Community Forums

CascadeBob · 02-05-2017, 06:24 AM

First let me say this is not meant to be a political thread or a political statement of any kind. I offer this only as information that directly affects RVers across the nation of any political persuasion.

So please, if anyone objects to the information presented below, or If irv2 considers this thread inappropriate, please let me know and I'll not post anything of the like again.

OK, here's the info:

Last week U.S. Congressman Jason Chaffetz introduced a bill (H.B. 621) that would direct the incoming Secretary of Interior to sell off 3.3 million acres of BLM lands in 10 western states, an area the size of Connecticut. Along with that bill he introduced H.B. 622 which would remove all law enforcement capabilities from the BLM and Forest Service.

The bill was withdrawn after a strong flurry of complaints from hunters, fishermen, and conservationists. But, a number of congressmen and senators have vowed to continue efforts to sell off federal public lands with a separate effort to privatize the national park system.

RVers use federal public lands too, in fact they form the basis for many people to travel in a RV. So, I think the RV community should be aware of these efforts since lawmakers have promised that they will come up again.

That's all, and no offense or political inferences intended.

nothermark · 02-05-2017, 06:43 AM

At the risk of being a bit political I wonder who would be buying those lands. It seems most of the land is government because no one wants to pay for it. Over the years some folks have gotten used to the "free" land for various uses. It's not free. The outdoor sports folks figured it out many years ago with hunting and fishing tax money to support land for those activities. Now we have various groups wanting control of different places we all pay for. It will be interesting to watch what comes of this.

Twin Bridges · 02-05-2017, 07:13 AM

The foresight of those he came before us to protect public lands is one of America's treasures. I certainly hope that our generation will not destroy for my grandchildren the richness of the outdoors provided by our public lands.

We are the stewards of these lands and it is our responsibility to protect them for future generations. We do not need and must not see them as some expedite solution for profit.

Hit_the_Rhod · 02-05-2017, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twinbridges

The foresight of those he came before us to protect public lands is one of America's treasures. I certainly hope that our generation will not destroy for my grandchildren the richness of the outdoors provided by our public lands.

We are the stewards of these lands and it is our responsibility to protect them for future generations. We do not need and must not see them as some expedite solution for profit.

Selah · 02-05-2017, 08:46 AM

Welcome to 1984.

Jimbow · 02-05-2017, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twinbridges

The foresight of those he came before us to protect public lands is one of America's treasures. I certainly hope that our generation will not destroy for my grandchildren the richness of the outdoors provided by our public lands.

We are the stewards of these lands and it is our responsibility to protect them for future generations. We do not need and must not see them as some expedite solution for profit.

Amen

Busskipper · 02-05-2017, 09:12 AM

So Much for not being "Political"

BennieH · 02-05-2017, 09:40 AM

All you have to do is look how much land is in the governments hands. It's a lot! Not only that, but there is quite a bit that is not open to the public for various reasons.
I am sure some could be sold without any real impact. And as previously stated, if people want it for whatever, then do as us sports folks do and pay a user fee.
Absolutely nothing is truly free. It is paid for by someone.

Woodlandhill · 02-05-2017, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BennieH

All you have to do is look how much land is in the governments hands. It's a lot! Not only that, but there is quite a bit that is not open to the public for various reasons.
I am sure some could be sold without any real impact. And as previously stated, if people want it for whatever, then do as us sports folks do and pay a user fee.
Absolutely nothing is truly free. It is paid for by someone.

So true, and with fees set at the proper level the owners can keep the lower classes from trashing everything in sight by making it too pricy for them to enter. And use the money to make massive improvements, like more RV parks, higher quality hotels and restaurants, more shopping without driving miles to some "park boundary". There is also the possibility of lots of new jobs waiting tables, cooking, cleaning rooms, clerking in gift shops, etc. Who could possible be against that?

Superslif · 02-05-2017, 10:27 AM

Casino's ? Resort Towers ? WalMart's ?

Even living in a state with very little free / open lands, I look forward to boon-docking / RVing for a small fee or free on lands meant for everyone to use by: the poor, the middle class and the filthy rich.

I hope this H.B. 621 doesn't mean that BLM or Forest Service lands near cities that can be sold to build WalMarts or housing developments is what is targeted in this bill.

parkerbill · 02-05-2017, 10:27 AM

Youch!!! I'm staying out of this one!! [emoji12]

tizzyfit · 02-05-2017, 10:53 AM

The national debt in fiscal year 2000 was UNDER $6,000,000,000,000. In 2016 fiscal year it passed the $20,000,000,000,000 mark. A lot of the members of CONGRESS have been around for this 16 year run. To think some of these people are willing to sell AMERICAS land to the highest bidder just to cover their spending habits makes about as much sense as having an AA meeting in a bar during Happy Hour.

Twin Bridges · 02-05-2017, 11:04 AM

On your and my balance sheet we have assets and liabilities. Our federal debt does not list our assets, think carriers and 100 million dollar planes and yes the incredible value of our open lands.

So, our USA balance sheet is in reality quite spectacular.

rkresge · 02-05-2017, 11:31 AM

One: The bill was pulled, wasn't it?

Two: The federal government owns far too much land, especially in the western states. Please don't ask me how much is enough, too much, or not enough, but what the heck is the federal government doing owning all that land? Shouldn't most of it be in private hands and on the tax rolls?

Roger