Privitization of BLM Land

[TrainChaser]

"Doesn't seem to make much sense that a group of cattle ranchers who get relatively cheap grazing land permits without paying taxes want it private. But apparently they really, really do."

You might be able to thank Cliven Bundy and similar people for that.  This year's price of grazing BLM land is $2.11.  For that money, they have access to enuogh land to graze a cow and her calf for one month (this is not a per-acre charge).  Comparatively, from 2012 data, it costs about $42 a month to feed a cow in a bare corral. 

Just like renting a house, you have to use some sense in the care of it, or the landlord will evict you.  But if you own the house, you can do mostly as you like, including destroying it.  Many ranchers feel that if they own the land, they can push grazing to the limit, destroy the water sources, and increase weed stress by allowing the cows to kill off the good graze and let the weeds multiply. This has been a problem since the West was opened for homesteading.  Profit is their god, and care/custody/control is just a nuisance.  People like that are intensely short-sighted.  They destroy the land they have, and then whine that someone else needs to fix it.

This is the same attitude of RVers who trash a campsite and then drive off and leave the mess behind. They ruin it for everyone else.

 

[jonsun]

the thing about all that is everyone has to get their own and their own feed to run their business. but they think they somehow deserve **** they didn't buy just cause it's there. Either get less cows or go buy more land like everyone else. Period.

talk about entitlement

and we're talking what $2,400 a year to fed a hundred head...that's one hell of a deal cause taxes alone will cost a lot more than that for what 50-100 acres

 

[ColoRockiesFan]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/621

"[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]H.R.621 - To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes."[/font]

 

[jonsun]

it cant happen, it wont happen....the internet said so

 

[muddy]

Well, here we go.

 

[Crow]

The following is a description of the bill from Chaffetz' website.   The text of the bill has not been posted yet.  I'm curious as to who deemed the 3 million acres in question to "serve no purpose for taxpayers" and why.   While generally opposed to the disposal of public land I'm withholding judgement until I'm fully informed.  Chaffetz also introduced a bill HR 622 to eliminate BLM and U.S. Forest Service police, transferring law enforcement responsibility to local agencies.


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.

 

[Ballenxj]

The following is a description of the bill from Chaffetz' website.   The text of the bill has not been posted yet.  I'm curious as to who deemed the 3 million acres in question to "serve no purpose for taxpayers" and why.   While generally opposed to the disposal of public land I'm withholding judgement until I'm fully informed.  Chaffetz also introduced a bill HR 622 to eliminate BLM and U.S. Forest Service police, transferring law enforcement responsibility to local agencies.

I like MR Chaffetz, he's usually right on the money. I would like to hear how they made that determination though, and who they polled to determine that.

 

[bullfrog]

Probably means places with no cell service or internet, the kind of places even "you guys" haven't been to. Lots of federal lands has never even been seen by the people determining their fate. I've been all over Bears Ears Monument seldom saw anybody that wasn't lost, yet thousands of people have problems with trying to figure out who and how it will be managed!

 

[GotSmart]

I did some reading into this.  Public land valued at $100 an acre? 

This bill smells like a Kansas pig farm.  

A large part of that land is currently leased.  Mining companies are wanting to strip mine.   :dodgy:

The (It is just a small piece of the land) reasoning worries me, as does the move to suddenly push law enforcement off on already overwhelmed departments.  

The biggest lie has always been,   I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU.   :huh:

 

[justbreathe]

I did some reading into this.  Public land valued at $100 an acre? 

This bill smells like a Kansas pig farm.  

A large part of that land is currently leased.  Mining companies are wanting to strip mine.   :dodgy:

The (It is just a small piece of the land) reasoning worries me, as does the move to suddenly push law enforcement off on already overwhelmed departments.  

The biggest lie has always been,   I'M FROM THE GOVERNMENT, AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU.   :huh:

This.

 

[TrainChaser]

"... these lands have been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers ..."

To get something like this started in Congress...
1) Someone had to want this 'useless' land,
2) Someone had to be willing to pass some money under the table to the Congressperson who brought it up,
3) There's something they're not saying.

Fracking: See 1, 2, and 3 above. When the business is finished, probably the same Congressperson will initiate a bill to have the massive cleanup paid for by the taxpaying citizens.

 

[slynne]

The reason they had to declare the land worthless is that doing so will allow them to give away the land without running afoul of another law which prohibits them from giving away the land if doing so would add to the national debt. They haven't given away the land yet, just made it easier to do so in the future.

 

[jonsun]

they know not to do too much at once. you have to boil the frog slowly.

 

[Crow]

The GOP included in a bill the devaluation of more than 3 million acres of public land..including several national monuments.   This paves the way for a give away of this devalued land.

While trump creates chaos to distract the nation with his circus, the GOP are raiding the public coffers.

Please write your congressmen.   Write to the local newspapers.    Make a loud noise.   They are going to give away our birthright to their billionaire buddies (or should I say..Masters).

Partisanship is not helpful.  The driving force behind this appears to be local parties in the affected states.  There will be Republican opposition to this.  Starting with Donald Trump, in January 2016 when asked about the possibility of divesting public lands to the states he said:

"[font=Lora, serif] I don’t like the idea because I want to keep the lands great, and you don’t know what the state is going to do. I mean, are they going to sell if they get into a little bit of trouble? And I don’t think it’s something that should be sold. We have to be great stewards of this land. This is magnificent land. And we have to be great stewards of this land. And the hunters do such a great job—I mean, the hunters and the fishermen and all of the different people that use that land. So I’ve been hearing more and more about that. And it’s just like the erosion of the Second Amendment. I mean, every day you hear Hillary Clinton wants to essentially wipe out the Second Amendment. We have to protect the Second Amendment, and we have to protect our lands."[/font]

[font=Lora, serif]If this bill actually made it to President Trump's desk, it sounds like he might just veto it.
[/font]

Also Ryan Zinke, a Republican Congressman who is about to be confirmed as Trump's Secretary of the Interior (who oversees the BLM, Park Service, etc) is well known to oppose the disposal of federal lands.   From Wikipedia:

"Zinke broke with most Republicans on the issue of transfers of federal lands to the states, calling such proposals "extreme" and voting against them. In July 2016, Zinke withdrew as a delegate to the Republican nominating convention in protest of a plank in the party's draft platform which would require that "certain" public lands be transferred to state control. Zinke said that he endorses "better management of federal land" rather than transfer."

Zinke has been criticized for voting for the House rules change resolution that allows Congress to divest the land without consideration of the cost, but I believe that was only because it was a small part of a larger rules change package, and will mean nothing without a bill, which he would oppose if he were still in the House.  He appears to be dedicated to preserving public lands. 

I'm sure some Republican legislators would oppose it as well.   I could be wrong but I'm thinking that this bill doesn't have much chance of getting out of the House.  But you are correct in saying we need to start campaigning against it.

 

[Crow]

A group called Sportsmen's Access has an online petition against the disposal of public land.   Sign it here - http://sportsmensaccess.org/[/SIZE]

A phone call, letter, and/or email to your representative would be helpful too.  

 

[waldenbound]

A group called Sportsmen's Access has an online petition against the disposal of public land.   Sign it here - http://sportsmensaccess.org/[/SIZE]

A phone call, letter, and/or email to your representative would be helpful too.  

I just signed the petition.

 

[GotSmart]

If a politician makes a promise, do they keep it?   :idea:

If a business man tells you he will not buldoze a endangered grove and build a golf course, can you trust him?  :dodgy:

The check is in the mail.  I already paid that bill.  Of course I respect you. 

 

[ArtW]

Signed

 

[slynne]

On a side note...my brother used to work for a member of congress in her DC office and he gave me some advice. Those online petitions don't really matter to members of congress unless they are really massive. Calling their office is better because it sucks up their staff time and also because they know that people willing to take the effort to call are likely to make the effort to vote. It is votes that matter to them.

 

[akrvbob]

There are strict rules about the disposal of public land and the process takes years. All the land that this bill will dispose of was pre-approved for disposal during the Clinton Administration, and then simply never disposed of. It will have no impact on us.

This particular issue is just more fear-mongering. But with the present situation with the Republicans in control, true danger can lie in the future but I hope it takes more than 4 years to dispose of the land and by then Trump could be gone. He's been so controversial it's hard to imagine him winning a second term.

Historically, the party that loses the white house wins the next two year election so I think it's nearly certain the Democrats will control the house and Senate in 2 years. That happened under Obamas first term, he was so controversial the Republicans took the legislature at mid-term, that's nearly a certainty for the Democrats in 2018.

I think it will take that long to go through the land disposal process. Chances are there will be multiple lawsuits that slow it down even more. The Justice Department is going to be constantly in court for the next 4 years!!

If we can hold them off for two years, I think we will be okay.