| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| This is monumentally bad. Am I overreacting? |
| Yes |
|
33% |
[ 6 ] |
| No |
|
55% |
[ 10 ] |
| Present |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
| Who cares about national parks? |
|
5% |
[ 1 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
 Posted: 01/20/17 2:06 pm ::: Congress moves to give away national lands |
Reply  |
|
Congress moves to give away national lands, discounting billions in revenue
Basically something that we've very recently "decided" to start counting the profit of as part of GDP (billions into the economy and millions of jobs), Congress is also deciding has no legal value, or rather transferring it to local authority, based on the new language, "shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays”, which has been a GIANT check/balance in managing federal lands.
| Quote: |
But Rowsome argues that’s a populist message without any popular support, pushed by a small faction of legislators with support from industries like mining and energy. Despite the Republican message that Washington has overstepped in designating national parks and monuments, a 2016 study found that 95% of the American public believes that National Parks are worth protecting and 80% said they’d be willing to pay higher taxes to do so.
“Western Republicans that are perpetuating the idea are very well funded by the oil and gas industry during their campaign,” Rowsome said. “It’s special interests wielding power for an agenda that will advance their goal. Nearly 90% of BLM lands are already open, but they can’t stop trying to get more.” |
Seriously, this has big implications. Only states who want to sell the mineral rights probably even want this. Other governments fear transfer of stewardship to them, because they don't have to funding and/or bureaucratic structure to maintain them. Which will shrink public access.
National parks have had pretty public bipartisan support (crossing political lines between environmentalists and recreation enthusiasts), so it becomes clear that it's the minority 1% who seeks to baldly profit from this (and in doing so cost us millions more in public money in addition to lost revenue due to inevitable pollution and environmental clean up).
This is not a drill. I don't think I'm overreacting. 
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/13/17 2:57 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
A little late in following up that dill-weed Chaffetz pulling back his bill, but thought I'd do so now while I have a minute.
After a massive backlash, a Republican yanks his bill to sell off public lands
So, battle won for preserving national parks, etc. But there will be other attempts. These western senators and reps and their ilk are determined, mostly to pollute and destroy them in a bid for short-term profits for their oil/gas/energy cronies, from what I can tell.
| Quote: |
| In recent years, a number of conservatives have been pushing to change this arrangement. In 2012, the Utah legislature passed a bill asking that all federal lands within its borders be turned over to the state to manage — a move that would require an act of Congress. Among other things, supporters of the bill argued that Utah could reap more revenue by expanding oil and gas drilling on those lands. |
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
5thmantheme
Joined: 11 Apr 2016
Posts: 540
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9604
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/20/17 9:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So why is there so much federal land in those western states?
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
| Posted: 02/21/17 3:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| tfan wrote: |
So why is there so much federal land in those western states? |
No one lives there and land is expensive to manage with a small tax base.
If you fly over the West at night, those green areas are probably the only lights you'll see. The rest is dark. We're talking huge swaths of land that aren't useful for agriculture or habitation.
I think this article from early 2016 does a decent job of summarizing:
Why the Government Owns So Much Land in the West
The upshot is that as territory was claimed by the US, it essentially became government land. There were programs in place (homesteading, turning land over to states, etc.) that divested the federal government of much of the arable land, or at least what was useful for various agricultural uses (which is why you don't see lots of federal land in the East). There's a lot of desert and similarly arid land, as well as mountainous/inaccessible land that's not typically "useful".
It's also traditionally been cheaper and easier in "range land" areas to lease grazing rights and mineral rights from the federal government than to purchase and manage the land (or to lease these rights from private concerns). Even when some private entities have purchased the land, when ranches, etc. have gone out of business in the past, the Federal Government has often bailed them out by buying the land back. People like the Bundy family have a really poor knowledge of history, and essentially just don't want to pay their bills (i.e. they don't have the money to actually legally purchase the land, and they don't want to pay back-lease fees).
Western states are so big with relatively small population bases (compared to the east) that Western states can't pay for the administrative costs it would actually take to manage the lands for public access and use on the scale that the federal government does.
Basically, it's only those who get a political hare because they want to profit on very specific areas who raise the specter of "local control" and returning the lands (looking at you, Chaffetz). Or those like the Bundy family who are dead beats, but take personal affront when it's pointed out to them. Otherwise, it's usually when there are competing local concerns (i.e. Native American versus oil and gas drillers, as is the case with the recently designated Bear Ears National Monument in Utah).
Fortunately for those who like National Parks, it's really a third rail in politics (trying to return these mostly Western lands to state and local control), because environmentalists and conservationists are supported by (typically) more conservative hunters/recreational users in their general satisfaction with federal control. The Feds have more money for management, and a system already in place to accomplish these duties, and thus are able to provide greater accessibility.
It also makes sense, due to having to manage many of these areas across state boundaries. National Parks and environmentally important areas (usually based on watershed areas) don't follow map boundaries, so it's just easier to manage these holistically from the federal level.
_________________
Don't you know the plural of "anecdote" is "data"?
|
|
norwester
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 6367
Location: Seattle
Back to top |
|
|
|
