HR622, another State/Federal land issue

[Jim Wright]

Joe, I also have tried to see where HR622 has been withdrawn and can find nothing indicating that to be the case. With that said, I'll continue, who honestly thinks there is any need for enforcement of federal law on federal property to be turned over to the individual states? Hundreds of millions of acres, much of it wilderness and suddenly state law enforcement agencies are responsible for enforcing the federal laws on it? What could go wrong with that? Which state law enforcement agencies have the extra personnel to manage this little task? Oh, that's right we will use block grants, in other words taxpayer money to pay for it and for "other purposes", use your imagination as to what that entails! Does no one else suspect that this is just another method for the states, deep in the red to have ownership of public lands sold or transferred to them so that they can sell or lease them for profit?

[sticksnstones]

HR622 is still alive. Outdoor Life did a little write up showing the dark side of the bill.

 http://www.outdoorlife.com/rep-chaffetzs-bill-is-poachers-dream-sportsmans-nightmare  

There is nothing in the bill to divert millions of dollars into local agencies to support their expanded role. Remember a lot of these rural counties are already under-served and many only have two wheel drive/low clearance cruisers.

I don't see anything about this bill doing anything to enable local LEOs to do a better job than all of the rangers already on the job.

Personally I am strongly opposed to the bill as written.
Thom

[YosemiteSam]

Originally posted by Soonerlongbow:
The environmental whackos throw tantrums if we tried to responsibly utilize the natural resources God graciously gave us.

To this environmental (almost) whacko, I'll just throw out how a different perspective can change your attitude a bit.  You seem to believe that the earth was made for us.  We own it and can use everything here as we see fit.  I'm sure most people in the world today would agree with you since this is our dominant cultural worldview.  It is also the narrative of the Abrahamic religions, to which you referred.

But the worldview that sustained humans for 95% of our history was that we are made for the earth.  We neither own it nor really "manage" it any more than we can own or manage gravity.  We are subject to it; it is not subject to us.  Every attempt to manage "our resources" on a large scale has led to more and more environmental degradation.  The earth doesn't need management; it needs protection -- from us and our inability to stop growing at all costs.  This is also part of the narrative of indigenous populations worldwide (or those who are left) and, in that sense, is more robust since it has had 240,000+ years of proven success vs 10,000 years of failure in achieving a true balance with nature.

I'm not looking for an argument of the merits of each worldview.  And, for the record, I'm a fat hypocrite since I sit at a computer, work in finance, drive a car and *gasp* shoot carbon arrows.  I'm just trying to point out how things can look perfectly reasonable from one perspective and yet be batsh** crazy from another.

Personally, I'm a bit fatalistic on the matter.  With 7 billion humans and growing, I think we'll cause our own extinction long before we give up our modern conveniences or start to accept death as a natural part of life.  I just want to enjoy what there is a bit longer and see that my children can as well.  I am willing to throw political tantrums if somebody wants to lay some pavement and oil wells in my favorite hunting or hiking grounds.  I don't want more logging; I want more fires.  I don't want more dams, I want fewer large-scale farms.  Yes, it's a fantasy.  But so is our current system of unlimited growth.

[McDave]

My view is that local law enforcement is willing to get involved primarily in one of two situations:  to protect the safety of citizens within its local jurisdiction, or to enforce violations resulting in fines that funnel into the local coffers in which they share.  I see neither of these being the case if they are given responsibility for law enforcement on federal lands.  The recent case where some ranchers refused to pay their grazing fees and occupied federal property in Oregon is a case in point.  Neither of the factors I listed above came into play, and local authorities didn't have much interest in it other than when they thought their local citizens might be threatened.  If we want to have enforcement of land use on federal property, it has to be done by the feds.  Otherwise, we might as well turn it over to the ranchers; I'm sure they're capable of taking care of their own interests without any help.

[Etter]

Originally posted by YosemiteSam:
 

Originally posted by Soonerlongbow:
The environmental whackos throw tantrums if we tried to responsibly utilize the natural resources God graciously gave us.

To this environmental (almost) whacko, I'll just throw out how a different perspective can change your attitude a bit.  You seem to believe that the earth was made for us.  We own it and can use everything here as we see fit.  I'm sure most people in the world today would agree with you since this is our dominant cultural worldview.  It is also the narrative of the Abrahamic religions, to which you referred.

But the worldview that sustained humans for 95% of our history was that we are made for the earth.  We neither own it nor really "manage" it any more than we can own or manage gravity.  We are subject to it; it is not subject to us.  Every attempt to manage "our resources" on a large scale has led to more and more environmental degradation.  The earth doesn't need management; it needs protection -- from us and our inability to stop growing at all costs.  This is also part of the narrative of indigenous populations worldwide (or those who are left) and, in that sense, is more robust since it has had 240,000+ years of proven success vs 10,000 years of failure in achieving a true balance with nature.

I'm not looking for an argument of the merits of each worldview.  And, for the record, I'm a fat hypocrite since I sit at a computer, work in finance, drive a car and *gasp* shoot carbon arrows.  I'm just trying to point out how things can look perfectly reasonable from one perspective and yet be batsh** crazy from another.

Personally, I'm a bit fatalistic on the matter.  With 7 billion humans and growing, I think we'll cause our own extinction long before we give up our modern conveniences or start to accept death as a natural part of life.  I just want to enjoy what there is a bit longer and see that my children can as well.  I am willing to throw political tantrums if somebody wants to lay some pavement and oil wells in my favorite hunting or hiking grounds.  I don't want more logging; I want more fires.  I don't want more dams, I want fewer large-scale farms.  Yes, it's a fantasy.  But so is our current system of unlimited growth. [/b]

Very very well said

[Soonerlongbow]

I've had spots ruined by oilfield and lumber companies. I've also had lands that were privately owned by lumber companies that had been opened up to outdoor activities by their gracious gifts. It's their property not mine and I'm grateful they have allowed me access.
Another issue comes to cost, our federal lands are flat broke. How are we going to pay for it? Read what else I wrote about the financial side of the problem. Basically it's a lose-lose scenario.
Do I come at this from an Abrahamic perspective? Absolutely! We do impact our animal populations via hunting or lack thereof, construction of communities and everything we do just to live. That means we have a duty to manage those lands and animals respectfully.
But regardless of the nature/nurture, evolution/creationism arguments you alluded to it comes down to one main thing. The all mighty dollar, in this case the lack of. Hate to beat the dead horse but we're broke. I've worked FED LEO, even enforced some fish and game laws. It's a rare occasion that agencies are fully staffed to adequately protect our environment from poachers, pollution, and every other aspect of what they enforce. In fact, I only know personally of one single federal land that has an abundance of game wardens and actual street cops and that is a piece here in Oklahoma. They have 10 full time wardens as well as numerous federal police officers in addition to all the other staff. All for a 10,000 acre property.
We've got to pay for it somehow and nobody wants to foot the bill. If we can't figure out how to pay they WILL CLOSE THE LAND! If it means a couple tracts get logged or drilled periodically so be it.
I'd love to hear an alternative to pay for it! So far each side is of the position that it's all or nothing. That will only lead to locked gates and banned presence.

[Jim Wright]

It is in fact the states involved in this issue who are broke. It's exactly why in HR622 Representative Chaffetz specifically mentions block grants (taxpayer money) to pay for the states to assume the responsibility of law enforcement of federal statutes on public property. And more than that his resolution hangs "and other purposes" on the end which means that tax payer money above and beyond the enforcement costs will have to be raised to pay for whatever that means. If anyone doubts the goal of HR622, look at HR621 that Representative Chaffetz withdrew under heavy pressure just a few days ago. It proposed SELLING 3.3 MILLION ACRES of public land to 7 western states. Is it not clear enough?

[YosemiteSam]

Originally posted by Soonerlongbow:
But regardless of the nature/nurture, evolution/creationism arguments you alluded to it comes down to one main thing. The all mighty dollar, in this case the lack of. Hate to beat the dead horse but we're broke.
...
I'd love to hear an alternative to pay for it! So far each side is of the position that it's all or nothing. That will only lead to locked gates and banned presence.

We definitely agree that we have a spending problem in government -- that's nothing new.  And, being a financial guy, I can appreciate that point.  And it's a bipartisan problem. But it's hard to get in to that without really getting off-topic.

It seems to me that it's not a question of whether or not we're broke and more a question of where our priorities lie.  We spend a ton of money on worthless and damaging ideas.  The list is long and carries bipartisan responsibilities.  

I also understand that this agenda to dispose of Federal lands isn't really about finances anyway.  That's the justification but it's not the reason.  The idea has been discussed heavily in Libertarian circles for many years now.  Many Libertarians believe that these lands will be better cared for in private hands than in public hands.  It's a philosophy that I find attractive in many respects.  I agree with a lot of Libertarian ideas.  But given the country we have, I simply cannot agree that disposing of these lands to the states is in the public's best interest.  A simple reworking of priorities can easily fund a "leave no trace" policy on federal lands and all the enforcement and maintenance it will need.

But I'm just a wannabe trad hunter in CA and won't pretend to know everything.  Skepticism is how I compensate for my ignorance of things far beyond my ability to really understand.  And I'm perpetually skeptical that politicians know any better than the rest of us.

[centaur]

Anybody want the states to manage public lands? Might want to read this...
 http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/colorado’s-big-secret-public-hunting-land-that’s-closed-public-hunting

[YosemiteSam]

Originally posted by centaur:
Anybody want the states to manage public lands? Might want to read this...
  http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/open-country/colorado’s-big-secret-public-hunting-land-that’s-closed-public-hunting  

My fears exactly!

[JDunlap]

For the record: Abrahamic religions [at least the biblical one] don't teach that we "own" the earth. "The earth is the LORD's and the fullness thereof, the world and the people who dwell therein." However, we are commissioned to be stewards of the earth = develop the world to the glory of God and the benefit of man. This includes learning to use its resources....wisely!
In that context, I am one of those libertarian thinkers who wonders about the wisdom of letting a centralized government own and control more and more land.... I appreciate having the ability to hunt on those lands, but greater control by an over-bearing centralized state has historically, ultimately, ended up being a threat, rather than  safeguard to hunting rights, and rights in general. My committment is to always vote to de-centralize.

[McDave]

I wouldn't object to passing control over federal lands to the states with the proviso that the lands must remain public lands in perpetuity, and public access could never be restricted other than for a legitimate public purpose.  An example would be that public access to a dam could be restricted because unlimited public access might pose a security risk, but public access to an area being leased for agricultural, timber harvesting, etc, uses could not be restricted absent a finding that restricting public access would be in the best interest of the public itself.