HR622, another State/Federal land issue

[Jim Wright]

Thanks go to Representative Jason Chaffetz, Utah for withdrawing HR621 which proposed selling 3.3 million acres of public lands to seven western states. Now it is time to address HR622, which Representative Chaffetz introduced more recently on 1/24/17. This resolution would: "terminate the law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and to provide block grants to States for the enforcement of Federal law on Federal land under the jurisdiction of these agencies, and for other purposes". For anyone not familiar with block grants, they are federal assistance for broadly defined functions such as social services, referred to by many as "welfare". And you can't get more broadly defined than "and for other purposes". I am thoroughly pessimistic about what these other purposes may be! Neither the U.S. Forest Service or the Bureau of Land Management has requested that their enforcement responsibilities be transferred to the states. I can imagine no good reason for tax payer dollars being spent to fund State enforcement of Federal law on Federal property. Once again please contact your Senators and especially your Congressman and let them know you oppose this latest really bad idea.

[Orion]

Might also keep an eye out for the guts of 622 to be snuck in as an amendment to the budget or some other major bill. That's frequently the way a lot of unsavory legislation that couldn't stand on its own merit is passed.

[gvdocholiday]

I know that locally our County Sheriff department is under contract with the USFS to patrol Federal Rec Areas around here.

[Jim Wright]

If your County Sheriff Department is under contract with the forest Service to aid them in specific enforcement duties, they are being compensated out of the Forest Service's existing budget. That is a very different situation than Congress completely terminating the Forest Services enforcement responsibilities and funding a block grant with tax payer money so that the state can enforce Federal law on Federal land.

[Sam McMichael]

Since the Feds essentially "took" the land from the states in the beginning, why are they justified in selling it back to the these same states?

[Jim Wright]

Sam, the "Feds" never took anything from the states. In every instance when statehood was granted, these lands were ALWAYS identified as public lands. The states have never owned them.

[Bowwild]

I don't see the need for redundant LE. I'm for the state conservation officers enforcing conservation laws. I'm fine with HR622 as described above.

I was against the public lands and told my Rep (Barr) and Senators (Paul and McConnell) so.

[thumper-tx]

That bill will lead to spotty and inconsistent enforcement. I have not seen redundant enforcement at all. You don't see the sheriffs in the mountains dealing with ATV's, poaching and such. Every Sheriffs Dept is different and will enforce to different levels, if at all.  

This is a bad bill, I hope it is defeated.

[YosemiteSam]

What's the downside?  Is your fear that the feds will simply under-fund the states or counties, effectively reducing enforcement?  Or are you fearful that the states or counties will not manage their enforcement duties as well as the feds?

[Bowwild]

I've seen only the FW Agency Wardens in the National Forest or on BLM lands.  

In fact, while hunting in Colorado and Wyoming I've never seen a NF officer, just the state managing the state's wildlife.

[monterey]

622 has been withdrawn

[Soonerlongbow]

I'm glad it's been withdrawn! My only concern is that in many instances it's very costly to maintain the lands and our nation is currently broke. There are ways to pay for the lands but that too will anger people. Public land, just like your personal land, has to make you money or it will be a net drain on your wallet. Public lands, OUR land, are mostly stagnant in many places. Yes they can bring in huge sums in tax revenue from numerous outdoor activities but like the USPS it's a loosing system. The overhead is just too high.

I've never worked in the timber industry but know there are both good and horrible companies and methods to work the land. I work the oil patch and can say without a doubt that it can be done to work land and be environmentally conscious.

Some areas need to never be touched by the machines of industry. Others could use management to help pay the costs associated with maintaining the land. But we can't do it if both sides take an all or nothing approach during negotiations.

[Soonerlongbow]

As to the "always been federal" arguments, that's true and not. Remember that two states were originally separate nations, albeit Komieforia was really just a joke of an independent nation, Texas was a legitimate nation state. And we're currently watching the fight between the state and State on the boundary along the Red River. Some of the lands in question have valid deeds dating back to the Republic of Texas. Yet the BLM is coming in and now telling them that those deeds were improper.
The acknowledged border has been the vegetation line on the South bank since it was The Republic. Now they are pushing it further South onto people's ranches. I worked for the government long enough to know not to trust them.

[Covey]

Im glad it was overruled! It's the people that are doing shady things on our public lands that I'm worried about. I support law enforcement. Federal  or State, we need them all! Most of the time our law enforcement officers are spread pretty thin!

[Whip]

Think about some of the laws that the Feds are responsible for enforcing.  Outfitter permits to operate on public land, including the location and rules of use for their backcountry camps.  Grazing allocations. Oil drilling permits and proper construction and maintenance of drilling sites. ATV use on closed trails.  The list goes on and on.
 
Would you really believe that the local sheriff department would have the expertise, training, and most importantly,  motivation to enforce those kinds of rules?  

When budget time comes do you think those local agencies are going to place a priority on enforcing federal land rules and regulations? Are they going to put deputies on horses to ride into the backcountry to check on an outfitter or will they be more concerned about reducing crime in the places where local residents live?  

The Feds may not be doing the best job of enforcement,  but that is primarily a result of a lack of adequate funding. Transferring responsibility to agencies that have never done that enforcement in the past is not going to result in better enforcement.  Each type of law enforcement has its propose,  acme they are best conducted by agencies that have their purpose and focus clearly defined.

[Whip]

Are you certain that HR 622 has been withdrawn?  I know that is the case for 621, but looking at Congress.gov it appears that HR 622 is still alive and well.

[Soonerlongbow]

Absolutely Whip. My question is how do we increase the funding? Few if any will vote for increasing their taxes for it, either on products/licensing vis-a-vis Pittman-Robertson, through increased income taxes. If anything has become apparent from the last election it's that lowering taxes is something Americans desire so that dog won't hunt.

Well, you could increase the various fees to access or conduct business on the lands. Re-read paragraph above about why increasing the hard earned dollar isn't likely to viewed well by the average citizen. Most lands rightfully have zero access fees, try adding a $25, 50, or Heaven forbid, $100 access fee per state per person to just be able to set foot into a national forrest and you'd have a revolt from the hunting community. And while minor increases to Pittman would likely go unnoticed by the consumer, they won't generate enough revenue to be effective.

Well what about that oil or timber company, we can make them pay more to drill and harvest timber. Both are generally there at the behest of the government so an increase there means less companies would even attempt to set up shop because of the overhead. The profit margins in the ONG industry are much lower than one might expect, frequently below 10% (Check out the margins for pharma and electronics if you think Big Oil is bad.). And on government lands the government gets a large portion of the ONG straight to strategic reserves (thus never hitting the streets), then they get a good chunk of the profits from the sale of the ONG as well, further reducing the margins.

As Whip stated, our agencies are underfunded & understaffed. We've established the nobody thinks selling the land is a reasonable solution, even though it reduces the expenses. The environmental whackos throw tantrums if we tried to responsibly utilize the natural resources God graciously gave us. And, there won't be any increase in taxes or fees. So what do we have?

What we have is a classic circular firing squad. We're danged if we do and if we don't as well.

[KSdan]

Agree Whip. . . lots of discussion out there that it is still alive.  Some thinking 621 was a decoy to get 622 through.

MUCH bigger issue than being mentioned here on TG.  Even removal of LE may not be the REAL issue.  This has the potential of being a very sophisticated piece of legislation that was used prior in history (1900) to create a conflict on the BLM land; i.e. violations, misuse. .. etc.  Which then forces use like mining, ag etc to remove themselves (due to the mess).  With the mess and no revenue, the Feds throw up their hands and give the land back to the states.  This has ACTUALLY occurred in our US history.

Do not know if this is that scenario.  But this entire thing is suspicious . . .

Dan in KS

[Whip]

I think that you are exactly right Dan.  HR 622 could actually end up being far WORSE than 621 ever proposed to be.  Instead of only 3.3 million acres, HR 622 would throw ALL of the federal land in this country into a completely unregulated mess.  Every commercial use of our public land would be virtually unsupervised because I am convinced that the states will have no interest or expertise in how to regulate and enforce it.  

Federal laws need to be enforced by federal employees.  Just giving state and local authorities the power to enforce the laws does not mean that they will do it.  Budgets are short everywhere, and the first thing that will be cut at the local levels will be enforcement of federal laws.  

Heck, we are already seeing the problems with this kind of thinking with cities thumbing their collective noses at the feds in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

[centaur]

Originally posted by Whip:
I think that you are exactly right Dan.  HR 622 could actually end up being far WORSE than 621 ever proposed to be.  Instead of only 3.3 million acres, HR 622 would throw ALL of the federal land in this country into a completely unregulated mess.  Every commercial use of our public land would be virtually unsupervised because I am convinced that the states will have no interest or expertise in how to regulate and enforce it.  

Federal laws need to be enforced by federal employees.  Just giving state and local authorities the power to enforce the laws does not mean that they will do it.  Budgets are short everywhere, and the first thing that will be cut at the local levels will be enforcement of federal laws.  

Heck, we are already seeing the problems with this kind of thinking with cities thumbing their collective noses at the feds in the enforcement of our immigration laws.

I agree. BLM and USFS enforcement personnel know their territories better than already overtaxed Sheriffs departments, which would bear most of the burden if Fed LEOs weren't there. Sounds like the start of an attempt to revert OUR lands to the several states.