So most of you are well aware of the subject line of this post. Thanks to Randy and you all I was enlighted to the issue a while back as well. Today I had a chance to speak with my Congressman here in Illinois and specifically asked him about a bill he co-sponsored (H.R.1214 - National Forest Small Tracts Act Amendments Act of 2015). I asked him about why he supported this bill and also his overall stance on public land sale and transfer. Without much paraphrasing his was response was that we have too much public land and to sell, sell, sell!!!! Holy smokes I about fell out of my chair. I was angered, disturbed, and scared...still am. Do what you can because the threat is certainly real. Again, I'm preaching to the choir but this was a real eye opener for me. Thanks to all who keep me informed on the issue and also to all of those who are fighting the good fight.
Sale of Public Lands is Real
- Thread starter WestT
- Start date
onpoint
Well-known member
While I appreciate the Charlton Heston NRA reference, the cold dead hands thing doesn't quit work for "them taking" our public lands. Our guns are in our homes, which we can protect from "them" by using our guns against "them" when "they" come to get our guns from us.
If "we" lose our public lands, the loss will take place far from where most of these public lands actually are, and far from where most of us who stand to lose public lands live.
I believe the threat to our public lands is far more insidious and far more difficult to combat, once/if started, than any threats to our guns will ever be.
Just one opinionated persons opinion.......
RockyDog
Member
Republican or democrat? As if I can't guess
quarterhorse
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 137
Good job on going to your congressman with this. I hope you took him to task for supporting the bill and informed him that he, and those like him who will take your public land, will be getting no support from you. As for "preaching to the choir" I'm afraid a lot of the choir members are not yet informed, taking the threat too lightly or just not getting involved. This threat has way too much traction for my comfort level and needs to be eliminated.
Don K
Active member
I'm from Illinois, who is this?
Did you let him know your not in agreement?
Did you let him know your not in agreement?
F
fwagner
Guest
This is, has, and always will be a republican backed initiative....
katqanna
Well-known member
H.R.1214 - National Forest Small Tracts Act Amendments Act of 2015 has 3 cosponsors : Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3]; Rep. Polis, Jared [D-CO-2]; and the one from IL joined a couple months later, Rep. Shimkus, John [R-IL-15].
As you can see, while Republican dominated, one of the cosponsors is a Democrat from CO. I have seen Democrats from other states as cosponsors of other public land bills, minority, yes, but not isolated to just Republicans.
As you can see, while Republican dominated, one of the cosponsors is a Democrat from CO. I have seen Democrats from other states as cosponsors of other public land bills, minority, yes, but not isolated to just Republicans.
Don K
Active member
Thanks for the info
I go the website for Shimkus figuring I would send him a email since I am a Illinois resident. It wont even let me send him a email since I am not located in his District......
Looks like I will start elsewhere
I go the website for Shimkus figuring I would send him a email since I am a Illinois resident. It wont even let me send him a email since I am not located in his District......
Looks like I will start elsewhere
From the link posted, this bill passed the house with 403 Yeays and 0 Nays.
It was indeed Shimkus a republican. However I see this not to be a party line issue as katqanna points out but to be OUR issue as Americans. My dismay in his comments was definitely shown and I'll be following up with an email/letter.
With regards to the bill...403 yeays and 0 nays. Uggh.
With regards to the bill...403 yeays and 0 nays. Uggh.
Rob Allen
Member
What was his name? so that people know not to vote for him.. oops i guess i should read the whole thread first
Doesn't seem like a bad thing to me
National Forest Small Tracts Act Amendments Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) Amends the Small Tracts Act (the Act) to permit the sale, exchange, or interchange under such Act of National Forest System (NFS) lands the sale or exchange of which is not practicable under any other authority of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) which have a value determined to be not more than $500,000.
Includes as those lands permitted to be sold, exchanged, or interchanged under the Act:
•parcels of 40 acres or less which are determined to be physically isolated, to be inaccessible, or to have lost their National Forest character;
•parcels of 10 acres or less which are not eligible for conveyance under such Act, but which are encroached upon by permanent habitable improvements for which there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or negligent; and
•parcels used as a cemetery, a landfill, or a sewage treatment plant under a special use authorization issued by the USDA.
Allows the sale, exchange, or interchange of a cemetery that is expected to reach capacity within 10 years to include, in the USDA's sole discretion, up to 1 additional acre abutting the permit area to facilitate the expansion of that cemetery.
Requires any proceeds under this Act to be deposited in the special fund established under the Sisk Act and made available for:
•the acquisition of land or interests in land for administrative sites for the NFS in the state from which the amounts were derived;
•the acquisition of land or interests in land for inclusion in the NFS in that state, including those which enhance opportunities for recreational access;
•the performance of deferred maintenance on administrative sites for the NFS in that state or other deferred maintenance activities in that state which enhance opportunities for recreational access; and
•the reimbursement of the USDA for costs incurred in preparing a competitive sale conducted under the authority of the Act.
National Forest Small Tracts Act Amendments Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) Amends the Small Tracts Act (the Act) to permit the sale, exchange, or interchange under such Act of National Forest System (NFS) lands the sale or exchange of which is not practicable under any other authority of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) which have a value determined to be not more than $500,000.
Includes as those lands permitted to be sold, exchanged, or interchanged under the Act:
•parcels of 40 acres or less which are determined to be physically isolated, to be inaccessible, or to have lost their National Forest character;
•parcels of 10 acres or less which are not eligible for conveyance under such Act, but which are encroached upon by permanent habitable improvements for which there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or negligent; and
•parcels used as a cemetery, a landfill, or a sewage treatment plant under a special use authorization issued by the USDA.
Allows the sale, exchange, or interchange of a cemetery that is expected to reach capacity within 10 years to include, in the USDA's sole discretion, up to 1 additional acre abutting the permit area to facilitate the expansion of that cemetery.
Requires any proceeds under this Act to be deposited in the special fund established under the Sisk Act and made available for:
•the acquisition of land or interests in land for administrative sites for the NFS in the state from which the amounts were derived;
•the acquisition of land or interests in land for inclusion in the NFS in that state, including those which enhance opportunities for recreational access;
•the performance of deferred maintenance on administrative sites for the NFS in that state or other deferred maintenance activities in that state which enhance opportunities for recreational access; and
•the reimbursement of the USDA for costs incurred in preparing a competitive sale conducted under the authority of the Act.
rideold
Well-known member
Letter sent to Mr. Polis. I was not aware that he was involved in this. Very disappointed. Hope he never gets re-elected in my state or any other.
rideold
Well-known member
I guess to me it is the precedent it sets. I for one would rather not see any cracks develop that can be widened later. Just my $0.02
jlmatthew, the law itself isn't quite as bad as his blatant support and almost enthusiastic response that we needed to get rid of public land. My main dissapointment in the law is the the portion that states:
"Includes as those lands permitted to be sold, exchanged, or interchanged under the Act:
•parcels of 40 acres or less which are determined to be physically isolated, to be inaccessible, or to have lost their National Forest character"
My thoughts are this really opens the door to selling off of those "checkerboarded" lands that exist nationwide. So this law limits it to 40 acres, what's next 100? 1,000? Regardless, that's OUR 40 acres they are selling off. Once you garner support (which this act did 403 to 0) to rid the country of public ground momentum is gained and we lose.
I'm a rational personal (at least depending on who you ask!) and can understand the following bullets as not being particularly alarming and they seem to actually make sense:
"•parcels of 10 acres or less which are not eligible for conveyance under such Act, but which are encroached upon by permanent habitable improvements for which there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or negligent; and
•parcels used as a cemetery, a landfill, or a sewage treatment plant under a special use authorization issued by the USDA. "
Regarding the way the proceeds from the sale are meant to be spent the following would be great:
"•the acquisition of land or interests in land for inclusion in the NFS in that state, including those which enhance opportunities for recreational access"
However, the other three options give way to much leadway just to piss that money away never to be seen again in the form of public hunting, fishing, and recreational areas.
rideold, glad to share some valuable info with you.
"Includes as those lands permitted to be sold, exchanged, or interchanged under the Act:
•parcels of 40 acres or less which are determined to be physically isolated, to be inaccessible, or to have lost their National Forest character"
My thoughts are this really opens the door to selling off of those "checkerboarded" lands that exist nationwide. So this law limits it to 40 acres, what's next 100? 1,000? Regardless, that's OUR 40 acres they are selling off. Once you garner support (which this act did 403 to 0) to rid the country of public ground momentum is gained and we lose.
I'm a rational personal (at least depending on who you ask!) and can understand the following bullets as not being particularly alarming and they seem to actually make sense:
"•parcels of 10 acres or less which are not eligible for conveyance under such Act, but which are encroached upon by permanent habitable improvements for which there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or negligent; and
•parcels used as a cemetery, a landfill, or a sewage treatment plant under a special use authorization issued by the USDA. "
Regarding the way the proceeds from the sale are meant to be spent the following would be great:
"•the acquisition of land or interests in land for inclusion in the NFS in that state, including those which enhance opportunities for recreational access"
However, the other three options give way to much leadway just to piss that money away never to be seen again in the form of public hunting, fishing, and recreational areas.
rideold, glad to share some valuable info with you.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Short sighted people would think this law is good, or "not too bad". Well it is.
But, there is wayyy too much ambiguity to this law. Just because a parcel is "isolated" or "lost their NF characteristics".
I can show you places where small isolated parcels are absolutely necessary for access to large public land holdings. Many have lost their "NF characteristics" (whatever the hell that means) and would be prime for the plucking. The right ACRE of land could cause a nightmare scenario for public access, let alone 40 acres. Also, smaller acreages near lakes, rivers, reservoirs, etc. that we use for things like fishing access sites, campgrounds, boat launches etc. would certainly qualify as "isolated" or having again lost "National Forest Characteristics".
Also, I would like to hear their definition of "inaccessible" because that definition is thrown around a lot in land exchanges. One persons view may be if you cant drive your grandma's oldsmobuick there its "inaccessible".
I know this law would be abused...100% certain of it.
Another thing I cant find anywhere is the process that will identify the parcels. Even more troubling is what about the public process once the parcels are identified?
From the sounds of it, the discretion will be up to the USDA secretary, which IMO, is troubling. The public should have a very big seat at the table in any of this process, its PUBLIC LAND.
Also saw nothing about PILT compensation either.
Sounds like a throw together law to dispose of MY public lands.
But, there is wayyy too much ambiguity to this law. Just because a parcel is "isolated" or "lost their NF characteristics".
I can show you places where small isolated parcels are absolutely necessary for access to large public land holdings. Many have lost their "NF characteristics" (whatever the hell that means) and would be prime for the plucking. The right ACRE of land could cause a nightmare scenario for public access, let alone 40 acres. Also, smaller acreages near lakes, rivers, reservoirs, etc. that we use for things like fishing access sites, campgrounds, boat launches etc. would certainly qualify as "isolated" or having again lost "National Forest Characteristics".
Also, I would like to hear their definition of "inaccessible" because that definition is thrown around a lot in land exchanges. One persons view may be if you cant drive your grandma's oldsmobuick there its "inaccessible".
I know this law would be abused...100% certain of it.
Another thing I cant find anywhere is the process that will identify the parcels. Even more troubling is what about the public process once the parcels are identified?
From the sounds of it, the discretion will be up to the USDA secretary, which IMO, is troubling. The public should have a very big seat at the table in any of this process, its PUBLIC LAND.
Also saw nothing about PILT compensation either.
Sounds like a throw together law to dispose of MY public lands.
Last edited:
What Buzz said.
Also, we already have FLTFA, which does this well, and without the camel's nose under the tent.
katqanna
Well-known member
This 40 acre parcel is in a different county, under a different BLM office administration than the rest, may seem like not such an important thing "on paper", but it is crucial to accessing the Durfees by plane. I am sure a number of 40 acre parcels could be misrepresented on paper to achieve this objective if allowed. The Camel's Nose!
