119th house rules - transferring federal land

[SAJ-99]

Yes they absolutely do.

This thread is troubling. If the arguments against this rely upon the intellectual dishonesty and multiple logical fallacies thrown against the wall here, public land supporters are screwed.

Please point out the intellectual dishonesty or logical fallacies. It seems the disagreement is about the number of acres and that has changed in the Utah lawsuit.

The thread is troubling because some people want to ignore what is happening or pretend it will all work out in the end. I guess it allows them to stay out of the fight.

 

[Treeshark]

Please point out the intellectual dishonesty or logical fallacies.

Three quick ones to illustrate my point:

1. Claiming this somehow threatens the existence of national parks.

2. Claiming this is ever going to involve the privatization of 600+ million acres.

3. Claiming that Wisconsin has sold off all but 80k acres of public land, implying it is no longer public.

 

[44hunter45]

Please point out the intellectual dishonesty or logical fallacies. It seems the disagreement is about the number of acres and that has changed in the Utah lawsuit.

The thread is troubling because some people want to ignore what is happening or pretend it will all work out in the end. I guess it allows them to stay out of the fight.

If you really want a gut punch, go see the Facebook traffic on this. The MAGA (Don't give me shit for saying it, I voted anti-Kamala) tribe is beating down all discussion with quotes from the WPP playbook.

 

[BuzzH]

Three quick ones to illustrate my point:

1. Claiming this somehow threatens the existence of national parks.

2. Claiming this is ever going to involve the privatization of 600+ million acres.

3. Claiming that Wisconsin has sold off all but 80k acres of public land, implying it is no longer public.

Your number 3 is absolutely true. WI hunters had to buy back their own state lands, hell of a deal, unless you think about it.

Almost as good of a deal as Colorado DOW having to lease state lands for public hunting.

Numbers 1 and 2, intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Aside from the legislative push nationally to ease the process of PLT, what terrifies me is that we have wholeheartedly endorsed this political ideology as etched in the prevailing party platforms at national and state level to support PLT.
Sure, likely Yosemite NP won't be sold next summer for the vast hydroelectric potential ... but the movement sets the stage and potentially evolves over time to allow that to happen. Those who deny sordid history are doomed to repeat the terrible decisions time and again.

 

[TOGIE]

Three quick ones to illustrate my point:

1. Claiming this somehow threatens the existence of national parks.

2. Claiming this is ever going to involve the privatization of 600+ million acres.

3. Claiming that Wisconsin has sold off all but 80k acres of public land, implying it is no longer public.

you need to be able to claim it won't ever involve national parks

you need to be able to claim that it won't involve all 600+ million acres

i'm not gonna call out wisconsites on fallacies cause i don't know shit about the 80k acres. so, i won't.


national parks are probably less threatened than anytihng, but you can't sit here and say they won't be threatened in the long term.

PLT threatens every acre. it just does. My state land board is supposed to make money, not spend billions managing 24 million acres of land by defending it from fires and keeping trespassers from devaluing it. If it doesn't have oil under it or can demand prime leasing rates for ag or cattle it's gone - and leased or not it's all considered private property, available only to the lessee if anyone.

So, i'm sure you could kiss most of it goodbye in colorado. Your MO is always to call out fallacies without ever showing that they are, indeed, fallacies.

The end game could be very scary here. It's tugging on the thread of the 'ol knit sweater. It's fair to point out how badly things could go.

 

[Treeshark]

Reductio ad absurdum and/or slippery slope fallacy.

 

[TOGIE]

Reductio ad absurdum and/or slippery slope fallacy.

it's only a fallacy if it is.

you haven't shown it is.

and the slope is definitely slippery. it's like believing animal rights activists won't come for deer and elk hunting at some point - it's not believing they ever would is how they eventually get there.

 

[Treeshark]

Proving a negative fallacy.

I wish we had bingo cards for this one

 

[Irrelevant]

I've come to the conclusion there's a lot of "hunters" that live in denial about this issue.

Anyone that is so gullible to believe this movement is only about BLM lands, would also believe in the tooth fairy.

Anyone that believes the states would have anything close to a sustainable budget to even fight fire on their newly acquired lands, well, they believe in the Easter bunny. I won't mention other management costs the states also couldn't afford.

Also, anyone that believes it would stop with national parks if successful on the 560 million acres of PLT, simply has their head up their ass.

These people that want those lands want it all, and they wouldn't stop until they got them all.

Fact.

Fact. The 4 informed people on HT that have a differing opinion are a helluva lot less naive and gullible than the +50% of MT, WY, and ID that seem to want to dispose of these lands. Again, the idea of trying to convince a few WI-ites that your stance is the correct one is ludacris when the real push should be to get every single person in those rocky mountain states to get onboard with maintaining their subsidized access to federal public lands. Why don't ag producers in MT want to keep federal lands in federal hands? Why do republican almost categorically feel the same way?

I think you guys are chasing the wrong buggy man. It ain't Seeth and treeshark. It's your own friggin' neighbors, and apparently, damn near all of your elected representatives.

 

[BuzzH]

Fact. The 4 informed people on HT that have a differing opinion are a helluva lot less naive and gullible than the +50% of MT, WY, and ID that seem to want to dispose of these lands. Again, the idea of trying to convince a few WI-ites that your stance is the correct one is ludacris when the real push should be to get every single person in those rocky mountain states to get onboard with maintaining their subsidized access to federal public lands. Why don't ag producers in MT want to keep federal lands in federal hands? Why do republican almost categorically feel the same way?

I think you guys are chasing the wrong buggy man. It ain't Seeth and treeshark. It's your own friggin' neighbors, and apparently, damn near all of your elected representatives.

I would guess, just going out on the ragged hairy edge, more than 2 pro PLT clowns from WI read these threads.

I could be wrong, about the number of readers.

 

[seeth07]

If you are a rancher right now with 2k deeded acres and 6k leased BLM and National forest lands right now, you are opposed to the transfer correct? Assuming the state keeps the parcels, the state lease rates are typically higher correct? And I'm assuming the bulk of these ranchers wouldn't have the ability to buy those 6k leased acres correct?

 

[TOGIE]

Proving a negative fallacy.

I wish we had bingo cards for this one

you have to counter peoples points.

the end result of wholesale PLT would be very bad from a public lands and access perspective. basic balance sheets and history shows us that.

now, is the current push and the potential USSC case gonna be about wholesale transfer? no, not currently, technically.

but, it's not something to "give an inch on" if you ask me. because the end goal has been stated repeatedly throughout recent history by the same folks pushing the current issue.

why would anyone give an inch?

 

[TOGIE]

If you are a rancher right now with 2k deeded acres and 6k leased BLM and National forest lands right now, you are opposed to the transfer correct? Assuming the state keeps the parcels, the state lease rates are typically higher correct? And I'm assuming the bulk of these ranchers wouldn't have the ability to buy those 6k leased acres correct?

if they thought about it, maybe.

the masses tend to be more worried about the evil feds breaching their constitutional authority by holding land. their politicians told them so, duh.

if the masses voted based on logical economics and legal theory the world would like wildly different.

 

[BuzzH]

If you are a rancher right now with 2k deeded acres and 6k leased BLM and National forest lands right now, you are opposed to the transfer correct? Assuming the state keeps the parcels, the state lease rates are typically higher correct? And I'm assuming the bulk of these ranchers wouldn't have the ability to buy those 6k leased acres correct?

Not correct, big assumption, likely not unless you're a Kroenke, Turner, Gates, True, Gordy, Wilkes, etc.

Again, the top .1% want the remaining wealth. PLT is the means to the end.

 

[Treeshark]

the end result of wholesale PLT would be very bad from a public lands and access perspective. basic balance sheets and history shows us that.

now, is the current push and the potential USSC case gonna be about wholesale transfer? no.

I appreciate the dialogue, but this is yet another illustration of what I am referring to.

Working this hard to whip up fear and angst over a hypothetical that you acknowledge in the very next sentence is not reality does not serve the mission well IMO.

 

[Nameless Range]

Why don't ag producers in MT want to keep federal lands in federal hands? Why do republican almost categorically feel the same way?

Interestingly, I don't hear ag producers, nor their orgs, pushing for PLT. There's probably some, but I think most realize that the AUM rate on State Trust Land is a fair bit higher than it is on federal lands. Ranchers with federal grazing allotments have a sweet deal. I'm on a local working group with half a dozen ranchers/ag producers, and I never hear them calling for it. Also, years back when this issue raised its head, the Montana Wood Products Association, which is the largest voice on behalf of the state's timber industry - came out in opposition to PLT.

As to Republicans, I think most are well-meaning and see the various issues with public lands in terms of their management, and see the state lands, which by law must generate revenue and do so via mining, ag and grazing, and timber sales (all things many Republicans see as needed on USFS/BLM lands) and extrapolate that into a belief that the lands they love would be better managed under the state. There's also an undercurrent on the right, and I won't go into whether it is justified or not, that the Feds have their grubby paws into too much of our lives and that footprint should be reduced - thus PLT would be a win/win.

To say it again, most Republicans and/or PLT proponents aren't wanting a reduction in access, stake, or acres of land - they are well meaning. I just think they are being honeydicked.

 

[Straight Arrow]

And I'm assuming the bulk of these ranchers wouldn't have the ability to buy those 6k leased acres correct?

Good assumption. That's why the buyer is Goldcorp, who then subsequently sells the mountain to Cross Harbor Capital, and there is a new hot chocolate flavored ski resort like Moonlight Basin, Yellowstone Club, or you-name-it ... it happened!
The rancher's lease is then just a little ink blot of used-to-be western stock growing history.

 

[Treeshark]

I don’t think the true threat here is going to come from Western states/‘privateers’ wanting for ownership of these federal lands.

It more is likely to come from coastal states, including TX, wanting to get rid of some it ($).

 

[TOGIE]

I appreciate the dialogue, but this is yet another illustration of what I am referring to.

Working this hard to whip up fear and angst over a hypothetical that you acknowledge in the very next sentence is not reality does not serve the mission well IMO.

but the folks who want wholesale PLT still want it. that's not hypothetical.

those same folks are pushing a very big and, yes, narrowed, issue to the USSC. but why would anyone assume the large scale end goal, what has been the party plank of the republican party for years, what has been the stated belief/goal by many republican senators, congressmen/women, and governors for many years has changed? just because they're currently engaged in specific angle of attack doesn't mean we say "well it's not technically wholesale transfer or sale so this isn't a big deal"



the CATs folks say/said that ALL they're worried about is protecting cats and ensuring fair chase. very foolhardy to believe that IMO.

foolhardy to believe that those pushing the current issue to the USSC don't want more. a lot, lot, lot lot more...