Congress starts the process to give away Federal Lands

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 1 - 25 of total 25 in this topic

stunewberry

Trad climber

Spokane, WA

Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 22, 2017 - 04:10pm PT

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/19/bureau-land-management-federal-lease

"In the midst of highly publicized steps to dismantle insurance coverage for 32 million people and defund women’s healthcare facilities, Republican lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans’ birthright: 640m acres of national land. In a single line of changes to the rules for the House of Representatives, Republicans have overwritten the value of federal lands, easing the path to disposing of federal property even if doing so loses money for the government and provides no demonstrable compensation to American citizens.

"At stake are areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forests and Federal Wildlife Refuges, which contribute to an estimated $646bn each year in economic stimulus from recreation on public lands and 6.1m jobs. Transferring these lands to the states, critics fear, could decimate those numbers by eliminating mixed-use requirements, limiting public access and turning over large portions for energy or property development."

Click the link to read the article.

monolith

climber

state of being

Jan 22, 2017 - 08:56pm PT

Lets hope the courts can step in when the lawsuits start. Devaluing the land to nothing so they can be given to the states is obvious fraud.

Patagonia and BlackDiamond have threatened to pull out of the OR Utah show if this continues in Utah.

thebravecowboy

climber

The Good Places

Jan 22, 2017 - 09:12pm PT

thank you for sharing this disturbing news.

I will be goddamned if they are going to privatize my (our) federal land.

Public land is worth more than nothing.

Coincidentally I just bought a power drill and renewed my PP

seano

Mountain climber

none

Jan 22, 2017 - 09:25pm PT

...authored by Utah Republican...

I'm not sure I could be less surprised. Extractive industry companies have more leverage against smaller entities (i.e. states). And what state has more to sell than Moroni's?

jgill

Boulder climber

The high prairie of southern Colorado

Jan 22, 2017 - 09:26pm PT

An unwelcome development. If only America didn't have to exist in a political thermostat, with Democrats pushing strongly to the left and Republicans pushing strongly to the right. You would think there would be a middle ground.

survival

Big Wall climber

Terrapin Station

Jan 22, 2017 - 09:28pm PT

Time to start making a lot of noise to our representatives.

Todd Eastman

climber

Bellingham, WA

Jan 22, 2017 - 09:30pm PT

Fruck Tump...

... and his minions!

Steve Grossman

Trad climber

Seattle, WA

Jan 23, 2017 - 10:32am PT

The ghost of James Watt has been seen clumsily bumping around in the halls of power.

Perhaps the end is near as the means certainly are.

Jorroh

climber

Jan 23, 2017 - 10:39am PT

JGill said..."Democrats pushing strongly to the left and Republicans pushing strongly to the right"

You don't actually believe that do you? This sort of false equivalency is either ignorance or dishonesty.

c wilmot

climber

Jan 23, 2017 - 10:47am PT

Did Obama did not realize this would happen as he used executive orders to put more land in control of the Feds with a republican controlled house And senate? Of course he did. Good cop Obama handed the keys over to bad cop trump.
The antiquities act simply needs to be amended and poof- all the land Obama "saved" while not even attempting to work with the house and senate to fund such acquisitions can be put up for sale.

The parties are working together alright. Predictably screwing over Americans

It would be an entertaining show if it wasn't so tragic

Bob D'A

Trad climber

Taos, NM

Jan 23, 2017 - 10:49am PT

"An unwelcome development. If only America didn't have to exist in a political thermostat, with Democrats pushing strongly to the left and Republicans pushing strongly to the right. You would think there would be a middle ground.'

So saving public lands, education and healthcare are pushing it way left?

Hope you are well John?

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

Jan 23, 2017 - 10:53am PT

The Left are Now the Center
They want what 75% of America wants

They want the Federal Lands to stay Federal lands and will fight against the Far Right Republicans that are hell bent on selling them off

guyman

Social climber

Moorpark, CA.

Jan 23, 2017 - 11:05am PT

Gents.... I think that the State of California will be able to manage land just fine. Like it already does.

good post willmont and Jgill.

Craig Fry

Trad climber

So Cal.

Jan 23, 2017 - 11:17am PT

^^^
California will manage Only because it is controlled by Democrats (Centrists)

If it was controlled by Republicans, then you could kiss it all goodbye

so wrong Wilmot and JGill

You blame Obama for this, that's really reaching
#sad

and BTW, Obama isn't the left, so you words mean nothing

fear

Ice climber

hartford, ct

Jan 23, 2017 - 11:40am PT

The federal gov't thinks it owns most of the middle east.

You think some bogus "states rights" silliness would ever prevent them from taking whatever they wanted if necessary?

Thankfully, most of our vertical parks are pretty rough and worthless in terms of traditional resource value.

stevep

Boulder climber

Salt Lake, UT

Jan 23, 2017 - 11:59am PT

The highest profile change Obama made, declaring the Bears Ears NM here in UT, didn't really put more land in control of the Feds. It was mostly already BLM or National Forest (small amount of state land is being swapped in trade for other BLM land). All the National Mon declaration did was better protect land that the Feds already owned.

And quite a lot of the rest of the territory was declarations of National Marine Preserves. i.e., it's under water.

And the Repub and western state push back on this is a big problem. Here in UT the leaders are frequently developers or have strong ties to developers. They have no intention of doing anything other than trying to make money off these deals.

John M

climber

Jan 23, 2017 - 12:20pm PT

Many years ago here in Arizona, the state was given a large block of land by the feds. It was put in a trust to help fund schools from the mining and grazing leases. This year Arizona voted to sell the land to help cover a shortage in school funding. This will help the schools for the next 5 years or so, then when that money is gone, the schools will be in a worse way as they will no longer have the lease money coming in. Short sighted thinking. Ack..

Steve Grossman

Trad climber

Seattle, WA

Jan 23, 2017 - 12:23pm PT

Up here in Washington state educational funding was tied to timber revenues with the result being a predictable thinning over time.

hamersorethumb

Trad climber

Menlo Park, CA

Jan 23, 2017 - 01:03pm PT

Thanks for reminding us of this issue. Please everyone call your Members of Congress and share your opinion. https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials

NutAgain!

Trad climber

South Pasadena, CA

Jan 23, 2017 - 01:33pm PT

Gents.... I think that the State of California will be able to manage land just fine. Like it already does.

I have grown to strongly dislike California State Parks because it costs $30+/night to go car camping, for a picnic table and water spigot and access to a hot water shower with quarters, and typically need to book it out 6-12 months in advance to end up with a crowded experience. There are exceptions (e.g. early spring in Big Basin Redwoods when it is raining all day), but I avoid California State Parks now. For the more wild areas, California is placing stronger limits on off-trail use. Their basic model appears to me to be "if we can't afford a ranger to patrol it and give you tickets, we close it down," and "if we deem it wild, you can't go there."

Maybe it is my ignorance of California natural resources, but it seems we are forced into a false dichotomy of urbanized car-camping the same price as Motel6, or off-limits wildlands. I love the model of USFS and BLM that perfectly suits my erratic schedule and spontaneous adventures with my kids. I'm worried that the freedoms and experiences I have enjoyed will be curtailed.

Epilog: I do agree it was a deal with the devil for increasing Presidential powers in the last few Presidencies. I see the short-term desire to work around obstructionist Congresses, but the long-term consequences are a threat to the stability of our nation.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Jan 23, 2017 - 02:55pm PT

Hmnmm,
So I gather that the Feds shouldn't transfer lands to solidly Democrat ruled states (e.g., California) due to incompetent management. Makes sense. But isn't it OK to transfer land to state control in more responsible, better-managed states (e.g., Utah)? Won't the states be more "in tune" with the wants and needs of the local population?

NutAgain!

Trad climber

South Pasadena, CA

Jan 23, 2017 - 02:57pm PT

It's not an inherently partisan issue and it is disingenuous to make it so. It is an issue of who has deep enough pockets to not be swayed by regional business interests, first and foremost. A secondary issue is the local attitude toward how to manage the recreational use of public lands.

Actually, one might say it is a partisan issue in that local governments are more likely to bow to the quantifiable revenue source of tangible jobs created by environmental pillagers. And more importantly, a big company courting a local politician is likely to make a more attractive pitch than a coalition of 500 mom and pop motels and restaurants that are supported by eco-/adventure-tourism. Heck, I just talked myself more into saying it's non-partisan, but definitely favoring politicians who want to abuse the powers of their office (which can happen on either side of the aisle).

It does play into the stereotype (reality?) of uneducated small town folks who live near beautiful places and don't give a sh#t, they just want better jobs. So ok, it's a partisan issue.

John M

climber

Jan 23, 2017 - 03:17pm PT

But isn't it OK to transfer land to state control in more responsible, better-managed states (e.g., Utah)? Won't the states be more "in tune" with the wants and needs of the local population?

And how do you determine who is better? Isn't my example of Arizona a good example to show that neither Dems or Republicans have a lock on "better"?

I tend to trust the Feds to at least hold on to public lands, though both state and federal have issues with how they run things.

People are the problem. not Dems or Republicans.