Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it would be of interest. I'm not a knee-jerk reactionist as some environmentalists are, but at a minimum, I'd like to know more about this. As hunters, we certainly don't need to see any reduction in habitat. See article below:

Govs Fear Sale of Public Lands for Mining
By JENNIFER TALHELM, Associated Press Writer, Fri Dec 2, 6:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Six Western governors and a growing number of senators say they fear a plan in a budget bill allowing the sale of millions of acres of public lands could do permanent harm to their states.

"It's got implications for hunters, sportsmen, people who use lands for grazing and basically anybody who uses public lands," said Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for Wayne Allard of Colorado, one of a handful of Western GOP senators who say they are concerned about the proposal.

House lawmakers added the provision, which ends an 11-year congressional ban on new applications to buy public land for mining, to their budget bill on the Friday before Thanksgiving.

Supporters say it would help struggling communities recover after mines close. But opponents argue it amounts to a fire sale on federal lands, including wilderness study areas and national parks. The Interior Department says the plan could affect up to 20 million acres, while environmentalists say it could allow the government to sell 350 million acres.

Since the provision is not in the Senate's budget measure, lawmakers will hammer out a compromise later this month.

Meanwhile, opposition is mounting from several Western Democratic senators and governors, a group representing Colorado counties, hunters and anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, environmentalists and the Aspen Skiing Co. All are pressuring Western Republican senators to kill the proposal.

In a letter Friday to the Senate Budget Committee, the Democratic governors of Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington said the bill is based on "absurd economics" and threatens people's access to parks and other public lands.

A few GOP senators, including Allard, have already indicated they have questions. Wyoming's Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record) earlier this week called the bill a "Band-Aid fix to the Mining Act" that could become a "chronic injury to land use."

The bill changes an 1872 law that allows private companies to "patent" — or purchase — public land at up to $5 an acre to mine minerals such as gold and silver.

Congress has opposed new patents since 1994. House lawmakers now propose to lift the ban and raise the fee to $1,000 an acre, or "fair market value," whichever is more.

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., said the bill is about "sustainable economic development for rural communities in need" and that Pombo would be open to negotiating some changes.

I wonder under the new eminant domain ruling can a town or county confiscate national forest and give it to a hunting club or Wal-mart, timber company etc. etc. Any thoughts.

Federal Lands are exempt from Eminent Domain or Adverse Possession laws. It would take a federal Act becoming Law to add or subtract from a National Forest (unless the Forest purchases small scale tracts of land of 5,000 acres or less), Wildlife Refuge or National Park. Fed lands can be designated (added to) our National Monument system by Presidential Decree.

Just a footnote, but each National Forest goes through a Land Management Plan every 15 years or so. To make sure the Forest you are interested in is managed the way you would like to see, become involved in those Plans. Each area of the Forest receives a specific designation and is managed to that end. One flag that should interest hunters, fisherman or other consumptive users is the "Wilderness" or "Research Natural Area" designations. While, typically, Wilderness designation still allows hunting, it severely restricts the way users can access those lands. Research Natural Areas are some of the most restrictive Federal Land Units in the country (even moreso than Park status) and there is not much the general public can do on those lands.

Become involved in the management of the Forest, BLM, Wildlife Refuges and other Conservation System Units (CSU's) where you are interested. Beware of misinformation put out extreme groups on either side and understand how the management of those lands will affect you.

Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it would be of interest. I'm not a knee-jerk reactionist as some environmentalists are, but at a minimum, I'd like to know more about this. As hunters, we certainly don't need to see any reduction in habitat. See article below:

Govs Fear Sale of Public Lands for Mining
By JENNIFER TALHELM, Associated Press Writer, Fri Dec 2, 6:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Six Western governors and a growing number of senators say they fear a plan in a budget bill allowing the sale of millions of acres of public lands could do permanent harm to their states.

"It's got implications for hunters, sportsmen, people who use lands for grazing and basically anybody who uses public lands," said Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for Wayne Allard of Colorado, one of a handful of Western GOP senators who say they are concerned about the proposal.

House lawmakers added the provision, which ends an 11-year congressional ban on new applications to buy public land for mining, to their budget bill on the Friday before Thanksgiving.

Supporters say it would help struggling communities recover after mines close. But opponents argue it amounts to a fire sale on federal lands, including wilderness study areas and national parks. The Interior Department says the plan could affect up to 20 million acres, while environmentalists say it could allow the government to sell 350 million acres.

Since the provision is not in the Senate's budget measure, lawmakers will hammer out a compromise later this month.

Meanwhile, opposition is mounting from several Western Democratic senators and governors, a group representing Colorado counties, hunters and anglers, outdoor enthusiasts, environmentalists and the Aspen Skiing Co. All are pressuring Western Republican senators to kill the proposal.

In a letter Friday to the Senate Budget Committee, the Democratic governors of Wyoming, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington said the bill is based on "absurd economics" and threatens people's access to parks and other public lands.

A few GOP senators, including Allard, have already indicated they have questions. Wyoming's Sen. Craig Thomas (news, bio, voting record) earlier this week called the bill a "Band-Aid fix to the Mining Act" that could become a "chronic injury to land use."

The bill changes an 1872 law that allows private companies to "patent" — or purchase — public land at up to $5 an acre to mine minerals such as gold and silver.

Congress has opposed new patents since 1994. House lawmakers now propose to lift the ban and raise the fee to $1,000 an acre, or "fair market value," whichever is more.

Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-Calif., said the bill is about "sustainable economic development for rural communities in need" and that Pombo would be open to negotiating some changes.

Just so everyone understands this, Appropriated Federal Lands - National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, National Parks and Perserves are NOT available for this program. It is only UNAPPROPRIATED Federal lands. Basically, it is more or less, just lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management without special designation. The other lands can be mined if open for mineral entry, but cannot be sold or conveyed. Mining would be done under some type of lease for the life of the mine. Until Clinton passed the restriction 11 years ago, this didn't seem to be an issue. First, the land has to be open for mineral entry. Second, the managing agency has to determine through an EIS whether or not the claim filed is appropriate for mining. Third the claims must be mined for specific amount of time with a certain amount of money invested. These issues alone make it unlikely for someone to actually get a Patent on claim and not use it for mining. Yes, there are taxes that will be paid to the Federal coffers based on the amount of mineral taken from the ground.

This is not a wholesale of Federal lands. Before jumping the gun, do some research on the laws and agencies (their processes, etc.) involved.

The question I have is, if this is such a big deal, why didn't anyone care before Clinton closed those lands?