HR 621 and 622 Death by a thousand cuts to public land

[Phil4]

HR621&622 are not in your best interest if you are interested in accessing public land for any reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

These bills simply free up land for economic development and allow for local police forces to manage and safe keep.
In the case of Utah something like 80 percent of the state is federally owned. Might explain why the state is so poor.
Silly not to have the conversation and discuss how the land can be better managed to help all parties with an interest.
Federal ownership is too far removed from the folks trying to eack out a living in some of these places. I think the folks in Utah ought to decide what to do with their own land.

You, sir,are an idiot. Perhaps you should do your due diligence before posting such nonsense. At the least you should sharpen up on the Enabling Acts that all states passed to become states and what those trade offs were. Utah isn't poor, they don't know how to manage these lands any better, and could be argued they would do far worse because it would place a substantial burden on them. It's not about helping states or balancing budgets, it's about privatizing the entire country. Only a fool can't see that.

 

[R_burg]

These bills simply free up land for economic development and allow for local police forces to manage and safe keep.
In the case of Utah something like 80 percent of the state is federally owned. Might explain why the state is so poor.
Silly not to have the conversation and discuss how the land can be better managed to help all parties with an interest.
Federal ownership is too far removed from the folks trying to eack out a living in some of these places. I think the folks in Utah ought to decide what to do with their own land.

Do you personally stand to benefit from this? You previously said you are a rancher.

 

[1signguy]

Fellas- I have no personal benefit one way or another with regard to these bills- other than as a citizen.
I am disappointed we can't have a civil conversation. I recognize your right to differing views- in fact I celebrate your right even when I don't agree. Sad the same can't be said of some others.
Is it better to live in an insulated and unchallenged world where everyone agrees? Not for me- I want to be challenged. I want- no I need to understand the other side. How else will I learn? However, I joined the site to learn and share my passion for hunting. Not this...
Moving forward I will refrain from posting anything political.
God Bless

 

[realunlucky]

I agree it shouldn't be personal. I never did understand your argument in support of these bills though. The owners (us the citizens) should benefit from the sale of our assets. These bills don't even bother addressing what that benefit would be. To me it's a simple political favor system at its finest

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Publiclandhunter]

These bills simply free up land for economic development and allow for local police forces to manage and safe keep.
In the case of Utah something like 80 percent of the state is federally owned. Might explain why the state is so poor.
Silly not to have the conversation and discuss how the land can be better managed to help all parties with an interest.
Federal ownership is too far removed from the folks trying to eack out a living in some of these places. I think the folks in Utah ought to decide what to do with their own land.

Lets insert some facts here instead of this BS. Actually 66% of Utah is federal PUBLIC land. Utah has the best economy in the nation, yeah it is actually #1. A lot of that has to do with the huge tourism things like our parks, skiing, and recreational activities that occur....well... on public land. BLM and Forest Service rangers help state DWR officials in patrols, so hey dumping our federal officers and stretching an already thin line of law enforcement even thinner sounds like a great idea.Burdening our local sheriffs office with patrolling millions of acres of BLM and Forest Service land just sounds great doesn't it. Sounds like it'll work just perfectly...NOT. You know what doesn't sound great, selling 3.3 million acres of public lands and removing law enforcement who understand the managment issues off the land and inviting lawlessness. Both bills are absolute crap and need to be pulled back. I'm not trying to be a big jerk but it's hard to take someone seriously who started out with two lies in the post I quoted. The. You get into how managment is too far removed. Actually, no, there are BLM and FS field offices and employees in every single district.

 

[Billinsd]

These bills simply free up land for economic development and allow for local police forces to manage and safe keep.
In the case of Utah something like 80 percent of the state is federally owned. Might explain why the state is so poor.
Silly not to have the conversation and discuss how the land can be better managed to help all parties with an interest.
Federal ownership is too far removed from the folks trying to eack out a living in some of these places. I think the folks in Utah ought to decide what to do with their own land.

Amen, the less the Feds are involved the better!!! Let Utah manage the public land in their state.

 

[elkduds]

Amen, the less the Feds are involved the better!!! Let Utah manage the public land in their state.

By UT gov't officials organizing "protest rides" up closed trails, by charging federal law enforcement w crimes for doing their jobs, by ignoring massive pot and artifact hunting/sales, by knocking over geologic features in Nat'l Parks? That is the UT model of law enforcement on federal lands. No thanks. It's that old time sagebrush rebellion BS.

 

[jtl]

Public land transfer is going to be un unfunded mandate on the states if it happens, but 621 is not a transfer bill. It is a bill for the outright sale of over 3 million acres of public land. Pulling federal law enforcement out without providing funding for additional local LEOs just puts an additional burden on the counties and states.

^ This. For those of you who favor this, how do you want the states to pay for it? It's going to cost millions of dollars per year for the states to manage them.

Raise taxes? Probably not.

So that leaves us with development, resource extraction, or selling them. Which of these are good for hunters? None of them.

 

[coachjdub]

Amen, the less the Feds are involved the better!!! Let Utah manage the public land in their state.

Once the land is left to be managed by the state, it will get sold. States will not be able to fund the land, therefore it will get sold to private entities. When that happens, it will NEVER make it back into the hands of the general public. So to leave the lands up to the state would be a bad decision if you actually like public lands. If you are against big gov. that is one thing, but it does not help the cause when fighting to keep your public lands.

 

[4ester]

Wyoming can't even afford to pay for its schools right now, let alone to manage all that public land. One forest fire would bankrupt the state.

Although the Feds can't manage our forest worth a $@(), I think it's still best to let it to the Feds. Or if you are going to turn it over to the states, do it in a way that makes it impossible to sell.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TJ]

Amen, the less the Feds are involved the better!!! Let Utah manage the public land in their state.

Utah:
Grazing fees on public lands- $4.35/AUM
Grazing fees on private lands- $14.50/AUM
Payments in lieu of taxes for federal lands-$37.9 million
Federal fire suppression cost 2012- $58 million
Number of hunters and anglers 493,000
Percent of hunters who hunt on public land 83%
Spending by State sportsman 1.04 billion

 

[dotman]

Response from my Congressman is lame!!! He didn't even touch on the issues I wrote To him about on public lands and that I'm against HR621 & 622.

Dear Timothy,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the environment. It is an honor to serve the people of Kansas in the United States Congress and your communication is a vital part of our legislative process.

Like you, I feel that Americans should be keenly aware of the impact that they have on the environment. It is important that we are good stewards of our nation’s valuable natural resources and wilderness areas for future generations. However, enacting new regulations and mandates can have unintended consequences, such as higher energy and food prices, the closure of manufacturing facilities, and loss of employment. Additionally, these higher prices and costs usually fall most heavily on low-income families and our most disadvantaged citizens, and in some cases we may see very few, if any, environmental benefits.

Over the past several decades Congress has enacted hundreds of laws intended to improve air and water quality, preserve our wildlife and ecosystems and combat the effects of pollution in our atmosphere. I believe we should enforce those laws and ensure that new regulations are based upon sound science and a thorough cost/benefit analysis.

A clean environment is a direct result of a strong economy; without economic growth, societies cannot pay for the technology to keep our environment clean. As a conservationist, I believe we can protect the environment and still provide for our families and our future. Although I am not a member of a committee with jurisdiction over this issue, you may be certain that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the House of Representatives consider any relevant legislation in the future.

Again, I want to thank you for contacting me and sharing your thoughts. Please don’t hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of service.

Sincerely,

Kevin Yoder
Member of Congress

 

[cg2737]

Email sent to my Congressman.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AustinL911]

Done.

 

[R_burg]

Response from my Congressman is lame!!! He didn't even touch on the issues I wrote To him about on public lands and that I'm against HR621 & 622.

Dear Timothy,

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts regarding the environment. It is an honor to serve the people of Kansas in the United States Congress and your communication is a vital part of our legislative process.

Like you, I feel that Americans should be keenly aware of the impact that they have on the environment. It is important that we are good stewards of our nation’s valuable natural resources and wilderness areas for future generations. However, enacting new regulations and mandates can have unintended consequences, such as higher energy and food prices, the closure of manufacturing facilities, and loss of employment. Additionally, these higher prices and costs usually fall most heavily on low-income families and our most disadvantaged citizens, and in some cases we may see very few, if any, environmental benefits.

Over the past several decades Congress has enacted hundreds of laws intended to improve air and water quality, preserve our wildlife and ecosystems and combat the effects of pollution in our atmosphere. I believe we should enforce those laws and ensure that new regulations are based upon sound science and a thorough cost/benefit analysis.

A clean environment is a direct result of a strong economy; without economic growth, societies cannot pay for the technology to keep our environment clean. As a conservationist, I believe we can protect the environment and still provide for our families and our future. Although I am not a member of a committee with jurisdiction over this issue, you may be certain that I will keep your thoughts in mind should the House of Representatives consider any relevant legislation in the future.

Again, I want to thank you for contacting me and sharing your thoughts. Please don’t hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of service.

Sincerely,

Kevin Yoder
Member of Congress

AKA:

I'm walking the party line and anything that can be sold to the public as "job creation" is something I am going to be behind.

 

[tipsntails7]

Fellas- I have no personal benefit one way or another with regard to these bills- other than as a citizen.
I am disappointed we can't have a civil conversation. I recognize your right to differing views- in fact I celebrate your right even when I don't agree. Sad the same can't be said of some others.
Is it better to live in an insulated and unchallenged world where everyone agrees? Not for me- I want to be challenged. I want- no I need to understand the other side. How else will I learn? However, I joined the site to learn and share my passion for hunting. Not this...
Moving forward I will refrain from posting anything political.
God Bless

Don't do that, As i agree its great to get opinions from outside of each others everyday thinking. The problem is these type of bills have been popping up for as long as i can remember. The words "Free up land for economic development" = selling or closing access to these lands. States are notorious at managing their lands terribly, and unless that land has oil or mineral on or under it, the best way to make that land economic is selling it to the highest bidder.

 

[tipsntails7]

Lets insert some facts here instead of this BS. Actually 66% of Utah is federal PUBLIC land. Utah has the best economy in the nation, yeah it is actually #1. A lot of that has to do with the huge tourism things like our parks, skiing, and recreational activities that occur....well... on public land. BLM and Forest Service rangers help state DWR officials in patrols, so hey dumping our federal officers and stretching an already thin line of law enforcement even thinner sounds like a great idea.Burdening our local sheriffs office with patrolling millions of acres of BLM and Forest Service land just sounds great doesn't it. Sounds like it'll work just perfectly...NOT. You know what doesn't sound great, selling 3.3 million acres of public lands and removing law enforcement who understand the managment issues off the land and inviting lawlessness. Both bills are absolute crap and need to be pulled back. I'm not trying to be a big jerk but it's hard to take someone seriously who started out with two lies in the post I quoted. The. You get into how managment is too far removed. Actually, no, there are BLM and FS field offices and employees in every single district.

Regardless of whatever else you wrote, Utah absolutely does not have the best economy in the nation....

 

[fiskeri1]

Done.

 

[realunlucky]

Regardless of whatever else you wrote, Utah absolutely does not have the best economy in the nation....

Sad but true Utah is an armpit

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk