H.R.621

K

Kris Winiarski

Member
Now that most of us are wrapped up for the season I think it is all worth our time to call our representatives and tell them to protect federal lands out west important to a lot of folks for hunting and fishing. I live in New England so it is less of an issue for me, but I believe it is important to step up for our fellow outdoors enthusiasts out west. I joined Backcountry hunters and anglers a few months back and I am happy I did given the recently proposed legislation.

http://www.themeateater.com/2017/calling-all-meateaters-we-need-you-now/

Gonna be a tough spell for the environment and conservation (that means for hunting and fishing as well) in the near term and we should all step up and let these folks know that the long term viability of wildlife and the environment should be more important than short term monetary gains.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/week-1-under-trump-bad-news-for-sportsmen-keeps-coming
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sure is going to be tough on that front the next few years. Good idea posting that up here - there are a lot of us here that value our public lands!

I'm a new member of BHA too.
 
BHA member here, too, for about 2 years now.

In Maine, a concern is that the recent designation of Katahdin Area Woods and Waters as a National Monument may be reversed. I can't imagine anyone is thinking of selling Acadia, and with the current state of the forest products industry here, I doubt there'd be much interest in selling off the small part of White Mountain National Forest that spills over into Maine.

A link to a letter from multiple hunting, angling, conservation, and outdoor industry folks:
http://www.tu.org/blog-posts/sportsmen-public-lands-letter-to-congress-01-24-2017?gid=76497

I'd like to see Delta Waterfowl and DU adding their voices on this. If the idea catches on, selling "surplus" NW Refuge land may be next.
 
From Ray's article, here is my biggest reservation:

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”.

And here I thought folks wanted to run government like a business.

It would be one thing to sell some strategic parcels that have high sale value and low public benefits, especially if the funds were re-invested in maintaining or improving the remaining land, or acquiring parcels with more public values.
 
Thank you Carl! This thread caught my attention because a lot of us Easterners think of western government land policy disputes as people like that dude Bundy, but that is far from the truth. Here is a map of all of the public land in the US. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=8047eda3656e4241b75463a5451ba9e2 Notice where it is concentrated, and what percentage of some of these states that it makes up, and the fact that those states have little, if any, control or input on its use or non use. Regardless of your opinion of what should happen with it, I think you can see why there are people that want the Federal government to sell some land.

The bill is pretty short, it now is in committee, where I would guess the author is going to look for co-sponsors, whom will want to put their own imprint on it, and we will see where it goes. If it gets to the floor, I doubt it will be as expansive as it seems(which I am sure is intentional), because they never are. But I don't think Yellowstone is for sale.
 
I agree that we easterners don't quite grasp just how much of the western states is comprised of federal lands. Its really quite mind-boggling to us.
Here in the east, in many states a national forest may contain a few thousand acres and is considered a huge tract of public land. Out west, public lands are measured in square miles..
 
I doubt the direct sale of federal lands is very popular and you would hope a bill like this one wouldn't go much traction. I think the real concern is a push to transition these federal lands back to the control of the states. Perhaps locals would get more say as to how these lands are managed but unfortunately, many of these states if faced with some kind of budget deficit could sell these properties to fill the gap.
 
Directly North and Northwest of me we have STATE size National Forests with limited other ownership and if so it is the State and County's. The County's for sure and to some degree the State have figured ways to manage the resources. The idea that Washington can handle the management of these lands is a joke. The Feds idea of management is let old growth timber blow down then burn and cost people their livelihood and their lives (yes people die in windstorms in the BWCA).
Go to the Dakotas and west and soon as you cross the Missouri, the same results just a different federal resource. It is time the Feds get a complete overall and swept to the curb. This is not about changing ownership this is about using what is on and under them lands for the benefit of the Country. Most people have absolutely no clue how much federal lands there is in the lower 48, lets not even put Alaska in the conversations. And lets not even go down the road of the The National Monument crap the FORMER President imposed against the will of the people. I dare him to walk across the Monument's he established out west.
There is zero common sense and policy is misguided by fringe groups, same reason every deer is running for their lives from a timber wolf who are supposedly endangered.
 
Based on social media pressure, Jason C. announced he is going to pull 621 today. He still brought up Clinton administration in 1997, but fails to mention that outdoors folks like us didn't like it back then either.

Now if we can get them to reverse the federal lands value amendment placed in the latest budget reconciliation bill, that would be great. How can over $2 billion in annual resource leases, and user fees result in lands having no value.
 
I'm sorry to say that Chaffetz hails from my home state. Thankfully he's withdrawn the bill for now, but I think he's shown his colors. We are in for quite the fight in the next decade or so if we want to hold on to our public lands-unfortunately in my state there is a 0% chance of electing anyone who isn't a big-business Republican to represent us. Thankfully even many of the Republicans in Utah value our hunting and fishing rights, and value public access to the land to do so.
 
While the withdrawal of 621 is a good thing let's notforget that 622, which would remove the BLM and USFWS From being able to enforce laws on the lands that are in their control, is still in play.....my opinion is hat this is by far the more insidious and potentially damaging bill.....

Accolades to the fighters who have, for now, stopped 621 but without the same happening with 622 its less than "half a loaf"....
 
622 is rumored to be pulled soon as well, but as of this morning it is still active in the House in the Agriculture and the Natural Resources committees. I know guys in CA are pushing hard and bringing up all the pot farms on USFS lands. Their local county guys are at reduced staff and only the Feds care.

Who at the local county level is going to be able to put together a grant application? With reduced staff at the USFS to handle grants and contracts who is going to process all these new requests for funding?

FYI - Across the nation federal agencies have not been back filling contract management positions. Its the employee numbers game using attrition to keep the total number down. Getting a contract or grant though the system takes weeks longer than it did just a few years ago. Laws like this one create a mandate and burden on resources that are already under stress, or don't exist.
 
Some good thoughts presented. I was once amazed when informed that Senators spent $2 million of their own money to get elected. They must plan on making that back during their tenure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top