HR 622 - Please contact your representative

Jason Snyder

Jason Snyder

WKR
Joined
Apr 3, 2013
Messages
4,056
Location
Somewhere between here and there
So prong one of Jason Chaffetz's anti-public land vendetta was withdrawn earlier this week. However, HR622 is still alive and kicking and needs squashed. This legislation would remove the law enforcement component of the BLM and USFS. It would have these agencies contract through local law enforcement (i.e. sheriff's offices) for patrols.

I think this is a really bad idea. I don't foresee local sheriff's deputies getting trained in knowledge of natural resource law, nor do I see them having the time to devote the patrols and investigations. What do you think is going to take precedence, domestic violence calls or travel plan enforcement?

Text of H.R. 622: Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act (Introduced version) - GovTrack.us

Please take the time to contact your local representative and let them know your thoughts on this bill.

Thanks.
 
This doesn't seem like a good idea at all... I wonder what the push is and why?? No way can local police do the job of our game wardens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
jpuckett said:
This doesn't seem like a good idea at all... I wonder what the push is and why?? No way can local police do the job of our game wardens


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I am guessing it's the same old government overreach bullshit because of the BLM closing and enforcing ATV trails in southern Utah.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Does any game warden comments add to this discussion? Do you personally support removing the Forest service and BLM enforcement personnel? What is total cost savings vs added cost to state and county law enforcement that will have to pick up the slack. If you think it makes logical sense to you please ask someone for a punch to your junk

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
realunlucky said:
What is total cost savings vs added cost to state and county law enforcement that will have to pick up the slack. If you think it makes logical sense to you please ask someone for a punch to your junk
Click to expand...

It would have these agencies contract through local law enforcement (i.e. sheriff's offices) for patrols
Click to expand...

You want a punch in the junk, yet you don't even know all the details. It's not logical to make decisions without having ALL the information to make a logical decision.

As for the game warden comments........yes, they absolutely do add to this discussion. Because game wardens are just another piece to the puzzle of law enforcement on public lands. So yes......they too should be in the equation.
 
realunlucky said:
Bud I'm pretty studied up on the issue. I not a if it comes from the right it must be good Kool aid drinker.
Ill try some Kool aid throw some facts out here 5 miles
Click to expand...

If you're so studied up on it, why'd you ask this question "What is total cost savings vs added cost to state and county law enforcement that will have to pick up the slack."

Give us the facts that you have from your studies. When agencies "contract" out services from elsewhere there is normally some form of compensation to pay for said services. So after that's all said and done what is the answer to your question? Or has the "contract" part been delineated yet. This isn't a kool aid issue (or a right or left issue).......this is just like every other issue in this country. What are the facts? And have all the facts been disclosed? You make it sound like they have as you've already made your decision......so let's have them. I won't make my decision until I've seen all the facts and how these "contracts" will be administered. Everyone seems to want to make every issue about the right or left........make every decision based on logic, reason, and ALL the information available.......forget left or right.
 
Last edited:
30% in section A and 70% in section B. There is no data that local law enforcement can provide the same performance for less cost. If you feel less enforcement for the cost savings is justified than that point could be argued. If you think the federal lands get the same protection for less cost let's see some data

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
I would not over complicate what this bill is.

The bill is really a "Let my Bundy boys do whatever they want with our public lands" Act. There is no logic, no rationale, to the bill that makes any sense unless you are an anti-public land guy like Chaffetz.

The bill is classic political debt repayment to the fringe operators who have put money in his election fund and votes in his column. To repay the debt, Chaffetz is using the integrity of our public land regulations as currency for the debts he owes.
 
622 doesnt sound like a good idea to me and it stinks of ulterior motives. Why would this be introduced ? I can say first hand being a personal friend of several cops in my town that they do NOT have the manpower for this. The feds / forest service seem to do a good job in my home area (maybe other areas they dont do so well ?)and being a fan of "if it ain't broke dont fix it " I say 622 is no bueno.
 
realunlucky said:
30% in section A and 70% in section B.
Click to expand...

That's just the % of HOW they are going to divy up the money to individual states, which doesn't mean a whole lot in determining the suitability of the overall program.

There are no details in this bill, but I would imagine that the details were made available to even come up with this proposal.

(d)Authorization of appropriations
On account of the reduced costs to be incurred by the Secretary concerned as a result of the termination of the covered law enforcement agencies, for fiscal year 2018 and each fiscal year thereafter, there is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior to make grants under this section—
(1) an amount equal to seven percent of the Forest Service budget for fiscal year 2016; (2) an amount equal to five percent of the Bureau of Land Management budget for fiscal year 2016;
Click to expand...

A few years ago the BLM's annual budget was $1 billion.....5% of that would be $50 million......just for a "grant" to cover law enforcement costs. So......this begs the question........did the BLM really spend $50 million on law enforcement in 2016? These are the figures we need. How much of that was overtime? How many law enforcement rangers did the BLM have employed?

These are the types of details needed to make a logical conclusion or decision, then those would have to be broken down by state as well. This is just a simple cost benefit analysis to determine. But if they are going to make funds available to the states for the same law enforcement coverage they would get from their own law enforcement rangers........then yes......does it make sense? Who knows? I haven't seen all the figures. If I was a voting member of the committee I wouldn't make any vote or decision on it until I did see all the data points. If data isn't available, then the vote is NO. But I'm not a congressman.

It just seems to me that most people make knee jerk reactions to every issue that comes up, without ever having the details to make any decision, let alone a knee jerk decision.
 
Last edited:
My mind goes in weird directions, but here is my take on this.
1. I agree with Randy's statements above, but add this.

2. They know that they do not have the public on their side, so how do they change that? They dump the responsibility on the local law enforcement by appealing to peoples emotional desire for local control. It would all sound great until the local law enforcement started introducing bonds for the public to pay, which would tarnish the public land value to some. These people have just as many psychologists on the payroll as crooked accountants.
 
I don't understand your argument. Hr622 has no details so we can't discount it's value just yet. Using that logic we can not support Hr622 without more details either. Where does that leave us? Plenty of legislation is passed yearly without the details that's how pockets are filled and favors are payed back with details after the fact.

Many of Utah's southern counties have been at odds with federal travel bans and have vowed not to enforce. This is no way to enforce the rules by picking and choosing which gets the sheriff elected next term. While I tend to have strong disagreement with how the federal government dictates land use in Utah picking and choosing isn't the answer either.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 
The USFS and BLM do not have game wardens per se, but they do have dedicated LEOs that enforce all federal laws, and in the presence of an MOU can enforce state laws as well.

In addition, both agencies have other positions that can issue citations, but they are not full law enforcement personnel.

I really don't want someone running for re election to be the guy deciding how important travel plan enforcement is, or ensuring compliance with grazing regulations, or curbing off road travel.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Thanks for keeping this alive. Will have some folks at the town hall meeting tomorrow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
HR 622 needs to go
Replies
4
Views
712
Publiclandhunter
P
P
HR 621 and 622 Death by a thousand cuts to public land
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
9K
PathFinder
PathFinder

Latest posts

Featured Video

Latest Articles

Back
Top