Public land fire sale

[Nemont]

Okay, so it's an April Fool's joke.

But this isn't:

http://budget.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fy15_blueprint.pdf

That's Paul Ryan's new budget. It eliminates the ability of the Fed to purchase new land, and only allows for the sale of public land. There's some I agree with, but a lot that's bad for America and really, really good for the Oil & Gas cartels looking to turn the U.S. into an energy colony.

Enjoy it.

Ben,

While I understand we have to be ever aware of what is happening in DC but Ryan's budget isn't going anywhere fast and to say that there is a sale of public lands in inaccurate. After the budget gets through the committee, gets to the floor, amended and transmitted to the senate, which doesn't like passing budgets, it has to go through the process again and then back to conference where the pork is added and increased, the horse trading happens and then onto passage and to the presidents desk for signature, it is highly doubtful that the final product looks like this document.

Nemont

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben,

While I understand we have to be ever aware of what is happening in DC but Ryan's budget isn't going anywhere fast and to say that there is a sale of public lands in inaccurate. After the budget gets through the committee, gets to the floor, amended and transmitted to the senate, which doesn't like passing budgets, it has to go through the process again and then back to conference where the pork is added and increased, the horse trading happens and then onto passage and to the presidents desk for signature, it is highly doubtful that the final product looks like this document.

Nemont

I didn't say that it mandates a sale of public lands, I only said that it allows for the sale while disallowing the purchase of any new land (it would make purchases like RMEF's Red Hill impossible due to the fed not being able to purchase any land).

Truth be told, I posted the AF joke before I had even read the budget. I saw it on BHA's facebook feed and thought it would be funny. I'm not trying to tie the two together as they relate to sale of public land, apologies if it came across that way.

YOu are correct in your assesment of this budget. It's a political animal geared to show Ryan as a moderate when the TEA Party comes out against him for the macro-economics stuff that relies on savings from ACA, and when the left comes out against him for wanting to end rural air service and ag & food stamp subsidies. It does represent a few things though: Most notably the ability of Paul Ryan to learn from past mistakes. HIs work with Senator Murray of WA to pass a budget last year seems to be a real eye opener for him. At least in terms of being a better politician.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It eliminates the ability of the Fed to purchase new land, and only allows for the sale of public land.

The point isn't the likelihood of passage or the process. It's the idea, the proposal for essentially reducing the amount of public land. It's the potential for it to be proposed time and again, until getting traction. For most of us it's the shortsightedness of raising one-time revenues by disposing of forever-gone public lands, regardless of their current productivity, recreational value, or wildlife habitat value.

 

[Ben Lamb]

The point isn't the likelihood of passage or the process. It's the idea, the proposal for essentially reducing the amount of public land. It's the potential for it to be proposed time and again, until getting traction. For most of us it's the shortsightedness of raising one-time revenues by disposing of forever-gone public lands, regardless of their current productivity, recreational value, or wildlife habitat value.

Or economic benefit to people who live near them.

MT's outdoor economy is worth over $5 billion. It blows O&G out of the water in terms of tax revenue.

 

[BuzzH]

Well said straight arrow.

The same thing happens at the State level...no net gain in State Lands is brought up nearly every year in the Wyoming Legislature these days.

The last 2 sessions have seen appropriations for committees to look at the transfer of public lands as well.

Many groups are ready to sell the farm to pay the bills...its not a far-fetched idea to some.

 

[bigskyblueman]

There are a number of Newt Gingrich acolytes still in Congress who will continue to propose this notion, as he did when elected Speaker of the House. The concept of publicly owned land does not fit with their vision of privatization. Nothing new .

 

[spook12]

The point isn't the likelihood of passage or the process. It's the idea, the proposal for essentially reducing the amount of public land. It's the potential for it to be proposed time and again, until getting traction. For most of us it's the shortsightedness of raising one-time revenues by disposing of forever-gone public lands, regardless of their current productivity, recreational value, or wildlife habitat value.

Truer words were never spoken.

We really shouldn't be surprised that the mentality of the private sector corporate raiders has found its way into the public sector.'' FIRE SALE '' it all, future be damned. Why roll up your sleeves and do anything productive when you can just sell it all, make a quick buck and move on?
Short sited,selfish pricks IMO.

 

[Dinkshooter]

Good thing I have connections and had my checkbook ready. Anyone thinks they are elk hunting on the Rio Grande National Forest this year, think again. Private Property.

 

[bigskyblueman]

As noted, the push by some in Congress to swindle us out of our lands, will never end. Perhaps , the President should look at designating large swaths of treasured National Forest and BLM lands as National Monuments with the stroke of a pen , under the Antiquities Act of 1906, and put these lands further out of reach of the scoundrels in Congress who would bilk the nation of its' heritage.

 

[1_pointer]

As noted, the push by some in Congress to swindle us out of our lands, will never end. Perhaps , the President should look at designating large swaths of treasured National Forest and BLM lands as National Monuments with the stroke of a pen , under the Antiquities Act of 1906, and put these lands further out of reach of the scoundrels in Congress who would bilk the nation of its' heritage.

I for one sure hope not. In some cases, that type of action can nearly save something to death...

 

[jlmatthew]

I for one sure hope not. In some cases, that type of action can nearly save something to death...

Thats the truth, all monuments do anymore is make hunting off limits

 

[bigskyblueman]

Hunting is not precluded by the Act . Referenced only as a last resort, as the sale of these lands is not out of the realm of possibility , somewhere down the road.

 

[1_pointer]

Thats the truth, all monuments do anymore is make hunting off limits

Wrong.

 

[Oak]

Thats the truth, all monuments do anymore is make hunting off limits

Can you give some examples of monuments created in the last 10 years that have made hunting off limits? I'm not aware of that.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I for one sure hope not. In some cases, that type of action can nearly save something to death...

I tend to agree. 20 years later, we're still fighting over Upper Missouri River Breaks NM.

The antiquities act was passed because Congress wouldn't take action to conserve the best of the best. The situation was eerily similar to today's broken political process. Unfortunately, Obama is no Roosevelt and I doubt he can carry the kind of support from the populace needed to make swaths of the Country Monuments, etc.

However, that should not preclude the use of the Antiquities Act where appropriate or necessary. Places like the Boulder-White Clouds have languished in Congress as a piece of legislation for a long time with strong bipartisan support. Same goes for places in NM.

The Antiquities Act is a powerful tool. And like most powerful tools, it's use is best warranted in limited & specific applications.

 

[jlmatthew]

Can you give some examples of monuments created in the last 10 years that have made hunting off limits? I'm not aware of that.

Stop it Oak

Yes you can hunt in some, but here we cant hunt Dinosaur,the Fossil Beds, or the Sand Dunes while it was a Natl Monument. Why is that? I'd just prefer that Federal Lands stay under BLM or USFS and not turned into National Monuments. The Antiquities Act gives too much power to the president IMO. I like multiple use, I believing in using (but not abusing) our public lands

 

[1_pointer]

I tend to agree. 20 years later, we're still fighting over Upper Missouri River Breaks NM.

The antiquities act was passed because Congress wouldn't take action to conserve the best of the best. The situation was eerily similar to today's broken political process. Unfortunately, Obama is no Roosevelt and I doubt he can carry the kind of support from the populace needed to make swaths of the Country Monuments, etc.

However, that should not preclude the use of the Antiquities Act where appropriate or necessary. Places like the Boulder-White Clouds have languished in Congress as a piece of legislation for a long time with strong bipartisan support. Same goes for places in NM.

The Antiquities Act is a powerful tool. And like most powerful tools, it's use is best warranted in limited & specific applications.

I agree, except for one point. From the couple of weeks I've spent in the Boulder-White Clouds I'm not sure a whole lot would be gained with further "protection". It can be a picturesque place...

 

[Ben Lamb]

I would disagree on what more protection would do for the Boulder-White Clouds, but I like that this thread provided an opportunity for you to post that fantastic photo again.

 

[Nemont]

1 pointer great pic.

I clicked on it and then found myself cruising through all of your album. Ran across this pic:




Just to kind of sidetrack the entire thread.

 

[smarandr]

Just to kind of sidetrack the entire thread.

I think the better term would be to "get the thread back on track." We went from April Fools levity to serious discussion on federal land policy.