It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New rule makes it easier to hand off public lands

page: 3
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Where do you get water in a desert for farm or resort?




posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

The decision was based on who came in with the most money.

An article by a hunter....


On the surface, it sounds like a reasonable idea, and one borne of commonsense fiscal policy. Giving federal land—national forest, refuges and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) acreage—back to the states would allow those states to better manage the land within their borders. And it would relieve the federal government of the massive price tag that comes with overseeing hundreds of millions of acres of property.

In reality, though, it’s a backdoor attempt at allowing more resource extraction from our public lands. The largest and most influential group pushing the idea is the American Lands Council, funded largely by corporations with a direct interest in the oil, gas and minerals that lie within that land. A growing number of legislators at various levels are also jumping on board.

Ridiculous, you say? Consider this: In 2012, Republican Governor Gary Herbert from Utah signed the Transfer of Public Lands Act, which required the federal government to transfer public land to Utah. Fortunately, the federal government ignored the state’s law. During the recent presidential primaries, Republican Senator Ted Cruz from Texas vowed to return federal land within Arizona “back to its rightful owners.”

“We already own it,” says Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA) Executive Director Land Tawney. “I’m not sure why they don’t grasp that concept. Public land belongs to the public.”
.....
Even with the revenue from increased mining, drilling and cutting, there’s little reason to believe states could afford all the costs associated with management and maintenance. A study that examined the impact of transferring federal land to the state found it would cost Utah taxpayers $280 million per year. It would cost Montana a half-billion dollars annually.

“If you think the federal government is having a tough time funding all the demands on our public lands, how do you think the states will manage?” said Tawney. “They’ll either have to raise taxes, which no politician would want to do, they’ll have to increase mining, oil, gas and timber extraction, or they’ll have to sell it.”

No matter what choice they take, sportsmen would come out losers. One of the biggest threats to such iconic western species as mule deer, sage grouse and pronghorn is the increased loss of suitable habitat. Various studies have shown that human encroachment has a detrimental effect on all three species. Increased drilling, for example, would lead to new roads, additional rigs and an increase in human activity.

The biggest threat, however, isn’t necessarily new roads, more gas wells and fewer trees: It’s the loss of the land itself. Although lawmakers and industry-backed groups pushing the transfer idea insist selling land to private parties is not in the long-term plan, there’s no guarantee they won’t.
.....
Colorado’s state trust land, owned by the residents of Colorado, includes about 3 million acres. The land was given to the state by the federal government as a way to generate long-term funding for schools. Less than a quarter is open to hunting and fishing, and sportsmen are required to buy a permit to set foot on that land. The rest is leased to ranching, mining and drilling interests. Some states have a mandate that requires maximizing revenue from state trust land, which means selling the mineral or grazing rights to the highest bidder. One Idaho law maker actually proposed leasing state land to outfitters for their exclusive use.

“Those are good examples of what might happen to all the federal land if it is turned over to the states,” warned Tawney.


outdoorhub



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: seeker1963


What worries me is the Congress is showing zero mind to Trump and the mandate we gave him.

At best, this is a lip service bill that they know Trump will kill and can say to their handlers that they 'tried'.


At worst? They have zero intention in cooperating with him. Republicans and Democrats combined? Trump will be screwed.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I don't think any of us want to see these lands go into the hands of private corporations. It sounds like the states are coming up with lease arrangements so that they can generate some revenue and still keep the land in the possession of the state. I'm not sure how these financial requirements can be met any other way. Maybe you guys want to throw out some ideas on how this problem can be solved.

I can tell you one thing. ....the vast majority of any of these lands would be totally inaccessible to the general public if it wasn't for the roads built by these industries. The forests of northern Maine are a prime example of this. No one would see any of northern Maine...if it wasn't for the logging roads. But thanks to those logging roads there are literally millions ( 12 million ) of acres now available for us to enjoy .
edit on 11-1-2017 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-1-2017 by HarryJoy because: Typo



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy


I don't think any of us want to see these lands go into the hands of private corporations. It sounds like the states are coming up with lease arrangements so that they can generate some revenue and still keep the land in the possession of the state. I'm not sure how these financial requirements can be met any other way. Maybe you guys want to throw out some ideas on how this problem can be solved.

They could always start by going back to the higher tax rates and corporate tax rates of the past. The only reason so many States are having budget problems now is because they keep cutting their revenues. In fact, we have an entire political party that is against budget surpluses, literally saying a surplus is proof that the govt is overtaxing citizens and businesses. So the result is we end up with many massive multinationals that barely pay anything in taxes, with some even getting tax rebates instead. Getting them to pay their fair share could alleviate a lot of budget problems.



I can tell you one thing. ....the vast majority of any of these lands would be totally inaccessible to the general public if it wasn't for the roads built by these industries. The forests of northern Maine are a prime example of this. No one would see any of northern Maine...if it wasn't for the logging roads. But thanks to those logging roads there are literally millions ( 12 million ) of acres now available for us to enjoy .

Wait a second now. If that's the argument, most of those roads were because of federal programs like the "Federal Aid Road Act of 1916" and "Federal Aid Highway Act of 1921". Even our modern interstate system was literally called "The Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways". The federal govt has been a part of the process the entire time, even going back further when it was funding and supporting the settlers who were invading Native American lands in the first place.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: desert

Yep. And in the "worst" case, the corporation can always file for bankruptcy or go out of business. Then the executives can move on to another business venture, their investors can keep making money on their other investment, and the affected community will have no other recourse. It feels like this may open the gates for a new generation of Robber Barons.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

The federal programs that you made mention of were the programs that helped fund the construction of public roads. The roads that I am referring to are unimproved gravel roads built by the timber and paper making industries. The sole purpose of these thousands of miles of roads was to gain access to the timber in these areas. The roads would not exist if not for these industries. And the public does have use of these roads granted by these corporations.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: HarryJoy

Did you forget that you'd just typed this:


I can tell you one thing. ....the vast majority of any of these lands would be totally inaccessible to the general public if it wasn't for the roads built by these industries. The forests of northern Maine are a prime example of this. No one would see any of northern Maine...if it wasn't for the logging roads. But thanks to those logging roads there are literally millions ( 12 million ) of acres now available for us to enjoy

But now you're saying this:


And the public does have use of these roads granted by these corporations.

Why should the public be thankful for logging roads that we can't access? And how are they available for us to enjoy if we can't even access them? And this doesn't even touch on the federal and State aid that may have gone to those companies to build those roads in the first place.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Right... As if Trump voters didn't also vote for Republican candidates in their House and Senate elections. It's ok to admit that the people you voted for are doing something you don't agree with.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

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.

This is exactly what several towns in my state are living through right now. The underhanded business dealings, the lying corrupt, politicians, the behind closed door government backscratching, is beyond disgusting.

We won't even talk about the sneaky conniving way they go about land and animal conservation, that is definitely a thread all to itself.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Corporations don't pay taxes, no matter what the rate. Corporations exist to make a profit. The products that they produce are sold at a rate that guarantees that the taxes are paid by the direct consumers of the product.

No matter what the rate, individuals pay the taxes.

Have you got that? Go ahead, vote to raise corporate taxes (don't tax me, tax the fellow behind that tree). The only thing that will happen is inflation as the cost of goods and services rise.

As for your comment about "worst case scenarios", have you ever read of financial assurance. That is an arrangement whereby the company that wants to undertake an activity must undertake to ensure that funds are available to decommission the site and remediate any environmental impacts. The money is held in a special account,

This isn't the 1950s. Its 2017. People have gotten an awful lot smarter about how to do business with corporations.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Buy a house. You will find out real fast that Noone has had mineral rights since the early 1900's. Doesn't matter who owns the land, the rights have already been sold.



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


A good point.

In my case, this election cycle removed me from the Conservative base. I became as disaffected with the republican party as I had been with the Democrats.

Largely, the Republicans had control, except for the White House, in the last mid-terms without Trump. It is also questionable if any of the other republican candidates would have beaten Hillary. Do you really think
Cruz or Rubio would have pulled in the swing states the way Trump did? I, for one, do not.

My support is to TRUMP and draining the swamp...all of the swamp, irrespective of party affiliation.

I suspect there are many who see it similarly as I.

edit on 11-1-2017 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I wouldn't doubt that every State is dealing with that kind of corruption to an extent. If anything, it's proof that citizens need to look past the things that divide us and work together. That's the only way we'll ever flush out the corruption. Unfortunately, I'm also overcome w/a lot of the divisive crap lol. So I don't really know how we can overcome this.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

That's your opinion. I clearly disagree. Corporations can definitely be made to pay their fair share. But the necessary changes will require people in office who aren't invested in them or indebted to them.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Honestly, my opinion on the election doesn't mean much. I widely expressed here on ATS that Trump was the only Republican that Hillary could defeat. And I was sure that he'd get trounced (I literally kept saying he'd get obliterated). I still think the others would've beaten her, but I figured she'd lose to one of them in her 2020 reelection attempt.

Either way, congressional Republicans have long wanted measures like the one in the OP. So I'm not surprised about this development in the least. I just thought it wouldn't matter because they'd lose the Senate and Hillary would win the Presidency. Yeah... (facepalm)



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 09:59 PM
link   
Thank God! Why on Earth the Feds own so much land is beyond comprehension. Give it to States, people, or companies, that will actually make use of it, rather than having it go to waste in the hands of a corrupt, anti-American, globalist federal government. Oh my god we might get more resources or oil from the land, how horrible!



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy
Thank God! Why on Earth the Feds own so much land is beyond comprehension. Give it to States, people, or companies, that will actually make use of it, rather than having it go to waste in the hands of a corrupt, anti-American, globalist federal government. Oh my god we might get more resources or oil from the land, how horrible!


What you omit is the history of the BLM-no, the gov't version- and the land-grab that apparently both Parties are in favor of.

It smacks me of that Corporate-Gov't 'partnership' that the TPP seems to encompass. Obviously, zero pricing for federal land has a motive and an agenda behind it. Once again, we the people are in the dark to it's content.

If that doesn't set off alarm bells for you then I have to assume you have more knowledge of this than we do......



posted on Jan, 11 2017 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant


"Either way, congressional Republicans have long wanted measures like the one in the OP. So I'm not surprised about this development in the least. I just thought it wouldn't matter because they'd lose the Senate and Hillary would win the Presidency. Yeah... (facepalm) "

Perhaps, yet it's Obama and his bunch behind the BLM's version of outright land grab. Both culpable from what I can see.

I see no possible break in this trend except Trump.

If not him...we are screw, blued and tattooed.



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

I would suggest going back and re-reading what you "think" I said. Because what I actually said and what you are saying that I said. ..are opposite.

Unless you were just trying to use those highlights to create the "illusion" that I said something that I didn't. But I will assume you misread it.
edit on 12-1-2017 by HarryJoy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2017 @ 08:11 AM
link   
Holey moley! From the OP link


"President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for Interior secretary, Ryan Zinke, a Republican Congressman from Montana, opposes transfers of federal land and quit the Republican Party Platform Committee in Cleveland last summer when similar language was inserted in it. But when the issue came up this week, he voted for the rules change."


So, the new Interior Secretary would be in favor of federal land transfers. He would be in charge of the Bureau of Land Management, the very lands that are primarily up for grabs at the moment. National Forest lands are under the Department of Agriculture. It seems pretty clear now that land transfers will happen.

Right now, "Federal law states that the BLM can sell public land only to U.S. citizens or corporations subject to Federal or State laws." Well, get rid of the federal lands, get rid of fed regulations, change state laws to suit the (foreign) corporation, and citizens will be forced to put up with the effects of resource extraction that WILL happen. Again, ask the good people of Louisiana how they have been made to suffer effects of resource extraction and (foreign) corporations polluting their land and their lives.

At the minimum, lands that now are free of "Keep Out" signs will be privatized and partitioned off to the highest bidder. Out West we have gotten used to public land where we can hunt, fish, hike, camp, off road. The romantic dream of wide open spaces to roam (and, today, do it without pollution) is still a reality, granted a dimming reality in some places in re to pollution. Sadly, that dream is about to end.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join