HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

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.
Post Reply
Rand Man
Posts: 85
Joined: January 4th, 2017, 11:09 am

HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by Rand Man » February 2nd, 2017, 4:22 pm

While it has not been introduced yet this year, the bill has been repeatedly introduced since 2012. Given the severity of threat to federal lands and Zinke's support of it, here is some background I dug up as head start.

The sponsor of bill has been Idaho's 4-term Rep Raul Labrador. Last June, the bill made it out of committee on a 25-13 vote (Zinke voted in favor of it), but no further action was taken.

Because the bill aims to transfer extraction rights, but not ownership, Zinke's support of it is consistent with his pro-extraction/federal-ownership stance.

Wilderness Society:
[HR 2316] would allow transfer of control of up to four million acres of national forest lands [per state] to an advisory group appointed by the individual state’s governor. These advisory councils are to be comprised of county officials and extractive industries, and these councils would have complete control over how these transferred lands are managed.

more at:
http://wilderness.org/press-release/rep ... blic-lands

There were six cosponsors, notably nearby Washington's Rep Newhouse:
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large]
Rep. Lummis, Cynthia M. [R-WY-At Large]
Rep. Amodei, Mark E. [R-NV-2]
Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-4]
Rep. Pearce, Stevan [R-NM-2]
Rep. Newhouse, Dan [R-WA-4]

This year:

... forthcoming...

Previously:

HR 2316 - Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-con ... -bill/2316

HR 1294 - Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act
https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-con ... -bill/1294

HR 6009 - Self-Sufficient Community Lands Act of 2012
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-con ... -bill/6009

Additionally:

Committee vote on HR 2316
http://naturalresources.house.gov/Uploa ... R_2316.pdf

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by Aimless » February 2nd, 2017, 6:37 pm

While I do appreciate your making some of this info available to forum members, would you please discontinue posting about various pending bills that address general environmental concerns in the General Hiking Forum. These bills are not about hiking and your posts are becoming so numerous and are starting up so many non-hiking subjects that the forum is rapidly becoming the 'Rand Man Legislative Agenda Forum'. No matter how important you think these are, they do not fit in the forum where you are placing them and you are burying actual hiking threads under your clutter. Thank you.

Also, as another member noted, apart from the one post you made introducing yourself, not one of your posts reveals who you are, what you think of the many subjects you are dropping on us, or has any whiff of your personality. After you initiate a thread, you tend to disappear and not post on it again. You rarely, if ever, reply to other member's remarks. This is a community and your lack of personal engagement is very noticeable and off-putting.

EDIT: Perhaps the admin would consider creating a new forum for notification and discussion of hiking-related political issues, where these sorts of threads would not be exiled to Idle Chatter, but would not overwhelm General Hiking, as they now do. Alternatively, they could be moved en masse to Hiking in the News, which is a marginally better fit.

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 2317
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by Bosterson » February 2nd, 2017, 11:52 pm

Aimless wrote:Perhaps the admin would consider creating a new forum for notification and discussion of hiking-related political issues, where these sorts of threads would not be exiled to Idle Chatter, but would not overwhelm General Hiking, as they now do. Alternatively, they could be moved en masse to Hiking in the News, which is a marginally better fit.
All of the topics about wilderness-related legislation have been moved here to the News forum, at least for now.

In line with what Aimless wrote, there have been a ton of legislation posts recently, and while they can be interesting and relevant, this forum is not primarily for political discussions. If that's your main interest, then perhaps you could start a blog or Facebook group or something dedicated to that. If you're interested in being involved with community, there are various hiking topics (non-political) to discuss here, or you could comment on people's TRs or make your own TR about a trip you went on. :)
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

User avatar
5th
Posts: 121
Joined: April 27th, 2015, 9:11 am
Location: Eugene

Re: HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by 5th » February 3rd, 2017, 8:36 am

I disagree. I believe his posts are useful, relevant, and should be read by more people. They have everything to do with hiking, because if they pass, you will do a lot less of it. That makes it existential, and thus the very essence of what is relevant to a hiking forum. These are the posts that interest me. I would not oppose corralling them somewhere, but it will have a negative effect on a positive trend IMO.

User avatar
miah66
Posts: 2039
Joined: July 6th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Re: HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by miah66 » February 3rd, 2017, 8:48 am

I agree that they are relevant. There has been a Facebook group started that could use some of this in depth research regarding public land bills that are going to be coming fast and furious. I hope everyone, especially Rand Man, that uses FB will consider joining at:

https://www.facebook.com/FitForDisposal/?fref=nf
"The top...is not the top" - Mile...Mile & a Half

Instagram @pdxstrider

User avatar
BurnsideBob
Posts: 534
Joined: May 6th, 2014, 3:15 pm
Location: Mount Angel, Oregon

Re: HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by BurnsideBob » February 3rd, 2017, 11:21 am

I agree that pending legislation affecting our access to federal lands is worthy of discussion. As far as this forum goes, Randman's thread titles clearly identify the nature of his threads, so uninterested folks can pass on by.

I believe there is a significant disconnect between the new administration and what the people, in aggregate, really want. This disconnect is the subject of a public opinion poll discussed in an article released today, Feb 3 here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wes ... 0eff016d2e

For those of us that are legitimate geriatric hikers, this is not the first go around on this rodeo. What the new administration is saying for public lands policy echoes the Reagan administration in general and James Watt, Reagan's first Interior Secretary, in particular. For a discussion and bio of James Watt, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

For those concerned about legislation affecting our ability to use federal lands, please write or call your congressman and senators with your views.
I keep making protein shakes but they always turn out like margaritas.

User avatar
miah66
Posts: 2039
Joined: July 6th, 2009, 8:00 pm

Re: HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by miah66 » February 3rd, 2017, 11:44 am

Thanks Bob for your input. That's a telling survey, though the fact that it was published in Huffpo possibly won't do for those who believe it is a biased news source. I wish someone "fair and balanced" would publish that kind of stuff, that isn't gonna happen.

I have read about this similar actions that happened w/ Reagan. I was too young to remember, so this is indeed my first rodeo. I am afraid that since we "won" all those years ago, however, that alot of ppl have become complacent and really don't think this could really happen, so they are just kind of tuning it out as "politics of the day" and "i'm so over politics". I can't really blame them. But this is really an issue that should be on the tip of everyone's tongue, it should be on the front page of every newspaper, the top of every hiking, fishing, hunting, camping website, blog, instagram, etc.

It's alarming how quickly this agenda is being pushed through and it's obviously a tactic to overwhelm and see what sticks. We really need to be doing something TODAY! Calling representatives TODAY!
"The top...is not the top" - Mile...Mile & a Half

Instagram @pdxstrider

Rand Man
Posts: 85
Joined: January 4th, 2017, 11:09 am

Re: HR 2316: States to carryout extractions on NFS lands

Post by Rand Man » February 3rd, 2017, 1:59 pm

Threats have these two facets: ownership and extraction. Ownership seems much less pressing given Trump and Zinke. But I think Trump's stance is based not on reverence but on his history as a developer. So the foundation of Trump's "keep-public-lands-public" stance would seem quite vulnerable to his deal-maker identity and everything-is-on-the-table attitude. Land transfers to states or corporations (land swaps with extractive industries) will occur hidden not headlined.

Amped up extraction seems the unavoidable consequence of Trump+Zinke, and the times in general. It'll be overt, headlined with the word jobs and growth.

On other notes, 'conservation' and 'preservation' are used interchangeably in the media and in street talk. The extraction industry's propaganda capitalizes on this. At the agency level, 'conservation' and 'preservation' are quite different.

Here is an example. The Huffington Post article cited above reports on a Colorado College study based on a survey(s) conducted by the private firms Public Opinion Strategies (which has Republican roots) and Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates. Other news outlets are reporting on it too.

Take a look at slide 5 in the presentation pdf by the Colorado College.

Image

The title should read "By greater than three-to-one margin, voters favor Muir's vision over Pinchot's vision", or "By greater than three-to-one margin, voters favor preservation over conservation". The title actual title says the opposite (voters favor conservation).

Some might consider the difference between 'conservation' and 'preservation' to be a quibble. If it only mattered in talk on the street, I wouldn't disagree. But it also matters in congress, in policy, in meetings that determine where we are headed.

If we continue to fail to use these terms correctly, the extractive industries are going to continue exploiting it. Slide 5 will be cited as alt-proof: "A university study shows that 3 out of 4 voters advocate for land conservation, a utilitarian approach to public lands that favors logging, mining".



Conservation in contrast with preservation:

NPS
https://www.nps.gov/klgo/learn/educatio ... vation.htm

USFS
https://www.fs.fed.us/blogs/conservatio ... eservation

Google:
https://www.google.com/#q=conservation+ ... eservation




7th annual Colorado College Study on Public Lands:

Various news outlets are reporting on the study:
https://www.google.com/#q="public+opini ... s"&tbm=nws

Study's home page:
https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/s ... index.html

Study's slide presentation:
https://www.coloradocollege.edu/other/s ... tation.pdf

Public Opinion Strategies, or POS
http://pos.org/

That POS is Republican based:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Pu ... Strategies
https://web.archive.org/web/20050315093 ... w.pos.org/

Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates.
http://www.fm3research.com/

Post Reply