# GOP makes it easier to sell federal land



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sell-off-federal-land/?utm_term=.341d3d634bbc

This is gonna be a long and bumpy ride.....


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

Two points

1) Washington Post = The Sky is Falling

2) Did you read the part neither Trump or Zinke endorse PLT

New year let's talk about something positive. Weren't the mountains stunning today with fresh snow?


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Pay close attention to the caption of the picture at the beginning of the article. This monument IS NOT tribal land as it reads. The general public will now see it that way, the whole premise to this designation, and will be managed as such.

Question: what is the difference between fed land transferred to states (and privatized) and the fed designating it into a monument managed by others with zero input from the public?

Answer: there is none.


----------



## LostLouisianian (Oct 11, 2010)

High Desert Elk said:


> Pay close attention to the caption of the picture at the beginning of the article. This monument IS NOT tribal land as it reads. The general public will now see it that way, the whole premise to this designation, and will be managed as such.
> 
> Question: what is the difference between fed land transferred to states (and privatized) and the fed designating it into a monument managed by others with zero input from the public?
> 
> Answer: there is none.


Facts are not allowed in emotional arguments


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I digress, if you don't care or watch closely they'll do this right under our noses. It's simple, Rob Bishop and others have meant what they said. To believe there will not be a push to transfer and sale federal land is naive. You don't know what you got...till its gone. Resistance can't come when you're staring this dead in the face and it's too late. Just ask Wyoming hunters and public who's board didn't listen to them about a constitutional amendment that's step closer to this idea. Not saying the sky is falling, but every inch given is an inch closer to the finish line for people like Rob Bishop.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I fear the recent two designations, Bears Ears in particular, is a step closer for those who wish for the transfer of fed held land to the states thinking it will protect the land from things like this. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are sections of state land within the proposed BE monument that have effectively been taken away...

Joining the right group such as SCI or RMEF and let them lobby for us is the best course to take.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

http://http://member.sltrib.com/home/4777012-168/rob-bishop-led-rules-change-would-make

So much crying about losing "access" on a monument where you can still hunt, hike, raise cows and drive on a designated trail... but when they are preparing to actually sell the land to the rich guys (because that's who can afford to buy land) I see a bunch of (R) "sportsmen" making excuses and justifications. Wake up!


----------



## GaryFish (Sep 7, 2007)

Thing with Bear's Ear is that NO ONE can honestly say they didn't see this thing coming. The management of that area has been the subject of a decade of intense working with the BLM, Tribes, local counties, and state. The idea for a NM did not randomly originate with Obama, but is one that has been considered for a really long time now. Anyone that says they were caught off guard, or that this didn't go through a decade of discussion and planning is either an idiot, or lacks honesty. No one paying attention to this deal should have been caught off guard. 

And as for federal lands being easier to sell off - ? Have you ever tried to buy some federal lands? BLM policy allows disposal of lands if a number of criteria are met. In fact, it MANDATES that they sell or exchange the lands if those criteria are met. I've got a client in Montana that owns 5,500 acres of land in central Montana. Landlocked within his land, are about 6 sections of BLM land. They are isolated sections, islands of land completely surrounded by his private lands. He now leases those lands. These lands meet every single criteria for BLM selling them, and are even identified by parcel in the resource management plan for that area, to be sold. Yet we've been working for more than 10 years with BLM to buy them and get nothing but bureaucratic road blocks. And I'm someone that has personally helped write a dozen different BLM RMPs so I know what I'm doing here. I'd like it to be easier for BLM to sell and exchange lands. Because it is next to impossible - even when all their policy not only allows for it, but requires it. So, yea.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Trooper said:


> So much crying about losing "access" on a monument where you can still hunt, hike, raise cows and drive on a designated trail... but when they are preparing to actually sell the land to the rich guys (because that's who can afford to buy land) I see a bunch of (R) "sportsmen" making excuses and justifications. Wake up!


So, you're saying that you will still be able to use this area (BE) like you can today? I'm more concerned with who will be managing it more than anything else...


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I fear the recent two designations, Bears Ears in particular, is a step closer for those who wish for the transfer of fed held land to the states thinking it will protect the land from things like this. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are sections of state land within the proposed BE monument that have effectively been taken away...
> 
> Joining the right group such as SCI or RMEF and let them lobby for us is the best course to take.


HDE, I think you need to realize it is you and I who must get involved. I agree joining and supporting groups like RMEFamd SCI is important and every other major sportsmen group has came out in opposition of TRANSFER or sale of these lands. So many of you want to make excuses for these people because you are showing you obviously lean hard right. There is a reason every sportsmen group except the one in bed with the Ytah legislature has said NO to transfer or sale. NWTF, SCI, Pheasant and quail forever, TU, RMEF, BHA,MDF, etc.The problem is HDE, a group like RMEF was not created for politics and they must walk a fine line in how involved they get because of their 501 c3 status. That isn't what most sportsmen groups are created to do and they can't do in many cases. Most of them have made their opinions known but it's going to take people like you and me standing up and saying no. Backcountry hunters and anglers and the TRCP are the biggest lobby groups we have for public lands and they should have every sportsmens support who hunts public lands.

As for state property being "stole", the DOI will transfer acreage back to the state in other areas. The monument specifically protects the rights of hunting, angling, and firewood gathering in the proclamation. I agree with you that the monument designations being made only fans the flames of the transfer idea. First day of the new congress and we are already moving towards sell instead of transfer, and while it's a small measure it's a step closer. Rob Bishop has always been anti-public land and that's not going to change today.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

I don't mean specifically those groups, but something like them. The problem with individuals as in you and I, we have a tendency to run all over the place and step on one another whereas an organized group can send one to speak for many instead of many speaking for one. That's how all this mess started in the first place, those in favor were well organized and had a rep to speak for them.


----------



## Trooper (Oct 18, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> So, you're saying that you will still be able to use this area (BE) like you can today? I'm more concerned with who will be managing it more than anything else...


For me- I think I will. We won't know for sure for a long time as the management plan, which includes a lot of tribal oversight, is worked out. But consider Escalante... nothing but improvements for me. Hiking, hunting exploring are all the same or better.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

GF I just doubt Rob Bishops objective is to only sell those isolated parcels, I think he's made clear what he thinks of federal public land in general. I think selling small portions landlocked by private land is fine, I just don't think that's people like Bishops end goal.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Trooper said:


> For me- I think I will. We won't know for sure for a long time as the management plan, which includes a lot of tribal oversight, is worked out. But consider Escalante... nothing but improvements for me. Hiking, hunting exploring are all the same or better.


I'm curious as to why only a coalition of tribes is allowed to co-manage...

For instance, I'd like to see the cities of Blanding and Monticello be included as well.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

High Desert Elk said:


> I'm curious as to why only a coalition of tribes is allowed to co-manage...
> 
> For instance, I'd like to see the cities of Blanding and Monticello be included as well.


The proclamation of this monument specific safeguarded hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering when it was proclaimed, we have no reason to think otherwise that they will not be at this point. That is something the state wildlife board asked for and it was specifically implemented into this monument. The 1.5 million acres is basically exactly what the PLI would have made a conservation area. Again, there were years for our local reps to get something through congress and Obama gave them until the very last second to do something. This thread was not about the monument and every public land thread can't just meander back to this monument from this point forward. I do not believe the state was simply ignored here, they got 600,000 acres trimmed off and got specific language in to protect hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering. At this point we just have to wait and see and give public comment on the issue.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

That's the problem, you can't give public comment once it has been given monument status.

I live day in and day out with the politics of these tribes, so forgive me when I say I don't trust their intentions...

At one time I believe they wanted to be combined with San Juan County schools as part of the district and SJC said no. Smart, very smart.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> The proclamation of this monument specific safeguarded hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering when it was proclaimed, we have no reason to think otherwise that they will not be at this point. . .


That is not quite true. The proclamation specifically preserved and protected native

"access by members of Indian tribes for traditional cultural and customary uses, consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996) and Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996 (Indian Sacred Sites), including collection of medicines, berries and other vegetation, forest products, and firewood for personal noncommercial use in a manner consistent with the care and management of the objects identified above."

And later stated that nothing in the proclamation is meant to "enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of the State of Utah, including its jurisdiction and authority with respect to fish and wildlife management."

It did not specifically protect hunting--for natives or otherwise. But I think that UT (the state and not private citizens) would have a really strong case to argue that the management plan adopted by the council (which is required to include the tribal coalition, but MAY also include state and local governments, community reps, etc) cannot make hunting/wildlife decisions without UT's consent. That is encouraging---if you actually trust the DWR/WB/Governor to protect the average hunter's interest.

If I were a devious individual looking to create a sweet situation, I would start laying the foundation of SFW/tribal coalition ties to push for a proposal of specific tag allocations/special unit for "Native Cultural Lands" or some such for the use of the tribes as part of their "cultural heritage" and livelihood thereby allowing them to auction them off. Model it like some of the other areas that are reservations with hunting rights--but by keeping UT involved then UDWR gets a slice of the pie. Then I would get the WB/DWR to sign off on it and voila! The Bears Ears Cultural Elk Tag Auction/Draw for Cultural Security is born, presented by SFW at an Expo near you! And seriously, SFW has a great track record of raising obscene sums for a single tag--nobody can deny that. So just cut the tribes a sweet deal of X% of the proceeds generated and require that hunters need a native guide with allocations among the tribes done on a rotating basis...suddenly these parties find themselves in a mutually beneficial situation, badabing badaboom--no tags for me and you.

Admittedly, the above scenario is farfetched, but possibly less so than you might imagine. Cthulhu knows I never really thought I'd see the day that blatant poaching of a high profile species would go unpunished, or that $1.50/$5.00 would be preferable to $5/$5 + 50% of other revenues....so who knows anymore.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Johnny, your scenario is not as far fetched as you may think...


----------



## OriginalOscar (Sep 5, 2016)

High Desert Elk said:


> I don't mean specifically those groups, but something like them. The problem with individuals as in you and I, we have a tendency to run all over the place and step on one another whereas an organized group can send one to speak for many instead of many speaking for one. That's how all this mess started in the first place, those in favor were well organized and had a rep to speak for them.


Great point. They also have lawyers.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Basically HDE and OriginalOscar, I'm simply asking you to let your voice be heard on this issue. Your post about us stepping on each other's toes is so true. Instead of fighting let's simply agre we don't want our favorite hunting spots sold or locked up. The environmental groups are good at what they do and forcing there hand, sportsmen groups are 501 c3 groups that aren't designed to be lobby groups but conservation groups. The closest things we have to lobby groups are probably BHA, TRCP, and SCI. That's one reason why the NRA would be an important group to have a stance on this issue, because they have the pull to do so. I would just say contact your representatives by phone and by email often over the next couple years and keep letting them know that the sale of our public lands is intolerable. Maybe we disagree on some of the managment issues but we all agree they need to remain public, so let's keep hammering away at that nail:

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/standupforourpubliclands

http://www.backcountryhunters.org/contact_congress_stand_up_for_public_lands


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

Agreed. Sadly, contacting my reps will do me no good. Although all three agree that transfer of land is a bad idea, they would support the creation of a monument, essentially the same thing...


----------

