House Budget Reconciliation Bill Approves Private Purchase of Federal Land

[davedlg 0]

This is my first post in SC...I usually stay as far away from this forum as possible, because I really don't care to argue about all the political BS that goes on in here. However, something is happening right now that is too important to not post.

The Budget reconciliation bill recently approved by a two vote margin by the US house of representatives contains a little-publicised provision to update mining law. This provision litterally allows for the private purchase of federal lands at $1000/acre for "mining purposes". However, the law can easily be turned around by land developers to buy the land and develop it as they see fit. This includes all national forests, BLM lands and other open spaces owned by the federal government. These are our trails, our rivers, our mountains, and our BASE exit points just to name a few.

This bill is so much more dangerous then the less-publicised senate ANWAR provisions...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/selling_mining_lands

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1132199726277010.xml&coll=7


http://www.dailybulletin.com/opinions/ci_3254821

The bill is now in the hands of the house-senate confrence comitee. If you believe in this cause, please take a minute to write your senators and representative and voice your opinion.
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/publiclands_senate

[kallend 2,148]

Why would this surprise you? Remember where the biggest campaign contributions come from.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Good first step. If I remember right the the federal government is not supposed to own land. (even though it does)

To follow up. The companies in the US, when working in the US. Are the cleanest companies in the world. So, would you rather use resources in country where pollution is controlled or let the other countries pollute at will to supply the US?

We should be drilling up north too (since you brought it up)

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davedlg 0]

Vast federal lands are what make this country special. All throughout the west, there are large areas of federal lands open for hiking, 4wd roads, rock climbing, fishing and hunting, and wilderness....now they are all "for sale." Once they are sold, they are no longer open to the public. How is this right?

I am not nessecarily aginst drilling up north anyway, but I am not going to argue that here.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

If I remember right the the federal government is not supposed to own land.

Where is that rule stated?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

If I remember right the the federal government is not supposed to own land.

Where is that rule stated?

ehhh....over there!

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rushmc 23]

I said "If I remember right" but I think I may have remembered a debated, not the law.

Anyway, I went looking and I came across this. It doesn't support my "memory" but it is good reading. ( I have not gotten through all of it yet)

Anyway, enjoy
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/data/1999/upl-meta-crs-1009/RL30126_1999Apr07.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

I said "If I remember right" but I think I may have remembered a debated, not the law.

Anyway, I went looking and I came across this. It doesn't support my "memory" but it is good reading. ( I have not gotten through all of it yet)

Anyway, enjoy
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/data/1999/upl-meta-crs-1009/RL30126_1999Apr07.html

It is indeed, and nothing in there suggests the purpose is to sell the land for peanuts so that large corporations can make a windfall profit off it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I said "If I remember right" but I think I may have remembered a debated, not the law.

Anyway, I went looking and I came across this. It doesn't support my "memory" but it is good reading. ( I have not gotten through all of it yet)

Anyway, enjoy
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/data/1999/upl-meta-crs-1009/RL30126_1999Apr07.html

It is indeed, and nothing in there suggests the purpose is to sell the land for peanuts so that large corporations can make a windfall profit off it.

I'm not seeing anything in there saying "sales to private individuals only", either...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mr2mk1g 10]

Everyone chip in and buy El-Cap.

Refer to it only buy grid co-ordinates and see if anyone picks up on it.

You'll be making a political statement as well as opening up the home of BASE.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Vast federal lands are what make this country special. All throughout the west, there are large areas of federal lands open for hiking, 4wd roads, rock climbing, fishing and hunting, and wilderness....now they are all "for sale."

If it's a preserve, then the hypocritical environmentalists should give up their "hiking, 4wd roads, rock climbing, fishing and hunting" and stop pretending that national parks are precious rather than just their little yuppie playground. We either use it - fully, or we save it - untouched. I don't see any difference in sincerity between mining/drilling/developing, vs some self-righteous granola-head going in and trampling all over it - at least the developers aren't deluding themselves. It's still use, it's still selfish.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Vast federal lands are what make this country special. All throughout the west, there are large areas of federal lands open for hiking, 4wd roads, rock climbing, fishing and hunting, and wilderness....now they are all "for sale."

If it's a preserve, then the hypocritical environmentalists should give up their "hiking, 4wd roads, rock climbing, fishing and hunting" and stop pretending that national parks are precious rather than just their little yuppie playground. We either use it - fully, or we save it - untouched. I don't see any difference in sincerity between mining/drilling/developing, vs some self-righteous granola-head going in and trampling all over it - at least the developers aren't deluding themselves. It's still use, it's still selfish.

You really see no difference bewteen making public land available to its owners (the public) for recreation, and selling it off cheap to developers so they can make a quick buck?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[davedlg 0]

Quote

If it's a preserve, then the hypocritical environmentalists should give up their "hiking, 4wd roads, rock climbing, fishing and hunting" and stop pretending that national parks are precious rather than just their little yuppie playground. We either use it - fully, or we save it - untouched. I don't see any difference in sincerity between mining/drilling/developing, vs some self-righteous granola-head going in and trampling all over it - at least the developers aren't deluding themselves. It's still use, it's still selfish.

My point is not the environmental impact of the proposed changes (that's a whole other can o' worms). My point is these lands, which are now available to the public for a wide variety of recreation are going to be sold and no longer be available.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I don't see any difference in sincerity between mining/drilling/developing, vs some self-righteous granola-head going in and trampling all over it - at least the developers aren't deluding themselves. It's still use, it's still selfish.

The fact that you don't see a difference between hiking, camping and such and say strip mining or drilling or commercial development is a little frightening. Its kind of like saying that when I use the bathroom without making a mess, I am the same as the guy who comes in and shits all over the floor. A radical analogy, but there a quite the difference between the smart camper and blasting holes in the ground.

And besides the point here is that currently, they are there for everyone to use. If private companies own them, they will not be available.

Furthermore, i don't really see the reason why to turned this into some "granola eating" hypocritical enviromentalist thing. I didn't get that tone at all till you introduced it.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

My point is not the environmental impact of the proposed changes (that's a whole other can o' worms). My point is these lands, which are now available to the public for a wide variety of recreation are going to be sold and no longer be available.

You admit you want these lands for your own personal use and you consider that takes precedence over another's personal use - even if they are willing to pay for that use while you get yours for 'free'. And you don't cloak it some hypocrisy about 'saving' the world or anything. You have more honesty than many. It's admirable.

I'm of the same opinion, let the developers get their own land. That's my climbing face/river/trail/whatever. {Still would rather see the 4wd/snowmobiles/4wheelers/mototrbikes go elsewhere}

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,118]

>We either use it - fully, or we save it - untouched.

That's about the silliest thing you've posted on here for a while. I think you really do understand the difference between managed use and exploitation, and you'd even be in favor of managed use if the land in question mattered to you.

>I don't see any difference in sincerity between
> mining/drilling/developing, vs some self-righteous granola-head
> going in and trampling all over it . . . .

I was in Yosemite this weekend. There's a big difference.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The fact that you don't see a difference between hiking, camping and such and say strip mining or drilling or commercial development is a little frightening.

certainly the impact is different etc..... my point isn't about that difference - it's all about 'my use' vs 'the other guys use'. What does 'responsible' camping mean? Is that any different than 'responsible' development? Why is your use more important than someone else's? Just because is has the illusion of outdoorsy stuff (with the coleman grills, the plastic water bottles, the synthetic tents, the fiber filled sleeping bags, the fiberglass kayak, etc.....)

What's the difference between a capitalist and an environmentalist? the capitalist wants a house in the woods, the environmentalist already has his.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I was in Yosemite this weekend. There's a big difference.

Hey, it's your private country club. I can see why you'd hate to lose it.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davedlg 0]

Quote

You admit you want these lands for your own personal use and you consider that takes precedence over another's personal use - even if they are willing to pay for that use while you get yours for 'free'. And you don't cloak it some hypocrisy about 'saving' the world or anything. You have more honesty than many. It's admirable.

It's not my own personal use, it is everyone's use. You really don't see the difference between land being open to use by the public and land being sold to developers and miners, surrounded with barbed wire and "No Tresspassing" signs and developed as they see fit??

[billvon 3,118]

>Hey, it's your private country club.

Yours too. Everyone's, in fact, which makes it the opposite of private.

A few pertinent quotes from the founding father of conservationism:

"Defenders of the short-sighted men who in their greed and selfishness will, if permitted, rob our country of half its charm by their reckless extermination of all useful and beautiful wild things sometimes seek to champion them by saying the 'the game belongs to the people.' So it does; and not merely to the people now alive, but to the unborn people. The 'greatest good for the greatest number' applies to the number within the womb of time, compared to which those now alive form but an insignificant fraction. Our duty to the whole, including the unborn generations, bids us restrain an unprincipled present-day minority from wasting the heritage of these unborn generations. The movement for the conservation of wild life and the larger movement for the conservation of all our natural resources are essentially democratic in spirit, purpose, and method."

"We of an older generation can get along with what we have, though with growing hardship; but in your full manhood and womanhood you will want what nature once so bountifully supplied and man so thoughtlessly destroyed; and because of that want you will reproach us, not for what we have used, but for what we have wasted...So any nation which in its youth lives only for the day, reaps without sowing, and consumes without husbanding, must expect the penalty of the prodigal whose labor could with difficulty find him the bare means of life."

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

>I was in Yosemite this weekend. There's a big difference.

Hey, it's your private country club. I can see why you'd hate to lose it.

You are just being contrary to be contrary and I shal have none of it.

If you really cannot see the difference between the public being able to use these lands for recreation and a company buying the land, exploiting it, and restricting it from public use, there is nothing I can do to show you the difference.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You are just being contrary to be contrary and I shal have none of it.

no I'm not. You are.

{{I see the differences you guys are going on about, I just don't believe the sincerity/holier=than=thou attitudes of the current users, they want it for their own selfish reasons too - it's less of a 'for the greater good' thing than a 'better me than them' thing}}. I have no issue with that other than most can't admit it.

I'm selfish about public lands too, I like to go camping, and climbing and have a place that's quiet and (has the illusion of being) unspoiled. What's wrong with admitting it's a selfish reason? Governments sole purpose is about restricting one group (those individuals in private industry) for the benefit of others (campers, etc). In this case, public lands benefit more people than it hurts and specifically agrees with my selfish wants - and at least it doesn't discriminate along PC lines, we can all use the lands.

But it's always a tradeoff, it's not purely good vs evil, and that gets lost in the discussions because the arguments are always fully out there.

It's scary that you guys don't understand that (just trying on the well repeated self serving statement, it's not really that comfortable - I'm not sure how you all keep using it and still keep your faces straight)

Edit: and I'll pitch in for El Cap.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[EricTheRed 0]

Done.

illegible usually

[GTAVercetti 0]

Dude, the difference is simply that we are not BUYING the land. On the other hand, private industry would be PURCHASING it for their use. That is a HUGE difference.

Believe me, I know the reasons are selfish and have never said it was not. But when I am selfish to want government parks to stay that way, my selfishness does not impose upon anyone except industry. It does not limit the PEOPLE who run those industries from using the land for recreation; it just prevents their COMPANIES from exploiting it for financial gain.

The land stays public and everyone can have fun on it. It goes private and chances are no one except that company gets any use anymore.

Quote

CrazyIt's scary that you guys don't understand thatCrazy (just trying on the well repeated self serving statement, it's not really that comfortable - I'm not sure how you all keep using it and still keep your faces straight)

The difference is the "you guys". You went and made it generalized. I kept it to only you. Add to that, don't try to tell me none of what you post here is ever self-serving. That anything you say here is only to help others. Please.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Dude, the difference is simply that we are not BUYING the land.

we're just renting it

Edit: less 'self serving' than 'time killing' (which is ultimately self serving). But more so, I just like to see what all 'you guys' think. It's pretty good stuff most of the time.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants