Read it and weep

[Al Agnew]

http://www.tu.org/blog-posts/it-only-took-one-day

The House passed this as part of their rules resolution.  Essentially, it makes the sale or transfer (or give away) of federal public lands a whole lot easier, by declaring any transfer to be budget neutral.  By declaring that, it means no public hearings or testimony necessary.  Why put it in if they aren't planning on getting rid of an unknown quantity of public land?  You can read the full bill here:

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20170102/BILLS-115hres5-PIH-FINAL.pdf

Applicable paragraph down near the bottom, not easy to find.

[fishinwrench]

What is the size of public easement on a railroad, or is there any ? Is that state or federal?

[jdmidwest]

I think railways are federal. Maybe 30' wide. 

The rule may be because Missouri has showed interest in the past in taking over Federal lands and managing them better. I think the issue came up a few years ago on the Current River. 

[ozark trout fisher]

This is very dangerous. All those proposals/half baked ideas about transferring ONSR or parts of Mark Twain to the state and/or private sector are suddenly much more plausible.

I no longer live in or near the Ozarks but none of us can stand idly by if (and by that, I mean when) that issue comes into play.

What a time to be alive. Some of us, myself included, are going to have to come out of the shock we've been in since, oh, I don't know, November 8th*, so we can be there to stand up for our public lands as their integrity is eroded over, I don't know, the next 4-8 years.*

*Note: these dates and times are completely random and have nothing to do with elections or elected officials.

 

[grizwilson]

3 hours ago, jdmidwest said:

I think railways are federal. Maybe 30' wide. 

The rule may be because Missouri has showed interest in the past in taking over Federal lands and managing them better. I think the issue came up a few years ago on the Current River. 

railroads are a minimum of 50 feet from center of the track.  that is what they pay tax on.

[Mark]

Not sure I am ready to be an alarmist over this bill. I understand what you are saying about the slippery slope and our ONSR being affected. I can see both sides of the issue. Interesting that the vote was split 100% partisan with Rep for and Dems against. I get that part too, though, with Dems paying back for Reps opposing every issue presented by Obama when he took office.

I can also see that we have millions of acres of federal land out west that is protected so it sits idle. How much is enough or too much? And I understand once it is sold off, it is private land forever, and we can't necessarily tell people what they can and can't do with their private land.

I watch TV shows like "The Last Alaskans" with the seven families living on the federal reserve the size of South Carolina, and after these 7 families that have been grandfathered in are gone, no one else can live on the land. Also I watch "Alaskan Bush People" who don't seem to be hurting a thing scratching out an existence on fed land. All seems harmless to the land to me. Then I watch "Gold Rush" with these crews that are just raping the land in Alaska for gold, and that makes me sad. I don't want to open up all of our federal land to mining and raping the natural resources on the protected lands.

I don't know the answer, but if I had the money and the chance to buy a few acres of prime fed land to build a place on out west, I would want to. There is so much of it now just sitting there.  

 

[ozark trout fisher]

38 minutes ago, Mark said:

Not sure I am ready to be an alarmist over this bill. I understand what you are saying about the slippery slope and our ONSR being affected. I can see both sides of the issue. Interesting that the vote was split 100% partisan with Rep for and Dems against. I get that part too, though, with Dems paying back for Reps opposing every issue presented by Obama when he took office.

I can also see that we have millions of acres of federal land out west that is protected so it sits idle. How much is enough or too much? And I understand once it is sold off, it is private land forever, and we can't necessarily tell people what they can and can't do with their private land.

I watch TV shows like "The Last Alaskans" with the seven families living on the federal reserve the size of South Carolina, and after these 7 families that have been grandfathered in are gone, no one else can live on the land. Also I watch "Alaskan Bush People" who don't seem to be hurting a thing scratching out an existence on fed land. All seems harmless to the land to me. Then I watch "Gold Rush" with these crews that are just raping the land in Alaska for gold, and that makes me sad. I don't want to open up all of our federal land to mining and raping the natural resources on the protected lands.

I don't know the answer, but if I had the money and the chance to buy a few acres of prime fed land to build a place on out west, I would want to. There is so much of it now just sitting there.  

 

I think the whole purpose of having those large blocks of public land is so they can be "just sitting there". 

Sure, the intention of some public land, particularly here, in heavily populated midwest, is essentially to serve as a park, or "entertainment". That's why we have state parks and Yellowstone and the Riverways. All very worthwhile. But there are also many animals, ecosystems, and landscapes that can only survive in their present state if there are pretty vast quantities of relatively untouched land. In the west (and specifically in Alaska, since we're already talking about it) species like wolves and Alaskan Brown bear are perfect examples. If we don't have a whole bunch of protected or otherwise untouched lands, there will not be viable populations of those species. Their size of their range areas and requirements for interconnected habitat dictate that much. It is a similar story for grizzly bears and mountain lions in the mountains and high desert of the parts of the west closer to home. And Red-cockaded woodpecker just to our south. Those are just a few examples of many. 

And the point you bring up over losing control over land-use if federal land is sold is a huge one. Sure, some folks might build a summer home and just enjoy the 10,000 acres they own, or at most hunt and fish occasionally. That's still a net negative, since they are keeping you and me off their land in all likelihood, but I am willing to set that aside. The much larger issue is that many MORE people are going to see the resources on that land and exploit the heck out of them. Out with responsible timber harvest, in with vast clear-cuts and vastly reduced water quality (and fishing opportunities) in the surrounding watershed. If the land has anything worth mining or drilling, you can add in mine tailings or other even more destructive inputs into the water supply. Or maybe they develop the land, clear it, pave a bunch of driveways and cookie-cutter houses for the yuppies who want to get away from it all. You've just interrupted critical habitat, reduced the amount of permeable soil, increased variability in the flow of nearby streams and probably increased the fishing pressure.

I am originally from western Colorado, where there are vast quantities of BLM Land, the most vulnerable type, "just sitting there". Those high-desert lands are where we hike and hunt elk and take in the big sky and generally are able to enjoy and celebrate what is still a remarkably intact ecosystem. I can just picture the "No Trespassing, Don't Even Ask" signage. I can see the cattle and sheep trampling the fragile, semi-arid vegetation that the pronghorn and elk and mule deer rely on. I'm optimistic and resilient as the next guy, but I think that might just break my heart.

Places like that exist all over the west, and even in southern Missouri and the Appalachians and the Great Lake Country. Nationwide, basically. I will tirelessly and wholeheartedly oppose anyone and anything that puts them in danger. 

 

 

[Mark]

I agree and understand what you are saying 100%. Just trying to see the other side and not be an alarmists over a piece of vague legislation.

So what you are saying is that the federal reserve land in northern Alaska the size of South Carolina should remain untouched by man for all time eternity, and no one should ever be allowed to live there, because a few cabins would endanger grizzly and wolves? We're talking about land the size of South Carolina.

[ozark trout fisher]

10 minutes ago, Mark said:

So what you are saying is that the federal reserve land in northern Alaska the size of South Carolina should remain untouched by man for all time eternity, and no one should ever be allowed to live there, because a few cabins would endanger grizzly and wolves? We're talking about land the size of South Carolina.

Yes. 

[Al Agnew]

"Untouched by man" is not exactly the right term.  "Unmodified by man" is much better.  Human modifications are almost never anything but harmful to native wildlife.

And Mark, here's the thing...you're looking at the romantic notion of a few intrepid homesteaders making a living off the land, with minimal impact.  That ain't what would happen.  You can't make a whole bunch of money by homesteading.  The economic interests, mining, timbering, are who would take advantage of that land becoming available for sale.  And the very rich who are looking for their own private kingdom.

And even if it WAS limited to small homesteaders, there's no guarantee their numbers would remain small.  Plus, seemingly vast amounts of land in these types of places in actuality have a very small carrying capacity.

Take my part of Montana, for instance.  The Absaroka Mountains are mostly a big, designated wilderness area, adjoining Yellowstone Park.  It's a huge area, something like 40 miles north to south by 80 miles west to east, covering parts of 4 counties.  Sounds like a huge chunk of land that "oughta be good for something".  But...it's about 90% rocks and alpine grass and very, very steep mountainsides with marginal timber.  The only land that anybody in their right mind would ever think to homestead would be the occasional open meadow along the creeks, and getting to those places would entail long treks by horseback or on foot at present, over very rough terrain.  Building a road into it?  Forget it.  Running ATVs on the existing trails?  VERY destructive.  So in actuality, something like 3000 square miles could only support a bare handful of homesteads, reached with great difficulty, and no way they would even be self-sufficient in that kind of country.

But right now, a Canadian company is exploring mining up into the wilderness area for gold, and seeking permits to do so.  Gold mining is highly destructive no matter how it's done.  Extensive mining would destroy the wilderness character of however much of that mountain range that holds gold, eventually.  Everybody loses but the mining company and their handful of employees.  Meanwhile, ranchers surrounding the wilderness area are running cattle all over it, reducing the limited grazing utilized by elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats.  It takes at least 500 acres of grazing land (not rocks and timber, grassland) to support a cow/calf "unit", one cow and one calf, on the BLM ground surrounding the wilderness area and on the wilderness area itself, and these ranchers will be running a lot of cattle, using OUR public land, for a pittance.

The point is, the "good" land, as in usable by humans for ordinary living activities, was taken long ago over most of the West.  When you hear of those vast amounts of public land in a state like Montana, you might think it's usable land, but very little of it is, even for timber.  And what is still available for hunting, fishing, and simply supporting native wildlife is a small percentage of the public land compared to the percentage that is not usable for much of anything but scenery.  You think anybody is going to be interested in buying nothing but rocks?  Nope, the first parts that would be sold are those parts that ARE still useful for hunting, fishing, and wildlife...leaving all of us who use the public lands out in the cold, along with much of the wildlife.