New rule makes it easier to hand off public lands

A little-noticed change in the rules of the House approved this week would make it easier to transfer federal land to local governments — a longtime goal of Republicans who believe the federal government controls too much property and a nightmare scenario for conservationists who fear local governments will open the land to greater.
The change treats such transfers as cost free to the federal government even if they reduce federal revenue from mining, grazing rights and other sources. Without the change, members of Congress could have blocked a land transfer by requiring proponents to show how the lost revenue would be made up through budget cuts or increasing revenue from other sources. These so-called “pay-as-you go” rules have been in

New rule makes it easier to hand off public lands

The republican controlled congress is off to the corruption races by manipulating the value of public lands to $0 dollars. Which, in effect, means they can give OUR lands to mineral, gas, oil, timber companies for free.

This is on you Donald Trump supporting republicans. Thanks for literally paving the road to hell. Is tearing up, clear-cutting, and destroying the landbase making America Great again? I, for one, don't think a coast-to-coast, paved and mini-malled, toxic waste, clear cut is a good economic plan, unless the goal is to be the first country to destroy itself.

a reply to: richapau

Well, Trump promised to create a lot of new jobs. There you go, enjoy!

a reply to: richapau


No one I respect doesn't distrust the republican elite, either.


This is where my and many others support of Trump will be tested. Does he rein in both sides louts??


We shall see....

a reply to: richapau

We knew this was coming. All the natural resources that were set aside for the long term enjoyment by our descendants and the ecological preservation of our bio-systems have had capitalist slavering from the mouth for decades. It seems the only people who all these treasures were being saved for were those who would eventually plunder them.

a reply to: richapau


What in our Constitution gave the Federal government permission to take over land owned by the State?


If you support States rights for the legalization of weed, then how can you support the Federal Government for taking away States rights for anything else?

I myself believe in states rights! It's much easier for the voters to kick the bums to the curb at the state level rather than giving the Federal Government MORE POWER!

Just more of the same ole same ole from the religious left!

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: richapau

If you support States rights for the legalization of weed, then how can you support the Federal Government for taking away States rights for anything else?

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: richapau

We knew this was coming. All the natural resources that were set aside for the long term enjoyment by our descendants and the ecological preservation of our bio-systems have had capitalist slavering from the mouth for decades. It seems the only people who all these treasures were being saved for were those who would eventually plunder them.

At first I thought this was bad because I'm also a conservationist up to a point. But then I thought about it, what stops us from buying that land from the States? Like starting a small business or a non-profit, setting up crowdsourced funding campaigns, and then buying the land ourselves? I can even imagine commercials like "For just $1 a day, you can help preserve the Hualapai Mexican Vole's natural habitat in Arizona". There are a lot of possibilities with this.

a reply to: seeker1963

I completely agree!


We have a definition of "conservationists" - it means those who already own a cottage and now don't want anything built anywhere for any reason.

The amount of red tape for new builds of anything is beyond reasonable. A proponent of the build must not only pay his own costs of development, he must pay for the government review of the application AND he must pay for a lawyer for each person or group who has even a passing interest in the development. This can mean payments for lawyers to represent each and every person or group and adds immeasurably and time for review.

I can see paying for 1 lawyer for the opposing side but more than 1 is ridiculous.

It is getting to the point where proponents must start planning 10 or more years in advance for development.

Then the costs of environmental assessments with activists salting the site with "evidence" that rare wildlife will be adversely impacted.

All this over-the-top regulations and procedures has to be toned down to something reasonable and doable or every business and corporation will simply leave the country.

I have no problem with public over sight in a project that will affect local citizens and wild life and the environment. I do have a problem with groups and individuals who take an obstructionist stance to every new build and declare themselves to be "environmentalists". Its too much!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: seeker1963

What in our Constitution gave the Federal government permission to take over land owned by the State?

What state owned lands have been taken over by the federal government? For example, the Nevada State Constitution:

Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States;

www.leg.state.nv.us...

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: seeker1963
a reply to: richapau

If you support States rights for the legalization of weed, then how can you support the Federal Government for taking away States rights for anything else?

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: richapau

We knew this was coming. All the natural resources that were set aside for the long term enjoyment by our descendants and the ecological preservation of our bio-systems have had capitalist slavering from the mouth for decades. It seems the only people who all these treasures were being saved for were those who would eventually plunder them.

At first I thought this was bad because I'm also a conservationist up to a point. But then I thought about it, what stops us from buying that land from the States? Like starting a small business or a non-profit, setting up crowdsourced funding campaigns, and then buying the land ourselves? I can even imagine commercials like "For just $1 a day, you can help preserve the Hualapai Mexican Vole's natural habitat in Arizona". There are a lot of possibilities with this.

There is no middle ground when it comes to too much power and authority over States rights versus the Federal government!

The Federal government should govern. That means not over riding the decisions of the voting public of the states they live in UNLESS their laws become contrary in the name of Democracy (MOB RULES) that may violate the rights of the minority being discriminated against by the mandates of our Constitution!

We have the Supreme Court for a reason and it's a pity they have to deal with so much frivolous nonsense just because a small minority of fascists can't have their way and are too damned lazy to read and understand our founders ideas behind the Constitution.

But hey, funny how compromise is now based on Democracy (NUMBERS) versus the whole idea of a Constitutional Republic?

Democracy= 2 Wolves and a Lamb voting on what's for dinner!

Damned shame our government doesn't govern any more but uses their positions of authority to turn us against each other based upon what tribes we belong too.......

Don't forget the fences and stay off my land signs that will follow. That's going to suck.

a reply to: seeker1963

Damned shame our government doesn't govern any more but uses their positions of authority to turn us against each other based upon what tribes we belong too.......

You do that a fair bit yourself on the boards, seeker.

Far more than you used to.


You were always cynical, as am I to a degree, but lately you've been doing your fair share dividing.
I suppose the upside is that you aren't governing, so it is your right to do so.

a reply to: seeker1963

Just so you know, the States are also run by the same 2 parties. So even if we transfer ownership of the land to the States, it'll still be the same 2 "wolves" making the decisions and controlling everyone else. That's why I'm not really seeing how that argument comes into play here.

Plus, it's not like local politics and small town politics can't also be petty, divisive, and corrupt. In this situation, what stops a corrupt State bureaucrat from selling off large sections of State land to their friends, donors, or a foreign company? They could sell off the public lands at pennies on the dollar just to enrich themselves. After all, I'm almost positive that the majority of political lobbying happens at the State level, not the federal level.

a reply to: richapau

Lol and voting for Hillary would of sold our entire nation down river to the globalists.

This isnt on Trump yet...it could end up that way. But dont confuse the wolves on both sides in congress with a president that hasnt taken office.

Frankly i expect Trump will try to do a great job, i expect the bought and sold congress to stop him from making any meaningful progress within a few areas that are very important to the common folk...we shall see

This is the one I was dreading the most.

We knew this was going to happen. Who wants a franchise.... taco truck for yellowstone, Acadia, Arches, Big Bend etc.

Terms, permits, no problem.....

Public lands to be transferred to state govts to then be sold to corporations for "resource extraction". That's how the Bundy group and supporters in the Oregon standoff became useful tools to certain Western states politicians. Look, the people want the land!! Ha!! No, states want the land to sell to corporations.

And these are not all "American" corporations. And these corporations will hire foreign workers to extract the resources. Just ask Louisiana about the foreign corporations that own land and do business in that state, and the hiring of foreign workers, housed in "man camps" to help keep wages low.

Well, I've adjusted to the fact that there will be no more "America". Being a "patriot" will now mean loving "America" so much that you will love the foreign corporations that will now own it, lock, stock, and barrel. It will be these corporations who will own state and local govts and make the laws for them, not you. Ask Louisiana how "America" has been working out for them.

Whoa whoa whoa....how do you get that making making federal land more available to the state's in which the land is.....will mean it's more likely to lead to oil exploration and clear cutting. I think that having the land under the control of the people that actually live near it ...would lead to better management not worse.

a reply to: HarryJoy

Until the fires come, then its help, help, help taxpayers. This is the dry west.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I'm almost positive that the majority of political lobbying happens at the State level, not the federal level.

Lobbying certainly does take place at the state level.

On Feb. 11, Nebraska’s Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts signed L.B. 176 into law, reversing a 1999 law that prevented meatpackers from owning livestock for more than five days prior to slaughter.

China Is Making a Major Play for American Farms and Farmland

a reply to: richapau

This is on you Donald Trump supporting republicans. Thanks for literally paving the road to hell.

Now Now , the blame is equally on the Democrats and DNC who had to fight and manipulate their election in order to get the most hated politician under FBI criminal investigation with more scandals than trump himself elected as their front runner.

The DNC did the impossible and picked the only candidate that could have ensured a Trump victory.

If it wasn't for the MSM and the Clintons ability to out scandal Trump on just about every scandal than Trump wouldn't have had a chance.


Heck of a Job Democrats supporting the only candidate that made trump look like a boy scout.



Having said that Trump is not the neocon republicans in congress who wanted a Rubio , Bush, Cruz or other career politician. In addition he is not in office yet so lets see how this pans out although I wouldn't hold my breath.