Chaffetz at the Western Hunting and Conservation Expo?

[5MilesBack]

I just listened to Cam's 39 minute podcast with Chaffetz from 2017. I didn't hear anything in it that would lead me to believe that he is anti-public land, with either his HB 621 that he retracted, or HB 622 that was discussed. Perhaps Cam didn't ask the right questions, or there's a lot of misunderstanding in this whole topic. But I still don't see an anti-public land stance from Chaffetz. But I definitely saw an anti-federal control mentality......of which I have the same mentality.

 

[Fatcamp]

So the only value land has is if it can be turned into dollars?

I strongly disagree. Those public lands take nothing from the state. They have not belonged to the state for a very long time, and currently are held in trust by all Americans, not just those who live in the same state. The problem being it is seen as a potential source of revenue so for some it is gloves off in regards to taking it away from public use.

A fun thing to remember is that there are a large group of people who would chop down every Redwood if given the chance. That same type of person would sell off all public lands and turn them into playgrounds for the rich.

 

[Fatcamp]

I just listened to Cam's 39 minute podcast with Chaffetz from 2017. I didn't hear anything in it that would lead me to believe that he is anti-public land, with either his HB 621 that he retracted, or HB 622 that was discussed. Perhaps Cam didn't ask the right questions, or there's a lot of misunderstanding in this whole topic. But I still don't see an anti-public land stance from Chaffetz. But I definitely saw an anti-federal control mentality......of which I have the same mentality.

So aiming for a Texas style program of opportunity? That sounds like a not so great idea.

 

[ndbuck09]

Prove me wrong but I don't think Chaffetz is doing the kind of backcountry hunting DIY the rest of us are doing....He's probably a hunter, maybe a handful of days a year. Just like Obama likes guns bc he's shot them before...

 

[CorbLand]

I just listened to Cam's 39 minute podcast with Chaffetz from 2017. I didn't hear anything in it that would lead me to believe that he is anti-public land, with either his HB 621 that he retracted, or HB 622 that was discussed. Perhaps Cam didn't ask the right questions, or there's a lot of misunderstanding in this whole topic. But I still don't see an anti-public land stance from Chaffetz. But I definitely saw an anti-federal control mentality......of which I have the same mentality.

Not a single one of them is going to come out publicly and say that they are anti public lands. That would be suicide. The proof is in the history of the States management of State Land. Nearly all western states have sold off 40 to 50% of there state lands, some in the upwards of 90%. Its not a stretch to say anything people have been saying. The proof is in the history.

 

[5MilesBack]

It's only a problem if the state residents allow it to be a problem. If the residents of the state of Utah didn't support the selling of those state lands then they should have done something to stop that. It's not like they were all sold off the same week in the last couple years. They've been a state for some time now. And Chaffetz even withdrew HB 621, and he's not even a Congressman anymore. So his opinion is just like everyone else's at the moment.......an opinion. An opinion that still doesn't yell "anti-public land". That's my opinion, but you're entitled to your opinion as well.

 

[Matt Cashell]

I didn't hear anything in it that would lead me to believe that he is anti-public land, with either his HB 621 that he retracted, or HB 622 that was discussed.

From the HB 621 summary:

"This bill directs the Department of the Interior: (1) to offer for disposal by competitive sale for not less that fair market value certain federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified in the report submitted to Congress on May 27, 1997, pursuant to the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996"

Hard to get more anti-public land than that. This past season, my daughter tagged a nice muley buck on a little piece of public land in Montana that had been identified as "excess" in recent history.

Public pressure organized by conservation groups like BHA and TRCP was the driving force behind Chaffetz withdrawing the bill, thankfully.

The 622 was a little sneakier. A main approach of the anti-public lands movement is to defund and weaken the federal agencies that manage the land, to lower the value of said agency, and create urgency for transfer and/or sale.

there's a lot of misunderstanding in this whole topic.

For sure.

I would still like to talk to him about it. I would like to get more context about where he is coming from, and let him know what my concerns are. He has a lot of reach as a talking head on TV.

 

[CorbLand]

It's only a problem if the state residents allow it to be a problem. If the residents of the state of Utah didn't support the selling of those state lands then they should have done something to stop that. It's not like they were all sold off the same week in the last couple years. They've been a state for some time now. And Chaffetz even withdrew HB 621, and he's not even a Congressman anymore. So his opinion is just like everyone else's at the moment.......an opinion. An opinion that still doesn't yell "anti-public land". That's my opinion, but you're entitled to your opinion as well.

I agree with you that its a problem because the residents of that State allow it be a problem and I will do everything in my power to get it changed so they cant sell of these lands but until then, I will be an advocate for the land to remain in the hands of the Feds.

This is not a new thing. Utah has tried this before and it didnt work, it will never end. Honestly, I fight against the sale of all State lands but if it gets sold it is what it is but if you think I am going to advocate for the State to get more land when they have proven that they can manage the little amount they already had/have, your sorely mistaken.

 

[sneaky]

It's only a problem if the state residents allow it to be a problem. If the residents of the state of Utah didn't support the selling of those state lands then they should have done something to stop that. It's not like they were all sold off the same week in the last couple years. They've been a state for some time now. And Chaffetz even withdrew HB 621, and he's not even a Congressman anymore. So his opinion is just like everyone else's at the moment.......an opinion. An opinion that still doesn't yell "anti-public land". That's my opinion, but you're entitled to your opinion as well.

Sure, let Colorado take over control of all the federal lands in the state, then you can day hunt because you won't be allowed to camp on it. That is, til one good fire bankrupts the state and they sell off your elk spot to the Chinese.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Billinsd]

This past season, my daughter tagged a nice muley buck on a little piece of public land in Montana that had been identified as "excess" in recent history.

I would still like to talk to him about it. I would like to get more context about where he is coming from, and let him know what my concerns are. He has a lot of reach as a talking head on TV.

Thanks for the great post and argument!!

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Department of Interior houses the BLM. BLM land is NOT public owned land. Only National Forest land is land held in trust by the public. I could give you links to these details but, it'd do everybody good to search this out to see this for themselves.

The BLM was formed by the government to manage lands throughout this country that were deemed "unwanted" originally. It morphed from there to consume lands within states upon declaration of statehood. But the one constant of the BLM, is by federal statue, it owns those lands. Unlike the federal statue that formed the National
Forest. This is the defining difference in the two.

BLM has been and always will be sold for development. It is mandated by federal law to do so to serve the communities it surrounds. As an example, Vegas would be a lot smaller without that federal law. I could go on. I won't. Spend a little time on google and see for yourself. It's important we get these details right.

IF you are one that believes the government shouldn't have "consumed" those lands, I understand. But, that was done a longtime ago and, has withstood the test of time in lawsuits. Right or wrong doesn't matter it seems. It's just the way it is.

 

[Trial153]

The Bureau of Land Management: Who We Are, What We Do



BLM is focusing on landscape approaches for managing public lands. (Photo of Fisher Towers, Utah).

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may best be described as a small agency with a big mission: To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of America’s public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations. It administers more public land – over 245 million surface acres – than any other Federal agency in the United States. Most of this land is located in the 12 Western states, including Alaska. The BLM also manages 700 million acres of sub-surface mineral estate throughout the nation.

The BLM’s multiple-use mission, set forth in the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, mandates that we manage public land resources for a variety of uses, such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting, while protecting a wide array of natural, cultural, and historical resources, many of which are found in the BLM's 27 million-acre National Landscape Conservation System. The conservation system includes 221 Wilderness Areas totaling 8.7 million acres, as well as 16 National Monuments comprising 4.8 million acres.

The BLM does its complex and challenging work with an annual budget of more than $1 billion and a workforce of about 10,000 full-time employees. The BLM is one of a handful of Federal agencies that generates more revenue for the United States than it spends. For example, in Fiscal Year 2012, nearly $5 billion will be generated by activities on BLM-managed lands, including an estimated $4.3 billion from onshore oil and gas development, with about half of those revenues going to the states where the mineral leasing occurred.

The BLM is focusing on the following priorities:
The America’s Great Outdoors initiative, which is aimed at enhancing the conservation of BLM-managed lands and resources and reconnecting Americans to the outdoors.

The New Energy Frontier, which encourages and facilitates renewable energy development – solar, wind, and geothermal – on the Nation’s public lands.

Cooperative Landscape Conservation, a scientific initiative that recognizes the need to better understand the condition of BLM-managed landscapes at a broad level.

Youth in the Great Outdoors, which supports programs and partnerships that engage youth in natural resource management and encourages young people and their families to visit, explore, and learn about the public lands.

Climate Change, which is affecting public lands in ways that could impact on Americans’ quality of life. The BLM is responding with two interconnected initiatives: a proposed landscape approach to land management and Rapid Ecoregional Assessments, which will improve the agency’s understanding of public land conditions to inform future management decisions.
By strengthening existing and forging new partnerships with stakeholders, the BLM will ensure that the nation’s public lands are managed and conserved for future generations of Americans to use and enjoy.

 

[Trial153]

The congressional research report states that BLM land is publicly owned , well...several times.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

 

[Trial153]

And finally here is the copies of the micro file of the law that states that BLM lands are in fact publicly owned, and how they should be administered.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg2743.pdf

 

[JWP58]

So we should shout down anyone that has differing opinions on public land administration, but cuddle up to those that want to end hunting and restrict firearm ownership? Got it.

 

[cuerro viejo]

So aiming for a Texas style program of opportunity? That sounds like a not so great idea.

Texas was deeded via Spain/Mexico and as republic well before state hood.

But I get to hunt 365 days a year with deer season alone being a 4 months

 

[elkduds]

But I get to hunt 365 days a year with deer season alone being a 4 months

How many days do you hunt big game on public land in TX each year?

 

[Matt Cashell]

So we should shout down anyone that has differing opinions on public land administration, but cuddle up to those that want to end hunting and restrict firearm ownership? Got it.

I hope you didn’t get that from my posts. If you did, i wish I had been clearer with my words.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

James, many say that BLM lands are public lands. I won't argue the premise of such. However it is a sloppy way of saying things as abroad brush statement. And, it requires completely ignoring Article 4 of the Constitution and, about 125 years of Supreme Court rulings on federal land ownership to support it.


By design and law, the NF is defined as lands held for the people. By design, many of the BLM lands were "given" back to the federal government upon statehood. And mandated to be sold and, used for public interest of the community's that surround these lands. It's hard to sell something you don't own. The Supreme Court agrees.

Like I said, I don't like it. I don't think it is right since public dollars bought it for the government way back. But, what we think won't win that argument. But, don't just take my word for it. Take the word of US code 43, Chapter 35, subsection 1701. FYI, this is the Federal Land Management Policy ACT of 1976.

 

[sneaky]

Maybe these states should read their own Enabling Acts before they start pursuing lawsuits and land transfers. They did it to themselves, and not a single western state could afford to manage these lands without federal assistance. Not. One.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk