And, finally, the congressman is from Virginia. Do the residents of Virginia in general (where 9.2 percent of the state is federal lands) and his district specifically really care about the size of the federal estate? They might if Interior proposed selling parts of Shenandoah NP to timber companies.

the points I noted that are missing from the congressman's legislation are proof enough.

The legislation is about one thing and you want to criticize him for not addressing something else in that legislation?  Should his bill also address immigration, tax reform and international terrorism? 

Do the residents of Virginia in general (where 9.2 percent of the state is federal lands) and his district specifically really care about the size of the federal estate?

That kind of proves the point.  If it doesn't benefit his immediate constintuency, how could it possibly be pandering?

Nice pirouette, Ginger.

As for addressing immigration, tax reform and international terrorism, you mean a bill like the other omnibuses they've passed recently that contained more pork than the Omaha stockyards?  And if the adverse effects of the bill won't directly affect his immediate constintuency (sic), that makes pandering easier because his base won't immediately have their butts bitten by the snake he's turning loose.  It'll bite other people first and might take a long time for his base to notice that they actually were losers in the process.

Thank you for supporting my argument.

The fact that Virginia has relatively little federal land compared to some other states does in fact suggest the bill could be considered political posturing by the sponsor. Why? If passed, the bill would have little impact, pro or con, on his constituents, but he could hold it up to his voters as proof of his conservative credentials. It's easy for voters to like a bill that doesn't have any negative impacts on them personally.

Ec suggests the sale of some public land would benefit voters, but how? It might raise a token amount of revenue, but at the loss of public access to that property, and loss of other values such as scenic views, wildlife habitat, etc.  Seems like the only real "benefit" is a philosophical one for those who would be happier if the public owned less territory.

None of you yet have shown that the Senator is insincere in his proposal.  You have fabricated that accusation to create a strawman to attack.  Are you trying to argue he is not a Conservative and is only proposing conservative legislation with conservative principles to get votes.  Preposterous.  Conservatives propose legislation with conservative principles, because they believe in those principles.  You may not like their proposals but that is principled behavior, not pandering.

For Jim - the are hundreds of millions of acres of federal land, much of which offers little if any value in public access, scenic views or wildlife habitat.  They could be sold, generate money and reduce carrying costs - that would benefit voters.  Besides, the Senators bill only requires the sale in amounts equal to acquisitions.  On a net basis that would not be any " loss of public access to that property, and loss of other values such as scenic views, wildlife habitat, etc."  In fact presumably, the lands gained would be of higher value than those sold. 

ec - You're correct. It's difficult to determine the sincerity of anyone on any issue. It would be more accurate to question (as some have done above) the practical value of this bill. Those who would like to see less public land will like the bill; others probably won't.

If passed, this bill could be a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. Other comments have touched on the "hidden costs" of sale of public lands, but here are a couple of more. Before a parcel of public land is sold, someone has to research the background of each acre. How was it acquired? Was it donated to the feds and therefore has underlying restrictions on a sale? Is it subject to mineral leases, or grazing leases, or a scenic easement, or has it been the subject of court decisions to protect endangered species, and more? Would its sale cut the income for a rancher who has a grazing lease on a BLM parcel?  Finding those answers - and picking parcels for sale that have no such impacts takes time and money.

Even those seemingly desolate acres in Nevada are likely to have supporters based on factors like scenic viewsheds and wildlife habitat, so it wouldn't be a surprise to find plans to sell off even small parcels would meet legal challenges. As suggested above, legal requirements could be imposed on agencies to complete an expensive EIS before a sale. Like it or not, those legal arguments are a reality of today's world.

The bill assumes disposing of relatively small parcels of land will save the government money in management costs, but is that true? To stick with the real-world example mentioned above, under this bill adding 44 acres to one park would require disposal of 44 federal acres elsewhere.

The incremental cost for the NPS or BLM to "manage" 44 undeveloped acres that are part of a much larger tract is usually negligible. However, once sold, control over activities on those 44 acres is lost - and some of those activities can have major impacts on the remaining and adjoining public land. When that occurs, the cost to the agency to monitor and deal with impacts from that adjoining activity can be much higher than current minimal costs of management.

Will that always happen? Of course not. The point is simply turning over some public land to private ownership does not guarantee financial benefits to the taxpayer - and the reverse may very well be true.

It should be noted that the federal government already has a process for disposing of land deemed no longer best suited for public ownership. Here's one example, and here's another: 597 acres of BLM land being offered for sale right now in the Las Vegas area.

 It seems that's a wiser approach than the proposed bill; perhaps land disposed through existing programs should be "credited" against future additions, such as the 44 acres in question at John Muir NHS. 

Of course, politicians can't claim any credit for these steps to "trim the federal estate." :-)

Yes Jim, you are absolutely right.  They have no basis to claim insincerity.  That is merely a strawman.  Yes the issue is the practical value of the bill.

It seems that's a wiser approach than the proposed bill; perhaps land disposed through existing programs should be "credited" against future additions, such as the 44 acres in question at John Muir NHS.

I don't see anything in that bill that would prevent that from happening.