Big Gubment Power Grab

Big Fin

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
16,551
Location
Bozeman, MT
Call me dumb, but I gotta ask - Why, according to many, is it called a "Big Government Top Down Power Grab" when the Feds implement rules, yet when an agency is givien carte blanche control over all lands within 100 miiles of a US border these same groups find it to be OK?

If ever there was hypocrisy to the poltics of public land issues, it is H.R 1505, probably going up for House vote this week. The supposed haters of big government control now want to give Homeland Security exemption to all rules on lands within 100 miles of a border, consolidating unheard of power within that one Federal agency.

I did not know that illegal crossings were a major issue on our nothern border. Did not know any regulations were keeping Homeland Security from doing their job on the northern border, a state where I live. In fact, I did not know it was even a MINOR problem.

Might be a different issue on the southern border. I don't live there, so I don't know.

I do know that much of the area on the northern border is some of our greatest wildlife grounds. And, once again, those promoting this bill are hammering on what they call environmental regulations, though I would call it public land policy. Public land policy that is beneficial to the great wildlife and hunting Montana is known for.

Great hunting and habitat grounds currently not open to unlimited energy exploration or unlimited motorized travel. Lands that are the heart of Missouri Coteau waterfowl nesting grounds being imperiled by oil and gas exploration. Lands that hold some of the best Rocky Mountain Bighorn sheep habitat. Montana's best mule deer herd that lives in, and migrate through, our roadless areas. Lands that .........

Hypocrisy has no bounds in the halls of DC. This stuff is a joke, at least when it is used as a poorly veiled effort to do an end-around on some of the best wildlife grounds in all of Montana. If it was worded without such heavy emphasis on hunting and habitat grounds these same sponsors are often trying to alter for their political friends, my "right of center" leanings would probably see it differently. As currently written and promoted, here on our northern border, this bill is a terrible "solution" looking for a problem that does not exist.


WHITEFISH, Montana – A controversial bill that aims to shift authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. border to the Department of Homeland Security could be nearing a vote on the House floor, a development that has renewed debate over the measure’s applicability in places like Montana, where it would strip dozens of environmental protections from Glacier National Park and designated wilderness areas.

The proposed legislation, called the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, or H.R. 1505, would exempt Homeland Security from compliance with 36 federal environmental protection laws in order to expedite border security, including the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The bill’s proponents say it is a critical step toward securing the nation’s borders and granting more control to U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents, who are frequently stymied by burdensome environmental regulations and uncooperative federal land managers.

Critics argue that the bill’s language is ambiguous and its intent unnecessary and overreaching. They say it would invite Homeland Security to disregard key environmental laws on cherished public lands, wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges.

In Montana, the law would affect a 100-mile corridor that comprises nearly one-third of the state, including Glacier National Park and portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests. It would also apply to five of Montana’s Indian reservations, as well as the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and broad swaths of Bureau of Land Management lands.

U.S. Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., is one of 59 legislators who have co-sponsored the measure, which was introduced in April 2011 by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

On Friday, one year after attaching his name to the bill, Rehberg defended the legislation on a statewide radio talk show.

The bill is not a federal “land-grab” as some critics have asserted, he said, but a means to improve coordination between agencies that are charged with disparate missions, and that too often clash in a manner that compromises national security.

“We have a food fight going on between federal agencies,” he said, adding that the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management are not cooperating with the U.S. Border Patrol, and calling the situation a “bureaucratic turf war.”

“People of America need to know that this lack of cooperation exists,” he continued. “They are hiding under environmental laws to keep our law enforcement agencies from stopping drug traffickers or human traffickers.”

Former superintendents and employees at Glacier National Park and the district ranger for the Hungry Horse-Glacier View District of the Flathead National Forest, both of which hug the U.S.-Canadian border, say they have found a great deal of ongoing cooperation between their staffs and the Border Patrol.

“I question what the bill actually seeks to fix, and what level of bureaucracy it is inviting,” said Mick Holm, who retired as superintendent of Glacier National Park in 2008. “When I was superintendent, we had a very good working relationship with the other agencies, be it the Forest Service or Border Patrol or our Canadian counterparts. Anytime there was a difference of opinion we were able to seek common ground and resolve it with discussions at the local level.”

Jimmy DeHerrera, district ranger in the Hungry Horse-Glacier View District of the Flathead National Forest for the past 14 years, echoed Holm on the subject of interagency cooperation.

“I would highlight that locally, working with the Whitefish office of the Border Patrol, we have a very good cooperative working relationship,” DeHerrera said. “We all respect each other’s missions and, even though we have separate missions, we do whatever it takes to accommodate the needs of Border Patrol agents in a way that still accomplishes our resource management objective.”

A 2009 memorandum of understanding signed between officials from the Interior and Homeland Security departments also addresses Border Patrol access to public lands and comports with the opinions of local land managers who praised interagency collaboration.

The cooperation was also affirmed by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials who testified against the bill before Congress last July, saying the agency “enjoys a close working relationship with the Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture that allows us to fulfill our border enforcement responsibilities while respecting and enhancing the environment.”

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified this March that the bill is “unnecessary, and it’s bad policy.”

The bill would “prohibit the secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands.”

And without having to adhere to the National Environmental Protections Act, or the Wilderness Act, or the Endangered Species Act, or any number of other measures, the Border Patrol would not have to answer to the National Park Service before conducting six activities: building fences; cutting new roads to access federal lands (or opening existing roads to patrol vehicles and ATVs that are currently closed to motorized use); installation of surveillance equipment and sensors; use of aircraft; and deployment of “temporary tactical infrastructure, including forward operating bases.”

Jed Link, communications director for Rehberg, emphasized that land managers maintain control of the federal parcels and H.R. 1505 does not give Border Patrol agents unchecked power. It merely allows them to gain “operational control on a porous border where, in Montana, one out of every two miles crosses federal lands.”

“It does not allow them to do whatever they want, whenever they want and however they want. It allows them to gain operational control of a porous border,” Link said. “Nobody wants to hurt the environment or undermine wilderness. But we have a security problem that we know exists, and the solution is to get rid of this bureaucratic turf war.”

In a telephone interview Friday, Congressman Bishop said that critics of the bill are misguided in their strictures and misinformed about the measure’s intent. The memorandum of understanding between agencies is “inadequate,” he said.

“Right now, environmental laws and policies prohibit the Border Patrol from doing their job on federal lands, and that has become the avenue of choice for criminals and illegal immigrants,” he said.

“People are saying we are going to crisscross the land with new roads and asphalt, but most of the concern applies to existing roads that were gated and where Border Patrol agents are being restricted access,” Bishop continued. “The notion that Homeland Security is going to be building new roads and infrastructure is not based in reality.”

The bill is endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council (NBPC) which represents 17,000 Border Patrol Agents and the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBO).

Zack Taylor, vice chairman of NAFBO and a former Border Patrol agent in Arizona, said it is a mistake to allow environmental protection laws to supplant measures aimed at tightening national security and improving public safety.

“The Border Patrol is being shut out of the national forest land. It’s that simple,” he said.

Taylor said drug smuggling and human trafficking is a much larger problem along the southern border, but that smugglers are already established in areas along the Yaak and Kootenai river valleys.

“Those are ideal places for smugglers,” he said.

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester has vigorously opposed H.R. 1505, likening it to the Patriot Act and REAL ID in its unprecedented extension of powers to the federal government.

“Count me among the Montanans who have serious problems with this bill. But like the Patriot Act and REAL ID, this one can’t be fixed,” Tester said. “It needs to be scrapped altogether because no matter how you spin it, it gives the Department of Homeland Security total control over the land we all use.”

Doug Morris of Victor is a retired National Park Service employee who was superintendent at Saguaro National Park in Arizona and Shenandoah National Park in Virginia. He said the argument that a lack of cooperation exists between the Park Service and Border Patrol is “horribly untrue.”

“The agencies have all agreed to cooperate and support one another’s goals,” he said. “Whatever conflicts once existed between these agencies are gone, so there is no need to move forward with this legislation that will have real consequences to almost a third of the acreage of National Park Service lands. I don’t think that is understood by very many people.”

Steve Gniadek, a biologist who worked at Glacier National Park for 32 years, has staunchly opposed the bill because he says it would have deleterious effects on elk habitat, and access to federal lands has never been a problem.

“The bill assumes that there is this resistance and that federal land managers are preventing border patrol agents from doing their job. I just don’t see any evidence of this in Montana,” he said.
Click to expand...

Link to the article - http://missoulian.com/news/local/bi...cle_f25738ca-9715-11e1-99a7-001a4bcf887a.html
 
This would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. First off, I'm not for the gubment handing off any chunks of land to agencies to have full control over--it flies in the face of our balanced government ideals, IMHO.

Secondly, I wonder how in tarnation they landed on a number like the 100 mile corridor when the Feds cannot even effectively control the first one foot strip of area on our southern border. Maybe they could start with that before they decide to bite off a bigger chunk (which I wouldn't support anyway) of land, on the northern border to boot. Maybe they want to claim an easy victory and that seems like a tailor made easy W. Up next, maybe they'll look to control grass growth in Antarctica.

I hope whoever is supporting measures like this gets their collective butts handed to them in the next election... after this measure fails miserably to get a passing vote.
 
DRAFTSTUD said:
The Ripple effects of those Planes will continue for some time. Makes no sense, but hey let's call it a Security concern. John
Click to expand...

I'm with you, John. If it is about security, let's deal with security.

When the same crowd of politicians continues their unending attempts on habitat, public lands, and roadless areas, now under the guise of security, it causes me to wonder if they will recklessly use any topic that suits their agenda. I had hoped that national security would remain the last apolitical topic in DC games. I guess I was wrong.

It's almost as if they are willing to put the most important issues on the altar for satisfaction of their pet issues. A sign of how we got to where we are in this country.
 
“They are hiding under environmental laws to keep our law enforcement agencies from stopping drug traffickers or human traffickers.”
Click to expand...
There's a lot to be alarmed about and confused by in that article. The way I read it, Rehberg is accusing USFS & BLM of aiding drug & human traffickers, or does the 'they' in that quote apply to someone else? USFS & BLM aren't perfect, but come on, really?
 
I am usually on top of politcal B.S., but must admit that this one totally baffles me! I don't like the smell of it.
 
Oh,but it gets better..... They could suspend all the environmental protections, laws, restrictions, but they can't impede any Grazing, Timber, and Mining activities....

Your Grand Old Party hard at work trying to sell off our public lands and screw hunters, once again..

Notice the similar letter in front of the name of the state of each of the Co-Sponsors of this abortion of a piece of legislation....

Rep. Rob Bishop [R-UT1]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX31]
Rep. Doc Hastings [R-WA4]
Rep. Peter “Pete” King [R-NY3]
Rep. Lamar Smith [R-TX21]
Rep. Francisco “Quico” Canseco [R-TX23] (joined May 04, 2011)
Rep. Mike Coffman [R-CO6] (joined May 04, 2011)
Rep. Dennis “Denny” Rehberg [R-MT0] (joined May 04, 2011)
Rep. Paul Gosar [R-AZ1] (joined May 13, 2011)
Rep. Tom McClintock [R-CA4] (joined May 13, 2011)
Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA10] (joined May 26, 2011)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3] (joined May 26, 2011)
Rep. Cynthia Lummis [R-WY0] (joined May 26, 2011)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers [R-WA5] (joined May 26, 2011)
Rep. Candice Miller [R-MI10] (joined May 26, 2011)
Rep. Edward “Ed” Royce [R-CA40] (joined May 26, 2011)
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7] (joined Jun 01, 2011)
Rep. Renee Ellmers [R-NC2] (joined Jun 01, 2011)
Rep. John Fleming [R-LA4] (joined Jun 01, 2011)
Rep. Lynn Jenkins [R-KS2] (joined Jun 01, 2011)
Rep. Steve King [R-IA5] (joined Jun 01, 2011)
Rep. Spencer Bachus [R-AL6] (joined Jun 03, 2011)
Rep. Dan Burton [R-IN5] (joined Jun 03, 2011)
Rep. John “Jimmy” Duncan [R-TN2] (joined Jun 03, 2011)
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA24] (joined Jun 03, 2011)
Rep. Rick Crawford [R-AR1] (joined Jun 13, 2011)
Rep. Robert “Bob” Goodlatte [R-VA6] (joined Jun 13, 2011)
Rep. James Lankford [R-OK5] (joined Jun 13, 2011)
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC9] (joined Jun 13, 2011)
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3] (joined Jun 13, 2011)
Rep. Walter “Wally” Herger [R-CA2] (joined Jun 14, 2011)
Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer [R-MO9] (joined Jun 14, 2011)
Rep. Rob Woodall [R-GA7] (joined Jun 14, 2011)
Rep. Raúl Labrador [R-ID1] (joined Jun 21, 2011)
Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA42] (joined Jun 21, 2011)
Rep. Donald “Don” Young [R-AK0] (joined Jun 21, 2011)
Rep. Bill Johnson [R-OH6] (joined Jun 22, 2011)
Rep. Bill Posey [R-FL15] (joined Jun 22, 2011)
Rep. Devin Nunes [R-CA21] (joined Jul 06, 2011)
Rep. Mo Brooks [R-AL5] (joined Jul 07, 2011)
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL1] (joined Jul 13, 2011)
Rep. Ralph Hall [R-TX4] (joined Jul 14, 2011)
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann [R-TN3] (joined Jul 25, 2011)
Rep. Bill Flores [R-TX17] (joined Jul 25, 2011)
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO5] (joined Jul 25, 2011)
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ2] (joined Jul 26, 2011)
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX1] (joined Jul 26, 2011)
Rep. Steve Southerland [R-FL2] (joined Jul 26, 2011)
Rep. Rob Wittman [R-VA1] (joined Jul 26, 2011)
Rep. Ken Calvert [R-CA44] (joined Sep 12, 2011)
Rep. Jeff Duncan [R-SC3] (joined Sep 19, 2011)
Rep. Chris Gibson [R-NY20] (joined Oct 04, 2011)
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX2] (joined Oct 14, 2011)
Rep. Steven “Steve” Pearce [R-NM2] (joined Nov 10, 2011)
Rep. Michael McCaul [R-TX10] (joined Dec 06, 2011)
Rep. Jon Runyan [R-NJ3] (joined Feb 27, 2012)
Rep. Howard Coble [R-NC6] (joined Feb 29, 2012)
Rep. Brett Guthrie [R-KY2] (joined Mar 06, 2012)
Rep. Michele Bachmann [R-MN6] (joined Mar 22, 2012)
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon [R-CA25] (joined Mar 27, 2012)
Click to expand...

Now, how long until we get the "But, Obama gonna grab all your guns" crowd.?

5-4-3-2-1.....
 
Last edited:
Down here in AZ, some eco-wackjobs are pushing for another 700,000 acre wilderness area in the southern desert. Their agenda is pretty clear, they want no hunting or shooting in the new preserve. One of the arguements against that land grab is the wilderness restrictions would threaten border security. This bill would allow Homeland Security to conduct operations within wilderness areas without the usual restrictions paving the way for more wilderness.

I know a lot of guys up north like the wilderness designation, but down here, its a death sentence for our fragile desert mule deer, desert bighorn sheep and a host of non-game species. Once the federal government gains control, they shut off predator control, water catchment construction and maintenance and habitat improvement projects. I don't support HR 105, but I'm coming at it from the opposite direction. What's funny is, Homeland Security could run their helicopters and Suburbans all over the place, ignoring existing roads, but Game & Fish would be denied access to repair a water catchment that has a road built right to it.
 
sagebrush said:
Down here in AZ, some eco-wackjobs are pushing for another 700,000 acre wilderness area in the southern desert. Their agenda is pretty clear, they want no hunting or shooting in the new preserve. One of the arguements against that land grab is the wilderness restrictions would threaten border security. This bill would allow Homeland Security to conduct operations within wilderness areas without the usual restrictions paving the way for more wilderness.

I know a lot of guys up north like the wilderness designation, but down here, its a death sentence for our fragile desert mule deer, desert bighorn sheep and a host of non-game species. Once the federal government gains control, they shut off predator control, water catchment construction and maintenance and habitat improvement projects. I don't support HR 105, but I'm coming at it from the opposite direction. What's funny is, Homeland Security could run their helicopters and Suburbans all over the place, ignoring existing roads, but Game & Fish would be denied access to repair a water catchment that has a road built right to it.
Click to expand...

This one?

http://www.sonoranheritage.org/news...d_preserve_%26%23039;legacy_arizona%26%23039;
 
Who is Denny Rehberg listening to?

Pronghorn on the hi-line. Muleys, whitetails and elk from the Kootenai National Forest to the Charles M. Russell Wildlife Refuge. I've killed a lot of game within 100 miles of the Northern Border and have never seen any major or minor security threat. Friends, this bill has nothing to do with Wilderness. It applies to ANY national forest, tribal or national wildlife refuge. Why on Earth would we want to put that much power in one agency? Especially an agency with ZERO experience in land and wildlife management? Montana has more borderline mileage than any state. Why doesn't Congressman Rehberg hold some hearings in his own state instead of inside the Beltway on this bill? Seems like he's ashamed of it... maybe should be. This bill is a solution looking for a problem.
 
Ben,

It's not like Rehberg has a long a prstine record of sticking up for the unwashed public.
 
sagebrush said:
Down here in AZ, some eco-wackjobs are pushing for another 700,000 acre wilderness area in the southern desert. Their agenda is pretty clear, they want no hunting or shooting in the new preserve. One of the arguements against that land grab is the wilderness restrictions would threaten border security. This bill would allow Homeland Security to conduct operations within wilderness areas without the usual restrictions paving the way for more wilderness.

I know a lot of guys up north like the wilderness designation, but down here, its a death sentence for our fragile desert mule deer, desert bighorn sheep and a host of non-game species. Once the federal government gains control, they shut off predator control, water catchment construction and maintenance and habitat improvement projects. I don't support HR 105, but I'm coming at it from the opposite direction. What's funny is, Homeland Security could run their helicopters and Suburbans all over the place, ignoring existing roads, but Game & Fish would be denied access to repair a water catchment that has a road built right to it.
Click to expand...

Sagebrush, did you read what's proposed?:confused:
 
I'm a simple man and don't have time to read everything so let me get this straight. Boarder patrol would have a trump card that trumps existing laws like wilderness or roadless laws, forest service laws, blm laws and regulations etc. This would allow the boarder patrol to better do their job because they don't have a big list of regulations hindering their work. The cost is roads in roadless areas, maybe even some sort of towers with cameras and other surveillance equipment on them, and those things that comes from one branch of government getting too much power etc.
So detriment to wildlife is they get harassed because they run when they see the boarder patrol coming up the road because the boarder patrol is going to shoot them out the window of their suburbans, and chase them with 4 wheelers. and the habitat now has a road going through it? So now animals eat the grass in the road, and use the road more but it looks ugly and causes erosion.
I'm trying to get a feel for the situation and see what the panic is all about.
 
sweetnectar said:
I'm a simple man and don't have time to read everything so let me get this straight. Boarder patrol would have a trump card that trumps existing laws like wilderness or roadless laws, forest service laws, blm laws and regulations etc. This would allow the boarder patrol to better do their job because they don't have a big list of regulations hindering their work. The cost is roads in roadless areas, maybe even some sort of towers with cameras and other surveillance equipment on them, and those things that comes from one branch of government getting too much power etc.
So detriment to wildlife is they get harassed because they run when they see the boarder patrol coming up the road because the boarder patrol is going to shoot them out the window of their suburbans, and chase them with 4 wheelers. and the habitat now has a road going through it? So now animals eat the grass in the road, and use the road more but it looks ugly and causes erosion.
I'm trying to get a feel for the situation and see what the panic is all about.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have taken the time to read it instead of writing that reply, it probably would have been a better use of your time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
255
bayoublaster7527
B
Ben Lamb
Gaining glory: Partnership garners 3,649 public acres in Big Hole Valley
Replies
0
Views
515
Ben Lamb
Ben Lamb
atlas
Judge orders new work on Bitterroot grizzly plan
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
atlas
atlas
elkduds
CO wolf news: 10J approval pending
Replies
0
Views
475
elkduds
elkduds
P
USFS grazing and timber
Replies
8
Views
908
Straight Arrow
Straight Arrow
Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,128
Messages
1,948,003
Members
35,034
Latest member
Waspocrew

Share this page

Back
Top