House Passes Repeal of BLM Planning 2.0 Rule

Today, the House passed H.J. Res. 44 (Rep. Liz Cheney, WY-at large), a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act to overturn the BLM Planning 2.0 Rule. Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) gave the following remarks during floor debate:

“Planning 2.0 dilutes local and state voices and centralizes power here in Washington DC. […] This puts special interest groups above local elected officials, which is not the way it was ever intended,” Chairman Bishop said. “Counties all across the West expect their BLM officials to be responsive to their needs and manage their land with the best interest of the community in mind. Their livelihoods depend on it.”

“Over time, we’ve established a set of commonsense regulations that ensure local governments and local communities are prioritized in federal land use planning. The BLM’s proposed rule strips local governments of their ability to coordinate in local land use planning with the agency on behalf of the people. This ultimately weakens input from surrounding communities and local citizens who are directly impacted by the management of federal lands. The BLM Planning Rule clearly prioritizes special interests over the protections of citizens, which is why today, I voted to overturn the BLM regulation to preserve the important role that local governments play in federal land use decisions and protect the citizens of New Mexico," stated Rep. Steve Pearce.

Over 60 groups support overturning the BLM Planning 2.0 Rule, including the New Mexico Association of Counties (NMAC), the New Mexico Oil & Gas Association, the New Mexico Coalition of Conservative Districts, and the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau.

I posted a couple of times a great but little-known news release of then candidate Donald Trump on how the Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge aka The Oregon Standoff should be handled.

Then candidate Donald Trump said that as President he would solve the entire conflict with a simple phone call. He was in favor of the ranchers but he insisted that respect for the law be maintained.

It was all so clear and commonsensical, it was a breath of fresh air, in contrast to the lunacy of the Obama Administration.

As a candidate, the President said he would ‘look at’ turning federal lands over to states, but he wouldn’t just wave his hands and do it so to speak.

The press went and made it look like candidate Trump was against turning federal lands over to states. Well, he is and he isn’t.

Some states are also corrupt. For example, Nevada is corrupt with Reid and his sons and a lot of corrupt people they are associated with. So it would not be good to just willy-nilly sign federal lands over to the State of Nevada.

In some cases, it does make sense to turn federal lands over to states, but not all.

President Trump wants to look at it on a case-by-case basis.

President Trump is smart. Conservatives need to be smart like him.

The solution to the problem is made on a case-by-case basis.

One solution in the case of the Hammonds & Bundys is to look at forming land stewardship charters headed by knowledgeable and experienced citizens.

The Hammonds & Bundys know those lands better than anyone. Let Congress with President Trump help form and then recognize a ‘Rancher & Farmer Charter’ with bylaws recognized by federal and state governments that puts stewardship in the hands of citizens with responsibilities for maintenance, safety, and public access. The citizens who are put in leadership can be elected to terms by fellow charter members.

This is not privatizing. The land is not to be sold.

The lands can still be on title to governments but the charter recognition by Congress ensures the lands are never abused or sold as part of some crony corrupt deal.

The recognized charter can ensure that those who use the land as part of their adjacent lands for herding, grazing, transportation, fire prevention, and so on may continue to do so but they must also ensure friendly access to the public for hiking, camping, horseback riding, just like a national park. When the charter members determine that controlled fires are necessary for brush management, they would be responsible by the charter bylaws to inform the state to post notices to the public of restricted access while the fires are ongoing.

It’s not difficult. That’s why President Trump said he could resolve the whole issue with a simple phone call.

Well, I disagree on whether it ‘makes sense’ (or not) to turn federal lands over to the states. It’s what was intended in the constitution by limiting the authority of the Fed Gov’t to own land. The lands were supposed to be held in trust until states were created out of the territories. It’s long time past now & should be done expeditiously.

And it doesn’t matter whether any state is corrupt or not. That is for the citizens of that state to deal with. I’d have no issue with lands being turned over directly to county gov’ts if that can be done. Many of Oregon’s southern & eastern counties are paupers as so much land is controlled & they cannot tax the land. And the feds have essentially stopped utilizing them for resources (trees, mining) as enviro-nazis have control of the agencies that manage the lands.

It’s time to get the lands back in the hands of the people & let them sort it out from there. What Trump should do right now is free the Hammonds & stop all further prosecution of the Bundys & pardon the lot of those who have been protesting gov’t overreach.

> “Well, I disagree on whether it ‘makes sense’ (or not) to turn federal lands over to the states. It’s what was intended in the constitution by limiting the authority of the Fed Gov’t to own land. The lands were supposed to be held in trust until states were created out of the territories. It’s long time past now & should be done expeditiously.”

Sounds good, but I am not confident the Bundys or the Hammonds, and others like them, would agree.

I do think they would approve of farmer and rancher charters recognized by Congress.

Blanket turning over of lands will not prevent abuse like what happened to these ranchers. It’s not a comprehensive solution to do a blanket handover. Voters do not decide what happens to lands, they don’t. They don’t even know what lands are owned by a state, and they don’t readily know what land sales or contracts are in negotiation.

And it’s not an all or nothing proposition. Some lands can be turned over to states, others to recognized rancher and farmer associations.

President Trump will do the right thing, I am sure of it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.