The Kaibab Kid
Member
Sent in my opposition from the great state of Arizona
Good luck
Good luck
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ok, got it. Makes sense for the tribes, and for ND (sort of). The federal government, and by extension the 99.8% of the US population that does not live in ND, gets nothing in the deal.The state gives 37,000 acres of surface and 160k acres of minerals to the tribes. These state acres are predominantly in non-oil producing reservations (standing rock, spirit lake, sisseton, turtle mountains).
In return the BLM(instead of the tribe) gives the state federal surface acres and mineral acres in western ND, where the oil is.
The BLM serves as a sort of proxy, trading federal acres to the state on the tribes behalf. Because the tribe is getting something for nothing. They are literally giving up nothing in this deal. You and I, as federal public land owners are giving up federally managed acres of surface and mineral on their behalf.
The state gets to take surface acres and minerals that currently produce relatively little income(grazing only) and exchange them for oil producing acres in western ND. Where they will have grazing revenue and oil revenue.
Again, there are some components we dont take issue with. We have no issue with the tribes wanting to consolidate lands and minerals inside their reservation boundaries. We have no issue with the state wanting something in return for those acres. But why do you and I as public land owners and users have to give up something while the tribe gives up nothing?
Why not start with this and have the memo coming from BHA lay this all out? Why pull at the heartstrings of "omg they are taking our federal lands and we can't ever hunt there again"?The state gives 37,000 acres of surface and 160k acres of minerals to the tribes. These state acres are predominantly in non-oil producing reservations (standing rock, spirit lake, sisseton, turtle mountains).
In return the BLM(instead of the tribe) gives the state federal surface acres and mineral acres in western ND, where the oil is.
The BLM serves as a sort of proxy, trading federal acres to the state on the tribes behalf. Because the tribe is getting something for nothing. They are literally giving up nothing in this deal. You and I, as federal public land owners are giving up federally managed acres of surface and mineral on their behalf.
The state gets to take surface acres and minerals that currently produce relatively little income(grazing only) and exchange them for oil producing acres in western ND. Where they will have grazing revenue and oil revenue.
Again, there are some components we dont take issue with. We have no issue with the tribes wanting to consolidate lands and minerals inside their reservation boundaries. We have no issue with the state wanting something in return for those acres. But why do you and I as public land owners and users have to give up something while the tribe gives up nothing?
I know, right? I think the BHA oversimplified the issue.What not start with this and have the memo coming from BHA lay this all out? Why pull at the heartstrings of "omg they are taking our federal lands and we can't ever hunt there again"?
2.1 million acres of state land when nevada became a state - handpicked land that was the best in the state. Almost 2 million of it sold. Might be the worst example - but the process is hardly unique.Can you give me the statistics of how many state lands have been sold to private in the last 10 years? Last 25 years?
Also, What percentage of state lands are close to public use?
OK, so the ND congressional delegation want to rob federal resources for benefit themselves. Whoopde Frickin Do…won’t literally ever other legislator in DC tell them to kick rocks? The bill costs their constituents, i.e. 99.8% of Americans.
Right? Why are we worried about this? The ND congressional delegation can go after the moon next for all I care.
Because politics. If you vote for my pillaging of land in ND, I'll vote for you pillaging of federal land in AK.OK, so the ND congressional delegation want to rob federal resources for benefit themselves. Whoopde Frickin Do…won’t literally ever other legislator in DC tell them to kick rocks? The bill costs their constituents, i.e. 99.8% of Americans.
Right? Why are we worried about this? The ND congressional delegation can go after the moon next for all I care.
I emailed my 3 reps, thanks. I have spent lots of time on ND federal lands - I am loathe to see any of it lost.Because politics. If you vote for my pillaging of land in ND, I'll vote for you pillaging of federal land in AK.
Also, most constituents in other states don't care about a few thousand acres in ND, their congressmen can trade it away with little repercussion...unless enough of us make it clear that we DO care.
Representative Armstrong is currently ignoring any request to discuss this issue. We are working to keep it off the public lands package that will come later this year.Any update on this ??
This was on the news last night and it looks like it passed. https://www.kfyrtv.com/2024/12/26/b...cydzGttgDGVgkGCZEg_aem_m0RJhK7GRkOtaq_S7W687Q
I assume this still has to be approved and details worked out by the state.