Alaska Wilderness

[Fritz the Cat]

I wasn’t looking to argue. Myself and everyone else here knows that you are good at using your words and shared articles to mislead without with specifically stating your point so you have some plausible deniability. You’ll even quote this and laugh about how out there I am, but it’s true. I’m still not even sure if you are pro NAC or not since you’ve said they’re needed and questioned if they’re needed. You shared testimony that you found interesting; what was interesting about it to you? And I agree public lands should be utilized. How they are utilized is the key. What makes my view of how they’re used wrong?

I know they are a thing. I don’t plan on investing. See if you can communicate to your programmers that your syntax needs revision. Glad I could brighten your day.

I was spoofing.

Trash prestine public wilderness so private companies can build and mine gold. Rich get richer at our expense.

bravo, you are one those espousing our public lands. You don't control squat. What hand did you have in this below? Nothing, you didn't even know about it.

According to a new analysis prepared by the Center for American Progress (CAP), the progressive organization pushing for the preservation of at least 30 percent of our lands and oceans by 2030, the Biden administration has added a record 24 million acres – and counting!

Half of those 24 million – 12.5 million acres, was locked down in 2023 alone, according to the CAP analysis. In addition, the administration has funneled more than $18 billion into “conservation” projects.

Some of the projects protected in 2023 include:

• 506,814 acres for the Avi Kwa Arne National Monument in Nevada.
• 917,618 acres for the Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona.
• 130,000 acres for lease relinquishments in Montana’s national forest.
• 223,504 acres for mineral withdrawal in Minnesota’s national forest.
• 325,000 acres for Chaco Canyon mineral withdrawal in New Mexico.
• 10,600,000 acres for Western Arctic protections closing oil and gas leasing in Alaska.
• 242,000 acres nationwide for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Wetland’s Conservation projects.

 

[bravo]

I was spoofing.



bravo, you are one those espousing our public lands. You don't control squat. What hand did you have in this below? Nothing, you didn't even know about it.

According to a new analysis prepared by the Center for American Progress (CAP), the progressive organization pushing for the preservation of at least 30 percent of our lands and oceans by 2030, the Biden administration has added a record 24 million acres – and counting!

Half of those 24 million – 12.5 million acres, was locked down in 2023 alone, according to the CAP analysis. In addition, the administration has funneled more than $18 billion into “conservation” projects.

Some of the projects protected in 2023 include:

• 506,814 acres for the Avi Kwa Arne National Monument in Nevada.
• 917,618 acres for the Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument in Arizona.
• 130,000 acres for lease relinquishments in Montana’s national forest.
• 223,504 acres for mineral withdrawal in Minnesota’s national forest.
• 325,000 acres for Chaco Canyon mineral withdrawal in New Mexico.
• 10,600,000 acres for Western Arctic protections closing oil and gas leasing in Alaska.
• 242,000 acres nationwide for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s Wetland’s Conservation projects.

Fritz reading my post:

Did I hit a nerve? Of course I don’t control public land, that’s the point. You don’t either. Ag groups don’t. Energy companies don’t. I don’t want to see public acres blocked off for any reason. I see value in wild lands. It seems you want to see every inch of public land sold to private, or in production. We may as well leave it at that.


Bold of you to assume what I know.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

A stupid picture. How Clever?

The use of our public lands is being locked up. The day after Biden was inaugurated, he signed many executive orders. One of those was the 30x30 plan. He said, "I don't even know what I'm signing."

Did I hit a nerve? Of course I don’t control public land, that’s the point. You don’t either. Ag groups don’t. Energy companies don’t. I don’t want to see public acres blocked off for any reason. I see value in wild lands. It seems you want to see every inch of public land sold to private, or in production. We may as well leave it at that.


Bold of you to assume what I know.

The Intrinsic Exchange Group sees a value too. And they want to trade that value on the New York Stock Exchange. They want and need more public acres. They claim they are about conservation.

bravo, you voted for Biden, didn't you?

 

[bravo]

A stupid picture. How Clever?

The use of our public lands is being locked up. The day after Biden was inaugurated, he signed many executive orders. One of those was the 30x30 plan. He said, "I don't even know what I'm signing."



The Intrinsic Exchange Group sees a value too. And they want to trade that value on the New York Stock Exchange. They want and need more public acres. They claim they are about conservation.

bravo, you voted for Biden, didn't you?

There’s the typical response. The sad thing is we mostly agree, you must need to paint me with a dirty brush because I don’t bow down to your ag overlords. As I stated before, I don’t want to see public acre lockouts no matter the reason. And I am anti nac. And as a matter of fact, no. I’ve never voted anything but republican in my life. Not that I need to justify anything to you but I’m life long small town ND, coal fired energy worker, never taken a dime from the federal government besides my military paychecks. Can you say the same?

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Trash prestine public/private property so private companies can build and mine coal. Rich get richer at our expense.

bravo, you work in the coal industry? I changed a few words around in your first statement post #4.

 

[Rowdie]

 

[Fritz the Cat]

https://naturalresources.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=415387

Members Initiate Probe Into SEC's Rule Change Permitting Foreign Agents and Radical Activists to Control America's National Parks and Lands​

Today, House Committee on Natural Resources Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.) and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chairman Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) led a letter (Jan. 11th) to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Gary Gensler and Director Haoxiang Zhu, seeking information on a proposed rule change to permit the listing of Natural Asset Companies (NACs) on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). In part, the members wrote:

"The Committee is deeply concerned with the potential impact NACs may have on the management of federal lands, effective conservation of wildlife habitat, and responsible development of natural resources. Most notably, the proposed rule would allow private investment interests to control and manage national parks and other publicly owned lands—an unprecedented power-grab and usurpation of federal authority.

"This possibility is alarming, but, when coupled with the proposal’s arbitrary designations and ill-defined terms, it may prove calamitous to the statutory multiple-use mandates of federal lands and responsible development of America’s natural resources. For example, the proposal designates 'unsustainable activities' as activities that cause any 'material adverse impact,' without defining what classifies as a 'material adverse impact.' Thus, this critical determination is seemingly outsourced to IEG—a private company with its own interests and shareholders to answer to. IEG’s Reporting Framework also does not define 'material adverse impact,' effectively deferring to an individual assessor’s determination. Hence, approved activity on federal land controlled by NACs will be determined by the whims of eco-activists rather than government scientists or Congress, via statute. Furthermore, it is possible that in defining 'material adverse impact,' IEG could create conditions that result in offshoring resource production to countries with undesirable labor, environmental, and human rights records—countries that are not held accountable to U.S. or IEG standards.

"Additionally, as part of the Committee’s ongoing oversight of foreign interests that attempt to influence America’s environmental, natural resource, and energy policies, the Committee is concerned with allowing foreign investment into America’s most precious assets. For example, allowing foreign interests to fund companies that will control public land and explicitly prohibit domestic mineral production is a surefire way to increase our nation’s critical mineral dependence while weakening America’s economic competitiveness, our national security, and that of our allies. This is unacceptable."

Background
On October 4, 2023, the SEC issued notice of a proposed rule change to allow the NYSE to list NACs, a new type of public company that would hold rights over prescribed areas such as national parks, federal lands, and private land. However, unlike other companies that are created to provide services or produce items of value, a NAC is "a corporation whose primary purpose is to actively manage, maintain, restore (as applicable), and grow the value of natural assets and their production of ecosystem services."
In short, NACs would obtain rights to U.S. land and could then prevent that land from being used for the production of natural resources, including fossil fuel development, mining, most logging and large-scale farming, all of which are specifically prohibited by NACs under the current proposal. Hence, NACs would allow shareholders, including foreign interests, to buy shares of companies whose express purpose is to lock up land and prevent productive natural resource development, particularly on America’s national parks and public lands.
The concept of NACs was developed by Intrinsic Exchange Group Inc. (IEG), a private company incorporated in Delaware. The NYSE has acquired a minority stake in IEG and has a seat on IEG’s board of directors. Other investors in IEG include the Inter-American Development Bank, the Rockefeller Foundation and Roger Sant, the former chair of the World Wildlife Fund.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Here is another. Not going to post it's entirety. Just a clip I found interesting:

https://www.eenews.net/articles/gop-ags-denounce-trading-natural-asset-companies-on-stock-exchange/

The proposal currently before the SEC would allow the stock exchange to list companies with missions to improve ecosystems through management, maintenance or restoration of public or privately owned lands. The companies would then evaluate the health of the lands and put a dollar value on the resulting benefits, like clean air or wildlife habitat.

But opponents, including conservative lawmakers and property rights advocates, have asserted the proposal would also boost Biden administration plans to conserve more public lands — and put them out of the hands of extractive industry and ranchers.

In a 16-page letter, led by Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes (R) and Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach (R), the attorneys general pointed to the pending public lands rule under consideration by the Bureau of Land Management that would put conservation on par with those uses, including offering 10-year leases to restore acreage.

“The proposed rule provides a mechanism for companies whose purpose is not to make money, but instead to lock up land to prohibit productive economic uses thereof, to find investors and capital so they can obtain conservation leases and other ‘ecological performance rights,’” the letter states.

The top attorneys from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming also signed the missive. All of the officials are Republicans.

“The proposed rule is part of an interlocking scheme designed to facilitate another agency’s violation of the law — namely, BLM’s issuance of illegal ‘conservation leases,’” the letter continues.

Hey PrairieGhost, remember all the discussions we used to have about ranchers, the sagebrush rebellion etc. Surely you have an opinion on this?

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Good news. The comment period for Natural Asset Companies in the federal register ended a couple days ago. There were so many negative comments against this proposal it was withdrawn yesterday.



(Reuters) - The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) has withdrawn from the Securities and Exchange Commission a proposal to create a new tradeable asset class called "natural asset companies", or NACs, the commission said on Wednesday.

The asset class was to be based on sustainable enterprises that hold the rights to ecosystem services, such as carbon sequestration, produced by natural, working, or hybrid land



The NYSE, which is owned by Intercontinental Exchange Inc, in 2023 had proposed to the SEC a rule change to adopt the new listing standard.

Intercontinental Exchange did not immediately reply to a request for comment about NYSE's withdrawal of the proposed rule change.

In a press release, Utah State Treasurer Marlo Oaks applauded NYSE's withdrawal of its plan.

"Under the proposal, private interests, including foreign-controlled sovereign wealth funds, could use their capital to purchase or manage farmland, national and state parks, and other mineral-rich areas and stop essential economic activities like farming, grazing, and energy extraction," Oaks said.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

The nuts and bolts of this video begins about six minutes in with Margeret Bayfield. Everything you need to know about public lands, conservation reserve program, conservation easements etc.

https://live.childrenshealthdefense...nd-grabs-30-x-30-and-natural-asset-companies/

 

[Fritz the Cat]

The supporters of Natural Asset Companies put out a page of their opposition.

https://stop30x30disinformation.org/

You will recognize several. One is our own Senator Kevin Cramer. At the bottom of the page is the non-profit non-governmental org owning the page.

The Center for Western Priorities. Which foundations are funding them is unclear. What do they believe?

https://www.eenews.net/articles/could-non-use-rights-boost-conservation-lands/

So how does everyone feel about 30% of the USA being federally owned or under easement by the year 2030? And then not using it?

 

[espringers]

there are times when i prefer you just tell us you opinion fritz instead of me having to read so many links. this is one of those times. give me the cliff notes of this whole shit show and tell us your thoughts. and in case you think i am being sarcastic or condescending, i am not. i am serious.

 

[Rowdie]

The supporters of Natural Asset Companies put out a page of their opposition.

https://stop30x30disinformation.org/

You will recognize several. One is our own Senator Kevin Cramer. At the bottom of the page is the non-profit non-governmental org owning the page.

The Center for Western Priorities. Which foundations are funding them is unclear. What do they believe?

https://www.eenews.net/articles/could-non-use-rights-boost-conservation-lands/

So how does everyone feel about 30% of the USA being federally owned or under easement by the year 2030? And then not using it?

Having not read any links or watched any videos about this....I'd be all for the people owning 30% IF WE HAVE ACCESS TO HUNT AND FISH IT!

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I have great respect for you espringers.

It is obvious I dislike out of State non-profits who do influence pedaling. They get their ideals from those who fund them.

Sportsmen pay into the Pitt-Robertson Fund and many others like it. We fund conservation. There is opposition against this system or would like to take away that control. But they have no idea how they would replace that funding with their own funding.

Extraction companies pay millions into the US General Treasury. They fund conservation. The enviro's whose funding is suspect, would like to take over this control. Non-use has no means of funding conservation unless/maybe they create these Natural Asst Companies.

Rowdie just answered a main reason why the sportsmen vote is needed by the enviros. Rowdie by his own admission has not read any of the links or watched any videos. And he votes.

 

[Rowdie]

I was just answering your question as you phrased it. I started to read one of the links but don't have time. Tell me ...is there a person or referendum that my vote would matter on this issue? If yes, I'm betting my vote is the same as yours.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I was just answering your question as you phrased it. I started to read one of the links but don't have time. Tell me ...is there a person or referendum that my vote would matter on this issue? If yes, I'm betting my vote is the same as yours.

The question posed was who would support 30% of the USA being owned by the federal government or being under easements owned by the fedgov?

Rowdie is a yes if the lands are open to public hunting. Why stop at 30%. How about 50%?

 

[bravo]

Do you have a dollar amount or percentage of how much extraction companies pay towards conservation?

 

[Fritz the Cat]

$18,118,455,254.02

 

[bravo]

That’s the total dispersed by the department of the interior. I was wondering what percent of that amount goes towards conservation.

 

[Rowdie]

The question posed was who would support 30% of the USA being owned by the federal government or being under easements owned by the fedgov?

Rowdie is a yes if the lands are open to public hunting. Why stop at 30%. How about 50%?

That would depend on HOW the government acquires it. Not sure how that could happen. Are you saying you're opposed to the government owning land at all?