HR 621 and 622 Death by a thousand cuts to public land

[TheTone]

Sad but true Utah is an armpit

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Its a shame that companies that really make their living off public land (Easton, Hoyt, gold tip, black diamond, Barnes to name a few) are based there. They should all be really raising a stink with their reps as to what impact the loss of public land could have on their business.

 

[realunlucky]

Grazing rights are big money why aren't these rancher leeching off public lands chiming in. Land transfers could easily exclude any prior agreements

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[sdavis721]

I'm fairly new to the game of contacting state representatives about issues like this (other then the automated ones). What do you mention when you contact them other than you are for/against an issue?

 

[jtl]

I'm fairly new to the game of contacting state representatives about issues like this (other then the automated ones). What do you mention when you contact them other than you are for/against an issue?

My advice from some time in the political world:

Make sure you are calling the right person. Right now, this bill is in the House of Representatives, so you should be calling your member of the US House. It's great to call your US Senator, or State Rep/Senator too to let them know where you stand on land transfers, but if you tell them to vote against HR 621 they will think you are don't know what you're talking about.

Once you have your member's number, call (it's better than email) and say that you want to state your opposition to HR 621/622. Give one or two reasons why (see this site, BHA, TRCP for tons of reasons). Be polite and well spoken. It's fine to write down exactly what you are going to say and just read it to the person.

Know that they are not going to argue with you or anything like that. They will thank you for your input and say that they will pass it along. What normally happens is that they are creating a tally sheet that they pass along to the member at some point.

That's it. It's really easy.

 

[airlocksniffer]

My advice from some time in the political world:

Make sure you are calling the right person. Right now, this bill is in the House of Representatives, so you should be calling your member of the US House. It's great to call your US Senator, or State Rep/Senator too to let them know where you stand on land transfers, but if you tell them to vote against HR 621 they will think you are don't know what you're talking about.

Once you have your member's number, call (it's better than email) and say that you want to state your opposition to HR 621/622. Give one or two reasons why (see this site, BHA, TRCP for tons of reasons). Be polite and well spoken. It's fine to write down exactly what you are going to say and just read it to the person.

Know that they are not going to argue with you or anything like that. They will thank you for your input and say that they will pass it along. What normally happens is that they are creating a tally sheet that they pass along to the member at some point.

That's it. It's really easy.

Even better than call, if your rep has a local office stop by and talk to the staffers. Always be polite but make very clear your view on the issue. Here is a helpful article I ran across awhile back:

The Best Ways to Contact Your Congresspeople, From a Former Staffer

 

[sdavis721]

My advice from some time in the political world:

Make sure you are calling the right person. Right now, this bill is in the House of Representatives, so you should be calling your member of the US House. It's great to call your US Senator, or State Rep/Senator too to let them know where you stand on land transfers, but if you tell them to vote against HR 621 they will think you are don't know what you're talking about.

Once you have your member's number, call (it's better than email) and say that you want to state your opposition to HR 621/622. Give one or two reasons why (see this site, BHA, TRCP for tons of reasons). Be polite and well spoken. It's fine to write down exactly what you are going to say and just read it to the person.

Know that they are not going to argue with you or anything like that. They will thank you for your input and say that they will pass it along. What normally happens is that they are creating a tally sheet that they pass along to the member at some point.

That's it. It's really easy.

Thanks for your advice! Why do you find it better to call instead of doing it by e mail?

 

[jtl]

I think it depends on the office, in some I imagine emails are just as effective, but I knew staffers in one office where emails were tabulated somewhat inconsistently, meaning it could be a few weeks until they hit the tally sheet. So if there was a bill in committee or on the floor and you wanted to get the message to your member ASAP, you might be too late.

This is probably the exception rather than the norm, and others could have a different view, but that's my opinion.

 

[Publiclandhunter]

Regardless of whatever else you wrote, Utah absolutely does not have the best economy in the nation....

Never let facts get in the way of your uninformed opinion.

 

[tipsntails7]

Never let facts get in the way of your uninformed opinion.

Hmmm.... facts you say.

Anyway you slice it, if I was choosing an economy dodgeball team, my first pick is not going to be Utah.

Back to public lands

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Publiclandhunter]

Utah named best overall economic performing state - Official Blog for Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert

Utah has best state economy with high marks for investment in workforce, infrastructure, report says | Deseret News

US states economy ranking Q4 2015 - Business Insider

Utah best performing state in economic growth 2nd year in a row | KSL.com

2016’s States with the Best & Worst Economies | WalletHub(R)

http://www.forbes.com/places/ut/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsn...ies-where-does-your-state-rank/?client=safari

 

[tipsntails7]

Utah named best overall economic performing state - Official Blog for Utah Governor Gary R. Herbert

Utah has best state economy with high marks for investment in workforce, infrastructure, report says | Deseret News

US states economy ranking Q4 2015 - Business Insider

Utah best performing state in economic growth 2nd year in a row | KSL.com

2016’s States with the Best & Worst Economies | WalletHub(R)

http://www.forbes.com/places/ut/

https://www.google.com/amp/www.cbsn...ies-where-does-your-state-rank/?client=safari

Those are citing growth of the economy, not its actual strength, and 4 of them are literally using the exact same data set from wallethub, did you even read them?

Wallethub uses 3 metrics that are conveniently undefined one being "potential".

I'm not trying to be rude as I dig Utah but if it disappeared tomorrow the US economy wouldn't even notice.

I also love public lands, but to insinuate that the rapid growth of Utah's economy is because of those public lands and tourism is ridiculous. Last I checked Utah's had those lands for quite a while. Businesses drive economies not unfettered land access.

For someone who talked down so badly on another member, you've not used any actual hard facts to substantiate your opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Trial153]

Utah is a model we should abhor.

 

[Publiclandhunter]

Those are citing growth of the economy, not its actual strength, and 4 of them are literally using the exact same data set from wallethub, did you even read them?

Wallethub uses 3 metrics that are conveniently undefined one being "potential".

I'm not trying to be rude as I dig Utah but if it disappeared tomorrow the US economy wouldn't even notice.

I also love public lands, but to insinuatr that the rapid growth of Utah's economy is because of those public lands and tourism is ridiculous. Last I checked Utah's had those lands for quite a while. Businesses drive economies not unfettered land access.

For someone who talked down so badly on another member, you've not used any actual hard facts to substantiate your opinions.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A couple things. Utah is a huge state, with a small population of 3 million people. Yes I mis-spoke, not biggest, but one of the strongest. I also didn't say that Utahs economy is fully dependent on public lands. When you consider the grazing, industry, and recreation that occurs on these states it's an important part. Our national parks break visitation records every year. There's plenty of outdoor companies based and with locations around the state. With around 83% of hunting in the state going on, on public lands, they are important to it. You can't dump hundreds of millions of acres on a state government with 3 million people at its tax base and expect a large majority of it not to be sold. There's no where near enough money to pay for it.

 

[PathFinder]

Anyone care to explain how exactly public lands require "maintenance" and law enforcement? I pretty much view all government as non essential, and see land management agencies do very little and waste a lot of money. Anti poaching activities are probably the only thing I personally benefit from, and the DWR isn't very good at that either. I can see state governments being able to "own" lands with almost zero cost. It will require laws absolutely banning their sale, and a strictly limited amount of money spent to manage them. Either way, no government should be able to sell public land. We ought to quit crying about what they try to do to sell it, and fight for legislation banning the sale of our public lands. There are enough people that would support such a law to get it through. Raise money, buy the votes, get it done. Tree huggers, liberals, hunters, and conservatives alike could get behind a bill that does nothing but ban the sale of public lands by any government agency. I'd like to see the wasteful bureaucracies die off, but that's another issue.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[NevadaZielmeister]

Anyone care to explain how exactly public lands require "maintenance" and law enforcement? I pretty much view all government as non essential, and see land management agencies do very little and waste a lot of money. Anti poaching activities are probably the only thing I personally benefit from, and the DWR isn't very good at that either. I can see state governments being able to "own" lands with almost zero cost.

When you are out and about hunting and come across a marijuana field or a meth laboratory and suddenly are getting shot at, you are gonna really wish that the government would have done something about it. The public lands are being taken over by the drug cartels and locals to produce their drugs and they aim to protect it with lethal force. This was a big problem when I was in Search and Rescue. Any badge that I wore almost became a target to those southerner's and tweekers.

Just some food for thought.

 

[PathFinder]

When you are out and about hunting and come across a marijuana field or a meth laboratory and suddenly are getting shot at, you are gonna really wish that the government would have done something about it. The public lands are being taken over by the drug cartels and locals to produce their drugs and they aim to protect it with lethal force. This was a big problem when I was in Search and Rescue. Any badge that I wore almost became a target to those southerner's and tweekers.

Just some food for thought.

We had this issue around here for a couple years. I think there were three farms busted, and in all but one case they were mishandled horribly. The only time they actually caught most of the guys, they watched it for weeks first, during which time it remained a hazard. And in every case, private citizens first found them. I've never seen an LEO get out and hike to look for pot farms. Supposedly they do aerial searches, but I haven't heard of one being found in at least a decade. It's vague paranoia at best. No, law enforcement cannot protect me from walking into a pot farm. That's my responsibility. This doesn't warrant more law enforcement; it's further justification for the end of the drug war. No drug war, no mountain pot farms run by dangerous criminals.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Publiclandhunter]

Anyone care to explain how exactly public lands require "maintenance" and law enforcement? I pretty much view all government as non essential, and see land management agencies do very little and waste a lot of money. Anti poaching activities are probably the only thing I personally benefit from, and the DWR isn't very good at that either. I can see state governments being able to "own" lands with almost zero cost. It will require laws absolutely banning their sale, and a strictly limited amount of money spent to manage them. Either way, no government should be able to sell public land. We ought to quit crying about what they try to do to sell it, and fight for legislation banning the sale of our public lands. There are enough people that would support such a law to get it through. Raise money, buy the votes, get it done. Tree huggers, liberals, hunters, and conservatives alike could get behind a bill that does nothing but ban the sale of public lands by any government agency. I'd like to see the wasteful bureaucracies die off, but that's another issue.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Listen, the federal government is not my favorite thing. The maintenance issue in some areas has to do with roads, bridges, prescribed burns and habitat projects, fighting wildfires, replanting, maintaining restroom facilities in some areas, surveying, approving permits, etc. Law enforcement is needed for what NevadaZ said above as well as ensuring people are staying on designated routes, not dumping trash in areas, helping the public if they get into trouble, ensuring the safety of the people using public lands, assisting local state fish and game to watch for poaching(this is especially true in Utah on the winter ranges, BLM and FS help the DWR all the time). I'm not sure where you live pathfinder, but county sheriffs don't usually make it up on the mountains or into the rough terrain BLM and FS rangers do unless there is a serious problem. It is those rangers who ensure safety of the public and our public lands. I would also mention there is not a lot of them. With out DWR force spread so thin it is nice to have a few BLM and FS rangers around assisting them in patrols and watching out for illegal activity. Sorry, but if that is dumped on the local sheriffs office it isn't going to be as safe and more laws being broken will go unnoticed because in all my years hunting and being on the mountain, I've seen a local sheriff twice. Aren't we a country of law and order? With no law enforcement on these lands and putting that heavy burden on already stressed sheriff stations, there will be less law and order if you ask me. Yes there are guys who have that "new cop attitude" but every experience I've had with BLM and FS rangers has been great. I met one BLM ranger who gave a few people DUI's, ticketed some guys for breaking glass bottles, smoking weed, and trashing a place, and somehow he was the bad guy. I met him and talked to him a few times, I never had one issue with him. Why? Because I wasn't breaking the law. He was a nice guy, he just did his job, and I liked that he did his job because it did scare the guys who think drinking and driving down a main mountain road, trashing areas with beer cans, and driving off designated roads always had him in the back of their minds and didn't do those things like they used to. The point is he was there often, and he watched. He was not out to get anyone, he simply said he wanted to clean up some of the drinking and driving and trashing of places that were going on in the area. He did that, and he was a respectable human being that lived in our local community and did his job right.

 

[jtl]

^ This is a good list. As another poster said, a single wildfire could bankrupt a state.

In general, I don't think there are any examples where declaring a large tract of land as a law enforcement free zone turns out well.

 

[PathFinder]

Publiclandhunter most of what you said makes more sense. My argument is that costs can be cut enough that it would never be necessary to sell public lands, and large, wasteful bureaucracies could be eliminated. Enforcement of small offenses like you described does not require a huge force, or millions of dollars. The BLM and FS do a horrible job of keeping people on designated roads. I end up having to build barriers correctly because they're too incompetent to do it, despite huge budgets. They make for great Dedicated Hunter projects but they ought to be able to do it themselves. Here in central Utah, our CS does patrol in the mountains etc and handle S&R. Personally, I like it when roads don't get maintained and even close. I wouldn't miss campgrounds either. Use fees could pay for those 100%, and wouldn't add an additional burden.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Publiclandhunter]

Publiclandhunter most of what you said makes more sense. My argument is that costs can be cut enough that it would never be necessary to sell public lands, and large, wasteful bureaucracies could be eliminated. Enforcement of small offenses like you described does not require a huge force, or millions of dollars. The BLM and FS do a horrible job of keeping people on designated roads. I end up having to build barriers correctly because they're too incompetent to do it, despite huge budgets. They make for great Dedicated Hunter projects but they ought to be able to do it themselves. Here in central Utah, our CS does patrol in the mountains etc and handle S&R. Personally, I like it when roads don't get maintained and even close. I wouldn't miss campgrounds either. Use fees could pay for those 100%, and wouldn't add an additional burden.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Pathfinder I agree that the BLM and Forest Service don't upkeep roads, but have you seen their budgets? over 50% of their annual budgets go to wildfire costs, sometimes more. It 2015 the Forest Service alone spent $700 million fighting wildfires. The biggest issue is, these agencies don't need more funding they need the cost of wildfire covered by natural disaster funding. Earthquakes, floods, tornados, hurricanes, etc. are all covered by natural disaster funding. Why isn't wildfire treated the same way? The money used by the BLM and FS for fire is not in a separate account, it comes out of their general operating budget. Thats a big reason why they can't afford to maintain roads or complete projects like they like to. Once you spend 50-60% of your entire budget fighting fires, fighting lawsuits, and paying employees you have hardly anything left to spend and you have backlogs of projects because of it and they just keep getting farther behind. Thats why congress needs to work on fixing fire borrowing and bad policies rather than fight about this land transfer thing. The system that is in place can be improved if they would just do it. Fire borrowing has been brought up with bi-partisan support but has yet to get through congress and onto the presidents desk. I am hopefully this administration and congress will get it there, rather than try to hash out land transfers and sells and undermining federal agencies. As for spreading them thin, I don't know how much thinner you can spread them. Most of them are in charge of tens of thousands of acres and have no back up. It's just them out there. It is good to have extra officers out there because our DWR officers are already spread thin here. Many times they call for backup and a BLM or FS ranger is the closest law enforcement to them. While there are some isolated issues with these things, it is generally a good thing for our state officers and county officers to have federal law enforcement when they need them.

Road maintenance would happen if they had the budgets. Problem is there budgets might seem big but for what they do they really aren't and they make up about 1% of our national budget. There are some issues that need to be fixed by congress so these agencies can be more efficient. One thing that would help is giving more power to the local field offices to make decisions easier, at their discretion, and give power to the field station biologists and local range managers. It would ease some of the tensions we have. I agree with you, all spending the government does needs to be re-evaluated and be done more fiscally responsibly, but congress also needs to give the BLM and FS a fair chance to operate the way they could if they weren't so burdened by costs that kill their budgets for no good reason and backlog more and more work.