Amendments 747 and 838

[brewer427]

Anybody have any insight as to whether these have a ton of merit? Reading articles all over about the threat of proposed public lands being sold off, but not really seeing anybody being all that worried about it when I talk to them or read comments on websites. For me this makes me extremely nervous because I feel it is very possible for the rich to buy up our public lands and either shut them off permanently or make us pay a hunting fee to get to hunt on "there" lands, if they ever get the chance. But I don't know the ins and outs of politics...

 

[fastphin]

In Nevada I know there are gold mining operations owned by foreign companies. The mining companies do not pay a business tax as reported by media. One particular company wants more land in an area with one of the largest mule deer migrations in Nevada with operation projected to only last 10 years. I look upon this as well as sage grouse classification for concern for hunting, ranching and other outdoor recreation.

 

[dotman]

So far all the Republicans that have either decided to run for president or are top candidates are all for selling them off and are not shy to say so. In the end I doubt it would happen as they are a huge contribution to local economies and states can't afford to manage them. The option of selling them off to the rich is what freaks me out, if that happened say good bye to hunting, fishing or just hiking on them. Some think and say the Feds shouldn't own land but that's just it, the Feds don't own land all Americans own the land and the Feds manage it for our use.

Good time to join Backcountry hunters and anglers and other conservation orgs.

 

[brewer427]

The option of selling them off to the rich is what freaks me out, if that happened say good bye to hunting, fishing or just hiking on them. Some think and say the Feds shouldn't own land but that's just it, the Feds don't own land all Americans own the land and the Feds manage it for our use.

Good time to join Backcountry hunters and anglers and other conservation orgs.

Agreed

 

[gmajor]

I was blown away that even a resolution detailing intent (outlining a procedure for transferring federal lands to the states) was approved. It's beyond that pale in my mind. The federal government does some good things, management of our national public lands being one of them. I guess the elected officials think they can get away with it given the public's dislike of anything labeled "federal" (in particular "federal land grab" is one of the new buzz phrases, despite its historical inaccuracy). They sure will get a lot of campaign contributions from mining companies et al.

This is the biggest threat we, as outdoorsmen, will ever face in my opinion. The ideas behind such a transfer are toxic. I suppose I should start calling in addition to sending emails, and I sure as hell will never vote for any politician who would so much as entertain the idea of a land transfer.

 

[dotman]

What I don't get is why this topic always receives so many views but yet so few posts.

 

[mtnkid85]

Here are the links to two different pledges/petitons from BC hunters and anglers as well as the wilderness society, which are being passed around to help US voice our opinions about this matter!

http://sportsmanspledge-backcountryhunters.nationbuilder.com/
https://secure.wilderness.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2807

Make sure we all sign them. Whether you align with wilderness society or not, they are a strong ally in this fight.

And yes I feel this is a big deal, not only do we stand to lose a lot for ourselves, the generations to come may NEVER be able to get public land back once its sold of to the highest bidder! Our children/grand children stand the most to lose.

 

[ssliger]

I am going to say that we cannot allow these lands to be sold off, or transferred to the states. I have heard arguments from both sides of this issue. Some things I understand and others I don't. One thing people don't realize is where this public land came from. What is public land out west, simple answer "It's land no one wanted". It's the land that wasn't claimed back when the settlers moved out west. It had no value for agriculture back then. Now these lands are worth something with mineral extraction, better knowledge of agriculture and such. I hear the argument about the money generated by tourism and how the state wouldn't want to lose that. Well in Wyoming mineral extraction is #1 in revenue generated and by a large margin over #2 Tourism. Some people say that why would Wyoming sell off it's National Forest'? Maybe they wouldn't, but they more than likely would sell off all the BLM land. Are best Antelope hunting is on BLM land, there are premium Deer tags on BLM, as well as some great Elk units as well. I have to get to work so Ill touch on some more later.

 

[gelton]

I don't see the Federal Government turning over the land to the states, the federal government or any government for that matter doesn't often give back what it has taken.

What is more likely, and I will get a little "conspiratorial" on you guys - is that the federal government forced by debt ($18 + Trillion, 1 Trillion seconds = 31,688 years) and unfunded liabilities (future social security/medicare payments bring that # to over $100 Trillion), will be forced to sell or lease our public land for forestry and mining.

Anyone that has done just a tad of research on the public unit they are hunting knows that all of this public land has been surveyed and documented as to whether or not the land is likely to have oil, natural gas, gold, silver, aquifers and even the timber has been accounted for. It has even been assessed as to how easy the extraction would be.

These lands, unfortunately, are a huge untapped resource and if there ever is a day, and there will be, that our debts get called or that the almighty dollar loses its status as the worlds reserve currency, that it will be the Federal Government (not states) that will plunder those resources.

 

[5MilesBack]

What is more likely, and I will get a little "conspiratorial" on you guys - is that the federal government forced by debt ($18 + Trillion, 1 Trillion seconds = 31,688 years) and unfunded liabilities (future social security/medicare payments bring that # to over $100 Trillion), will be forced to sell or lease our public land for forestry and mining.

We have to look at the big picture on this, and that $18 trillion + debt is pretty scary to the future of everything as we know it in this country. Yes, they could sell off the public land to pay off the debt........but I wouldn't even trust them to pay off the debt with the proceeds. And even if they did.......they'd continue to rack up more spending than we've ever needed and put us right back where we started, but without the Federal public land as well. Their spending has to be stopped at some point, and yes.......really tough decisions will have to be made.

 

[DaveC]

Our junior senator voted for both, despite recent pledges to the contrary. His re-election is a long way off, but this vote will come back to bite him.

 

[JG358]

Our junior senator voted for both, despite recent pledges to the contrary. His re-election is a long way off, but this vote will come back to bite him.

Will it though? The voting public seems to have a pretty short term memory when it comes to political happenings.

 

[westrnwild]

Exploiting our natural resources or selling/leasing the land is a short term fix, that in the end will never work. Republicans are idiots on this. Dems dont understand or care to either, they just vote against it, cause its not green and its supported heavly by Republicans. On the flip side if they want to fix the debt problem they need to take a hard look at this country. We are weak as weak can be right now. I work for the military and in the county i live in 60% of the pop is on welfare. Its like that every where. And i see these people walking the streets outside the gate everyday.. time to make people work! Start rebuilding this country. Not selling off our lands to pay bad debts..the tax base is small and we keep getting taxed more, simple economics tells you it will break.

Lastly i have gotten enough NRA emails on Hiliary.. We lose our lands we will lose are guns too. No need for them if you cant use them. A large majority owns weapons to hunt, you take hunting out of the equation.. you can take guns out right behind it. I sent the NRA some hate mail last night, cause im tired of them being the potsy of the republican party and not concerned with the mission.. to protect our rights as gun owners and ensure we always have those rights, i.e. protect the public lands we use our guns on.

 

[CrzyTrekker]

Exploiting our natural resources or selling/leasing the land is a short term fix, that in the end will never work. Republicans are idiots on this. Dems dont understand or care to either, they just vote against it, cause its not green and its supported heavly by Republicans.

This.

Unfortunately, few people outside the conservation community bother to research this issue at all. I know conservatives who are all for the big sell-off, as if selling our national birthright will somehow get back at the Dems for two bad presidential terms.

 

[gmajor]

Whether you align with wilderness society or not, they are a strong ally in this fight.

Don't know why anyone here wouldn't...but perhaps I'm missing something. Here is the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) on the Wilderness Society:

"The Wilderness Society views hunting as a legitimateuse in wilderness areas, national forests, lands managedby the Bureau of Land Management and certain wildlifeareas, subject to appropriate regulation for speciesprotection. Because they provide such strong protectionfor wildlife habitat, wilderness areas offer some of thehighest quality hunting experiences found anywhere.The Wilderness Society recognizes that hunters have made a strong contribution to the protection of theselands and waters, and we are pleased to have workedoften as partners in these efforts."

We lose our lands we will lose are guns too. No need for them if you cant use them. A large majority owns weapons to hunt, you take hunting out of the equation.. you can take guns out right behind it. I sent the NRA some hate mail last night, cause im tired of them being the potsy of the republican party and not concerned with the mission.. to protect our rights as gun owners and ensure we always have those rights, i.e. protect the public lands we use our guns on.

Bold talk, but I applaud it. Oh how I wish the NRA would come out strongly against a federal land transfer.

 

[Ray]

Interesting if you read Murkowski's floor discussion on her Ammendments: PDF and go down to page 45 near the end.

Murkowski is from Alaska and beholden to large ANCSA Native Corporations and to the oil industry.

Interesting justifications, but how will western states that are treading water financially be able to buy federal land? What would the States have of value to exchange for the land?

I know that part of the reasoning behind this is to get oil out of ANWR and to free up the red tape stopping development on federal land such as NPR-A on the other end of the Arctic Coastal Plain.

Once a state owns the land they can then sell it or lock it up for specific uses. How will the states manage the land. How will they finance that management. Many unfunded mandates come along with something like this, and with Alaska going broke by the day adding another several million square miles of land to deal with does not bode well.

 

[gelton]

This.

Unfortunately, few people outside the conservation community bother to research this issue at all. I know conservatives who are all for the big sell-off, as if selling our national birthright will somehow get back at the Dems for two bad presidential terms.

Umm not just the "conervatives" "liberals" are more than willing to sell the land off as well. Conservatives and liberals in qoutes because our current republicans and democrats are neither.

Start research here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40565987/...elp-chinese-energy-firm-chase-stimulus-money/

 

[gmajor]

Umm not just the "conervatives" "liberals" are more than willing to sell the land off as well. Conservatives and liberals in qoutes because our current republicans and democrats are neither.

I essentially agree, but I think CrzyTrekker was probably talking about the mass public, not elected officials/lobbyists. I'm guessing a simple public opinion poll would support the point he is making. It's a real bummer, this shouldn't be a partisan issue...

 

[DaveC]

Will it though? The voting public seems to have a pretty short term memory when it comes to political happenings.

Very true, but there's been a remarkable degree of consensus that the whole land transfer scheme is a bad idea. Montanans of all stripes take public land access very seriously. Aside from a few oddball politicians with (IMO) suspicious connections to out-of-state groups, it seems that no one in the state supports the idea.

I'm pretty confident that vote will appear in ads down the road.

 

[mmw194287]

Start research here:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40565987/...elp-chinese-energy-firm-chase-stimulus-money/

How is that story related to the sale or transfer of public land?