Selling Public Land for Budget Reconciliatory Bill

[Treeshark]

Ample *unquoted and unprovided* evidence

No worries- if you’re actually interested in learning more about polling and survey info in that subject, you can research that easily on your own.

 

[SAJ-99]

@Treeshark surely in the world of PLT - you can find a biased survey that reflects your views?

I wonder what a survey of people east of Mississippi asking about land in the West would reveal. Or maybe the core question of who should pay for it.

There is ample evidence that most people prefer decision-making power to rest with state and local governments vs federal.

Sounds like a biased question.

 

[Treeshark]

Sounds like a biased question.

Yep, see where I’m going with this one?

 

[Forkyfinder]

No worries- if you’re actually interested in learning more about polling and survey info in that subject, you can research that easily on your own.

Well - i guess i just cant find what you are, and im not willing to simply take your word for it.

Your anecdote is ample evidence in your own mind, but not mine.

 

[Forkyfinder]

I wonder what a survey of people east of Mississippi asking about land in the West would reveal. Or maybe the core question of who should pay for it.

Sounds like a biased question.

Sure i'll direct that survey!

Of the federal taxes you pay, are you okay with two tenths of every penny funding public lands ?

(*note if commercial consumptive users paid 1/3rd market rate or any at all in the case of some mining - public lands would greatly contribute to taxes).

 

[Treeshark]

Of the federal taxes you pay, are you okay with two tenths of every penny funding public lands ?

20% of federal tax dollars go towards funding public land?

 

[SAJ-99]

Sure i'll direct that survey!

Of the federal taxes you pay, are you okay with two tenths of every penny funding public lands ?

(*note if commercial consumptive users paid 1/3rd market rate or any at all in the case of some mining - public lands would greatly contribute to taxes).

I'm fine with it. My point was more on surveys. Asking people (those in the West) who are higher users of something you will probably get different views that those that are lower users of that same thing. If you said Should Yellowstone be turned over to Wyoming? and Should BLM land be turned over to Wyoming? I bet you will get totally different results. That is why the decision has been framed a number of ways in the press 1) sell land for affordable housing 2) sell land to pay down the debt 3) give land back to states because they know more about managing it. I'm sure there are more. They are all BS, but they ring true to many.

 

[rogerthat]

There is ample evidence that most people prefer decision-making power to rest with state and local governments vs federal.

There is no reason and in fact the structure was designed as such that decision making was/is local with the federal government. That was the idea behind blm field office with a field manager and forest ranger for each forest. The whole “local” control is such a misdirection by the transfer crowd to suck you in. It was and can be still common for these positions with decision making authority to be local often people that grew up in the area. Even if not the process is in place to interface with the locals. It’s Washington politics and directives from Washington usurping power from the local federal leadership that is your enemy not federal management.

 

[Forkyfinder]

20% of federal tax dollars go towards funding public land?

2 tenths of a penny would be .2%, probably less, but i figured you got the idea.

 

[rogerthat]

I think it is important to emphasize the process that this is being done through. FLPMA already has a process for disposing of public lands and those lands are outlined in local resource management plans. Disposal includes the NEPA process, public comment, etc. A budget reconciliation bill is not the place to do it and sets a bad precedent. I wonder if this kind of softer messaging will change some minds in DC?

To add to this point at least for BLM lands, if done through reconciliation the proceeds would go to the general fund. If done via FLPMA the federal land transaction facilitation act would be followed with proceeds going to the federal lands disposal account to be used to purchase other lands with high conservation or recreational value. That’s why the reconciliation public land sale is such a ripoff.

 

[Treeshark]

2 tenths of a penny would be .2%,

You said “two tenths of every penny,” which would likely yield very different results than you intended for your survey

 

[TOGIE]

treeshark is uncanny in his ability to beat a horse that's been killed about a dozen times.

 

[Treeshark]

treeshark is uncanny in his ability to beat a horse that's been killed about a dozen times.

Fair call out, I’ll hang up the gloves on this one for a bit.

 

[BuzzH]

There is no reason and in fact the structure was designed as such that decision making was/is local with the federal government. That was the idea behind blm field office with a field manager and forest ranger for each forest. The whole “local” control is such a misdirection by the transfer crowd to suck you in. It was and can be still common for these positions with decision making authority to be local often people that grew up in the area. Even if not the process is in place to interface with the locals. It’s Washington politics and directives from Washington usurping power from the local federal leadership that is your enemy not federal management.

This is the part of that local control BS that I've never understood either. The FS and BLM both hold numerous open comment periods, open houses, etc. on management plans, forest planning, RMP's, etc. etc. with the locals. Also, any local can parade into a BLM or FS office and get a meeting with a district ranger, etc. pretty easily. Those living closest to the public lands in question get a pretty nice seat at the table if they want it.

I think what many of the locals whine about is that they want THEIR way on everything that happens with "THEIR" public lands and forget that those lands are shared with 340 million other public land owners. When they don't get their way, they think they'll have better luck if it were state owned.

IMO, I like the fact that locals do have perhaps a bit more influence on public lands since they live closest to them, know more about them, etc. But, equally important, I like the fact that there is balance by people from across the U.S. who also have an equal voice about those lands.

For all the crying, bitching, and complaining that the treeshark types do about federal public lands, they would hold even less sway and have even less influence if the lands were all state owned. The mandates would change drastically, including 600K Wyoming Residents being able to tell treeshark and 339,400,000 of his fellow US citizens to keep their happy asses home because we don't want them on our State lands.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Forkyfinder]

treeshark is uncanny in his ability to beat a horse that's been killed about a dozen times.

I was just hoping he had a survey to back up his opinion.

 

[Pucky Freak]

Budget bill amendment, full text

Corresponding map of NV and UT federal lands for disposal, if passed:

On the upside, larger media outlets have begun picking up the story within the last 48 hours.

 

[Southern Elk]

Budget bill amendment, full text

Corresponding map of NV and UT federal lands for disposal, if passed:
View attachment 372031
On the upside, larger media outlets have begun picking up the story within the last 48 hours.

Is the 335,000 acres for mining? Certainly doesn’t look like a spot that needs affordable housing.

 

[geetar]

Is the 335,000 acres for mining? Certainly doesn’t look like a spot that needs affordable housing.

Would make sense. Gotta make Tesla batteries somehow.

 

[quarterhorse]

Budget bill amendment, full text

Corresponding map of NV and UT federal lands for disposal, if passed:
View attachment 372031
On the upside, larger media outlets have begun picking up the story within the last 48 hours.

Getting larger media attention would be great. People I talk to do not even know anything is happening. As soon as they hear the land sales are in UT and NV they lose interest. Must think it wouldn't happen closer to home in the future.

I have been calling my representatives in Idaho. Say thanks to Simpson and drive home the talking points to Fulcher. I think Fulcher and Idaho's Senators are not going to change their minds on public lands without tremendous pressure.

 

[mevertsen]

I emailed Amodei, my rep. He aggravates me so much.