sell the jewels idea is that nobody is BUYING. They all want the jewels for free. Utah wants free federal land and the revenue that can be generated from them. And they'll want the federal government to follow up with some block grants to support costly things like recreation. There is no promise at all to sell public lands to pay down debt. 

Now, are there deals that can be made in isolated cases to sell or more often trade lands, for example, to resolve inholding issues? Already happens.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

The focus on National Debt is a smoke screen. The debt value that matters is the percent of debt as it relates to GDP. It has been much higher. It was higher during the Reagan administration. Under Clinton, prior to Bush Jr. the debt to GDP ratio was actually negative.

The fees for using public lands should be higher. We give away our land by not charging enough for extraction and grazing privileges. And, yes, that means we pay more. Under local and/or private ownership we all lose access, protection, and management.


----------



## mvhyde (Feb 3, 2004)

*Not many ideas on this thread are sane or useful*

It is truly funny to me the number of people on here who do not understand why ranchers lease grazing rights from the feds or understand that if one makes the grazing fees really high, that it is going to impact not just the ranchers, but those of us who eat the meat from whatever animal was grazed on said lands.

Insofar as the references to President-elect Trump as the "orange haired dictator", all I can say is wow, really? While I was not happy with President Obama all of the time, I never thought to disrespect the man or the office. 

Yeah, yeah.. you can claim it is your right to free speech, etc. Big deal. Disrespect is still disrespect. Grow the fuck up.

With regard to the the Feds leasing and/or selling lands, why is that a problem? They have far too much land as it is, most of which is never used and never visited or trod upon.


----------



## sarahkonamojo (May 20, 2004)

The soon to be ranter-in-chief has not shown much respect for others or for the office. The depth of his disrespect is endless. How does the birther attack on President Obama show any respect for the office he will inherit? His entire campaign was based on debasing others: lock her up, etc. Cross him and you are threatened. How are you supposed to respect a leader like that...

We produce super cheap beef on lands that are super cheap to graze. And that makes us great? We would be showing respect for our land if we didn't give it away. 

Where is this land that is never used or trod upon? And again, where are those cattle grazing?


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

"It is truly funny to me the number of people on here who do not understand why ranchers lease grazing rights from the feds....

I do. It's an historical artifact of the homesteading and grazing policies of the 19th and early 20th century. I personally do not disagree with this use in whole, although I often disagree with particular positions and behaviors of these very fortunate users of the public estate. 

"...or understand that if one makes the grazing fees really high, that it is going to impact not just the ranchers, but those of us who eat the meat from whatever animal was grazed on said lands."

Higher prices, which may well represent a more economically-efficient use of resources. 

"With regard to the the Feds leasing and/or selling lands, why is that a problem? They have far too much land as it is..."

Plainly a normative perspective that is not universally shared. Federal policy allowed Americans to homestead 160, 320, and eventually 640 acres - free - for purposes like ranching, AND obtain grazing rights on surrounding public land, so if large percentages of certain states (e.g., Nevada) remain federal today it is due to lack of private interest in those lands prior to around 1920, when the era of federal land disposal largely ended. 

"...most of which is never used and never visited or trod upon."

Often the best use is to maintain these lands in an undeveloped state, for valuable purposes such as wildlife habitat, watershed management, and recreation. And, in my opinion, there is no particular reason to believe that states have a better vision for the best use of public land than the federal government. They certainly have a narrower view of who their constituents are. And they certainly don't seem to have more robust budgets for land management, or any intent to actually buy federal land.


----------



## Willie 1.5 (Jul 9, 2013)

Beef from public lands represents an insignificant amount to the overall whole. I doubt very much that raising of grazing permits fees or even the loss of that grazing would impact the cost of beef in this country.
BLM Public Lands Grazing Accounts for Only 0.41% of Nation’s Livestock Receipts | The Wildlife News

I would encourage anyone that doesn't understand why the Federal government owns so much public land in the West to investigate the original acquisition of those lands. Then the States enabling acts and finally the management of federal lands starting in the 1800's right up to 1976 when the Homestead Act was finally superceded. It's all there and it makes perfect sense.

I have yet to see a credible article/study that believes the states could afford to manage all of that newly acquired land. Which would lead to that land being sold. 

An interesting article on the private management of public land. Spoiler alert it doesn't work out well. An experiment in privatizing public land fails after 14 years â€” High Country News


----------



## tmacc (Sep 6, 2009)

Mark and Sarah, thank you for a reasonable and thoughtful response. 

mvhyde, read the article. They want to hand it over to the states, not sell it to them. Your bashing of someone for disrespecting the president-elect was too comical for words. I'll respect the guy when he earns it, but I'm not holding my breath.

I have no problem with responsible grazing or extraction, but that said, I don't want a oil derrick, shale oil mine, or gold mine next to the rivers I run.


----------



## Strieby (Jan 1, 2014)

Let me be clear, I could give a damn if this is the work of Trump, Obama, Rob Bishop, Elvis, or Bigfoot. Handing over land to the states does the federal government no good. It will not put a penny toward the debt and simply result in a net loss for the owners of the land (you and me by the way not the federal government). Selling the land to the states might result in some money for the federal government but still a huge loss for the American people. Several studies have shown that states cannot afford management of these lands unless oil and gas prices quadruple. Look it up its out there. The first time there is a fire they will no longer be in the black and most western states have laws which say they must run land at a profit. That means selling it. Extraction industries don't like hunters, anglers, river runners, or campers on their land and it will become their land. I hope your ready to gaze longingly at your favorite stretch of river through a chain link fence.

I criticize Rob Bishop not because of his party (I am of the party of healthy landscapes and wildlife by the way and could care less for the Democrats or the Republicans). I criticize him for ramrodding through an issue that steals land from you and me and hands it over to oil and gas companies who, by the way are almost always big campaign contributors to the politicians who support these measures. Its not a partisan issue its theft plain and simple.


----------



## garystrome (Jan 6, 2007)

*Best Dialog on the Buzz Awards 2017*

These are mighty fine problems to negotiate and worthy of out attention.


----------



## greenwater780 (May 31, 2007)

*It's not about the grazing...*

Consider this scenario. In a partisan rush to ram an agenda forward Bishop et.al get federal lands transferred to state control. It happens so fast no one sees it coming and we don't quite know how to react. In the meantime the states quickly see an opportunity to finally make some money and or realize they can't afford to maintain the vast land they just inherited for free. So...they look for the highest bidder. Well, here's the rub. 

The Chinese are ravenous for western land and real-estate. See here:
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/16/chinese-pour-110bn-into-us-real-estate-says-study

Also, the Chinese are buying up some of the largest American companies should there be a need to have a major western land purchase run through an "American" company. See here:
The Biggest American Companies Now Owned by the Chinese | Fortune.com

So, while we sit around and argue about mining and ranching, the Chinese and whoever else has the money buys our western land heritage right out from under us. Gone, forever, to the free market. Sound good? Didn't think so. Let's keep the land where it is and continue to bicker about who gets to use it. At least it will still be ours.


----------



## jbolson (Apr 6, 2005)

One of the repubs primary goals is to reduce the size of the federal gov. So in a simple minded manner, they think if you reduce the land holdings that need management, you reduce the size of gov (can I hear a hallelujah!). I disagree with this approach, which as many have pointed out is an economic loser that ends with lands in corporate control from fire sales and loss of public use. Somehow the economic argument needs to be used to fight this insanity.


----------



## Ole Rivers (Jul 7, 2005)

To most effectively and efficiently walk rather than talk on this public land sale or other issue of interest, read, learn and then act via IndivisibleGuide.com .



Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Here is an example of a form letter written by Scott Miller of The Wilderness Society. Feel free (in fact please do) copy, edit and send to your choice representative(s). If you need email addresses I am happy to provide them...
----------------------------------------------------

January X, 2017

Dear Senator,

On behalf of conservation organizations and our millions of members across the country, we are writing to strongly urge you to OPPOSE any “blocking new parks bills” like S. 33 or attempts to repeal protections for new parks and monuments.

Less than a week into the new Congress, multiple bills have been filed to essentially gut the law that first protected nearly half of our national parks – the Antiquities Act. Additionally, Members of Congress in in both chambers have suggested their intention to advance efforts to repeal protections for existing parks and monuments – with the House even voting to make it easier to give away our public lands.

Since its inception over a hundred years ago, the Antiquities Act has been one of our nation’s most critical conservation tools for preserving our nation’s most important public lands and waters. Our national parks and monuments and other protected public lands and waters unite all Americans by protecting our shared American heritage for future generations to enjoy. The sheer diversity of historic, cultural, and natural treasures that have been protected by the Antiquities Act is the reason why hundreds of groups representing sportsmen, cultural heritage organizations, evangelicals, conservation, recreation businesses, historic preservation, and many others all oppose efforts to undermine this vital law.

The American people, including the millions of members we represent are overwhelmingly opposed to efforts to block new parks and repeal protections for the places they love. According to Colorado College’s Conservation in the West Poll, 80% of western voters support “future presidents continuing to protect existing public lands as national monuments.” This poll reinforces other surveys that document widespread public opposition to congressional attacks on new parks. In a December 2014 Hart Research Poll, 90% of Americans support the permanent protection of some public lands, monuments, wildlife refuges and wilderness. Americans want more protected public lands, not less! We believe that the Senate should listen to the American public and celebrate our national parks system and work towards making it even more inclusive of our nation’s diverse history and cultures, not attack the ability to add to it!

Our organizations and the diverse array of members and interests we represent are united in our support for our national parks and monuments. Our national parks and monuments protect our uniquely American heritage and we stand with the overwhelming majority of our fellow Americans in defending them from efforts to block new parks and repeal protections for existing parks and monuments. We urge you to stand with our national parks and monuments and OPPOSE all bills to block new parks bills – like S. 33 – and attempts to repeal protections for existing monuments.

Sincerely,


--------------------------------------------------------------


----------



## adgeiser (May 26, 2009)

heytat said:


> LOL That is what my trumpette friends said to defend the orange dictator in discussions of this exact topic.....
> 
> Sad
> 
> Bigly sad....




Yeah.....

bet he doesn't do to much of it on public land like you and I


----------



## Wayward Boatman (Jun 12, 2016)

We are speaking of the commons here. Read Noam Chomsky. Pay attention. Read Abbey.

Privatise everything. Health Care. Education. Privatization means profit is the sole motive. Our landscape is the last thing we all really share here in the West.

We give that away, we have nothing. Just ask a native american about that.

Good luck!


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

Elinor Ostrum.


----------



## mattman (Jan 30, 2015)

I can be kindof a harsh critic of Government, But the Federal Government is still our best avenue of managing and protecting most of our public lands, in my opinion. At least we have some amount of control over how they are managed, IF we stay on top of what is happening.

Every time I go to a state park, I feel like I get GOUGED. When I visit a national park, the fees seem more in line with just protecting the resource, which I am more then happy to pay a share of.

How about permits for the Middle Fork Salmon?
If you have an Idaho address, your far more likely to pull one, great if you're from Idaho, kinda sucks if you live in one of the other 49 states. Do we want more of the same? That's really a sunny and cheery best case scenario, compared to individual states selling off public land to private entity's. Some local politicians get more money to spend during a term, future generations and the environment get fucked.


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

mattman said:


> How about permits for the Middle Fork Salmon?
> If you have an Idaho address, your far more likely to pull one, great if you're from Idaho, kinda sucks if you live in one of the other 49 states.


Not sure where you got your information, but this does not appear to be true. Application and success data for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016


----------



## markhusbands (Aug 17, 2015)

Boaters from Idaho, Oregon, Colorado, Washington, Utah, and Montana accounted for almost all applicants. Data tends to reinforce the obvious.


----------



## Andy H. (Oct 13, 2003)

Back to the topic at hand, here's the website to help you contact your elected US representatives. Remember, keep your message short and sweet, no need to editorialize, all you have to do is be polite, give them your contact info and say, "Please ask Rep/Sen. ____ to work to prevent the Federal government from selling off or giving away Federal lands." or something to that effect. If you've got a bill number that's even better because then you can just say, "Please support / oppose bill ####" and you've made the message as clear and simple as it can be.

callmycongress.com

Democracy - it's not a spectator sport. Put their number(s) on your speed dial. Having both their local field office *and *Washington DC numbers helps you contact them at more convenient times for yourself. I like to call them during my driving time.

And thanks, Ole Rivers, for the link to the guide. Lots of good stuff in there.

Stand Indivisible!

-AH


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

Andy H. said:


> Back to the topic at hand, here's the website to help you contact your elected US representatives. Remember, keep your message short and sweet, no need to editorialize, all you have to do is be polite, give them your contact info and say, "Please ask Rep/Sen. ____ to work to prevent the Federal government from selling off or giving away Federal lands." or something to that effect. If you've got a bill number that's even better because then you can just say, "Please support / oppose bill ####" and you've made the message as clear and simple as it can be.
> 
> callmycongress.com
> 
> ...


I would argue the importance of showing at least a rudimentary knowledge of the topic when contacting your representative. You need to make them aware of the reasons why you are opposed to a potential Federal Lands Transfer. This is why I provided the form letter basics from The Wilderness Society. Probably best to personalize it, but if you want your representatives to pay attention you need to be articulate and firm.


----------



## lmyers (Jun 10, 2008)

I would also encourage anyone contacting their representatives to specifically mention the Antiquities Act and to express the importance of maintaining this conservation tool in it's original state. There are currently several bills being reviewed by Congress that would amend the original act and weaken the President's ability to designate federally protected public lands.

From the Department of Interior's website:

"The Administration strongly opposes these three bills. The Antiquities Act has been used by U.S. Presidents of both major parties for more than 100 years as an instrument to preserve and protect critical natural, historical, and scientific resources on Federal lands for future generations. The authority has contributed significantly to the strength of the National Park System and the protection of special qualities of other Federal lands—resources that constitute some of the most important elements of our nation’s heritage. These three bills, which would limit the President’s authority in various ways, would undermine this vital authority."

https://www.doi.gov/ocl/antiquities-act-bills


----------

