Privitization of BLM Land

[TrainChaser]

Let's vote for single terms. We don't need no stinkin' professional politicians. By the time they fumble around, figuring things out, they're outta there!

 

[SVan]

Chaffetz is one of the few I appreciate.

Yup, and one of the other ones I appreciate is Gowdy.

Why? Chaffetz only backed off because of the swift and loud opposition from voters. Now he's doing damage control with a contrived photo and cleverly worded sentiment trying to act like he's "one of us" (holding his cute dog/wearing camo/saying he "loves our public lands"). Chaffetz is connected to lobbying groups for extraction industries and other moneyed interests that have been actively working to get public land privatized for years. Don't be naive. Congratulate the voters and their advocacy groups who communicated the overwhelmingly negative opinion of this bill, but don't think Chaffetz and Gowdy, etc. are doing anything heroic or especially noble here. 

The effort to privatize public assets to benefit the interests of certain industries/individuals will continue in other ways and other forms. They've already invested too much to give up this easily. The Chaffetz bill was an early probe and attempt to pick off what they thought was lower hanging fruit (note the clever spin in, "[font=proxima-nova, Helvetica Neue, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The bill would have disposed of small parcels of lands Pres. Clinton identified as serving no public purpose") and set the stage for further privatization. This was a test. It failed, but they'll be back again, looking for another way in. [/font]

 

[jonsun]

for real, you can possibly hold these two things as separate issues when one side, that you support, fundamentally doesn't believe in public land whatsoever while your life sorta revolves and depends on it.

 

[closeanuf]

Is that the same Pres Clinton who gave our uranium to the Russians and our coal to China?  Surely not; he's a democrat.

 

[Ballenxj]

Why?

Why? Because from what I have seen from both Chaffetz and Gowdy, they truly believe in the Constitution of these United States, what it stands for, and the citizens of this country. Most of the other politicians I have seen will lie right to your face, but don't get me started on the political aspect of this. Do your own independent research. I have and the corruption runs deeper than most realize.

 

[jonsun]

I hope the constitutionalists kill social security and Medicare next.

 

[SVan]

for real, you can possibly hold these two things as separate issues when one side, that you support, fundamentally doesn't believe in public land whatsoever while your life sorta revolves and depends on it.

Well, Ballenxj's reply (below) to my post illustrates the illogic perfectly. Notice how he shifts the subject from the Chaffetz bill and the attempt to privatize public lands to broad/vague rhetoric about "true believers" in the constitution, etc. No holding Chaffetz accountable for not admitting to the moneyed interests behind his bill, or disingenuously pretending this bill was only about getting rid of "[font=proxima-nova, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]small parcels of lands Pres. Clinton identified as serving no public purpose"[/font] and no acknowledgement of the manipulative identity politics games Chaffetz plays in his Instagram mea culpa. Ideology is blinding, and Chaffetz plays the tune his voters want to hear, knowing most will ignore any messy, contradictory facts/information in favor of feel-good sentiments. 

And to be fair, the "sides" or R/D thing is misleading. Dems are often corrupted by big money donors with other interests. Witness Sen. Manchin of West Virginia who is often owned by the coal companies in his state on any regulatory issues impacting their profits vs public health/welfare. The people's interests usually lose. Just glad that wasn't the case for this bill. 

Why? Because from what I have seen from both Chaffetz and Gowdy, they truly believe in the Constitution of these United States, what it stands for, and the citizens of this country. Most of the other politicians I have seen will lie right to your face, but don't get me started on the political aspect of this. Do your own independent research. I have and the corruption runs deeper than most realize.

 

[Ballenxj]

Well, Ballenxj's reply (below) to my post illustrates the illogic perfectly. Notice how he shifts the subject from the Chaffetz bill and the attempt to privatize public lands to broad/vague rhetoric about "true believers" in the constitution, etc. 

Excuse me, but I did not shift anything. I answered a direct question from you. If anything, "You" are the one shifting things around here.

 

[highdesertranger]

enough, stay on topic which is "Privatization of BLM Land". any post which do not pertain to the topic will be deleted. highdesertranger

 

[DrJean]

I'm thinking that the idea that Chaffetz wants to sell off BLM lands is part of "fake news". Something about 3.3 million acres. However, even if His UT land was up for sale, he at least did back OFF when it became apparent that the majority of US say don't privatize the BLM land. I cannot at this point follow that issue (selling it or not...pushed by Chaffetz?)

What I can show is the actual bill... and it has nothing to do with SELLING the land. It might be a less than grammatically correct paragraph but from what I see Chaffetz wanted to end FEDERAL POLICE control of the BLM lands, not end the Fed. ownership of it. He wanted to return the policing power to the States, which is the Constitutional part of it. (The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to give rights to the people and LIMIT government.)

Are we reading the same thing?

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) released the following statement after reintroducing two bills dealing with the 67 percent of the State of Utah that is under federal ownership.

“It’s time to get rid of the BLM and US Forest Service police. If there is a problem your local sheriff is the first and best line of defense. By restoring local control in law enforcement, we enable federal agencies and county sheriffs to each focus on their respective core missions.



Bill Details:
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. 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.

 

[bullfrog]

Okay, you need to understand a little about Utah. The federal government controls a lot of land which it does so by using it's own officers. Most of these officers are from somewhere other than Utah because of federal hiring rules. Sheriffs are elected by small numbers of local residents made up mostly of ranchers, miners and farmers most of which belong to the Morman Church. If you are familiar with the history of the state there is a lot of conflict between the people here and the federal government. Even today people's lively hood is directly affected by the State/Church conflict with the federal government. Western sheriffs enforce laws as they see fit, just look at Arizona. They want to be paid to control federal lands without interference from federal agencies. Federal laws won't mean much if local sheriff does not enforce them which he won't because to be elected he needs to make the locals happy and wealthy by letting them do as they please with federal lands. Again just take a look at happened when federal officers attempted to close some ATV trails in Blanding last year, sheriff as well as local public officals were there with the group breaking the law to insure federal officers could not enforce the laws.

 

[DrJean]

Sounds to me like UT and Chaffetz is basically relying upon the 10th Amendment. Go figure

 

[SVan]

 He wanted to return the policing power to the States, which is the Constitutional part of it.  (The Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to give rights to the people and LIMIT government.)

Chaffetz' bill is shifting policing from one government entity to another. Are you assuming state governments are inherently more respectful of individual rights than the federal government? Really depends on the state, the particular rights in question, and the state government at that particular time. States have a long history of disenfranchising the individual and denying them their "rights". That has been true throughout our history and continues today, from Jim Crow to eminent domain to making it nearly impossible to sue the chemical company polluting your drinking water. The whole fed bad, state good meme just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  It's a mixed bag for both, at best. I'm just arguing for healthy skepticism across the board. 

On the surface, the Chaffetz' bill, appears innocuous and pretends to be doing us all a favor. I just think he's a very clever politician and his bill is a bit of a Trojan Horse. 

For more info just google "American Land Council" and read up on one of several well-funded efforts pushing to privatize public lands. Nothing fake about it. It's very, very real. 

On another note, you might consider that most laws banning people from living in their vehicles are/were passed by local governments. Local control isn't always interested in individual rights, especially if you're in the minority.

 

[closeanuf]

In Texas the game wardens have the same authority as state police.  Their power is good all over the state.  The game wardens are also federalized.  I have a friend who loved being a game warden but can't wait to retire.  I don't know if this is the same in all states or just because Texas has in international border.

 

[bullfrog]

In Utah it is a big power struggle over money. State Department of Wildlife Resources Law Enforcement Officers areas of enforcement are so large they help other officers depending on seasons in their areas. National Monuments and Parks don't allow off road vehicle use so you can not even hope to patrol them if you were allowed. To give you an example if Federal Border Patrol Officers need to go over land to investigate in Organ Pipe they have to submit paper work justifying their actions and are subject to a review for doing so even though they are part of the federal government so you can imagine what it is like to be a state officer? Bears Ears National Monument is huge and prime hunting areas are within, do you think no one will hunt there now it is a monument? At this time several areas of it have no enforcement or only what the state can provide as there were only two BLM officers present to deal with the mob of 150 when they tried to close the ATV trails in Blanding and there is a federal hiring freeze slowing down Human Resources. I have not seen them or any new hires in the area. Response time from any agency here is in hours if not days. Unenforced laws don't change much of anything they just give a false sense of security, and bad laws enforced outrage the small group of people affected by them. Welcome to Utah.

 

[jonthebru]

This attempt is not about enforcing, it is about the mining and timber concerns gaining more access. Chaffetz has said just that. The BLM and Forest and Wildlife could be given a larger budget and the leases could be better managed. I do not believe the land should be sold.

 

[bullfrog]

In all fairness federal government has not changed management polices other that add more restrictions by making Bears Ears area a monument and if anything increased the duties of the 2 officers patrolling 1.8 million acres from existing roads, at least that is my understanding. Cows tend to wander and hungry people tend to hunt and gold fever is real.

 

[DrJean]

BLM land management 2.0 being argued in House as I post... CSPAN

 

[SarahH]

[Mod's note: merged with existing thread.]

Hi everyone,

We are not yet van dwellers but love visiting your site(s) and channel(s), dreaming about the not-so-distant future in which we WILL be! I'm curious as to your opinions about the latest move in congress to transfer federal lands to the states, limiting public access and allowing development on big chunks of land. Here's a link to one of many articles: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/bureau-land-management-federal-lease

If this thread has been started or discussed elsewhere, I apologize for the repeat! We're just hoping our dream isn't going to begin in the midst of conflict about where, or if, people like all of you can boondock.

Thanks for your thoughts!
Sarah and Scott

 

[SarahH]

Oops, sorry! Heading back to the original post to begin reading now...  :blush: