Worried about sale of public lands? call state reps today or attend hearing jan 25

[CouesWhitetail]

Here is an email alert I received. I think it's a bad idea to have the state take over federal lands. The state doesn't have the funds or ability to manage all our federal lands. If you agree, please use the options below to let the state reps involved with this bill know that you don't support this.

 

Your Public Lands Are Under Attack!

This Thursday (1/25) the Arizona House of Representatives Committee on Land, Agriculture and Rural affairs will be voting on HB2210.

HB2210 directs the state attorney general to investigate and report his findings on outlandish state takeover theories, which have been rejected time and again. After consulting with the president of the senate and the speaker of the house, the attorney general will consider taking action to “gain ownership or control of the public lands within this state.”

The transfer of public lands will result in being locked out of our favorite places to camp, hike, hunt, and fish. It is economically impossible for the state to manage all 25 million acres of public land here in Arizona, when we can barely keep our rest stops open. Let’s stop this bill and the threat of public lands turnover in its tracks!

We need your help as defenders of public lands to make your voice heard about HB2210!

Here are three ways on how you can help today!

Opt 1: Attend the committee hearing at the state capitol this Thursday, January 25, 2018 Room: HHR 3 @ 10:00 a.m. During this hearing the public will be given a chance to speak out against bill HB2210, let the committee members know that Public Lands Should Remain in Public Hands! If you do not get a chance to speak, the sportsmen’s community presence goes a long way.

Opt 2: Email or call one or more of the committee members (see contact list below) and let them know that Public Lands Should Remain in Public Hands and vote to “NO” on HB2210.

Opt 3: Officially log your opposition to HB2210 with the State Legislature. To do this you must be registered via a kiosk at the state capitol. If you are not already registered and want to do this, please reach out to Scott@Azwildlife.org with your name and email. From there, Scott will sign you up and provide detailed instructions on how to proceed.

Brenda Barton, Chairman – 602-926-4129 – bbarton@azleg.gov

David Mitchell, Vice Chairman – 602-926-5894 – dmitchell@azleg.gov

Wenona Benally - 602-926-5172 – wbenally@azleg.gov

David Cook - 602-926-5162 – dcook@azleg.gov

Rosanna Gabaldon – 602-926-3424 – rgabaldon@azleg.gov

Travis Grantham – 602-926-4868 – tgrantham@azleg.gov

Becky Nutt – 602-926-4852 – bnutt@azleg.gov

Gerae Peten – 602-926-4842 – gpeten@azleg.gov

[452b264]

I sent an email to Brenda Barton. Utah has tried this but sportsman have stop it for now. Can you picture your favorite spot a commercial district? They also love to build BIG homes and golf courses on the winter ranges.

[SO I HUNT]

Thanks for the heads up emails send and messages left since no one wants to answer the phone call!

[rossislider]

Great post, thanks for keeping the CWT on top of this.

[HyNoon]

.

[muledeerarea33?]

I emailed a month or so ago thru a different post. This is a big deal that doesnt need to happen.

[GreyGhost85]

Any word here? Sounds like the bill passed?

[AZ8]

Any word here? Sounds like the bill passed?

Looks like the hearing is at 7pm.

 

https://legiscan.com/AZ/bill/HB2210/2018

[QCwtAddict]

Any word here? Sounds like the bill passed?

According to BHA's Instagram page despite a good turnout of opposition it passed with a 5-3 vote

[CouesWhitetail]

Yes, unfortunately, it passed out of committee on 5-3 vote. Over 120 people registered in opposition to the bill, with only 5 in support. All testimony to the committee at the hearing was in opposition, yet it still passed.

[PRDATR]

Yes, unfortunately, it passed out of committee on 5-3 vote. Over 120 people registered in opposition to the bill, with only 5 in support. All testimony to the committee at the hearing was in opposition, yet it still passed.

 

Thanks for that update Amanda, who were the ones voting?

[audsley]

I watched the video over the weekend. The Republicans disgraced themselves with factual errors, half-truths, mangled logic and opinions presented as facts They insisted that sportsmen opposed to their bill simply don't understand it. But in trying to explain it, they've now provided video documentation that they don't know much about public lands, hunting, public access or anything else relevant to this subject. None of the legislators arguing in favor of HB2210 showed enough aptitude or foundational knowledge to be messing with a subject this big and important.

 

If incompetence isn't damning enough, they also revealed their extraordinary dishonesty. They insisted that they have no intention of selling off BLM or national forest lands, and they'd like to put that rumor to rest. But several GOP legislators, past and present, have told me in person that they do in fact intend to sell off some of it, and they've gone into detail as to why. In recent years some have been quoted in news accounts proudly announcing their plan to turn public lands into taxable private land. That was before they gradually came to understand that the public doesn't want it sold off. Now they're saying it isn't, and never was, their intention to sell any of our public lands in the first place. They will always remain public lands, they said. Yeah, right.

 

They also denied planning to put the lands in a trust similar to our present state land trust, which would place legal restrictions on access and use that we don't now have with federally managed lands. This contradicts what they were promising our state school superintendent and the public a year ago when state control of public lands was suddenly going to fund our schools in grand fashion.

 

Rep. Travis Grantham, who claims a family connection to ranching and, therefore, special knowledge in these matters, asked what I thought was a really strange question. He mentioned the "checkerboard" issue and asked prime bill sponsor Mark Finchem whether transferring federal lands to the state could help alleviate this problem. Since checkerboarding involves only state and private lands, it's hard to see how a transferring federal lands that aren't part of the checkerboard would have any relevance. Rep. Finchem said yes, it very well might, but didn't offer any explanation as to how. I believe he was as stumped as I was.

 

I could go on and on picking apart more of the nonsense that was spoken last Thursday, but anyone strongly interested can look at it here. There were some pretty good comments from the five or six citizens who spoke against it. I especially appreciated a Mr. Weed (or something like that) who supplied something that's been missing from other commenters. He let them know this is a cold, dead hands issue. And for some of us, it is.

 

http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=20197&meta_id=492462

[CouesWhitetail]

 

Yes, unfortunately, it passed out of committee on 5-3 vote. Over 120 people registered in opposition to the bill, with only 5 in support. All testimony to the committee at the hearing was in opposition, yet it still passed.

 

Thanks for that update Amanda, who were the ones voting?

 

 

The people who voted on whether this bill would pass out of committee were the eight people listed in my original post. They pretty much voted on party lines.

[CouesWhitetail]

I watched the video over the weekend. The Republicans disgraced themselves with factual errors, half-truths, mangled logic and opinions presented as facts They insisted that sportsmen opposed to their bill simply don't understand it. But in trying to explain it, they've now provided video documentation that they don't know much about public lands, hunting, public access or anything else relevant to this subject. None of the legislators arguing in favor of HB2210 showed enough aptitude or foundational knowledge to be messing with a subject this big and important.

 

If incompetence isn't damning enough, they also revealed their extraordinary dishonesty. They insisted that they have no intention of selling off BLM or national forest lands, and they'd like to put that rumor to rest. But several GOP legislators, past and present, have told me in person that they do in fact intend to sell off some of it, and they've gone into detail as to why. In recent years some have been quoted in news accounts proudly announcing their plan to turn public lands into taxable private land. That was before they gradually came to understand that the public doesn't want it sold off. Now they're saying it isn't, and never was, their intention to sell any of our public lands in the first place. They will always remain public lands, they said. Yeah, right.

 

They also denied planning to put the lands in a trust similar to our present state land trust, which would place legal restrictions on access and use that we don't now have with federally managed lands. This contradicts what they were promising our state school superintendent and the public a year ago when state control of public lands was suddenly going to fund our schools in grand fashion.

 

Rep. Travis Grantham, who claims a family connection to ranching and, therefore, special knowledge in these matters, asked what I thought was a really strange question. He mentioned the "checkerboard" issue and asked prime bill sponsor Mark Finchem whether transferring federal lands to the state could help alleviate this problem. Since checkerboarding involves only state and private lands, it's hard to see how a transferring federal lands that aren't part of the checkerboard would have any relevance. Rep. Finchem said yes, it very well might, but didn't offer any explanation as to how. I believe he was as stumped as I was.

 

I could go on and on picking apart more of the nonsense that was spoken last Thursday, but anyone strongly interested can look at it here. There were some pretty good comments from the five or six citizens who spoke against it. I especially appreciated a Mr. Weed (or something like that) who supplied something that's been missing from other commenters. He let them know this is a cold, dead hands issue. And for some of us, it is.

 

http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&clip_id=20197&meta_id=492462

 

 

 

Thanks Larry for your thoughts and the video link. I haven't seen the video yet, but will watch it and will surely be disappointed.

[ThomC]

If anyone wants to see what kind of scum would control the lands in question then watch the video. The guy Fincham that was the presenter was a slimy snake oil salesman. I wanted to shoot my computer. Just watching him was enough to make me be against it. It's a real dirty business watching politicians but as sportsmen we need watch out.