Wait for it...Wait....Wait

Bambistew

Active member
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
5,204
Location
Chugiak, AK
Sullivan (AK Sen) pushed the land give away, Murky just latched onto it. The provision was nothing more than pandering to get votes for reelection, IMO. Is giving away 160 acres to any qualified person really going to solve/prove anything, some 50 years later? The saddest part is that so many side stepped their core mission (not selling public lands at any cost) to accept the rest of the bill.

If you call half a million acres "pork" then I guess we'll call it that. Those allotments should come from the native corporation land ownership, not additional federal lands. The natives received some 45,000,000 mil acres at Statehood settlement, their still owed some 9M acres, and the state is owed about 12M if I remember right. THe bill specifically excluded areas previously claimed by either party, either transferred or in transition. As far as I know there is no provision stating that the transferred lands will be inclusive to the total settlement amount of ANSCA.

I get it, it's always a compromise, but this is a shit sandwich.
 

Big Fin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 27, 2000
Messages
13,451
Location
Bozeman, MT
Sullivan (AK Sen) pushed the land give away, Murky just latched onto it. The provision was nothing more than pandering to get votes for reelection, IMO. Is giving away 160 acres to any qualified person really going to solve/prove anything, some 50 years later? The saddest part is that so many side stepped their core mission (not selling public lands at any cost) to accept the rest of the bill.

If you call half a million acres "pork" then I guess we'll call it that. Those allotments should come from the native corporation land ownership, not additional federal lands. The natives received some 45,000,000 mil acres at Statehood settlement, their still owed some 9M acres, and the state is owed about 12M if I remember right. THe bill specifically excluded areas previously claimed by either party, either transferred or in transition. As far as I know there is no provision stating that the transferred lands will be inclusive to the total settlement amount of ANSCA.

I get it, it's always a compromise, but this is a shit sandwich.
Not disagreeing with any of that. The unfortunate reality is that elections have consequences. We can wait until Alaska elects a delegation that will put those bad ideas aside and know that while waiting for such electoral changes millions of acres of public access elsewhere will not get improved/secured, or we can plug our noses and deal with the fact that the delegation Alaskans sent to Congress made these bad ideas a condition of pushing for good ideas that most feel will be a net benefit when measured across all landscapes.

Yes, it is a compromise, and thanks to the Alaska delegation requiring these provisions as a contingency for their support, it is a sandwich with its share of shit in the middle.
 

elkduds

Active member
Joined
Jan 22, 2016
Messages
1,132
Location
CO Springs.
Congratulations to public land owners, it is a big win, if not perfect. Kudos to BHA, RMEF, TRCP and other conservation groups, along w their members. No legislation of this magnitude succeeds without the support of many voices, deep pockets or both. This round, for once, goes to the many voices(y)(y)
 

hossblur

Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
31
Schedules have yet to line up. He would be another interesting guest with helpful perspectives.


Is it possible that the LWCF fight may have caught the attention of some folks? Sure would be nice.
 

Pelican

Active member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
146
Location
Fruita, Colorado
Yeah, it would be nice if that article was indeed correct and there was a paradigm shift with the land transfer proposal going the way of the dodo. Where I live, I still have a state senator and three county commissioners who only a few years ago were verbally and financially supporting PLT. They have all been silent about PLT since 2016, but I’m guessing they would all jump back on the PLT bandwagon if it starts gaining steam.
 

elkmagnet

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
2,982
Location
Hodale, Idaho
Yeah, it would be nice if that article was indeed correct and there was a paradigm shift with the land transfer proposal going the way of the dodo. Where I live, I still have a state senator and three county commissioners who only a few years ago were verbally and financially supporting PLT. They have all been silent about PLT since 2016, but I’m guessing they would all jump back on the PLT bandwagon if it starts gaining steam.
I see your bet and raise you one Lt. Governor.
20190308_122646.jpg
 

Sytes

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Messages
4,801
Location
Montana
This will be a podcast to listen to. Glad it worked out for you to host such with Senator Daines! Glad we are not focused on "Gotcha" moments. Look forward to valuable information and not a quick snippet of "They aren't the big bad wolf and they don't have a rainbow shooting out their ass like everyone would think they do."
 

HoytHntr4

New member
Joined
May 13, 2017
Messages
21
Location
SE Minnesota
My Senators voted for it in the Senate, and I sent them both an email thanking them for their vote. Unfortunately my representative for my district (Hagedorn) voted against it in the house. I sent him an email voicing my disappointment, and also told him it would probably do him a lot of good to get out of his office once in a while and enjoy our public lands and waters. In the land of 10,000 lakes (Minnesota) a vote against something that could benefit public waters didn't make a lot of sense to me
 

Mp5Mp5dw

New member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
3
Location
Utah
I know this was great for public lands; however, the following statement from (Arch Nemesis) Rob Bishop, scares the hell out of me. The last sentence concerns me greatly, being a resident of Utah. I know how much land these creatures are selling out from under us. I know this is what they are planning on doing from this bill. I supported this bill as a member of BHA. Can anyone tell me why this has the support of Rob Bishop and his cronies?

"Local voices impacted by public lands throughout our country have been heard," said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, a critical negotiator in many aspects of the legislation.

"Today commemorates a bipartisan achievement that has been years in the making, and I’d like to thank President Trump for signing this valuable legislation into law. This bill is a victory for America’s sportsmen, local governments, public lands, and rightfully establishes monuments the right way," Bishop added. "This achievement carries great meaning for my home state of Utah, and I’m proud to see this day finally arrive.”

“Additionally, the legislation generates millions of dollars through school trust land exchanges to help Utah’s schoolchildren. I’m proud to have been a part of this collaborative effort, along with Senator (Orrin) Hatch and Senator (Mitt) Romney, that is truly a local solution.”
 
Top