Land Sale bills introduced by Utah Legislators

[Matt Cashell]

Representative Jason Chaffetz (R) of Utah introduced House Bill 435 to auction off 3.3 million acres of public land in the Western States to private interests.

Senator Mike Lee (R) of Utah introduced the sister bill (S361) in the Senate.

Both are referred to committee. I encourage all Utah constituents to contact these legislators and express your opinion about these bills. this bill doesn't just affect Utah, however. It lists lands for sale in these states:

Arizona, 453,950 acres
Colorado, 93,741
Idaho, 110,022
Montana, 94,520
Nebraska, 6,615
Nevada, 898,460
New Mexico, 813,531
Oregon, 70,308
Utah, 132,931
Wyoming, 694,200

If you are a hunter concerned about your public lands, please contact your representatives and let them know how you feel.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Thanks Matt. Time to rally the troops. Hope you don't mind but I posted this over at Hunt Talk. Contacting Zinke, Daines and Tester now.

 

[Trial153]

Email and phone call put into my Congressman, Chris Gibson.

 

[airlocksniffer]

Links to the bills:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/361

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/435

 

[Hunter Petersen]

Utah's legislation is just full of ass clowns. Makes me sad to call this place home for that reason

 

[CM]

I am sick of our representatives and sincerely hope that Senator Lee and Representative Chaffetz get ran out of town at the next opportunity. It's bad enough our State government is full of morons, we don't need our representatives trying to get crap like this through at a national level

 

[Dos Perros]

The Senate bill was referred to the Energy and Natural Resources committee. Here's a list of it's members.

Murkowski, Lisa (AK) , Chairman
Barrasso, John (WY)
Risch, James E. (ID)
Lee, Mike (UT)
Flake, Jeff (AZ)
Daines, Steve (MT)
Cassidy, Bill (LA)
Gardner, Cory (CO)
Portman, Rob (OH)
Hoeven, John (ND)
Alexander, Lamar (TN)
Capito, Shelley Moore (WV)
Cantwell, Maria (WA), Ranking Member
Wyden, Ron (OR)
Sanders, Bernard (VT)
Stabenow, Debbie (MI)
Franken, Al (MN)
Manchin, Joe (WV)
Heinrich, Martin (NM)
Hirono, Mazie K. (HI)
King, Angus S. (ME)
Warren, Elizabeth (MA)

The house bill was referred to the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. Here is a list of it's members.

Tom McClintock, CHAIRMAN, (CA), 4th District
Rep. Don Young (AK), At-large
Rep. Louie Gohmert, (TX), 1st District
Rep. Glenn 'GT' Thompson, (PA), 5th District
Rep. Cynthia Lummis, (WY), At-large
Rep. Raul Labrador, (ID), 1st District
Rep. Doug LaMalfa, (CA), 1st District
Rep. Bruce Westerman, (AR), 4th District
Rep. Dan Newhouse, (WA), 4th District
Rep. Ryan Zinke, (MT), At-large
Rep. Jody Hice, (GA), 10th District
Rep. Tom MacArthur, (NJ), 3rd District
Rep. Cresent Hardy, (NV), 4th District
Rep. Darin LaHood, (IL), 18th District
Rep. Rob Bishop, (UT), 1st District ex officio

These are the people you'll want to contact now and make your opinion heard.

 

[Trial153]

Sent emails to my senators as well asking them to appose the bill.

 

[MuleyFever]

Is there a way to find out where these lands are exactly?

 

[Lukem]

Is there a way to find out where these lands are exactly?

Best I could find so far:

https://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/Land Disposal Report.pdf

Relevant info:

1997 Lands Report to Congress

In 1996, the Congress (Public Law 104-127, Section 390) directed the Secretary of the Interior toreport to Congress on lands that may be suitable for disposal or exchange to benefit theEverglades Restoration effort in Florida. The Department of the Interior’s May 27, 1997 reportto Congress included a list of BLM-managed lands that had been identified for disposal throughthe BLM’s land use planning process, while excluding lands that had been withdrawn,segregated, or identified for other specific purposes detailed in the report. The report was ageneral county-by-county summary and did not provide individual parcel information, though itdid include a list of potential impediments to disposal, including lack of legal access; thepresence of mineral leases and mining claims; threatened and endangered species habitat;historical and cultural values; hazardous material contamination; and title conflicts. Noappraisals or surveys were conducted of the lands included in the 1997 report. Lands were notidentified in California or Alaska because public lands in those states that were identified fordisposal were committed to needs identified under other Acts of Congress.

And yes, from last year.

 

[Matt Cashell]

These bills were introduced in 2015, but remain in committee.

 

[Matt Cashell]

Best I could find so far:

https://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/Land Disposal Report.pdf

BLM Land I believe.

That report is misleading. All of the land has some legal access. All of the parcels can be accessed by air, and hunters have made use of this access. Also, private landowners can provide public access through collaboration. In MT, as more parcels are added to Block Management, more and more "landlocked" BLM parcels are available to hunters. It would be a shame if those parcels were lost.

 

[Lukem]

That report is misleading. All of the land has some legal access. All of the parcels can be accessed by air, and hunters have made use of this access. Also, private landowners can provide public access through collaboration. In MT, as more parcels are added to Block Management, more and more "landlocked" BLM parcels are available to hunters. It would be a shame if those parcels were lost.

Just trying to identify what and where. There really isn't a specific list of lands other than what I posted (that I could find).

I'm not in favor of getting rid of any of them and I don't believe the lands are identified by "having no legal access". Actually the lack of access was to be listed as an "impediment' to disposal.

 

[elkguide]

I agree that there are a lot of variables involved. I hate to see the land controlled by the feds but at the same time in this day of budget crunches and states looking for money, I can see them selling off some of these parcels of land.

 

[twall13]

Thanks for posting this, I hate what our Politician are doing in Utah lately. As a sportsman it's seriously embarrassing to our state.

 

[gauge]

I agree that there are a lot of variables involved. I hate to see the land controlled by the feds but at the same time in this day of budget crunches and states looking for money, I can see them selling off some of these parcels of land.

I don't mean to come off the wrong way, but there is a real stigma around "lands being controlled by the feds". I may be wrong but if you are from Vermont and are in fact an elk guide, you make money off land being controlled by the feds. 99% of the guys that elk hunt on this forum hunt on federally owned ground. I in fact, love land controlled by the feds because it is for all of us. That is one of the reasons this country is so unique and full of opportunity. You obviously understand the burden this land would be for the states but I can not understand why people love to bang on "fed" controlled land.

 

[twall13]

I don't mean to come off the wrong way, but there is a real stigma around "lands being controlled by the feds". I may be wrong but if you are from Vermont and are in fact an elk guide, you make money off land being controlled by the feds. 99% of the guys that elk hunt on this forum hunt on federally owned ground. I in fact, love land controlled by the feds because it is for all of us. That is one of the reasons this country is so unique and full of opportunity. You obviously understand the burden this land would be for the states but I can not understand why people love to bang on "fed" controlled land.

I think the majority of the "fed" controlled land hate comes from some of the inefficiencies inherent to such a large organization. The federal government in general is not efficient and many people seem to think the state governments could do a better job at efficiently managing those lands as they are smaller and more nimble.

I'll be the first to admit that the federal government is inefficient, but I still think they are doing a better job managing our public lands for public use than any other entity could. They have to deal with a lot of budget restrictions and red tape but I honestly believe the majority of BLM and forest service employees are trying to do what's best for public lands.

I've personally witnessed some of the inefficiencies I mentioned above. We built a building for the BLM a couple of years ago. It was a 6,000 square foot building that should have cost no more than $600,000 to construct. They put so many requirements into the construction specifications that the building cost closer to $2,000,000 to build. No joke, the HVAC system alone cost $200,000... for a 6,000 sq. ft. building. Our standard commercial lease is 21 pages long. The BLM lease was over 200 pages long. They had a committee of 12 people sit in on weekly meetings to approve everything. Not only were all of those people unnecessary, they caused a lot of delays in getting things approved. Those delays cost money. Anyway, you get the picture. Big government is inefficient, but I don't see a better alternative so I'll fight to keep public lands public as best I can.

 

[gauge]

I think the majority of the "fed" controlled land hate comes from some of the inefficiencies inherent to such a large organization. The federal government in general is not efficient and many people seem to think the state governments could do a better job at efficiently managing those lands as they are smaller and more nimble.

I'll be the first to admit that the federal government is inefficient, but I still think they are doing a better job managing our public lands for public use than any other entity could. They have to deal with a lot of budget restrictions and red tape but I honestly believe the majority of BLM and forest service employees are trying to do what's best for public lands.

I've personally witnessed some of the inefficiencies I mentioned above. We built a building for the BLM a couple of years ago. It was a 6,000 square foot building that should have cost no more than $600,000 to construct. They put so many requirements into the construction specifications that the building cost closer to $2,000,000 to build. No joke, the HVAC system alone cost $200,000... for a 6,000 sq. ft. building. Our standard commercial lease is 21 pages long. The BLM lease was over 200 pages long. They had a committee of 12 people sit in on weekly meetings to approve everything. Not only were all of those people unnecessary, they caused a lot of delays in getting things approved. Those delays cost money. Anyway, you get the picture. Big government is inefficient, but I don't see a better alternative so I'll fight to keep public lands public as best I can.

Very good insight Twall. I completely understand the inefficiency of the government, and I agree they are probably our best worst option. I do although think inefficient business is just the nature of our country now a days. I work in electric distribution and the amount of money and time wasted on most jobs is mind boggling.

I just hope people understand the threat of losing federally owned lands because once they are sold, we don't get them back. If we wish to have future generations hunting elk in the mountains, then the national forest lands must be protected.

 

[brewer427]

I'll be the first to admit that the federal government is inefficient, but I still think they are doing a better job managing our public lands for public use than any other entity could. They have to deal with a lot of budget restrictions and red tape but I honestly believe the majority of BLM and forest service employees are trying to do what's best for public lands.

This right here is what I think people need to think about. These politicians will cut the forest services budget then turn around and say what a crap job there doing and use that as an excuse to transfer lands to the states, knowing damn well that the reason blm and forest service is struggling is because the budget cuts they have imposed against them. What needs to happen is we need to get all the politicians out of the system who have rich buddies who want to either control or own all the land and water. But unfortunately I don't think that will ever happen.

Emails sent voicing my dissproval to Daines and Zienke...

 

[ChrisS]

Inefficiency of the government is sometimes a feature and not a bug. If government could act swiftly and without opposition, very bad things can happen before anyone blinks.