Rs draw up bill for massive selloff on the cheap of public lands, 10 western states, 3.3m acres

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 31, 2017

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ands-sell-congress-bureau-management-chaffetz

Now that Republicans have quietly drawn a path to give away much of Americans’ public land, US representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah has introduced what the Wilderness Society is calling “step two” in the GOP’s plan to offload federal property.

The new piece of legislation would direct the interior secretary to immediately sell off an area of public land the size of Connecticut. In a press release for House Bill 621, Chaffetz, a Tea Party Republican, claimed that the 3.3m acres of national land, maintained by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), served “no purpose for taxpayers”.

Jason Amaro, who represents the south-west chapter of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, describes the move as a land grab.

“Last I checked, hunters and fishermen were taxpayers,” said Amaro, who lives in a New Mexico county where 70,000 acres of federal lands are singled out. In total, his state, which sees $650m in economic activity from hunting and fishing, stands to lose 800,000 acres of BLM land, or more than the state of Rhode Island.

In further anti-public land management news (bolding mine):

Chaffetz introduced the bill alongside a second piece of legislation that would strip the BLM and the US Forest Service of law enforcement capabilities, a move in line with the Utah delegation’s opposition to all federal land management.

This was set up earlier this month, when the provision that public property could not be sold at a loss to the public was stripped away by the Republicans in Congress.

Due to a controversial change this month to the House of Representatives’ rules, the sale does not have to make money for the federal government. A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres “would be unlikely to generate revenue”.

The vast majority of the thousands of parcels have “impediments to disposal”, according to the survey, including hosting endangered species and wetlands or having “cultural significance”.

cethklein · Jan 31, 2017

The GOP like to hunt. I wonder if they realize this means less land hunt on.

Alessandra Kelley · Jan 31, 2017

cethklein said:
The GOP like to hunt. I wonder if they realize this means less land hunt on.

That may be why this is being done so quickly and quietly.

Interestingly, a Republican outdoorsman cited in the article points out that selling off smaller, scattered parcels (as many of these are) can have massive effects. Reportedly a ten-acre parcel sold off cut off the only public access to hundreds of thousands of acres of Colorado National Forest, leaving it as essentially a private game preserve exclusively for the landowners who could access if from their private property surrounding it.

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 2, 2017

Congressman Chaffetz https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/feb/02/republican-selling-public-lands-bill-withdraw-jason-chaffetzhas withdrawn the bill.

In the small hours of Thursday morning, US congressman Jason Chaffetz announced that he would withdraw a bill he introduced last week that would have ordered the incoming Secretary of the Interior to immediately sell off 3.3m acres of national land.

Chaffetz, a representative from Utah, wrote on Instagram that he had a change of heart in the face of strong opposition from “groups I support and care about” who, he said, “fear it sends the wrong message”.

House Bill 621 had ignited a firestorm of indignation from conservationists but also from hunters and fishermen, who contribute to the $646bn generated by outdoor recreation across the US each year.

“Once that bill was introduced, the hornet’s nest was kicked,” said Land Tawney, president and CEO of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, a group that supported public land rallies in opposition. “What happened last week was just a small fraction of the ire the sportsman community has been feeling.”

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 2, 2017

Ohhhh, cripes, it really DOES look like the Republicans are trying to roll back all twentieth century environmental protections' progress all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt.

From the same article just linked:

Senator Orrin Hatch has proposed eliminating the 1906 Antiquities Act, which has allowed presidents since Theodore Roosevelt to designate 129 national monuments. The Utah delegation has also vigorously fought to open Ute tribal land in their state, currently partially protected by the Bears Ears National Monument to drilling, despite the tribe’s opposition.

cethklein · Feb 2, 2017

Alessandra Kelley said:
Congressman Chaffetz https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ing-public-lands-bill-withdraw-jason-chaffetzhas withdrawn the bill.

Could it be that the GOP base may be waking up to see their favorite politicians might not be looking out for them after all? The "hornet's nest" quote sums up my original point nicely.

Alessandra Kelley · Feb 2, 2017

cethklein said:
Could it be that the GOP base may be waking up to see their favorite politicians might not be looking out for them after all? The "hornet's nest" quote sums up my original point nicely.

Well, conservation and environmentalism has long been a Republican stance. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican president, after all.

cethklein · Feb 2, 2017

Alessandra Kelley said:
Well, conservation and environmentalism has long been a Republican stance. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican president, after all.

And I'd love to see the GOP return to that angle. But as this bill made clear, they haven't. They're only backing down because their base bucked on them. As an aside I'd love to hear the Bundy family's take on this.

ElaineA · Feb 2, 2017

cethklein said:
Could it be that the GOP base may be waking up to see their favorite politicians might not be looking out for them after all? The "hornet's nest" quote sums up my original point nicely.

Doubtful. They just reversed a stream protection law. Trout fishermen apparently don't have enough clout

Per the language of the bill:

This joint resolution nullifies the Stream Protection Rule finalized by the Department of the Interior's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement on December 20, 2016. The rule addresses the impacts of surface coal mining operations on surface water, groundwater, and the productivity of mining operation sites.

cethklein · Feb 2, 2017

ElaineA said:
Doubtful. They just reversed a stream protection law. Trout fishermen apparently don't have enough clout

Per the language of the bill:

Compared to the coal industry they probably don't. This is the part where the base gets to see where they really stand on the totem pole.

Roxxsmom · Feb 2, 2017

Alessandra Kelley said:
Well, conservation and environmentalism has long been a Republican stance. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican president, after all.

As a child, I had trouble understanding why conservatives were against conservation.

This action is the kind of thing the GOP-controlled congress will be quietly doing in the background while Trump and crew focus on flashier issues and stripping civil rights from groups of people. They're working for the richest Americans and the big corporations. I think the other stuff is about setting the hungry dogs on one another so they don't turn on the masters who are starving them.

Rs draw up bill for massive selloff on the cheap of public lands, 10 western states, 3.3m acres

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

cethklein

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

cethklein

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

cethklein

ElaineA

All about that action, boss.

cethklein

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido