selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easier

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
User avatar
kepPNW
Posts: 6351
Joined: June 21st, 2012, 9:55 am
Location: Salmon Creek

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by kepPNW » January 5th, 2017, 12:17 pm

Splintercat wrote:Curses on those who argued the false equivalency between the choices in the presidential election as a reason for not participating (or writing in a non-vote). If they're like Nader voters, they'll never own up to the repercussions of opting out, either.
It all came down to Floriduh in 2000. Just a handful more of the Nader votes there, going to Gore would've tipped it, avoiding the whole "v. Bush" thing.

People on the left coast voting for Nader had ZERO impact on the electoral college. It's scandalous to suggest otherwise. So this dig at many of us really ought to be targeted directly (and solely) at those living in the USA's most phallic appendage who (as is typical there) "just don't get it!"
Karl
Back on the trail, again...

(Photos · PortlandHikers)

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1616
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by BigBear » January 5th, 2017, 12:59 pm

I completely forgot that Nader even ran in 2000. The only place where a third party candidate would have had an impact was in Florida. The other states had a more decisive margin which did not require multiple reviews of ballots to determine if a chad was hanging, dented, or not touched at all.

The difference between 2000 and 2016 is that 2000 was a difference in philosophies of two parties which had been in existence for roughly 150 years. The so-called winner this year lost by 3M votes and has very little understanding of the law, justice and representation (as he admitted in the debates when it came to "knowing how to skirt the law to avoid paying taxes"). I am scared to death how this, well just say "clown" since this is a family site, will interpret labor laws, consumer protection, medical coverage, retirement benefits, and any other law that impacts me Monday-Friday. The environment and public lands are important, but they pale by comparison to the regulations which protect our jobs, retirement, food, housing, etc. The group that will be taking office int he next few weeks can't see or hear anyone making less than eight or nine figures (that $10M and above).

Your voice about the environment is as strong as if you were standing in the wilderness when you said it. It's not that I don't agree with your concern, because I do, but it's a mere whisper that can't be heard over the counting of money back east.

Aimless
Posts: 1483
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by Aimless » January 5th, 2017, 2:03 pm

Your voice about the environment is as strong as if you were standing in the wilderness when you said it.

I disagree on the grounds that what is small in itself can be part of something much bigger. It is important to have faith in the principle that enough water drops can wear away stone. You cannot see how many others are engaged in the same effort. The important thing is to contribute your voice and add your small part into the larger whole. When enough people take the time to do this, good things happen.

Pro tip: if your correspondence with a congressional rep is in the form of an individualized, typed personal letter delivered via snail mail, it has far more impact than a boilerplate email containing no more than whatever text was fed to you by some organization as part of a campaign for/against something. Include your personal experience and thoughts. It helps immensely if you give the impression you are a respectable middle-class citizen not given to political ranting.

Steve20050
Posts: 395
Joined: November 12th, 2009, 8:06 pm

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by Steve20050 » January 5th, 2017, 2:10 pm

I have to agree with a lot of what has been stated. I hope the Republican congress keeps being obsessed with the ACA. If they repeal it, they own the mess and the millions of newly uninsured that voted for them. Other wise maybe they will be smart enough to fix the problems, not. Those insurance companies certainly have their own agenda and I'm sure they have the ear of Republican congress.

The president elect has stated ideas that are in opposition to the majority party of Republicans in congress. As incompetent as he is, it could get worse from my perspective. If he continues to show signs of being unable to do his job, (protect the American people), he will see the general public turn on him. I think he is going into office with something like an low 42% approval. The scary scenario I would bring up is if the public looses trust in him, which is very possible, the Republican congress will eat him for lunch. They would like to have Pence as president over Trump anytime. This guy would go all in, in helping the Republicans with their agenda and it would be very bad for many reasons.

I was a Nader voter. I have endured persons telling me I helped Bush get elected. Yeah Florida, Karl has a point. What a scam that was.

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12774
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by retired jerry » January 5th, 2017, 5:32 pm

or, I think calling them on the phone is good

email is less effective because it's so easy for partisans to flood spam emails so they probably get ignored

justpeachy
Posts: 2775
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by justpeachy » January 5th, 2017, 6:37 pm

Ugh, this makes me ill. I can't believe it's come to this.

One of the reasons the transfer-federal-lands people give for their position is that they want to make resource extraction easier. Better for the economy, brings jobs to communities, etc. But as Thomas Power points out in this interesting 2008 article: "The overwhelming evidence from many case studies and reviews around the country demonstrates that wildlands protection is an overall positive net economic benefit to communities and regional economies as well as contributing to an enhanced quality of life."

Lots of things to mull over in that article, but here's another: "Per capita income in western nonmetropolitan counties with 100,000 acres of protected public lands was on average $4,360 higher than per capita income in similar counties with no protected public lands."

Aimless
Posts: 1483
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by Aimless » January 5th, 2017, 6:42 pm

A rural county embracing accelerated resource extraction as the source of economic growth is similar to a person deciding to sell one of his kidneys on the theory that it is possible to get by with just the one and, hey, I could use the money!

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 12774
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by retired jerry » January 5th, 2017, 6:50 pm

I think it was Bark that mentioned that automation has reduced the number of people required to harvest lumber. They won't get all their jobs back by going back to previous harvest levels.

In the 1970s they (Hatfield, Packwood) increased the amount of logging for a number of years to an unsustainable level. Then we dialed back to a sustainable level. Logging people want to go back to that unsustainable level, forgetting that it was unsustainable.

User avatar
BurnsideBob
Posts: 388
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 3:15 pm
Location: Mount Angel, Oregon

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by BurnsideBob » January 5th, 2017, 10:52 pm

I'm opposed to selling federal lands. I hope everyone recalls how adamant Harney County officials were about NOT receiving custody of or responsibility for federal lands during the Malheur Refuge occupation. Even states have little funding available for administration of federal lands should these be ceded to the states.

And piecemeal sales to private parties/entities would be the worst scenario. IMOP the best scenario would be continuance of the current ownership regime, even if that means a pesky NW Forest Pass on my car dash.

We may not see eye to eye on the issues, but we must speak out. So do write your congressman. Our chit chatting back and forth does not echo in the halls of government. Contacting your rep does.
I keep making protein shakes but they always turn out like margaritas.

User avatar
miah66
Posts: 2029
Joined: July 6th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Re: selling off federal lands: new House rules make it easie

Post by miah66 » January 6th, 2017, 7:56 am

Contact Oregon here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/OR

Contact Washington here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/WA

Contact Idaho here:

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/ID

Please take a second and fire off a one or two liner telling them you oppose federal lands transfers.
"The top...is not the top" - Mile...Mile & a Half

Instagram @pdxstrider

Post Reply