Conrad to the Rescue

[BigHornRam]

Burns vows to nix sale of public lands
By PERRY BACKUS of the Missoulian



U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., says a proposal to sell federal lands to pay for reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools Act is “dead in the water.”

The Bush administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request to Congress calls for selling upward of 300,000 acres of federal land to help offset the cost of reauthorizing the legislation that helps stabilize county and school budgets in areas with large tracts of federal land.

The Forest Service has identified about 14,000 acres of “isolated tracts” in Montana that could be sold as part of the proposal.



Burns co-sponsored the original Secure Rural Schools Act legislation in 2000 and remains a “strong supporter.”

Last week, the senator's staff met with representatives of the Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and county governments. Following the meeting, Burns said he was no longer interested in including the Bush administration's proposal in “my Interior bill.”

Burns chairs the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee.

“We'll find a way to get this done without shortchanging Montanans' access to public lands,” said Burns. “Montanans are a common-sense bunch, and I appreciate the help of everyone who sat down with my staff and me this week and shared their thoughts.”

Burns spokesman Matt Mackowiak said the senator will push for reauthorization of the Secure Rural School Act through the Senate Energy Committee.

“As a former county commissioner, the senator understands, probably better than anyone, how this proposal could affect county government,” said Mackowiak. “He hears them loud and clear.”

Meanwhile, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., plans to host a public meeting on the Bush proposal in Missoula on Thursday at 10:30 a.m. The meeting place has been changed from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation to the Missoula Children's Theatre to accommodate more people.

Baucus has been critical of the proposal to sell federal lands to offset the cost of the Secure Rural Schools program. He does support extending the program.

Baucus spokesman Barrett Kaiser said his boss appreciates Burns' strong statement, “but it doesn't change the fact that the plan is still on the table - the administration isn't going to back up. There is a whole host of ways they could try to ram this padlock proposal through.”

“That's why Max is committed to staying vigilant and working together to kill this bad idea,” said Kaiser.

Tom France, an attorney for the National Wildlife Federation in Missoula, participated in last week's meeting with Burns' staff.

The Bush proposal has “perversely pitted” advocates for public lands against rural schools and county government, France said Monday.

“The last thing sportsmen want to do is oppose funding for rural schools and RACs,” said France. “We support a steady funding stream for rural schools and government and the continuation of RACs.”

The Secure Rural Schools Act allows counties to spend a portion of their federal allocation on public lands projects. Before those projects can begin, a committee made up of diverse interests has to sign off on them. The committees are called Resource Advisory Committees or RACs. Their creation was an effort to find consensus on polarized public lands issues.

The isolated tracts of Forest Service lands proposed for sale by the Bush administration have traditionally been used to help consolidate public and private lands through land exchanges, which should continue, said France.

“Certainly the president's ship has a lot of holes in it,” said France. “The number of senators and bipartisan support opposing the proposal gives me confidence that we'll be able to beat this one back.”

The Bush administration budget proposal also calls for selling $300 million a year of Bureau of Land Management property to help reduce the federal deficit.

“We don't believe it's a serious proposal considering the multitrillion-dollar deficit the country now faces,” said France. “It does have the potential to impact public access and the retention of public lands into the future.”

 

[BigHornRam]

Today's Opinion Piece Reguarding this Issue:

Public-land sale's out on the table - Tuesday, Feb. 21, 2006

SUMMARY: Accepted or rejected, the idea is worth discussing. But the money isn't something communities can count on.

President Bush is proposing to sell some 300,000 acres of national forest, thousands of them in Montana, to pay ongoing costs of a federal revenue-sharing program for rural counties. This is good and bad.

As a policy issue, the proposal contained in the Bush administration's 2007 budget recommendations promises to be useful. There is, about the country, a school of thought holding that the country would be best served by privatizing some if not all federal lands. The issue surfaces from time to time, only to be shouted down. We're about due for another round of debate on the concept, and the president's budget proposal has already set it in motion.

Sometimes forgotten in this country is that it once was national policy to privatize everything. The government used to give away land to anyone who'd take it and farm it. It gave huge expanses of lands to railroads as inducement to lay track. And it gave away land and treasure to anyone who would develop a mine.

Leftovers that no one wanted comprise much of the public domain today. The idea of retaining some lands in public ownership for common use and enjoyment is almost 100 years younger than the republic. For many of these lands, public ownership was little more than a byproduct of other events. Today, of course, many Americans greatly value the public-land legacy. Yet there's nothing that says nationally owned, managed and enjoyed forests are perpetual. Indeed, if they're to be retained in public ownership, that decision may need to be renewed from time to time.

There are plausible economic arguments for privatizing public lands. Private landowners driven by the profit motive are more likely to maximize the economic benefits derived from the land. Some private owners may also be more protective, better stewards than the government - think “Tragedy of the Commons.” The U.S. government also has things it's supposed to attend to, according to the Constitution, and managing timberlands, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities aren't specifically listed among them.

The president's budget proposal provides a perfect opportunity for privatization proponents to make those arguments anew. Will they prevail? Probably not. This sort of major reversal in public policy is the kind of thing that develops over time, rarely in a fell swoop. Still, even if Americans reject the proposal, the discussion will be constructive. One of the helpful ways to choose among many possible courses of action is to rule out the ones you know you don't want to take. So, let that discussion continue.

But the likelihood that the land-sale proposal won't fly through Congress this year makes the way it was included in the budget a problem. The White House proposal calls for selling the lands to generate money to sustain annual revenue-sharing programs for rural counties and schools.

It's bad budgeting to promise rural communities money that isn't likely to materialize. More than likely, the outcome will simply be to ratchet up deficit spending. But for a time the uncertainty will ripple across small communities throughout the West.

But even if the land-sale idea flies, it's a bad idea to convert real estate to cash to help pay short-term operating expenses. It's akin to tearing down the house for fuel to heat it. If we were to sell federal lands in America, wouldn't we want the proceeds to go for something that lasts beyond the next fiscal year? What would Congress and the administration do once the proceeds were spent? Sell more land? And more? What happens when it's all gone?

The country's already embarked on a debate about selling or retaining national forest lands. We're up for that. But proponents of privatization would strengthen their case by offering benefits of tangible and long-lasting value in return. Meanwhile, advocates of federal funding for counties and schools near national forests will do well to give some thoughts to alternative funding possibilities. A decision to reject the White House proposal might come quickly, but a decision to sell large expanses of what many Americans consider part of their birthright is something more likely to be made at a glacial pace.

 

[BuzzH]

I often wonder just what Bush is thinking when he makes ridiculous proposals like this?

Does he really believe they'll pass? Only a small fragment of the American population, mainly the portion with the mental capacity of a cabbage, think its a good idea to peddle public lands.

You know its a bad idea when one of Bush's and Abramoffs lap-dogs (Conrad Burns) is against it.

Good ol' Conrad may as well start doing whats right now...he isnt long for his job.

 

[TheTone]

Buzz, I've kinda formed an opinion as to why Bush might be looking at selling public lands, whether there is any merit to it I have no idea. He is from Texas where public land is rare and wildlife is heavily privitized, it might just be a matter of not knowing how much the people out here value our lands. He probably looks at the Texas system and thinks it works fine, why not export it to the rest of the country. I realize as president he should be more in touch with the american people but on wildlfie and land issues he isn't. Another example is one of my professors in college had spent most all of his life in the east or south. He ahd a habit of always taking field trips to state parks, maintained areas, etc. He didn't really realize that on public land you could basically just go anywhere you wanted, didn't ahve to check in with someone, etc. We finally got him convinced of that and got some better trips out of it.

 

[Nemont]

Tone,
I agree that GW doesn't understand public lands because of his Texas roots but Cheney is from Wyoming. Cheney was sent to the house by Wyoming voters he knows the how people feel about public lands. Sadly the Billion this sale would have raised is only about an hour of spending in Washington. A meaningless amount of money in the big scheme of things.

I think Conrad is in big trouble and his Senate career may be over for good come November. I have sent some pointed letters to both him and Rehberg regarding this and other stupidity coming out of Washington.

Nemont

 

[BuzzH]

Nemont,

Good point on Cheney, he should know better. I've also been on a letter writing campaign...Ms. Cubin has received some comments lately. Good job on getting involved, thats the only way we can assure we're represented correctly.

I also agree that Bush forms his opinions based on Texas, but is that really a good excuse?

The President is supposed to understand the people he represents, maybe that's a good indication of why his approval rating is 30%.

I've read threads on this subject on other hunting boards, Bush is doing a good job of pushing people away from his party. Even his core Republican followers are starting to doubt his methods.

Public lands, environmental, and wildlife issues are VERY important and becoming more important all the time.

I really like seeing Bush make these absurd proposals, keeps that approval rating right where it belongs.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Don't blame Dubya for this stupid idea. It was idiots like Burns and Craig (R-Idaho) that sponsored the original legislation. For people like the two stupid Senators to have to now come out against the implementation of their legislation when they realize how politically stupid it is by saying they "remain committed" to the orignal legislation smacks of arrogance.

This is all part of the Halliburton/Cheney/Sage Brush Rebellion group that wants to drill, develop, and destroy public lands across the country.

 

[BuzzH]

Jose,

That may be very true...but if Bush cant rein in his boys...then he's even MORE to blame.

The captain goes down with the ship.

 

[Nemont]

Conrad's office responded to my first letter with a form letter thanking me for my past support and outlining the good work Conrad is doing for Eastern Montana by getting the Road from Alzada to Ekalaka paved.

I sent the letter back with a brief lesson on the geography of Eastern Montana and the fact that Alzada and Glasgow are 300 miles apart. I explained in greater detail the idiocy of selling public lands and the fact that I would no longer support any candidate who proposed to do so. I recieved back a hand written letter from his campaign manager assuring me Conrad was working to ensure no public lands would be sold and thanking me for taking time to write.

I am still pretty certain that they don't get the public lands issue and hunting access.

Nemont

 

[noharleyyet]

Stupid idea...on par with the UAE operating ports.

 

[cjcj]

Think we will ever have a President and Congress that look to "preserve" the future of Americans?