Cam Hanes Meeting with Chaffetz

NCSU_Lewis · Feb 28, 2017

From Cam's instagram and facebook:
"To wrap up the day I pitched the “Federal Lands Transfer Facilitation Act” to @jasoninthehouse. This law has expired and needs to be reauthorized. He was impressed with my official proposal haha (actually these were my notes). Nonetheless, he's on board. Thank you Jason.
A FLTFA reauthorization would renew the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLMs) ability to sell low value land and use the revenue to purchase high-priority conservation land within or adjacent to federal lands in the eleven contiguous western states and Alaska. This program helps consolidate public-private land ownership, increases public access for hunting and fishing, and conserves wildlife habitat.
I said that the FLTFA reauthorization is exactly the kind of bill that sportsmen and women would be happy to advance in partnership with him on. This is different than HR 621, which he withdrew after our firestorm, as the money from the land sales goes to buying better land whereas the money from HR 621 went back to the general fund.
Thanks for the heads up on this on Joel Webster. And, I'm not an expert, or even a novice, on legislation so I can't promise where this all goes. Tried my best."

What are y'alls thoughts on this? I'm glad to see Chaffetz is willing to meet with our side and it seems more positive than 621 obviously, but there is certainly a downside.

Art Vandeley · Feb 28, 2017

"A FLTFA reauthorization would renew the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLMs) ability to sell low value land and use the revenue to purchase high-priority conservation land within or adjacent to federal lands in the eleven contiguous western states and Alaska."

You lost me at this.

jryoung · Feb 28, 2017

MT Muley said:
"A FLTFA reauthorization would renew the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLMs) ability to sell low value land and use the revenue to purchase high-priority conservation land within or adjacent to federal lands in the eleven contiguous western states and Alaska."

You lost me at this.

Why? Sportsman's organizations have been fighting for the FLTFA reauthorization since it expired in 2011. It's reauthorization has been part of the various sportsman's acts introduced over the last 4 years, the SCORE act, and it has support from BHA, RMEF, TRCP, and Pheasants Forever to name a few organizations. Maybe Joel from the TRCP will chime in here as it looks like he gave Cam the idea.

NCSU_Lewis · Feb 28, 2017

MT Muley said:
"A FLTFA reauthorization would renew the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLMs) ability to sell low value land and use the revenue to purchase high-priority conservation land within or adjacent to federal lands in the eleven contiguous western states and Alaska."

You lost me at this.

Yeah I was really hoping this meeting would be a big jump forward, but it almost seems like Chaffetz was able to convince Cam this is a good idea. Certainly not a time to stop fighting.

Schaaf · Feb 28, 2017

Federal land trades are something we need kept in our arsenal and need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

My fear would be the current congress has no problem selling the lands with no intention of buying additional lands.

Southern Elk · Feb 28, 2017

Chaffetz is no ally of public land. If he was, he would not have introduced the two other bills. I'm disappointed that Cam is giving him this positive coverage. Cam is in the business of self promotion. I hope he knows what he is doing and this isn't just to get his name out there. I can't speak on Cam's recommendation but I am anxious to hear what Big Fin and others have to say about it.

Northwoods Labs · Feb 28, 2017

Yea I will be watching this thread closely because I have no idea if this would be a positive thing or not. How exactly does one define what "low value land" is? Also, who is to say this money will actually go into buying new lands and not somewhere else?

Schism · Feb 28, 2017

Schaaf said:
Federal land trades are something we need kept in our arsenal and need to be looked at on a case by case basis.

My fear would be the current congress has no problem selling the lands with no intention of buying additional lands.

I share those same thoughts. How is the land value determined? Is it purely monetary? What criteria will be used to decide what lands are sold and subsequently bought?

NCSU_Lewis · Feb 28, 2017

Southern Elk said:
Chaffetz is no ally of public land. If he was, he would not have introduced the two other bills. I'm disappointed that Cam is giving him this positive coverage. Cam is in the business of self promotion. I hope he knows what he is doing and this isn't just to get his name out there. I can't speak on Cam's recommendation but I am anxious to hear what Big Fin and others have to say about it.

This definitely echos my thoughts. Cam is a positive voice for hunting with his huge following, but I hope this is more positive than it seems to me at first glance.

Art Vandeley · Feb 28, 2017

I admit I spoke too soon without much knowledge on the subject. I am always leery of them selling ANY public lands, as it seems it could be a slippery slope but you guys have done much more research than me. Will follow this closely.

beginnerhunter · Feb 28, 2017

I thought federal lands have no value per new House rules? How do you trade if your asset is worth nothing?

Ben Lamb · Feb 28, 2017

Being suspect is good. It means you're paying attention and willing to buck the elites in DC looking to steal your land.

FLTFA is a good program, and used to help consolidate checkerboard lands, dispose of lands with no or little wildlife value and facilitate the purchase of better lands for hunters, anglers and public land enthusiasts.

Here's a little more on the program: http://www.conservationfund.org/partner-with-us/federal-policy/fltfa

It's funny that Chaffetz hasn't heard of this before, as it's been a cornerstone of many efforts over the last couple of years to reauthorize. Good for TRCP and Cam for taking this up.

Gerald Martin · Feb 28, 2017

The name association with PLT took me back a bit as well, but I'm pretty sure Cam was reccomending this proposal at the request of Joel Webster and others. In a nutshell as I understand it, the FLTFA requires that funds received during land swaps and or sales be reinvested back into buying lands with high conservation value and adding them to the public inventory. Currently, BLM is allowed to identify and sale lands deemed low value, like public inholdings with no legal access. They can and do sale them and that money is put into the general fund, not reinvested into buying land for public use.

Nameless Range · Feb 28, 2017

Chaffetz is a tool and an enemy of Public Land Hunters. But good on Cam for trying. As it should be, I would wager that Cameron Hanes has more social capital in the state of Utah than Jason Chaffetz.

NCSU_Lewis · Feb 28, 2017

Thanks for the clarification, guys. Glad to hear it seems to be a positive step. Hard not to be gun shy with the recent events.

Irrelevant · Feb 28, 2017

So underlying story to this thread is

Joel 10x > Cam, Cam 10x > Chaffetz

joelweb · Feb 28, 2017

Hey all. Cam and Chaffetz were meeting to discuss HR 622, the bill that would eliminate federal law enforcement. Once they agreed to disagree on HR 622, I encouraged Cam to pitch a constructive bill to Chaffetz that we could support. FLTFA reauthorization seems like the perfect fit. The BLM is already congressionally mandated to identify and dispose of low value lands, like small inholdings. Instead of sending the money to the general treasury, FLTFA enables the BLM to use the money to purchase inholdings and public land adjacent parcels that would benefit wildlife and the public. Instead of just fighting bills we don't like, we need to talk about what we are for, and FLTFA is the kind of proposal that we can get behind. It has a terrible name, but FLTFA is an awesome program. Do an internet search and you'll see that all the respected conservation groups support it.

ChrisC · Feb 28, 2017

If it is either sell lands and put it into the general fund or sell lands and have funds earmarked for more useful lands, i choose the latter. However, it would be useful to know what criteria is being used to judge the value of lands, and also if there is a timeframe for purchasing new land. It does us no good if the fund increases and no land is being purchased.

beginnerhunter · Feb 28, 2017

ChrisC said:
If it is either sell lands and put it into the general fund or sell lands and have funds earmarked for more useful lands, i choose the latter. However, it would be useful to know what criteria is being used to judge the value of lands, and also if there is a timeframe for purchasing new land. It does us no good if the fund increases and no land is being purchased.

Or, OTOH, sell it for pennies on the dollar and not be able to afford to buy more.

joelweb · Feb 28, 2017

It's all established in statute. The BLM is required to identify lands suitable for disposal through individual land use plans under the agency's organic act, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. Before the BLM disposes of public lands, appropriate environmental reviews and clearances must be completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, in addition to appraisals to determine fair market value and cadastral surveys.

FLTFA simply ensures that the moneys generated are used to acquire new public lands. Sportsmen clearly need to be diligent and involved to make sure that important parcels aren't traded away, but this is the way that the process is supposed to work, and has worked. This is very different from what was proposed in HR 621 or in any of the recent land grab bills.

https://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/...703.File.dat/Appendix06_Disposal_Criteria.pdf
https://www.blm.gov/or/landsrealty/fltfa.php

Cam Hanes Meeting with Chaffetz

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page