The Quiet Plan To Sell Off America’s National Forests

[n2doc]

A proposal to seize and sell off America’s national forests and other public lands could make its way into the House GOP’s budget resolution when it is announced this week.

In a recent memo to the House Budget Committee, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), chair of the House Natural Resources Committee, proposed that America’s public lands be transferred to state control. He then requested $50 million of taxpayer money to be spent to enable transfers to “start immediately.” The memo states that public lands “create a burden for the surrounding states and communities,” and “the solution is to convey land without strings to state, local, and tribal governments.”

Bishop’s plan and similar proposals to give away America’s public lands are controversial. A majority of voters in those regions believe the proposals would likely result in states having to raise taxes, open prized recreation areas to drilling and mining, or sell lands to private interests to cover the substantial costs of management.

Despite these concerns — and despite the fact that these proposals are extremely expensive, unpopular, and most importantly, unconstitutional — there is a strong likelihood that Rep. Bishop’s request will be included in the House GOP’s budget, thanks to intensive lobbying efforts by a handful of right wing politicians and special interest groups.

more

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/16/3633814/gop-budget-public-lands/

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

1. If you were armed with Uzi's, hand grenades and tanks,you would be just as dangerous

as those who propose this, as far as I am concerned.

The people proposing this are full on at war with the American people and their resources, they are attempting to steal your land from you....STOP THEM

[KT2000]

2. Not going to happen

They use National Forests for military purposes. Currently the Navy wants to use Olympic National Forest for electromagnetic warfare training. The State is not interested in having them use state forest land.
The military would not put up with this one.

[Panich52]

3. So much for that great Republican, Teddy Roosevelt's, idea of public trust and preservation for

future generations.

Utah has been seeking to reclaim land so they could open it to extraction industries for years. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) has been battling Repub legislature. http://SUWA.org

Extraction industries' hands in this idea is obvious. One clue: austerity-happy Repub wants to spend $50M to give away land.

[HereSince1628]

4. I think it's rather arguable that TR believed in preservation over conservation.

Preservation vs Conservation is a debate that's lasted well over 100 years.

The difference is really that preservation, especially as championed by Muir, returned emotional/spiritual value in knowing that a place, often far away and inaccessible sustained natural value in its existence while conservation is based on resource utilization based on the concept of providing the greatest value for the longest time to the greatest number of people.

In this thinking trees and geese are valuable because they are harvestable and the harvests can be expressed in monetary value.

Trees have long been seen as valuable as they stand, a source of lumber, fiber and fuel. Trees that are left to grow, die, and decay have long been difficult to assign monetary value. They provide habitat, functional roles in energy flow and in resource cycling, things which historically have been difficult to assign monetary value.

But it can be done.

And the value to ecosytem functioning still seems to favor preservation of those functions

[Panich52]

6. Whether more f/ conservation or preservation, TR still understood the value of not developing

natural areas, hence, Nat'l Parks & Forests were created. Extraction industries despoil the areas and the OP's bill, and Utah's efforts are anathema to both preservation & conservation.

[Jim Lane]

5. A terrible idea but not unconstitutional

I'm surprised at Think Progress because they usually maintain a higher standard than this.

Their link is to a site that explains it would be unconstitutional for a state to seize federal land. That's because the federal government has authority "without limitation" over those lands. That's precisely why the federal government would have the authority to give them to states, municipalities, or tribes.

[MohRokTah]

7. This is why holding the presidency is key.

We MUST maintain control of the executive branch through 2020. Then we can regain control of the state legislatures and redraw the gerrymandered lines.