Senator Daines credibility crisis

[RobG]

Maybe he forgot what he said on the Twitter.

Based on the "slaughtering" he is getting on this twitter post I would say at least a baker's dozen people are furious. https://twitter.com/SteveDaines/status/568147813839851520

It this the best we can do? (I don't have a twitter account or I would post).

 

[Ben Lamb]

Here's the story from Saturday:

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/da...cle_55e0b78f-cbc3-5443-8d0f-711f7d0b566d.html

It is pretty unbelievable that a guy who tells a story of proposing to his wife in a Wilderness Area would vote to go down the road of sale & transfer. That's exactly what the amendment does. It creates the fund that facilitates both actions and it's done at the request of Senator Murkowski, the chair of Senate Energy and Natural Resources. It's going to be a rough session of congress for public land devotees.

If this was a vote to eliminate your right to purchase certain types of guns, we'd be up in arms. This kind of goose-stepping towards transfer and sale while talking out of the side of your mouth is reprehensible and shouldn't be tolerated. Senator Daines has 5 more years left in his term and given his vote on LWCF, his position on the Antiquities Act and now his reversal on the sale and transfer of public lands, he's proving to be less of a statesman, and more of a politician.

Sad.

 

[bigskyblueman]

A sad irony this is the same Senate seat once held by Sen. Lee Metcalf D. Mont., a visionary and leader who preserved wilderness, wildlife, and public places for all Americans. The empty suit who currently holds the seat gets six more years to take craven votes and lie about it.

 

[BrowningBLR]

I am thankful for sportsmen and the sportmen on this site that take the proactice approach to help protect everthing we love about our country and Montana! I understand and agree with the disguist of Daines saying one thing and voting another way. Really angers me! But I did have a few questions regarding the amendment... and the bill. As I'm not too educated on it... I definitely support public lands and the state controlling those lands (if it was the case) but not scheme's to take away that land from us, American taxpayers. Here are my questions.

This bill talks about selling/transfering lands to the States, where does it talk about selling it to private parties? Just because the lands are offered for the States to buy, the States don't have to buy them, correct? I didn't see anywhere in the bill that authorizes it to be sold to private parties if the states didn't purchase the lands.... Or is this bill just a stepping stone to take away our land and sell it privately???

Once again, I am thankful for sportsmen and the sportmen on this site that take the proactice approach to help educate and protect everthing we love about our country and Montana!

 

[Ben Lamb]

This bill talks about selling/transfering lands to the States, where does it talk about selling it to private parties? Just because the lands are offered for the States to buy, the States don't have to buy them, correct? I didn't see anywhere in the bill that authorizes it to be sold to private parties if the states didn't purchase the lands.... Or is this bill just a stepping stone to take away our land and sell it privately???

BLR, Those are great questions.

The amendment says sell, or transfer to state or local governments. In legislative speak, those are two separate things. The qualifying word would have been "and" as in Sale and transfer, linking the two. As the amendment was written, those become two separate actions (Sale or transfer to). It would allow for the proceeds of a sale to anyone as well as the transfer to local gov'ts. So it does allow for the sale to private interests, or more specifically it sets up an account to recieve the funds from the sale to private interests.

It is a stepping stone and a big one. In order to arrange the transfer /sale of these lands, an account needs to be established or the money would revert to the general fund, IIRC. This amendments creates an account specific to transfer/sale. As a matter of accounting, that makes sense fiscally. You want to easily track how much money you receive once you sell it off.

 

[BrowningBLR]

BLR, Those are great questions.

The amendment says sell, or transfer to state or local governments. In legislative speak, those are two separate things. The qualifying word would have been "and" as in Sale and transfer, linking the two. As the amendment was written, those become two separate actions (Sale or transfer to). It would allow for the proceeds of a sale to anyone as well as the transfer to local gov'ts. So it does allow for the sale to private interests, or more specifically it sets up an account to recieve the funds from the sale to private interests.

It is a stepping stone and a big one. In order to arrange the transfer /sale of these lands, an account needs to be established or the money would revert to the general fund, IIRC. This amendments creates an account specific to transfer/sale. As a matter of accounting, that makes sense fiscally. You want to easily track how much money you receive once you sell it off.

Thanks, Ben. I appreciate it. Really brings it to light. I can't believe our Senators think that this is good for Montana and/or have zero forethought on how this will affect state recreation moreso than revenue.

 

[smarandr]

http://helenair.com/news/local/daines-blasted-for-vote-on-federal-land-transfer-amendment/article_11534e32-58af-579d-bb27-5bc1750d14ac.html

The amendment, one of nearly 1,000, Lockman said, aimed to address challenges between the Obama administration and the state of Alaska. She agreed that the amendment contained no language restricting it to Alaska, but added that states should be empowered to push back against detrimental land policy in Washington, D.C.

The amendment establishes a spot in the budget for federal land disposals, which currently occur on a small scale, but in no way funds or authorizes any large scale or transfer, Lockman said. The amendment further focuses on legislation “relating to” federal land disposal, meaning legislation prohibiting sales or transfer is also under its purvue, Lockman said.

Daines understands the importance of Montana’s treasured places for the state’s outdoor heritage and continues to oppose selling off public lands, she said.

“There was also an amendment introduced by Sen. Heinrich that would have prohibited land sales for the purpose of buying down the national debt. It unfortunately didn’t come up for a vote, but Steve was looking forward to voting in support of it,” Lockman said

Valid reason, patent rationalization, or pure political bs?

On a side note I wish Idaho's senators were being raked over the coals in the papers like Dains is.

 

[Ben Lamb]

It's B.S.

Here's the amendment:

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the disposal of certain Federal land)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:

SEC. __X. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

Where in that amendment does it say anything about prohibition of sales? Language matters in legislation. The way I read it, it's specific to giving away or selling public land.

The amendment does not authorize the sale or transfer of public land, it just gets the Fed ready to do it.

 

[Ben Long]

Sen. Daines's spokespeople are going to wear out their tap-dancing shoes. He says it's about Alaska, a favor for Murkowski. But no where in the language does it limit it to Alaska, or exclude Montana. Daines said he would "stand firm" against "any" scheme to transfer public lands. Words are cheap. Votes count. Big Fin is dead on: this is a credibility problem."

 

[sweetnectar]

Where in that amendment does it say anything about prohibition of sales? Language matters in legislation. The way I read it, it's specific to giving away or selling public land.

Ben, Perhaps this part of the amendment might provide the answer to your question:

provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit

How do you sell something that doesn't raise new revenue? I guess the sale price must be free?

 

[Gerald Martin]

Sen. Daines's spokespeople are going to wear out their tap-dancing shoes. He says it's about Alaska, a favor for Murkowski. But no where in the language does it limit it to Alaska, or exclude Montana. Daines said he would "stand firm" against "any" scheme to transfer public lands. Words are cheap. Votes count. Big Fin is dead on: this is a credibility problem."

Right on. Why does it matter whether this is Alaska or Montana? I currently live in Montana and want to see all of our public lands stay open and public. When I am fortunate enough to go to Alaska, I hope for the same thing. Public land is public land and needs to stay that way. If transferring Federal public land to state control opens the door for that land to be sold to private, it's a bad deal no matter what state it's in.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Ben, Perhaps this part of the amendment might provide the answer to your question:


How do you sell something that doesn't raise new revenue? I guess the sale price must be free?

Revenue as defined by the fed is generally tax income: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_revenue

So as I read it, the amedment says no new taxes, no new budget deficit can be accrued by the sale or transfer of public land.

 

[Nameless Range]

Here's a good opinion piece written up today by the writers at the Billings Gazette.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opi...cle_29f33d03-8faf-5c36-8fe8-8f48909c78d1.html

Hopefully the papers and Montanans continue to pressure S̶e̶n̶a̶t̶o̶r̶ ̶F̶l̶i̶p̶ ̶F̶l̶o̶p̶p̶e̶r̶ Senator Daines.

 

[Big Fin]

The smoke is not yet settled on this one. Public lands/recreation access is probably one of the hottest topics in Montana politics. If you want to kick a hornet's nest in this state, that is a place to get bit.

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opi...cle_29f33d03-8faf-5c36-8fe8-8f48909c78d1.html

Appears Senator Daines' biggest print media supporter is asking some of the same questions. The Billings Gazette endorsed Senator Daines during his election and gave him a lot of praise for his public land promises. Sounds like some of the responses the Gazette was provided by staff were as illogical, and at times, condescending, as the responses received by others.

 

[Straight Arrow]

For those of us from around the Bozeman area and who were sure of the real ideology and position of Daines regarding this issue and others, at this point there is little solace in saying, "I told you so!"

The political campaign ads and rhetoric were shallow, hollow, and false.

 

[BuzzH]

Tough for me to say anything, as my 2 senators here in Wyoming, have repeatedly shown they couldn't care less about hunters, fishermen, and recreation. They vote party line 100% of the time.

But, in "fairness"...they never said they would support sportsmen either. I still don't give them a pass, but if they would have run their campaigns on a promise to sportsmen they would vote a certain way and didn't, they would be hearing from me just about every day.

I would also do everything I could to make sure they were never reelected.

 

[jryoung]

Figured this was relevant to post here. This is a response from Mike Crapo to Carter Niemeyer.

Dear Carter:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the management and ownership of public lands. I appreciate hearing from you and welcome the opportunity to respond.

Throughout my time in public service, I have maintained that states entering into the union west of the Mississippi River received unfair treatment with regard to federal inholdings within their jurisdictions. The issue of public lands, particularly in the West where the federal government has a considerable footprint, has long been contentious and presents a host of land policy and management challenges unique to Idaho and its neighbors. In some cases, the federal government is not doing a good job of managing lands under its purview, and many Idahoans can point to specific examples they have personally witnessed. As a result, we see the ongoing problems that occur on these lands both in regard to the way resources are managed and developed, and in subsequent economic impacts on the people and communities adjacent to federal lands. It is clear that we need to consider a different management scheme.

There are not likely enough votes in the current Congress to pass legislation that would transfer title of any public land to the states. Nevertheless, the issue should be debated and considered. The related question of states having greater management responsibilities of federal lands within their borders would likely have a better chance of becoming law than would the outright transfer of ownership. To be sure, such a proposal would face the same challenges, but state management has a greater chance of being accomplished in some cases. The challenges facing these proposals should not preclude them from enjoying an open, transparent and robust debate.

Absent a major federal policy shift regarding ownership of public lands, there are steps we can take at the present time to improve the situation. I have long argued that grassroots, locally-formed collaboratives, while time intensive and at the core difficult, have reliably produced results. These types of initiatives have similar objectives as those advocating for a transfer of ownership: greater local control of public lands, increased economic activity, improved environmental outcomes and all done within the principle of private property rights for those individuals who own property near federal lands. We have seen success demonstrated by this model, particularly in the Owyhee Initiative and the ongoing work of the Clearwater Basin Collaborative. I remain confident that such community-based discussions can produce consensus-based solutions that respect the needs of all affected stakeholders by building on the knowledge that local communities have about the public lands that literally comprise their backyards.

The land management challenges facing Idaho and western states did not happen overnight. As such, it will take time, dedicated efforts and robust public participation to achieve the outcomes we all seek. As this debate continues, we should not discount or write off any proposed ideas as they all are driven in the hope of achieving similar goals. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to enact federal land management policies with the ultimate goal of resilient, self-sustaining economies for rural counties and greater authority delegated to state and local interests.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please feel free to contact me in the future on this or other matters of interest to you. For more information about the issues before the U.S. Senate as well as news releases, photos, and other items of interest, please visit my Senate website, http://crapo.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
US SenatorSenator Mike Crapo
Mike Crapo
United States Senator

 

[smarandr]

Senator Crapo does a good job dancing around the issue without having to come out and say that he's for the sale of public lands, but his vote last week shows he's on board.

However, he is correct regarding the Owhyee Initiative. Ranchers, environmentalists, recreationists, and other groups all hashed out a plan where no one got everything they wanted, but all got something--and it was accomplished locally. Why can't this be the model for the new sagebrush rebellion instead of what the dip-whits at the ALC and other like organizations are trying to do?

 

[James Riley]

My ten years fighting for the Owhyee Country must have occurred before the "Initiative" because I've never heard of it. In any event, I am one of those people who would be marginalized by all parties and shuffled off to the side as an extremist and here is why:

Whenever you talk about "compromise" as you reference above, the baseline always seems to be the specific acreage under consideration. So the whole pie is deemed to be that acreage, and then the vultures (including preservationists like me) end up sitting around the table negotiating a division of that pie.

Many years later, the parties are back at that table, only then the baseline is again the specific, but now smaller, acreage. Each time the whole pie is deemed to be the remaining slice from the last go around until such time as the new whole pie is thinner than the blade you propose to cut it with. At that point it is only deemed worth fighting over by a new generation that never knew what they were missing because their fathers "compromised." You end up like RoadHunter (apologies) thinking Curt Gowdy SP is cool.

This is all done in the spirit of "compromise" and anyone who refuses to compromise any further is deemed "unreasonable" and an "extremist." They are marginalized and ignored not only by the parties, but in the press. The otherwise disinterested member of the average voting Joe Public looks to the "parties" at the table as the good, moderate folks working toward a common solution of a contentious issue. They sign on.

But let's step back for a nano-second and just ask ourselves what would truly be the baseline in a true compromise? Let's look at the WHOLE pie, as we "received" it (or took it). It seems to me that any reasonable compromise would involve all the parties coming around the table and deciding how much of the U.S. we were all going to work on restoring to the condition in which we found it. After all, under RARE I and RARE II there is less than 2% of the land mass of the lower 48 in any kind of decent condition. Compromise would not split that 2%. It would work on moving back toward 50%. Impossible? Maybe, but never let the enemy define the terms of debate and never let him tell you he is not your enemy until he proves he is not. If you do, you have already lost.

In short, all you people who want to protect our public lands from privatization are the new Indians. Each time Uncle Sugar is going to come back and take a little more until you've got squat. If you Google the history of the Nez Perce Reservation you can watch it shrink, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. Same with the Sioux. In Oklahoma and other places the U.S. finally came in and decided to give the land to each individual Indian. The whites thought that was fair. After all, the U.S. wasn't giving the land to whites. It was giving it to Indians. Indians still owned it, right? Well, many of those Indians were poor and they sold it and now they have squat.

Break out the K-Y Jelly boys. It's a commin'. And it's a commin because "reasonable" people are going to stipulate to a baseline carcass over which all will feed, and they are going "negotiate" with terms like "hard release" and "permanent protection" and in the end they will stand before the cameras and dramatically swipe the sweat from their collective brows and talk of how the hard-fought compromise resulted in "give and take" and how everyone got something and gave up something and Kumba freaking Ya.

I need a "puke" icon.

End rant.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Right you are, "ranting James Riley".
It often reminds me of the saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water." Only in the preservation of wild lands it's pulling a finger off, then an arm, then a leg ... and finally somewhere at the end of the 21st century or thereabouts, there is only a belly button remaining and nobody seems to remember the privilege to hike miles away from pavement to hunt elk (at that future date found only in high tech zoos).