Selling Public LandHR 621 and 622: Do We All Agree that Jason Chaffetz is a Coward?

[JoseCuervo]

Randy, it sure would be nice if someone could put out a list of who is for and who is against. Many of us have asked to see it. If it exists, I haven't seen it. You would think BHA, TRCP, or someone would have a list or rating system to know who we were fighting against. And it would be a way to hold them accountable. I wish we didn't have to wait on an actual transfer or sale vote to know.

Two answers to this question:

• There will be a list, in this thread. I will keep compiling it. (Until Fin locks the thread....)
  
  
• It does not matter. YOU need to call YOUR rep, every damn week!!! Seriously.
  
  Call your rep every week. If you don't know his/her position, tell them YOUR position, and ask that pass along your position and get back to you with the Congressman's position. If it turns out your Congressman is against this bad idea. Tell them "thanks", and keep calling. Let your Congressman know he is doing the right thing. Positive reinforcement.
  
  If your Rep supports Jason Chaffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, then you need to call weekly and let the staffers know your position. Their phones need to ring. If you are bored some day, and his local district office is nearby. Drop in. Talk to his staffers. Let them know you are a real person, not some organized "group", but just the local poorly dressed hunter. Your first visit may be intimidating, but, remember, THEY work for you. Walk in like you are the BOSS.
  

Once you determine your rep's stance, post it here, and we will keep the list updated.

 

[NoWiser]

Lewis is my rep as well. I doubt there is any changing his mind, but I'm going to do my damndest to try. He is going to be very sick of hearing from me very soon. My first call was his very first day, when he voted for the bill that would ease the sale of public lands. I didn't think I could be more sick of him than when he was on the radio. Turns out he proved me wrong less than a month into office.

 

[Irrelevant]

Did I say your points weren't true? No, I didn't. I affirmed they were true. Go back and read what I wrote.

Reality is, the anti-public land folks are in power right now. I have no choice but to fight from a weak position. Wishing they weren't in power solves nothing. If you want to express frustrations in a manner that weakens the cause, I guess that is what you'll do. I'll point out how that kind of lumping by absolute party lines weakens the cause.

I prefer if the anti-public land crowd was not elected in the first place, also. But right now, we don't have the luxury of sitting around and waiting until they lose their jobs. Our work is needed to make sure as many of them lose their jobs as possible. And to make sure we work with those on either side of the R/D line who can be helpful to protecting these lands.

Sorry to read of your resignation that the lands will be lost because Republicans haven't yet lost their jobs. I'm not inclined to adopt such a self-fulfilling attitude.

Tell me why would the national republican party ever change their stance on public land if they don't start losing their following, in life-long Rs don't change their minds? Being soft and subtle has lead us down the road we're on now. Banking on the idea that not EVERY R is anti-hunting is a cop-out for not holding a party accountable. In this country we'd best be moderately comfortable with the general stance of both parties as it'll always swing back and forth. In doing so you have to be able to switch sides to the other side closer to the middle. Hunters need to ditch Rs until they come back toward the middle.

 

[Southern Elk]

Two answers to this question:

• There will be a list, in this thread. I will keep compiling it. (Until Fin locks the thread....)
  
  
• It does not matter. YOU need to call YOUR rep, every damn week!!! Seriously.
  
  Call your rep every week. If you don't know his/her position, tell them YOUR position, and ask that pass along your position and get back to you with the Congressman's position. If it turns out your Congressman is against this bad idea. Tell them "thanks", and keep calling. Let your Congressman know he is doing the right thing. Positive reinforcement.
  
  If your Rep supports Jason Chaffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, then you need to call weekly and let the staffers know your position. Their phones need to ring. If you are bored some day, and his local district office is nearby. Drop in. Talk to his staffers. Let them know you are a real person, not some organized "group", but just the local poorly dressed hunter. Your first visit may be intimidating, but, remember, THEY work for you. Walk in like you are the BOSS.
  

Once you determine your rep's stance, post it here, and we will keep the list updated.

Here's a thread I started with some of our politician's stances. I encourage everyone to update that thread if you know where your people stand.

https://onyourownadventures.com/hun...-List-of-Politicians-Who-Support-Public-Lands

 

[James Riley]

Tell me why would the national republican party ever change their stance on public land if they don't start losing their following, in life-long Rs don't change their minds? Being soft and subtle has lead us down the road we're on now. Banking on the idea that not EVERY R is anti-hunting is a cop-out for not holding a party accountable. In this country we'd best be moderately comfortable with the general stance of both parties as it'll always swing back and forth. In doing so you have to be able to switch sides to the other side closer to the middle. Hunters need to ditch Rs until they come back toward the middle.

That's my view. And the best thing about is, you don't really have to change your vote or your political philosophy.

 

[Schaaf]

Having trouble finding which lands on the map are suitable for disposal. Any help?

 

[mdhunter]

Ditto to what Fin said, and, I will add the following.


The guy you are dealing with, likely got swept into office in the 2010 election on the wave of the TeaBaggers. This is where much of the genesis of this movement caught momentum. (It was always there, but the TeaBaggers/Koch Bros/2009 stuff enabled it.) Well, if you remember the Tea Party rallies, in total, there was only 250k of them marching in April 2009. And, these guys still feel they have a "mandate" off of that. For comparison, 3 million women marched last Saturday. That is a mandate.


So, to counter your guy. You do what we said. You call him. You write him a letter.

Then, get your brother to call him. Then your sister (she likely already is.). Then your Mom, your Dad. Your buddy. Your neighbor.

It really has to be grass-roots constituents. And get these guys thinking the earth is shifting under their feet, much faster than they ever thought. It may not work on every one of them, but, there are going to be a few that will see the light.

But, you have a Representative, and you have 2 Senators. That is 3 calls per week.

The only thing these guys fear more than losing the campaign donations of groups like the Koch Brothers is losing their jobs in Congress so they can't get the Koch Brothers donations.

Jose,

Your cause is just! Take a step back and remember that although many people may live near public lands the VAST majority don't regularly use them.

If you want every vote possible and need people to take action and call their congressman or senator, why not drop words like "teabaggers"? That adjective normally describes people with an "R" near their name. It's not exactly a rally cry when you ask for help while insulting a large portion of the population at the same time. Just my .02

 

[grizzly_]

I understand the arguments made in the R v D debate, but I must say I tend to think hunters need to take control of the discussion and that control needs to be exerted through organization and with extreme prejudice towards those that are attempting to sell the birthright of my son for their own financial gain. In my eyes, that is quite literally what we are talking about.

These elected officials aren't receiving the direct proceeds from the selling of public land, instead they are getting paid up-front, a retainer of sorts, to push the actual sale through Congress and to lie to the American people about the consequences. And if outdoorsmen can't even identify the target, how can we hit them between the eyes and knock them off their ivory pedestal before its too late?

I would rather risk a few Republicans as collateral damage than tiptoe around and hope we are loud enough, but not too loud. Also, if pro-public-land Republicans start taking undue flak, then they'll be forced to raise their pro-public-land voice... which only helps our cause, as well as theirs.

As it sits, every time I hear, "The land will remain public, we will not sell it" from a Republican pushing the land grab; I am reminded of, "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan" from a Democrat. The difference is that Obamacare can be repealed, if so desired. There is no way to "unsell" a piece of property. Once that happens it is final and we will be forced to point to the mountains and tell our grandkids of the time that anybody used to be able to hunt elk by a lake up under that peak. This is a "cold dead hands" "take no prisoners" issue for me as I see the negative repercussions being greater than any other issue being discussed in the public forum. Guns, Taxes, Abortion, Immigration, Foreign Policy can all be changed. The land grab is forever.

Our backs are now against the wall. We can have a discussion about the threat to hunting/guns from the Democratic Party, but that would all be theoretical for the foreseeable future. The only real current threat to hunting, both at a National level and in any State where the idea is gaining traction, is from the Republican Party. This scheme goes all the way to the top echelons of the Republican Party and the only thing that a political party cares about more than their politicians is the Party itself.

Republican leaders must think their very existence is in peril or they have no incentive to change. Certainly there are exceptions to the rule that Republicans are pro-land-grab, but they are few and far between and those exceptions feel threatened by that position from their Party elders. We need the Republican Party to feel endangered due to this anti-public-land position, that their historically strong voting bloc could start to vote Democratic, before we'll see any movement away from the land grab. When that happens, the few pro-public-land Republicans will be able to stand tall, with their heads held high, and declare their position from a position of strength. Only then will public land be safe.

One more thing, I happen to live in the District of Rob Bishop. There is absolutely no possible way that any number of phone calls is going to change his position (he's making too much money off it and he's ideologically vested). He will also continue to win reelection until his name is off the ballot as his district will never vote Democratic under current mores. The Republican Party will not allow a Primary challenger and until the effects of his position are widely known in Utah it would be futile anyway as the power of incumbency is just too strong. Only when the Party leaders start seeing a cultural swing away from their Party, and towards the opponent, will they be forced to make a positional change to shore up their Congressional seat.

As Obama proved for eight years, first you must identify your target (call them out by name), then you explain how it will personally harm the public (see the picture of the little girl with the fish), and finally you polarize that group and force in-fighting (pro-land-grab Republicans verse pro-public-land Republicans).

We need to embolden a pro-public-land group to take up the cause and make it a cornerstone of a campaign... something like "I Hunt Public Land & I Vote!!!" stickers on every truck and in every yard is where this battle will be won.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Will be interesting to see who the co-sponsors on this will be.

I'll be giving my Rep a call

 

[MTGomer]

This was shared by Jared Frasier on the MT BHA Fbpage.
https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/lands_potentially0.html
If I'm understanding it correctly, it lists the Upper Missouri River Breaks NM.
If there were ever a place to fight for, this is it.

 

[Tradewind]

Jose,



If you want every vote possible and need people to take action and call their congressman or senator, why not drop words like "teabaggers"? That adjective normally describes people with an "R" near their name. It's not exactly a rally cry when you ask for help while insulting a large portion of the population at the same time. Just my .02

My thoughts exactly. he trolls everybody on issues he disagrees with rather than engage in civil debate and yet expects everyone to jump in on what he is passionate about while still ridiculing those that might agree on a particular issue. Leaves me ambivalent

 

[JoseCuervo]

My thoughts exactly. he trolls everybody on issues he disagrees with rather than engage in civil debate and yet expects everyone to jump in on what he is passionate about while still ridiculing those that might agree on a particular issue. Leaves me ambivalent

Nope. Not going to be politically correct.

 

[Oak]

This was shared by Jared Frasier on the MT BHA Fbpage.
https://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/planning/planning_overview/lands_potentially0.html
If I'm understanding it correctly, it lists the Upper Missouri River Breaks NM.
If there were ever a place to fight for, this is it.

That page allows you to look up the lands identified as suitable for disposal by BLM field office. So you can go to the pages in the RMP referenced for each field office on that page to see which lands they have deemed suitable for disposal.

 

[OriginalOscar]

Bill Details: Thoughts in Red
H.R. 622, Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act, first introduced last year, removes the law enforcement function from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service. Instead, the bill calls for deputizing local law enforcement, combined with block grant funding, to empower existing duly elected law enforcement offices to carry out these responsibilities. Only way this would work is for local law enforcement to commit to actively policing all federal land laws. Local law enforcement just doesn't have the resources or motivation to do double duty) The bill, jointly sponsored by Utah’s Rep. Mia Love and Rep. Chris Stewart, also establishes a formula to reimburse local law enforcement based on the percentage of public land in each state. The resulting cost savings will reduce the BLM budget by five percent and the Forest Service by seven percent. (Hell yes locals should be given block grant funding based on public lands. Ask any rural sheriff how often they have to go rescue someone or how many problems (drugs, dui, assaults, etc, etc, etc they have to handle with people on public lands. Grand County (Moab) had 100+ search & rescue missions several years back and local law enforcement supports and participates to aid in public safety)

H.R. 621, Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act, calls for the responsible disposal of 3.3 million acres of land identified by the Clinton Administration as being suitable for sale to non-federal entities. Encompassing just over one percent of total BLM land and less than half of one percent of all federal lands, these lands have been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers. In Utah, some 132,931 acres of land are eligible for disposal. (I'd like to see the land proposed and what happens with the money. If these lands are in urban areas or adjacent to highways and didn't create roadblocks to adjacent public lands then it might makes sense to sale. I would want the money to be used for management/protection of other public lands. Government sales stuff all the time and I don't agree with the term surplus.)

p.s Chaffetz is a tool. He was a kicker and there's that don't rough the kicker rule. He could have used a few knocks

 

[Dinkshooter]

I'm still not sure who is the biggest coward in DC?

 

[RidgeRebel]

I feel like I am spitting into the wind. I don't understand the push to take land from the people and more or less give it to the few. I don't understand how the sheeple vote these idiots into office. I have loved and cherished western federal lands but I am very worried my son won't be able to have the same opportunity that I have. I have been doing everything I can to try and stop this onslaught (called my reps/senators offices, written to the same and desperately have tried to educate everybody that I can). I am fearful that all the anti-fed nonsense is really taking hold and I am not really what Trump will do.

I have found myself more and more starting to hoard money in case things break bad. I will be forced to buy a few hundred acres of whitetail land and the elk, mule deer, and antelope hunting will be things we get to watch on TV and in old Primos videos.

I really hope I am wrong but my gut tells me things are really turning bad. I am shocked to see people who hunt federal public land stand up and say that the land should be transferred and sold. I don't understand how they don't see the writing on the wall. So many people are hung up on either "R" or "D" that they are literally missing the forest through the trees.

Don't get me wrong...I will keep up the good fight.

"The Sheeple" vote them in for their stance on other very serious issues facing our county and our states respectively. The reps in Utah specifically get a pass on the lands issue because every other rep that runs against them wants to take other freedoms away. I am a very conservative minded person on many issues facing our nation, but I am also very much against the sell of public lands. This is not a simple issue and to declare voters as sheeple because they are not single issue voters is is not going to help our cause. As Randy stated in an earlier post, our republic is not without frustration. If we vote one person over the other there will be some fight to be had still. There are no perfect representatives, they are people. Yes they have their agendas and we have ours, but again if you think that just simply voting for the other party or even an independent will make the fight go away, you are mistaken. No matter who you vote for with any letter by their name you will have fights on your hands if you are passionate about what you believe and you have principle. Gentlemen, do not let party lines divide us. I would wager most of us on here regardless of how you voted hold many of the same beliefs as standards. Contact you reps and fight the good fight, the days of hoping for our country to be "fixed" by politicians are gone. It's on us.

Bob

 

[James Riley]

Yes they have their agendas and we have ours, but again if you think that just simply voting for the other party or even an independent will make the fight go away, you are mistaken.

Correct.

However, let me give you an example. Let's say you are a conservative Republican. And just for purposes of this example only, let's say you are seriously passionate about only two things: 1. You are against public land transfer which is part of your party's platform; and 2. You are seriously pro-life which is part of your party's platform. Let's say between those things you find the pro-life stance to be more important to you than the anti-public land transfer position.

Let's say Representative Johnson is a Republican, pro-land transfer and pro-life. You decide your pro-life stance forces you vote for him even though you hate the fact that he supports transferring public land.

Here is what you do: You go down to your County Recorder's Office and change your affiliation from Republican to Democrat. You then send a letter to the *local* Republican Party headquarters and to Representative Johnson. It says "Dear Republican Party and Representative Johnson: I want you to know that today I changed my party affiliation to Democrat. Even though I have been a long time, faithful Republican and I could not longer support an agenda for the transfer of public lands. I will now hold my nose and vote for Democrats because they are the party of Public Lands. If and when you drop this horrible transfer position from the platform and publicly renounce all efforts toward the same, I will return. But I can't, in good conscience, affiliate with or vote for you any longer. Respectfully, me."

Guess, what, you can still vote for Representative Johnson. Just don't tell him that.

You see, your letters, phone calls and emails might have some marginal affect. But nothing will get through to them like a drop in party numbers.

You get the best of both worlds. You aren't lying, either. Because really, you don't owe anybody any explanations and you don't have to pre-commit or pledge or haze or do a secret handshake or any of that other crap. You can make up your mind at the last minute in the privacy of the voting booth and it's nobody's business but your own how you vote. The private ballot is your right. You can reserve your decision until the last minute and still vote your conscience for the pro-life position.

Free yourself from your party. The same goes for D's on issues that mean a lot to them.

 

[Wild Bill]

Looks like my good friend (sarcastic) Cory Gardner will be receiving even more email/phone calls from me. He's not even my Rep. but I sure do like pestering him. I've been advocating folks at work who are non hunters but yet outdoor enthusiasts, about this for months. I showed them these bills today and it really struck them that it isn't just something I've got a fetish for, rather a real issue that will effect EVERYONE! An important step in this process is going to be informing and rallying folks that probably don't even know that this is happening. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell your coworkers, hell, you should even be telling strangers at the store.

 

[James Riley]

Looks like my good friend (sarcastic) Cory Gardner will be receiving even more email/phone calls from me. He's not even my Rep. but I sure do like pestering him.

I'm not much for names but I *think* he may have voted on our side when the House amended their rules making it easier to transfer public lands. He might deserve some props for that. All the Democrats and only three Republicans voted against the change and I think he might have been one of them.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm not much for names but I *think* he may have voted on our side when the House amended their rules making it easier to transfer public lands. He might deserve some props for that. All the Democrats and only three Republicans voted against the change and I think he might have been one of them.

Thanks for the heads up James. In the heat of things I got him confused with a different guy. I'm fairly new in town and confuse the names sometimes. Noticed I said he is a Rep. instead of a Sen., as well. I make sure to do as much thanking as shaming when it comes to supporters of these issues. Either way I'll do more homework and address him, and others, accordingly.