Chaffetz: BLM should sell extra acreage

[Racehorse]

I heard about this on the radio this morning on my way to work. I think it's a great idea. My only issue is that I don't think it goes far enough. Almost all federal lands should be sold, in my opinion, except for national parks, military bases, etc.

I guess something is better than nothing, though.

Oh, and for those not familiar with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, it's a bunch of liberals who want to close off public access to pretty much the entire state to "protect nature." So, the comments from them are hardly surprising.


http://www.sltrib.com/D=g/ci_15118910

Chaffetz: BLM should sell extra acreage
Politics » More than 100,000 acres of federal land in Utah is defined as surplus.
By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 05/19/2010 04:20:50 PM MDT

Washington » The Bureau of Land Management would have to sell off some 132,000 acres of public land in Utah and more than 3 million acres total in the West under legislation Rep. Jason Chaffetz introduced Wednesday.

The Utah Republican's measure orders the Interior secretary to sell all lands identified as excess in a 1997 study by the Clinton administration and sets up a process for 10 states to recoup those parcels for private development.

"There's no doubt in my mind there are certain areas worth saving and protecting and designating as wilderness," Chaffetz said, "but there are some parts of the land that really serve no public purpose, so let's sell them back to private hands."

The BLM is the largest land-holder in the state, managing some 23 million acres, and local officials argue that the huge swaths of public lands shrink their tax base and deprive residents of use of hills and fields they've historically used.

All money from the sale of the public lands would be used to pay off the national debt under Chaffetz's bill.

The BLM declined comment on the bill until it had time to review the legislation and is asked to testify on Capitol Hill about the measure.

Steve Bloch of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, however, said Chaffetz's bill should consider a more updated report on what lands are considered surplus because the Clinton administration list is 13 years old.

Bloch added the congressman's plan skips any assessment to see if there are any cultural or intrinsic values or wildlife habitats that need to be preserved.
"It seems like it's short-circuiting and in an unhelpful way," Bloch said. "The BLM is not in the business of selling lands and so there needs to be a demand from the public to acquire the parcel and there should be steps to determine the current valuation and to identify what the resources are."

[Tallpine]

Around this area, the BLM owns a few sections, a single section, or even less than a section in scattered parcels.

It makes no sense at all, except that I'm guessing that those are lands that nobody ever thought enough of to file a claim on back in the homesteading days.  Most of the BLM parcels are sagebrush, rocks, and/or pine trees that won't support much of anything useful.

If there is a fire anywhere near those BLM parcels, they send their fire crews (pleasant professional young guys, I might add) out with all their fancy equipment.  This is quite a help to local volunteer firefighters, but probably also quite an expenditure to "save" a bunch of rocks and scrub pine. 

[MechAg94]

I'm fine with selling it as long as it is sold at market prices and not as part of some sweetheart deal or not-quite-so-public auction.

[longeyes]

Don't the Feds own something like two-thirds of the West?

[Boomhauer]

My only issue is that I don't think it goes far enough. Almost all federal lands should be sold, in my opinion, except for national parks, military bases, etc.

We could stand to loose some NPS land. Like the thousands upon thousands of acres the NPS stole for the Flight 93 memorial? Also, at the NPS site where I worked, we had just over a thousand acres...half of that was actually related to the site (historical and all) and the rest was just your standard southern pine forest (and not old growth at that). The site even seized some land from locals that had absolutely nothing to do with the historical portion of the site just because they could. Seized some poor old guy's family homestead just for the hell of it, then bulldozed his house.

[41magsnub]

I'll give a dissenting opinion here.  I like having large national forests and BLM land (that people have access to).  It would suck greatly to change Montana from where it is now with massive public lands to say..   Texas with very minimal public land.  Here in MT, if you want to go hunting or fishing it is easy to find a place to do it.  In Texas all I hear are people paying high fees to get access to hunting lease properties.

Screw that...  call me a socialist but I live in MT instead of TX for several reasons and this is a big one.

Seizing of private land...  no way.

I am totally on board with the opening of public land further to access and ditching all these roadless laws.

NPS..  not NFS..  somewhat ok with that I guess.  Don't mess with my national forests though!

[charby]

I'll give a dissenting opinion here.  I like having large national forests and BLM land (that people have access to).  It would suck greatly to change Montana from where it is now with massive public lands to say..   Texas with very minimal public land.  Here in MT, if you want to go hunting or fishing it is easy to find a place to do it.  In Texas all I hear are people paying high fees to get access to hunting lease properties.

Screw that...  call me a socialist but I live in MT instead of TX for several reasons and this is a big one.

Seizing of private land...  no way.

I am totally on board with the opening of public land further to access and ditching all these roadless laws.

NPS..  not NFS..  somewhat ok with that I guess.  Don't mess with my national forests though!

I agree but leave the wilderness areas alone, I like my roadless Boundary Waters.

[Marnoot]

Don't the Feds own something like two-thirds of the West?

This is true of Utah. The federal government owns 57-67% (depending on your source) of land in the state. Most of which is BLM managed.

"There's no doubt in my mind there are certain areas worth saving and protecting and designating as wilderness," Chaffetz said, "but there are some parts of the land that really serve no public purpose, so let's sell them back to private hands."

That about matches my view on the matter.

[Jamisjockey]

The federal government shouldn't own any land, besides whats located in DC.  Lease/lend from the states, sure.  Own, hell no.

[Racehorse]

We could stand to loose some NPS land. Like the thousands upon thousands of acres the NPS stole for the Flight 93 memorial? Also, at the NPS site where I worked, we had just over a thousand acres...half of that was actually related to the site (historical and all) and the rest was just your standard southern pine forest (and not old growth at that). The site even seized some land from locals that had absolutely nothing to do with the historical portion of the site just because they could. Seized some poor old guy's family homestead just for the hell of it, then bulldozed his house.

I agree with this. I'm fine with legitimate National Parks, Forests, etc. (I'm thinking sites like Yellowstone and Yosemite). But the pointless land grabs of the past should all be sold off.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

we are dealing with a hodge podge of wing nuts hollywood stars and preservation groups like the national trust trying to fight a new walmart.

[Tallpine]

I'll give a dissenting opinion here.  I like having large national forests and BLM land (that people have access to).  It would suck greatly to change Montana from where it is now with massive public lands to say..   Texas with very minimal public land.  Here in MT, if you want to go hunting or fishing it is easy to find a place to do it.  In Texas all I hear are people paying high fees to get access to hunting lease properties.

Screw that...  call me a socialist but I live in MT instead of TX for several reasons and this is a big one.

Seizing of private land...  no way.

I am totally on board with the opening of public land further to access and ditching all these roadless laws.

NPS..  not NFS..  somewhat ok with that I guess.  Don't mess with my national forests though!

But what good is a 320 acre parcel with no public road access?   


Actually, I'd like to see all the federal land turned over to the state. :)

[charby]

Actually do a little research why we have public lands. It was the industry that pursuaded the Feds to hold the lands.

[41magsnub]

But what good is a 320 acre parcel with no public road access?   


Actually, I'd like to see all the federal land turned over to the state. :)

I'd be just fine with the state running them instead of the feds.  I just want them to remain public property with continued access to them by the public.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

The Fed shouldn't own crap. It's the States that own the land and have the authority to decide what to do with it via a vote from The People of said State. Think of all energy stored in those federal BLM lands. We could tap it and maybe get off of dependence on foreign energy, for real this time.

[Balog]

Actually do a little research why we have public lands. It was the industry that pursuaded the Feds to hold the lands.

What industry? I'm not familiar with the development of public land.

[MechAg94]

I'll give a dissenting opinion here.  I like having large national forests and BLM land (that people have access to).  It would suck greatly to change Montana from where it is now with massive public lands to say..   Texas with very minimal public land.  Here in MT, if you want to go hunting or fishing it is easy to find a place to do it.  In Texas all I hear are people paying high fees to get access to hunting lease properties.

Screw that...  call me a socialist but I live in MT instead of TX for several reasons and this is a big one.

Seizing of private land...  no way.

I am totally on board with the opening of public land further to access and ditching all these roadless laws.

NPS..  not NFS..  somewhat ok with that I guess.  Don't mess with my national forests though!

What is the population of Montana?  It is a bit less than 20 million right?

How would the public lands look if you added a whole bunch more people?

[Racehorse]

What is the population of Montana?  It is a bit less than 20 million right?

How would the public lands look if you added a whole bunch more people?

More like 1 million.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=state:30000&dl=en&hl=en&q=montana+population

[41magsnub]

What is the population of Montana?  It is a bit less than 20 million right?

How would the public lands look if you added a whole bunch more people?

I'm not sure what you are asking?

[Tallpine]

What is the population of Montana?  It is a bit less than 20 million right?

Yeah, about 19 plus million less than 20  


Actually, MT doesn't have all that much public land compared to a lot of western states, which is one reason we decided to move here 13 years ago.

States that have say 75% or more of the land area tied up by the feds have higher land prices in general because there is not much private left to buy.  And the more fed land, the more fed control - and gov pickups running around :(

Seems as though city folks are more on favor of public lands (for their playgrounds) and rural folk are mostly in favor of land being privately owned.

At least the state owned lands in MT are more likely to be managed as a profitable resource, allowing grazing and timber sales.

[Racehorse]

Yeah, about 19 plus million less than 20  


Actually, MT doesn't have all that much public land compared to a lot of western states, which is one reason we decided to move here 13 years ago.

States that have say 75% or more of the land area tied up by the feds have higher land prices in general because there is not much private left to buy.  And the more fed land, the more fed control - and gov pickups running around :(

Seems as though city folks are more on favor of public lands (for their playgrounds) and rural folk are mostly in favor of land being privately owned.

At least the state owned lands in MT are more likely to be managed as a profitable resource, allowing grazing and timber sales.

I'm a city folk, but this:

States that have say 75% or more of the land area tied up by the feds have higher land prices in general because there is not much private left to buy.  And the more fed land, the more fed control - and gov pickups running around :(

is why I'm upset about how much land the government owns. I want to get 40 or 50 acres somewhere remote, but because the Federal Government owns so much of the state, I can't afford to (yet, anyway).

[charby]

What industry? I'm not familiar with the development of public land.

Forestry/Timber Industry in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Plus have you been on any of the BLM land out West? Not really suited for anything other than grazing, mining/drilling for ore/oil/gas/coal. There is a reason where the tall grass prairie ended it was refered to as the Great American Desert.

[Tallpine]

Forestry/Timber Industry in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Plus have you been on any of the BLM land out West? Not really suited for anything other than grazing, mining/drilling for ore/oil/gas/coal. There is a reason where the tall grass prairie ended it was refered to as the Great American Desert.

BLM land is basically the land nobody wanted - not the homesteaders, not the parks, and not the forest.

A few weeks back I was out on a fire that lapped over onto 320 acres of BLM land, so the feddies were out there in charge.  Except for the little ridge that we drove out on, all of the land was standing on edge and covered with scrubby pine and juniper.  Only reason not to just let it burn was that it might spread off onto more valuable private lands nearby.

There's a block of four or five sections out west of the county seat.  When we still lived in town, I used to go out there and hike.  It was fun country for that, if you don't mind a lot of climbing up or down.  Basically, it was fine habitat for mountain lions and (back in the old days) a horsethief hideout.   

Oh yeah, and the high school kids go out there to have drinking parties 

[MechAg94]

There is some govt or park land down here that is open for hunting and such, but I have heard it can be crowded. 

Land prices might not be huge, but land can be expensive in some of the nicer regions.  Between Houston, San Antonio, and Austin prices per acre aren't cheap.  A lot of people with money want land for the weekends and a lot of people hang onto family land.  In Texas, if you lease it for hunting or raise a minimum number of cattle, you get a break on property taxes.  That said, land is available if you aren't real picky. 

Fishing is easier as rivers and flowing waters are considered public land and all the lakes and bays are open to the public for fishing and boating for the most part.

[taurusowner]

The source of the problem here is the "government" is now its own entity, and not just a personification of the interests of the actual citizens.  "Public" land should actually belong to the public, meaning the citizens.  But it's "government" land now.  And even if all the citizens want it for their own use, the government still stands in the way, having interests of their own now.