Montana joint resolution to transfer federal public land

[grainhog]

This is happening now:

Bill Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on legislative bills in Montana with the Montana Legislature Bill Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor bill progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

bills.legmt.gov

LC2912: Joint house resolution supporting Utah in its land lawsuit against the United States

This is not "fear mongering", it isn't "alarmism", it isn't "overly dramatic". As of now it's "only" a joint resolution, but this is part of a strategic and viable effort to force transfer of federal public lands to states and then inevitably to billionaires and developers.

Irrespective of political affiliation, I believe we need to share broadly, communicate the threat, contact Daines/Sheehy/Zinke/local representatives, attend rallies. Resist.

Federal public land in the west is one of the few assets in which you and the billionaires have an equivalent stake, it's all of ours, and I personally think we need to defend our ownership of these lands like our lives depend on it.

 

[Loo.wii]

let’s start a rokslide PAC to keep public lands public.

These politicians need to remember they work for us. The little guys. Screw the big guy.

 

[elkhunter505]

Already sent something to my state reps. Will be sending something to Daines and Zinke.

 

[fuzzymarindave]

Where does the new administration in DC stand on this issue?

 

[BigDuckHunter]

This is happening now:

Bill Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on legislative bills in Montana with the Montana Legislature Bill Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor bill progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

bills.legmt.gov

LC2912: Joint house resolution supporting Utah in its land lawsuit against the United States

This is not "fear mongering", it isn't "alarmism", it isn't "overly dramatic". As of now it's "only" a joint resolution, but this is part of a strategic and viable effort to force transfer of federal public lands to states and then inevitably to billionaires and developers.

Irrespective of political affiliation, I believe we need to share broadly, communicate the threat, contact Daines/Sheehy/Zinke/local representatives, attend rallies. Resist.

Federal public land in the west is one of the few assets in which you and the billionaires have an equivalent stake, it's all of ours, and I personally think we need to defend our ownership of these lands like our lives depend on it.

I don’t always understand 100% of what I read in bills like this, but I don’t see anywhere that it mentions selling the land to billionaires, or selling the land at all. Where do you see that?

 

[tdhanses]

I don’t always understand 100% of what I read in bills like this, but I don’t see anywhere that it mentions selling the land to billionaires, or selling the land at all. Where do you see that?

Assumptions always when this comes up.

Most of our energy is on public lands fyi.

 

[grainhog]

I don’t always understand 100% of what I read in bills like this, but I don’t see anywhere that it mentions selling the land to billionaires, or selling the land at all. Where do you see that?

I'm not sure if your question is genuine; do you think politicians, who are bought and sold like binoculars on the rokslide classifieds, always make their intentions explicit in legislation? Have you looked into the beliefs of Mike Lee R-UT with whom recent manifestations of this "movement" originated?

 

[HighUintas]

This is happening now:

Bill Explorer

Explore, track, and stay informed on legislative bills in Montana with the Montana Legislature Bill Explorer application. Access detailed information, monitor bill progress, and engage with the legislative process easily from your desktop or mobile device.

bills.legmt.gov

LC2912: Joint house resolution supporting Utah in its land lawsuit against the United States

This is not "fear mongering", it isn't "alarmism", it isn't "overly dramatic". As of now it's "only" a joint resolution, but this is part of a strategic and viable effort to force transfer of federal public lands to states and then inevitably to billionaires and developers.

Irrespective of political affiliation, I believe we need to share broadly, communicate the threat, contact Daines/Sheehy/Zinke/local representatives, attend rallies. Resist.

Federal public land in the west is one of the few assets in which you and the billionaires have an equivalent stake, it's all of ours, and I personally think we need to defend our ownership of these lands like our lives depend on it.

I'm in Utah. Considering the SC refused to hear their case of trying to sue the feds for public land, how does this bill support Utah?

I was hoping for a brief summary on this bill. Excuse my laziness!

It is concerning to me, especially so since Trump's announcement of the sovereign wealth fund. I think it's a good idea, but he wants it to be the biggest in the world, very quickly. Our public lands are considered (they consider it) to be part of the country's liquidable assets. Burgum.... I wouldn't be surprised if he's up for selling it to the highest bidder or transferring to states. My wife told me selling 20% of it would fully fund it. Not sure how she got that number. There's been some other comments made by various people in the admin that allude to potentially selling pieces of it, but I don't think anyone has explicitly stated it. Opening it all up to mineral, resource, and energy extraction is one thing.... Transferring or selling would be a huuuuge deal.

So, I think it's a good idea to keep an extra watchful eye on everything to do with our public lands now.

 

[Ozarkansas]

I'm in Utah. Considering the SC refused to hear their case of trying to sue the feds for public land, how does this bill support Utah?

I was hoping for a brief summary on this bill. Excuse my laziness!

It is concerning to me, especially so since Trump's announcement of the sovereign wealth fund. I think it's a good idea, but he wants it to be the biggest in the world, very quickly. Our public lands are considered (they consider it) to be part of the country's liquidable assets. Burgum.... I wouldn't be surprised if he's up for selling it to the highest bidder or transferring to states. My wife told me selling 20% of it would fully fund it. Not sure how she got that number. There's been some other comments made by various people in the admin that allude to potentially selling pieces of it, but I don't think anyone has explicitly stated it. Opening it all up to mineral, resource, and energy extraction is one thing.... Transferring or selling would be a huuuuge deal.

So, I think it's a good idea to keep an extra watchful eye on everything to do with our public lands now.

The SC essentially refused Utah’s request to jump all the subordinate courts and go directly to the SC, that doesn’t mean that Utah can’t eventually work that case back up to the SC the normal way

 

[Gila]

I doubt they will be successful because a state cannot invoke eminent domain on federal lands. Utah tried that once before and SCOTUS came back and established Supremacy. However the Feds can invoke eminent domain on state lands, paying market value of course. UTAH POWER & LIGHT CO. v. UNITED STATES.

President Trump has declared a National Energy Emergency by executive order:

Declaring a National Energy Emergency

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the National Emergencies Act (50

www.whitehouse.gov

This Energy Emergency executive order gives the President authority to extract and produce energy on any federal lands, state lands and private lands, circumventing any regulatory bodies in the process. By Treaty, the Tribes are not affected by eminent domain. William Pendley suggests re-instating the tribal lands buyback program with funds from the GAOA. Trump 45 EO 3388 makes this possible.

This Energy Emergency also places priority on energy production over any other public use including wildlife management. Sec of the Interior - Doug Bergum has a Secretary Order that props up the President’s EO. My own take is that I seriously doubt that this Administration will let any federal land go that is worthy of producing energy. But then who knows! If the Administration runs into any “road blocks” in other states he could cut a deal with Utah if he thinks it is cost effective to reach his target…You know how President Trump likes to cut deals!

 

[gbflyer]

I am surrounded by a giant, worthless National Park that you cannot see as a visitor unless you are on a cruise. I would turn cartwheels if it were transferred to the state of Alaska so everyone could see it without permits or riding on a buffet barge. I would not be happy if it were private. Public should stay public, state is public.

I guess we all have our reasons.

 

[BigDuckHunter]

I'm not sure if your question is genuine; do you think politicians, who are bought and sold like binoculars on the rokslide classifieds, always make their intentions explicit in legislation? Have you looked into the beliefs of Mike Lee R-UT with whom recent manifestations of this "movement" originated?

Yes my question was genuine. I haven’t seen any indication that states are going to take public lands just so they can sell them to billionaires.

Outside of the few billionaires that would benefit, that would be an incredibly unpopular thing to do, essentially guaranteeing that the politician responsible would be a lame duck.

I think everyone on here wants to keep public lands public. But fear-mongering with unproven theories doesn’t really help us decide how best to protect them. I’m open to the idea that states would manage lands better than the feds. There are definitely plenty of places I’ve been that the feds do a piss-poor job managing.

I’m not trying to fight. I think the best way for us to protect our public lands is by working together. But we also have to speak facts. If we just throw opinions around we will never be able to work together on these things and then we definitely will lose to the billionaires.

 

[Mbogage]

You need to listen to the fresh tracks podcast on state land. It is a 5 part series and I think gives a ton of great info to help explain the issue.

 

[gbflyer]

You need to listen to the fresh tracks podcast on state land. It is a 5 part series and I think gives a ton of great info to help explain the issue.

What state is Mr Newberg referring to?

 

[Mbogage]

He is talking about state land in general, with a focus on the west.

 

[Mbogage]

And talking about state land boards.

 

[WaWox]

Most state constitutions enforce some combination of provisions that would force states to sell most if not all of the federal lands received in a move like this.

- balanced budget requirements
- state lands have to be managed to generate profit
- state lands need to have their proceeds appropriated for specific uses


So eg Wyoming would have to sell all public lands received because of 1+2 in their constitution. A loss making piece of land would immediately be sold, profitable lands likely donw the line when someone challenges them on whether they are getting maximum revenue.


I believe most states have similar rules. When I talked to people in Utah who have hunted and guided there all their lives when the original lawsuit started, they were terrified. They said 100% certain that they would lose access.

 

[Coldtrail]

In the spirit of healthy discussion i will throw out these points as a starting point, I mean these constructive and in no way to throw a match into the dumpster, I am legitimately curious as to how we as a group can overcome these obstacles as they are a big deal.

1. I say that if you are a user of any federal public land, and more importantly rely on it for your outdoor pursuits, that we are behind the curve already on this, the public lands have been on decline for many years, I'm sure there is an end game to all this. I think that ALL parties that hunt, fish, camp, etc on public land need to step up and make a united stand that at the very least they should have a voice at the table on a more united front.
2. The problem with trying to implement #1 is that even within the ranks of our user group you are going to have individuals, big groups and big names that though rely on outdoors users money, they are simply are not going to put their head above the wall to show any disagreement even if directly affected.
3. Sadly, at the moment you can ring up politicians all you want....they won't disagree with any actions taken by the current administration, or simply have no power and Congress is simply occupying chairs at this point.
4. Most rank and file hunters confuse gun rights as public land and hunting support & vote accordingly, truth is hunting dollars are nothing compared to energy and development dollars. The "hunting" done by your wealthy elite is in no way shape or form close to the discussions on this forum and to think they understand what most of us live to do and how we manipulate finances to do it is simply not accurate of reality.
5. We live in an age of misinformation and propaganda so whatever gets posted here to attempt generate any support fact or fiction will likely get fact checked by 50% of those who read it using who knows what as a source who will then provide some factual or completely false info to argue try to motivate people to decide one direction or the other and then the argument starts because one side isn't buying it shortly followed by locking down of a forum.

Rokslide and rightly so, limits political banter, so how does one unite to confront political issues under those guidelines that can greatly affect us as a group? Maybe these issues become nothing more than a rokslide poll, no comments allowed? Just this is where we stand, nothing more, get other similar groups to conduct a similar poll and generate numbers on that to be used while making these decisions? At least if things didn't go the way of the hunter it would be easy to say we tried, and also know clearly where we stand with each party. Quite honestly it would be a good gauge of where we stand as a group, if you don't like where the numbers are among this group you leave and join a group more aligned with your priorities, it would keep the arguing under control. I'm sure there are ways to unite without the BS, somebody must have some ideas.

In the spirit of sparking healthy conversation and to minimize arguing this will be my one and only post to this thread

 

[BigDuckHunter]

Most state constitutions enforce some combination of provisions that would force states to sell most if not all of the federal lands received in a move like this.

- balanced budget requirements
- state lands have to be managed to generate profit
- state lands need to have their proceeds appropriated for specific uses


So eg Wyoming would have to sell all public lands received because of 1+2 in their constitution. A loss making piece of land would immediately be sold, profitable lands likely donw the line when someone challenges them on whether they are getting maximum revenue.


I believe most states have similar rules. When I talked to people in Utah who have hunted and guided there all their lives when the original lawsuit started, they were terrified. They said 100% certain that they would lose access.

Wow I had no idea this was the case. Could you post some links to these rules? Not that I don’t trust you. I’d just like to read up on them myself so I’m more informed and I haven’t been able to find them from the searching I’ve been doing.

If what you say is true, then it seems that the federal government retaining ownership is the only option to keep them public, as bad as they are at managing them.