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.
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.
I know that locally our County Sheriff department is under contract with the USFS to patrol Federal Rec Areas around here.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
622 has been withdrawn
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
QuoteOriginally 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.
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?
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
QuoteOriginally 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.
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.
QuoteOriginally posted by YosemiteSam:
QuoteOriginally 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
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.
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?
QuoteOriginally 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.
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
QuoteOriginally 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!
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.
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.