Selling Public LandHR 621 and 622: Do We All Agree that Jason Chaffetz is a Coward?

"these lands have been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers"


Let that sink in for you, just a bit. " these lands have been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers".

Yes, Jason Chaffetz, the biggest coward in DC, has proposed to sell your public lands.

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) released the following statement after reintroducing two bills dealing with the 67 percent of the State of Utah that is under federal ownership.

“It’s time to get rid of the BLM and US Forest Service police. If there is a problem your local sheriff is the first and best line of defense. By restoring local control in law enforcement, we enable federal agencies and county sheriffs to each focus on their respective core missions.

“The long overdue disposal of excess federal lands will free up resources for the federal government while providing much-needed opportunities for economic development in struggling rural communities.”

Bill Details:
H.R. 622, Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act, first introduced last year, removes the law enforcement function from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service. Instead, the bill calls for deputizing local law enforcement, combined with block grant funding, to empower existing duly elected law enforcement offices to carry out these responsibilities. The bill, jointly sponsored by Utah’s Rep. Mia Love and Rep. Chris Stewart, also establishes a formula to reimburse local law enforcement based on the percentage of public land in each state. The resulting cost savings will reduce the BLM budget by five percent and the Forest Service by seven percent.

H.R. 621, Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act, calls for the responsible disposal of 3.3 million acres of land identified by the Clinton Administration as being suitable for sale to non-federal entities. Encompassing just over one percent of total BLM land and less than half of one percent of all federal lands, these lands have been deemed to serve no purpose for taxpayers. In Utah, some 132,931 acres of land are eligible for disposal.

Click to expand...

Can someone post a link to a map of said lands if available?

jryoung said:

Can someone post a link to a map of said lands if available?

Click to expand...

I just sent such request to the BLM in DC. I'll post as soon as I get it, if I get it.

jryoung said:

Can someone post a link to a map of said lands if available?

Click to expand...

Jason Chaffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, has yet to release that type of information.

Official Title as Introduced:
To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes.

Click to expand...

As of 01/26/2017 no related bill information has been received for H.R.621 - To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes..

Click to expand...

For all of those who were happy with Zinke, because he is against selling Public Lands, the "Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands" is going to be Ryan Zinke. And, he will have no choice. He will sell your Public Lands.

Big Fin said:

I just sent such request to the BLM in DC. I'll post as soon as I get it, if I get it.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to Big Fin, why does it matter which lands are included in the 3.3 million acres?

I hope we are not going to head down a path where we are ok selling Public Lands, as long as they aren't in the hunting unit I usually hunt.


But, in case you were wondering. The lands he included when Jason Chaffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, introduced this legislation last year, it included:

1) IDENTIFIED FEDERAL LANDS.—The term “identified Federal lands” means the parcels of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary that were identified as suitable for disposal in the report submitted to Congress by the Secretary on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), except the following:

(A) Lands not identified for disposal in the applicable land use plan.

(B) Lands subject to a Recreation and Public Purpose conveyance application.

(C) Lands identified for State selection.

(D) Lands identified for Indian tribe allotments.

(E) Lands identified for local government use.

Click to expand...

Here's a link to the the 1997 report that is referenced. https://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/land disposal report.pdf

This bill appears to mirror what Chaffetz introduced in the 113th.

And, to keep going down the rabbit hole....


Section 390 (g) states.....

g) REPORT TO DETERMINE THE FEASIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL LAND ACQUISITION AND RESTORATION ACTIVITIES-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct an investigation to determine what, if any, unreserved and unappropriated Federal lands (or mineral interests in any such lands) under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary are suitable for disposal or exchange for the purpose of conducting restoration activities in the Everglades region.

(2) CONSERVATION LANDS- No lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary that are set aside for conservation purposes shall be identified for disposal or exchange under this subsection.

(3) FLORIDA- In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent practicable, determine which lands and mineral interests located within the State of Florida are suitable for disposal or exchange before making the determination for eligible lands or interests in other States.

(4) PUBLIC ACCESS- In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall consider that in disposing of lands, the Secretary shall retain such interest in the lands as may be necessary to ensure that the general public is not precluded from reasonable access to the lands for purposes of fishing, hunting, or other recreational uses.

(5) REPORT- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit a report to the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate describing the results of the investigation conducted under this subsection. The report shall describe the specific parcels identified under this subsection, establish the priorities for disposal or exchange among the parcels, and estimate the values of the parcels.

Click to expand...

I get stumped at the roadblock of Section 390 (g) relating to the Florida Everglades, and Jason Chaffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, using it to sell lands in Idaho, Utah, Montana, Wyoming, etc....

Here's a report on HR 2657 which was Chaffetz's bill in the 113th.

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/113th-congress/house-report/412/1

Below is the dissent from the report.

DISSENTING VIEWS

H.R. 2657 would require the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
to sell off ``excess'' federal lands identified in a 1997
report, unless those lands have since been identified in a land
use plan as not suitable for disposal, have been identified for
State selection, Indian tribe allotments, or for use by local
governments.

In 1997, Congress ordered the BLM to inventory all
unreserved and unappropriated lands which might be suitable for
sale or exchange to fund Everglades Ecosystem Restoration. The
1997 law only required BLM to report on lands available for
disposal, not to assess whether selling the identified lands
would be in the Nation's interest or to prepare surveys or
appraisals of land available for disposal. Therefore, the
report did not identify individual parcels. BLM identified a
total of 3.37 million acres of ``excess'' land. However, the
1997 report is vague, outdated and was never intended for the
purposes outlined in H.R. 2657.

This bill would create more bureaucracy and more spending
by requiring the BLM to divert already strained resources to
conduct extensive reviews, including cultural resource reviews,
threatened and endangered species reviews, surveys and
appraisals, of every parcel identified in the report.

Many of the lands identified for disposal include grazing
allotments. In the past, grazing permittees have declined to
acquire federal lands when offered for sale for financial and
other reasons. As a result, H.R. 2657 could have disastrous
effects on ranching communities throughout the west by selling
the land out from under ranchers.

Finally, forcing BLM to sell land regardless of market
conditions could result in a significant decline in the value
of both the federal and non-federal land in areas with
``excess'' federal ownership.
H.R. 2657 is not well thought out and is simply another
attempt to raid our federal lands; we oppose H.R. 2657.

Peter A. DeFazio.
Raul M. Grijalva.

jryoung said:

Here's a link to the the 1997 report that is referenced. https://chaffetz.house.gov/sites/chaffetz.house.gov/files/land disposal report.pdf

This bill appears to mirror what Chaffetz introduced in the 113th.

Click to expand...

Thanks. Going by the link for the previous bill that Jason Caffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, introduced, most of the parcels in Idaho that got identified are "No Legal Access" or "Limited Physical Access".


So, if you don't have a road to the property, the taxpayers get no value.

Looks like Idaho gets to donate 110,000 of Public Lands to the efforts to privatize our public lands in this first go-round.

Montana only has 94,000 acres to get sold. Not a big deal.


You imagine somebody actually thinking there is value to Public Land that takes a helicopter to access to hunt?

JoseCuervo said:

With all due respect to Big Fin, why does it matter which lands are included in the 3.3 million acres?

I hope we are not going to head down a path where we are ok selling Public Lands, as long as they aren't in the hunting unit I usually hunt.

Click to expand...

It matters for many reasons.

It matters because I am sure there are lands on that list that have some people salivating to get their hands on so they can preclude public recreationists. I would like to know what is on that list, where they are, and how they are being used. That will give me a pretty good who is drooling at the prospect of getting these lands and even better identification of where the funding/pressure is coming to sell public lands. Any bet Montana's Durfee Hills would end up added to that list? Wyomings Laramie Peaks? Idaho lands Simplot has been wanting to get, not to mention the Idaho lands the Frack-teck guys would want?

It matters because the people who signed off on that list during the Clinton Administration will have some perspective as to what was being considered at that time. A perspective that will be far different 20 years later.

It matters because the list gives a tangible example for people to look at, in their back yard, as to what is going to happen when they start ceding turf in this struggle. This idea in 1997, as sterile as it may have seemed to some, serves as an example of why there can be no compromise on any public land disposal. Any good faith effort will be used against you today, twenty years from now, a century from now.


If you think I'm heading down the path of selling public lands, no matter which Administration selected them, you might want to loosen your scarf and take some deeper breaths.

A quick look through the CO list shows the following "Impediments to disposal" check marked:

Mineral leases
Mining claims
Endangered Species
Historical/cultural resources
Grazing leases

Obviously serving no purpose for taxpayers. I would like to get Chaffetz to admit that grazing of public lands is of no benefit to taxpayers.

Last Year's Congress had the Senate version introduced as S.361.

The Sponsor was Sen. Mike Lee R-Utah

And the co-sponsor was Sen John McCain R-Utah.


IF you want to be proactive, and get out in front of it, you might start making calls to Senator Lee and Senator McCain.



When Jason Chaffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, introduced similar legislation in 2011, here were his co-sponsors:

Rep. Herger, Wally [R-CA-2]*------------ 03/16/2011
Rep. Bishop, Rob [R-UT-1]*------------ 03/16/2011
Rep. McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R-WA-5]*------------ 03/16/2011
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-4]*------------ 03/16/2011
Rep. Bartlett, Roscoe G. [R-MD-6]*------------ 03/16/2011
Rep. Flake, Jeff [R-AZ-6]*------------ 03/16/2011
Rep. Mack, Connie [R-FL-14]------------ 03/31/2011
Rep. Pompeo, Mike [R-KS-4]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Myrick, Sue Wilkins [R-NC-9]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Garrett, Scott [R-NJ-5]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Duncan, Jeff [R-SC-3]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Flores, Bill [R-TX-17]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Labrador, Raul R. [R-ID-1]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Huelskamp, Tim [R-KS-1]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Campbell, John [R-CA-48]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Rigell, E. Scott [R-VA-2]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Gohmert, Louie [R-TX-1]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Hartzler, Vicky [R-MO-4]------------ 05/05/2011
Rep. Farenthold, Blake [R-TX-27]------------ 05/11/2011
Rep. Ribble, Reid J. [R-WI-8]------------ 05/24/2011
Rep. Lungren, Daniel E. [R-CA-3]------------

Click to expand...

If you are looking for Anti-Hunting GOP members who are out to sell your Public Lands, the list above is a good start.

Just wrote my Rep., but I don't hope for much from him unfortunately. In responses I have received in the past, he has pretty much expressed a transfer or sell mentality.

This Chaffetz boy needs to be taken back to the old WOODs shed and whooped.

dcopas78 said:

Just wrote my Rep., but I don't hope for much from him unfortunately. In responses I have received in the past, he has pretty much expressed a transfer or sell mentality.

Click to expand...

Put his local office number in your phone. Every Tuesday, on your way to work, give his office a call, remind them that you are opposed to the transfer of public lands.

Share that number with 5 people. Get them to do the same.

Eventually, his staff will let his DC office know that their phones get tied up every Tuesday morning with people concerned.

You are 1 person. You can exponentially become 5, 25, or 125 people if you start working.

I called my rep and voiced my displeasure with the bill. I expect he'll be more than happy to sell our lands, unfortunately.

I'm trying to drum up support for this cause, but it's very hard in Minnesota. Most are not even aware of the issue. Even when informed, most have no interest in hunting out west due to tag fees, so they could care less about public lands in a state they'll never hunt. Long story short, it's a struggle to find support for western public lands here in the "east".

JoseCuervo said:

Put his local office number in your phone. Every Tuesday, on your way to work, give his office a call, remind them that you are opposed to the transfer of public lands.

Share that number with 5 people. Get them to do the same.

Eventually, his staff will let his DC office know that their phones get tied up every Tuesday morning with people concerned.

You are 1 person. You can exponentially become 5, 25, or 125 people if you start working.

Click to expand...

^^^^THIS!

I cannot overemphasize how effective that advice will be. That is what it's going to take to get those Congressional delegates who are somewhat disengaged on public lands to become our advocate. This is even more important if your Senator is Daines (MT), Gardner (CO), or Burr (NC).

JoseCuervo said:

Put his local office number in your phone. Every Tuesday, on your way to work, give his office a call, remind them that you are opposed to the transfer of public lands.

Share that number with 5 people. Get them to do the same.

Eventually, his staff will let his DC office know that their phones get tied up every Tuesday morning with people concerned.

You are 1 person. You can exponentially become 5, 25, or 125 people if you start working.

Click to expand...

I actually just put my rep's number into my cell phone earlier today. But, I put his DC number in. Is there a reason I should be calling his local office vs his DC office? I want to be as effective as possible.

JoseCuervo said:

Last Year's Congress had the Senate version introduced as S.361.

The Sponsor was Sen. Mike Lee R-Utah

And the co-sponsor was Sen John McCain R-Utah.


IF you want to be proactive, and get out in front of it, you might start making calls to Senator Lee and Senator McCain.



When Jason Chaffetz, perhaps the biggest coward in DC, introduced similar legislation in 2011, here were his co-sponsors:


If you are looking for Anti-Hunting GOP members who are out to sell your Public Lands, the list above is a good start.

Click to expand...

What do they all have in common? Hmmmmm, wonder what the "R" means.

Can we just vote Utah out of the union; move the like minded kooks there, let them privatize and then destroy every natural resource they have?