A Fishing forum. FishingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishingBanter forum » rec.outdoors.fishing newsgroups » Fly Fishing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 10th, 2005, 10:26 PM
Johnson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

This might be the most dangerous thing I have seen yet to hit fly
fishing in the U.S. This would have devestating effects on the nations
best trout streams, and we would lose access to many of those streams.

Seems that's what Pombo and Bush are up to. I never in all my days
thoguht I would have ever seen this. No joke, this plan would sell off
our national parks and forests, having a terrible ipact on our trout
streams.

www.tu.org

Please email your Member of the House of Representatives and ask them
to vote against the House Reconciliation Bill (HR 4241) because
sections 6201-6207 would allow the sale of public lands from public
ownership.



The U.S. House of Representatives is likely voting tomorrow, Thursday
November 10, on a bill that would allow for the sale of public lands to
mining companies and other development interests that are crucial for
fish, wildlife, and water resources.



These harmful provisions are buried within the so-called House
Reconciliation Bill. The measures were inserted into the bill without
any public hearings or debate by Congressman Richard Pombo of
California.



Congressman Pombo's provisions would amend the 1872 Mining Law to allow
public lands to be patented, or sold off, to mining companies that
expressed an interest in mining an area for a maximum of $1,000 per
acre. The provisions actually weaken standards set under the lax 1872
Mining Law by allowing miners and other development interests to
privatize public land without any review or federal oversight.



Public lands are managed in trust by the U.S. Forest Service and the
Bureau of Land Management for all of the people of the United States,
and contain more than half of the nation's blue-ribbon trout streams.
They are strongholds for all of the imperiled native trout in the
western United States, and contain the best remaining habitat for
migrating salmon and steelhead.



Congressman Pombo's fire-sale of public lands would reverse a 30-year
congressional mandate that public lands should remain in public
ownership. Please call your Member of Congress in the House of
Representatives and ask them to vote against the Reconciliation Bill
unless the harmful mining provisions are removed.


-------

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9991573/



Controversial mining plan nears House vote
Debate centers on what federal lands would be sold, and at what price
Environment slide shows ARCHIVE
Updated: 11:17 a.m. ET Nov. 10, 2005
WASHINGTON - Mining industry critics braced for a House vote on a
budget bill that includes a provision that could allow the sales of
millions of acres of public lands.

The provision would overturn a congressional ban on letting mineral
companies and individuals buy public lands at cheap prices if they hold
mineral deposits.

"If this provision became law, it could literally lead to the
privatization of millions of acres of public land, including national
park and national forestland," said Dave Alberswerth, public lands
director for The Wilderness Society.

A vote on the overall bill could come as early as Thursday.

Congress has decided each year since 1994 to prohibit mining companies
from exploiting an obscure part of the 1872 mining law that allows
businesses and individuals to "patent," or buy, some of the
nation's most scenic lands at 19th century prices - just $2.50 to
$5 per acre. It gives them absolute title, including mineral rights, to
the properties.

The Interior Department over the past decade has approved slightly more
than half of the 405 patent applications it received before 1994, and
is still processing the final 50.

Mineral value wouldn't count
House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., and other
committee members want to lift the ban preventing anyone from applying
for a new patent application. They propose raising the price to $1,000
per acre or "fair market value," whichever is more. That doesn't
take into account the value of the minerals the lands might contain.

Until now, companies have had to convince the Interior Department that
the land has a valuable mineral deposit and it can be mined at a
profit. Department officials say companies typically spend about
$10,000 to $15,000 per acre trying to document that it is economically
viable to mine there.

Once a patent is granted, the law does not let the government challenge
a company if it drops its plan to mine at a site and resell the
property as real estate.

Most of the available land that could be bought is managed by the
Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management. Officials there say
they received 320,000 mining claims this year, a huge amount driven by
high gold prices. The average size mining claim is on 20 acres.

That adds up to 6.4 million acres of BLM land - generally remote
acreage used for grazing, recreation and a multitude of other purposes
- that could be sold if it were "patented."

Some claims in protected areas
Though the bill exempts national parks, monuments and wilderness areas,
The Wilderness Society says lands with existing mining claims in
national parks could still be sold. There are 900 such mining claims,
including 700 in California; the rest are mostly in Alaska.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the changes in law could
raise several hundred million dollars, including $100 million that
could be spent over the next 10 years for mining cleanups and schools
that offer training in petroleum, mining or mineral engineering.

The new language lowers the threshold for obtaining a permit and
generally mirrors what the National Mining Association advocated. Luke
Popovich, a spokesman for the trade group, said those changes would
help boost rural Western economies by drawing investment "in areas
where mining companies are clearly the high-wage employers."

Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., chairman of the House Resources energy and
mineral resources subcommittee, said the law needed to be changed
because "continuously suspending the patent process is not a
solution, it is merely a temporary fix."

"Patenting and purchase of lands is absolutely vital to the health of
Nevada's rural communities because it expands the tax base of the
local government, which in turn funds schools, emergency services and
other infrastructure," he said.

However, Rep. Nick Rahall of West Virginia, the senior Democrat on the
committee, said the mining provision "would result in a blazing fire
sale of federal lands" to U.S. and international companies.

  #2  
Old November 10th, 2005, 10:34 PM
JR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

Johnson wrote:
This might be the most dangerous thing I have seen yet to hit fly
fishing in the U.S.


Worse than indicators?

This would have devestating effects on the nations
best trout streams, and we would lose access to many of those streams.


Well, you could make friends with a couplefew prominent roffians (whose
names I won't mention), and once they buy up the best trout streams,
they'll invite you fishing....

Seems that's what Pombo and Bush are up to. I never in all my days
thoguht I would have ever seen this. No joke, this plan would sell off
our national parks and forests, having a terrible ipact on our trout
streams.


All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
should be surprised.....

the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican
party has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.
  #3  
Old November 10th, 2005, 10:41 PM
rw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

Johnson wrote:

Please email your Member of the House of Representatives and ask them
to vote against the House Reconciliation Bill (HR 4241) because
sections 6201-6207 would allow the sale of public lands from public
ownership.


It's failed to pass the House, so far.

The sticking point: a provision that would extend the tax cut on capital
gains and dividends through 2009, according to reports in Tax Notes and
the Wall Street Journal.

Most of them don't give a **** about the environmental issues.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
  #4  
Old November 10th, 2005, 11:21 PM
Larry L
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert


"JR" wrote


All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
should be surprised.....

the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican party
has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.


THE surprise to me all along is that any 'outdoorsman' would ever vote for
the BushGang in the first place .... where the hell do they expect to be
outdoorsmen after the outdoors is spoiled forever or locked up for the
richest of the rich? I guess many of them think keeping their submachine
guns is more important than having clean places to use their shotguns and
deer rifles .... or keeping those damn monogamous gays and lesbians third
class citizens so we have someone easy to hate is more important than water
safe to drink for their own 'family valued' children .... or, or,


..... or, maybe, many outdoorsmen are simply dumb as posts and easily led to
vote for their own extinction.




  #5  
Old November 10th, 2005, 11:45 PM
Wolfgang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert


"JR" wrote in message ...

...the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican
party has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.


Aside from that wing of the Republican party, I can't think of anybody else
who really despises highly effective tools that they own outright.

Wolfgang
um......and the nazis were socialists.....hey, it says so right there in
their name!


  #6  
Old November 12th, 2005, 05:07 PM
gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

Clinton started this by charging for access in some parks, by not funding
the Forest Dept and allowing private contractors to run our forest camps.


"JR" wrote in message ...
Johnson wrote:
This might be the most dangerous thing I have seen yet to hit fly
fishing in the U.S.


Worse than indicators?

This would have devestating effects on the nations
best trout streams, and we would lose access to many of those streams.


Well, you could make friends with a couplefew prominent roffians (whose
names I won't mention), and once they buy up the best trout streams,
they'll invite you fishing....

Seems that's what Pombo and Bush are up to. I never in all my days
thoguht I would have ever seen this. No joke, this plan would sell off
our national parks and forests, having a terrible ipact on our trout
streams.


All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
should be surprised.....

the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican
party has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.



  #7  
Old November 12th, 2005, 05:09 PM
gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

The economy is important too. Bozo!!! We aren't quite a socialist state
yet, but voting folks like you will try your best.


"rw" wrote in message
...
Johnson wrote:

Please email your Member of the House of Representatives and ask them
to vote against the House Reconciliation Bill (HR 4241) because
sections 6201-6207 would allow the sale of public lands from public
ownership.


It's failed to pass the House, so far.

The sticking point: a provision that would extend the tax cut on capital
gains and dividends through 2009, according to reports in Tax Notes and
the Wall Street Journal.

Most of them don't give a **** about the environmental issues.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.



  #8  
Old November 12th, 2005, 05:10 PM
gary
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

Get a brain there pal, or move to France.


"Larry L" wrote in message
...

"JR" wrote


All joking aside, the only thing surprising about this is that anyone
should be surprised.....

the extremist "all-government-is-always-bad" wing of the Republican

party
has always had privatization of public lands as an important goal.


THE surprise to me all along is that any 'outdoorsman' would ever vote for
the BushGang in the first place .... where the hell do they expect to be
outdoorsmen after the outdoors is spoiled forever or locked up for the
richest of the rich? I guess many of them think keeping their submachine
guns is more important than having clean places to use their shotguns and
deer rifles .... or keeping those damn monogamous gays and lesbians third
class citizens so we have someone easy to hate is more important than

water
safe to drink for their own 'family valued' children .... or, or,


.... or, maybe, many outdoorsmen are simply dumb as posts and easily led

to
vote for their own extinction.






  #9  
Old November 12th, 2005, 07:05 PM
Ken Fortenberry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

gary wrote:
Clinton started this ...


SPLORK

Who had ten minutes in the "How Long Will It Take A
Right-Wing Whackjob To Blame Clinton" pool ? Send me
an email, you've won a fruit basket and a membership
in Trout Unlimited.

--
Ken Fortenberry
  #10  
Old November 12th, 2005, 07:10 PM
Ken Fortenberry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Selling off national forest and national parks? TU alert

gary wrote:
The economy is important too. Bozo!!! We aren't quite a socialist state
yet, but voting folks like you will try your best.


A top-poster calling someone else a bozo. Now *that's* rich.

--
Ken Fortenberry
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Blue Ribbon Coalition favors Forest Fee program Sportsmen Against Bush Fly Fishing 2 December 19th, 2003 09:48 PM
Ethics group files lawsuit over Forest Service outsourcing Sportsmen Against Bush Fly Fishing 1 December 6th, 2003 05:56 PM
Republicans, Bush support 85$ national forest use fee Bill Carson Fly Fishing 1 November 12th, 2003 04:19 PM
Bush, congress ok wilderness reduction and new roads through national parks mike500 Fly Fishing 0 October 29th, 2003 09:43 PM
Bush's war on the national forests - In support of the Landless Tlingits from Alaska's National Forest Tongass :-) John Elliott Fly Fishing 2 September 30th, 2003 02:00 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FishingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.