In respect to Hidden Gems, I need to first have the federal government answer these questions:
Who wants Hidden Gems?
Who will benefit?
Who will be harmed?
Who will pay?
Will anyone’s private property rights be threatened?
Will pre-existing agreements with BLM be threatened?
Instead of talking about what I’m against, I’m much for comfortable addressing what I’m for.
I am for Domestic Resource Production; this includes gas/oil/mineral production, fishing, timber, livestock and agricultural production.
I believe it is critical for America to be as energy independent as is possible.
After all, a country’s ability to feed itself is a matter of national security.
The federal government should protect, not jeopardize America’s safety.
Unfortunately, the historical pattern to federal government’s designations includes the complete shutdown of domestic resource production.
And, we’ve all seen how multi use is slowly diminished to the extent that too many areas are accessible only to individuals wealthy enough to be helicoptered in, or are physically fit enough to hike in. I believe this kind of discrimination is unacceptable.
Now you’re beginning to see my concerns regarding designation of any more hidden gems, last great places, treasured jewels, wild life corridors, monuments, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness areas and parks on federal lands.
Federal government already controls nearly 30% of all land in America. It is struggling to maintain those lands, and most do not pay for themselves.
In other words, for the few who have opportunity to “enjoy” such lands, it’s simply not a cost affective program for taxpayers.
Particularly at this time when spending needs to be cut.
It would be prudent for the federal government to consider liquidating at least, 10% of its land, selling it at a cost agreeable and accessible for purchase by adjoining *Indigenous land owners who would commit to returning that land into the resource production conducive to it.
In respect to domestic resource production, we - as independent citizens - should be allowed untethered by the artificial manipulations of federal government, to aggressively explore every alternative energy. Let the entrepreneurial in us soar!
We should simultaneously encourage and keep vitally alive, historically tried and true energy sources -including coal, nuclear, oil and natural gas.
The federal government should neither punish or favor any particular energy production, and instead give producers opportunity to exercise their rights to produce, succeed or fail in the free market arena.
And by the way, I’m presently researching environmental groups that receive government grants, as I do not want to knowingly take any campaign contributions from any entity that receives taxpayer money.
One of the first things I will do as your congressman, is request an audit of federal grant monies.
Federal government has no business taking your hard earned money and giving it to entities who then would have the unfair advantage of competing against you.
FYI Here’s the part of NEPA which is ignored:
"In recognition of "Human Dimension" (Custom and Culture as defined under NEPA.), any Entity (includes government) proposing introduction or re-introduction of any: Substance (includes plant, fish, fowl, mammal, snake, insect), land expansion, water use, legislation or policies that attempts to redefine the business of an *Indigenous, must present a completed "Impact Study" to *County Government.
Entity assumes full fiduciary responsibility of "Impact Study," and will not cause any disturbance what-so-ever, to the Indigenous of particular, geographical area under Impact Study.
Completed Impact Study must be presented to County Government for review. County Government 's decision to proceed or kill proposal is final and binding.
*Indigenous: U.S. Citizen whose main source of taxable income has been and continues to be derived from usage of public and or privately owned land and water, in the county of ________ state of ____________ for no less than 25 years.
*County Government: Has constitutionally guaranteed rights to "participation" - as either joint lead agency or cooperating agency - in the management and planning of federal lands; and foremost standing in the protection of privately owned lands.