More selling of public lands - Sorry

[Big Fin]

I am sure we have all tired of the topic of selling public lands. But, it seems the polticians have not tired of proposing such. And, given its importance to this audience, and hunters in general, I will continue to bring up the issue when it becomes part of the political discussion.

As part of my CPA reading, I get to read all the tax bills, all the budget proposal, etc. to see what is coming down the road for my tax clients. Last night I was reading the new House budget plan being presented by Representative Paul Ryan.

Kind of vague of what lands and how they will be determined "unneeded'" but I suspect hunting access will not fall into one of the "needed" categories. Here, on page 33 of the document, is this plank in the platform being presented:

Sales of Unneeded Federal Assets: In the last year alone, Republicans put forth proposals to sell unneeded federal property. Representative Jason Chaffetz has proposed to sell millions of acres of unneeded federal land. Likewise, Representative Jeff Denham’s bill to authorize the sale of billions of dollars worth of federal assets would save the government money, collect corresponding revenue, and remove economic distortions by reducing public ownership. Such sales could also potentially be encouraged by reducing appropriations to various agencies. If done correctly, taxpayers could recoup billions of dollars from selling unused government property.

If you want to read the entire "Ryan Proposal" here is the link.

http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Pathtoprosperity2013.pdf

 

[RockyDog]

wow! i dont understand how any western hunter can be a blind republican follower.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

I found this article about Chaffetz. Just more info. John
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53757277-90/bill-buildings-chaffetz-clears.html.csp

 

[BiggWimm]

Man this guy really pisses me off. Not only is he a big cry baby about airport security, threw a fit about having to go through a scanner, but he has turned into an egotistical nightmare. This land sale thing chafes my a$$. I have been watching it since he proposed it last year. Chaffetz is from Utah and in his proposal it includes only 132,931 acres in Utah. That means that most of the land will come from the other 9 western states. How do you like someone from another states telling you that you are selling your land? By the way, the total acreage is 3.3 million acres in 10 states.

From a recent article- "public lands managed by the Interior Department stimulated $363 billion in economic activity in 2010." Granted the feds manage about 650 million acres, but still, depending on where these 3.3 million acres are, that could be some serious money down the drain. I believe that Chaffetz expects to make $16 million off the sale of the land in Utah alone (Salt Lake Tribune). That means that he is talking about a little over $120 an acre in Utah. Weird.

The best part of all this is that Chaffetz is basing his ideas on an outdated report from the Clinton administration in 1997. 1997? One would think that Chaffetz might have the ability to support a little more research before such a proposal. Hell, I still have yet to find a good map of the lands that he is proposing. I know that most the land is in southern Utah. I really hate these city politicians that don't understand and love the wilderness, and because it doesn't suit him no one needs it. Wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't trying to sell the land to the LDS church.

I really hate this state sometimes...

 

[shoots-straight]

From the Salt Lake Tribune:

OMB has identified a handful of excess properties in Utah, some that will get demolished and others, including a few vacant homes on Forest Service land that will be sold.
After expenses and a small cut to help the homeless, most of the money recovered will go against the nation’s debt.

Those Utards are all over this. They haven't got a clue, of what they really are talking about. Selling of FS facilities on NF lands. Some could be deep in wilderness areas. Not good.

 

[Oak]

It is an epidemic. We like to scoff at the idea, but with the debt so ridiculously out of control, I wouldn't put anything past the monkeys in Washington.

Colorado, too:

Lawmaker aims to privatize Colorado lands
12:05 AM, Jan. 24, 2012 |

Written by
Bobby Magill

A Northern Colorado lawmaker has a message for the federal government: Get your hands off our fourteeners.

Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg, R-Sterling, said Monday he plans to sponsor a bill that will require the state to wrest control of most of Colorado's fourteeners and more than 23 million acres of federal public land across the state, including most of Roosevelt National Forest west of Fort Collins and most of Colorado's BLM and U.S. Forest Service land. The state would either sell the land off to private individuals or manage it itself.

He said he envisions the bill excluding all national parks and monuments, including those on BLM land.

"When is enough enough for the amount of land that the state owns or the federal government owns?" he said, adding that the federal government hasn't been taking care of the land.

"Quite frankly, they allow noxious weeds, they don't manage the land the way they need to be managing it," he said, citing restrictions on timber harvesting in national forests.

Sonnenberg, who said he is working on the bill with Sen. Scott Renfroe, R-Greeley, and Sen. Mark Scheffel, R-Parker, is following the lead of Republican Utah state Rep. Ken Ivory, who is proposing legislation in that state to use a provision in Utah's enabling act to attempt to force the federal government to cede control of millions acres of federal land there, excluding national parks.

Utah's enabling act designates the federal government as a "trustee" of federal land in Utah. Ivory proposes for the state to reclaim public land from its Washington, D.C., caretakers, giving the government a Dec. 31, 2014, deadline to hand over public land to the state, the Logan, Utah, Herald Journal reported Jan. 14.

Colorado's enabling act, passed by Congress in 1875, stipulates that Coloradans "forever disclaim all right and title" to unappropriated public lands lying within the former Colorado Territory.

The Herald Journal reported that Ivory is working with lawmakers in five other Western states to force the federal government out of the land management business there. Sonnenberg confirmed he is the Colorado lawmaker Ivory is working with here.

The bill would face enormous opposition in Colorado.

"My expectation would be that dog won't hunt in Colorado," said Michael Chiropolos, public lands program director for Western Resource Advocates in Boulder. "Federal lands have served Colorado well and federal lands and half decent management of federal lands is why a lot of us live here, it's what lures a lot of us out to the mountains. I don't see what's broke on the fed side that needs fixing by a state that has a lot more urgent challenges."
Sonnenberg said some "legalities" need to be worked out before the bill is submitted in the House because it's not clear how Colorado's enabling act could force the federal government to hand over its land.

"What I can do is point you to Hawaii, which looked at the same agreement and challenged the federal government, and with a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, was found that's exactly right - that those federal lands were supposed to be ceded to the state."

When Hawaii became a state, the U.S. government ceded to the state 1.8 million acres of land previously owned by the Hawaiian Kingdom and given to the federal government when the islands were annexed by the United States.

Sonnenberg said he believes Colorado's national forests would be in better hands if they were managed by the state or private individuals, and the sale of public lands could benefit schools and boost county property tax revenues.

"By many, they'll receive (this proposed bill) as a way to add money to the coffers for either education or other programs," he said.

He said he's not sure if he wants to see Colorado's fourteeners privatized, but they could end up being managed by the state.

Despite Colorado's large constituency of public lands users and advocates, Sonnenberg said he believes his bill will be successful in the Legislature this year, though he imagines the state would have to fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure its hold on the property.

"It is not a partisan issue," he said. "Democrats and Republicans are fed up with the way the federal government takes care of things. They have more land than they know what to do with, and they don't take care of it."

Jerry Sonnenberg is a landowner/farmer who rarely has the sportsman's best interest at heart. He chairs the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee, which unfortunately puts him in a powerful position to heavy-hand Colorado Parks and Wildlife. He has always been a vocal critic of how the CDOW/CPW operates, and has tried at every chance to increase legislative control of the department.

He is sponsoring the current bill to develop the new makeup of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, now that the two entities have been merged. His bill breaks down the 11 voting positions as follows: landowners 3 seats, outfitters 1 seat, sportsmen 3 seats, recreationalists 3 seats (including one with a background in motorized recreation), and non-consumptive non-profits 1 seat. Obviously he is trying to stack the deck in the favor of private interests, giving landowners/outfitters 4 of the 11 spots.

Last year Sonnenberg created the Citizen's Wildlife Advisory Council. This group in theory represents the diverse wildlife interests in the state, and works with the legislature on issues pertaining to wildlife. Funny thing is, all of the members were hand-picked by Sonnenberg, and is heavily weighted towards landowners, outfitters and other private interests. They never solicit public input, any yet supposedly represent our interests as sportsmen.

Although I can't find a current list of members for CWAC (there is ZERO transparency), the original list included 4 hunters/anglers (two who are Sonnenberg lapdogs and one that invited Don Peay to organize a Colorado chapter of SFW), 4 private landowners (including representatives of Colorado Cattlemen's Assn, Colorado Farm Bureau, and Colorado Farmer's Union), two outfitters (who are both also landowners), 2 retail sportsmen, 2 motorized recreation, 2 energy industry, and a handful of other interests.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see where things are headed. Sonnenberg wants private ownership of public lands, wants the wildlife commission stacked with landowner and other private interests, is in bed with SFW founders, and wants to reduce the ability of CPW to control management in the state. I don't understand how any sportsman could vote for this guy.

 

[Big Fin]

BiggWimm - Gee,how do you really feel about that guy and those/his ideas?

 

[Big Fin]

Chisakes, Oak, that is amazing, but not surprising. That is great info. for the CO guys to know. Thanks for posting.

I know hunters hate being involved in politics, but politicians love being involved in our matters. I am not sure what it is going to take to get people to take note and realize that what is underway at the this time is a complete dismantling of 100 years of conservation history and involvement of the public hunter.

If you think that is hyperbole, go read all the stuff that is out there, only a very small portion of which is being shown on these threads.

While some say the politicians are coming after our guns, this NRA life member sees a hell of lot more attempts to take our land and the places we have worked so hard to protect and keep open for the hunting and recreating public.

 

[BiggWimm]

BiggWimm - Gee,how do you really feel about that guy and those/his ideas?

Did I make it that clear where my goat is tied?

 

[Ben Lamb]

What's equally strange is that the NRA will support selling public lands, reducing elk habitat security and eliminating the North American Model, right next to SFW.

Pretty danged sad. We have to fight the anti's, the fed, our state legislatures, and now, our "own."

Driving back from Choteau last night, I wondered how many of these ideas will be coming forward in the next legislative cycle. I've heard from folks within the Republican party that they've been working with SFW on wolf issues and others during the interim.

If you think last session was bad, wait until SFW gets their agenda rolling here.

It's part of the larger, systemic, dismantling of our rights to hunt and fish. Eliminate the habitat, and you eliminate the wildlife. I sometimes wonder if that wasn't the goal of those who tried to kill Simpson/Tester.

 

[jlmatthew]

wow! i dont understand how any western hunter can be a blind republican follower.

Its getting harder, but then I dont think I can follow any Democrats

 

[JoseCuervo]

Its getting harder, but then I dont think I can follow any Democrats

It really gets easier, especially if you have a mom, wife, or a daughter.....

From this week's GOP dominated Idaho Legislature...

“Rape and incest was used as a reason to oppose this. I would hope that when a woman goes into a physician, with a rape issue, that that physician will indeed ask her about perhaps her marriage, was this pregnancy caused by normal relations in a marriage, or was it truly caused by a rape,” said Senator Chuck Winder. “I assume that’s part of the counseling that goes on.”

Yeah, because there a lot of women who don't know the difference between marriage and rape.

 

[BiggWimm]

It really gets easier, especially if you have a mom, wife, or a daughter.....

+1 well played!

 

[fowladdict]

wow! i dont understand how any western hunter can be a blind republican follower.

How can any western hunter be a blind democrat follower? In California the liberals have taken away the right for hunters to manage mountain lions. (just one example) Not everything has been peachy from that side either.

 

[the nikster]

It really gets easier, especially if you have a mom, wife, or a daughter.....

...or your hand out

 

[Big Fin]

I advocate that we should not be BLIND followers of either party. We are already being lead by the blind on both sides. Let's not be blind followers of the blind leaders.

Where are my glasses? I think this stuff is making me blind.

 

[JoseCuervo]

...or your hand out

Do you have a mom, a wife, or a daughter?

Do you think any of them are smart enough to know the difference between consensual sex in a marriage and a rape?

 

[WV Hunter]

Do you have a mom, a wife, or a daughter?

Do you think any of them are smart enough to know the difference between consensual sex in a marriage and a rape?

Your stupid post made my banana quit dancing,

See, thanks

 

[JoseCuervo]

Your stupid post made my banana quit dancing,

See, thanks

It just amazes me that people think of Democrats and "hand outs" when, in Idaho, it is the GOP legislators that are providing handouts, tax breaks, and similar to the Welfare Ranchers who use and damage My Public Lands.

In any event, sorry to hijack the thread to the lunacy that is the current GOP in Idaho, we can get back to the lunacy that is the current GOP in ALL 50 states.....

 

[WI avidhunter]

Below is an e-mail I sent to my congresman about this issue. This really makes me mad.

Congressman Ribble,
Typically I vote republican but it is becoming more difficult for me support the Republican Party. I am extremely concerned about some information I have learned about Congressman Ryan’s budget proposal. On an ideological level I agree with the intent of the proposal. However, I am unable to support any idea that it is ok to sell off federal lands such as national forest. Selling off National Forest would negatively affect the way of life of millions of Americans and it is short sighted.
There are a few issues I am unwavering on which would cause me to not vote for a canditate no matter how much I agreed with them on all other issues.
I will vote against anyone who supports the selling of National Forest and National Parks.
I will vote against anyone who infringes on my constitutional rights, which includes the 2nd amendment.
I will vote against anyone who attacks my right to hunt and fish.

Thank you for service and I look forward to your response.