MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[DesertPinstripes]

This article from Outdoor Life includes a map of lands that would be for sale in the new Senate bill. Major impacts in my home state. I'll let the map speak for itself.

Now is the time to call your Senator & Representative.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/public-land-sell-off-senate/

Contact your Senator
Contact your US House Representative

 

[Idaboy]

Terrible.....goodbye OTC elk tags in Idaho

 

[buzzy]

This should come as no surprise with a 2nd Trump presidency. Someone has to pay for his agenda.

 

[WRO]

It’s not a good bill, but the map has nothing to do with the bill and the min/max is .5-.75%.

 

[CJ19]

This should come as no surprise with a 2nd Trump presidency. Someone has to pay for his agenda.

what does this amendment have to do with Trump at this point?

 

[Bull_n_heat]

It’s not a good bill, but the map has nothing to do with the bill and the min/max is .5-.75%.

It's most definitely a bad bill. The bill lines out lands that would be excluded from sales. That includes monuments, parks, and lands that have grazing or oil/gas leases associated with them. This map shows all of the parcels that lack those hindrances... hence why so little BLM land might be available for sales (many parcels are leased for both grazing and minerals)

The truly criminal part of the bill is who would qualify to nominate lands for purchase. Essentially, if you're a commmon guy or, you could nominate two parcels*, but if you are an adjacent landowner to federal tracks, you can nominate as many as you want.


*** I edited the original post from a single parcel to TWO parcels after I re-read the bill's language. I think the sentiment holds either way

 

[sndmn11]

My honey hole is for sale

 

[Poser]

what does this amendment have to do with Trump at this point?

It is a section of the Senate Draft version of the "One Big Beautiful Bill."
The Trump admin desperately wants this bill to pass.
If any version of the "OBB" passes the Senate and the House that contains Mike Lee's provision and the president signs it, how is Trump not responsible?

Now, if the president tells Mike Lee to specifically remove this section of the bill, or he won't sign it or, if the MAGA-loyalists senators threaten the same, you certainly have a case for Trump not enabling this section of the bill. Mike Lee will still vote "yes" for this bill whether it contains the public land transfer section or not, Democrats will most likely vote "no" so it really does fall on Republican shoulders, at least some of whom are sworn Trump loyalists, to take a stand against it.

So, to answer your question, we don't know yet, but, at the moment, it appears that Trump is, at a minimum, tentatively complicit in this and, if he signs the final version of the bill with this section intact, fully responsible. And no amount of mental gymnastics will get you around that. I do hope this does not end up being the case.

 

[ThickPines]

I’m emailing my Senators and Representatives. Maybe I missed it somehow, but is this scheduled for the next vote yet?

 

[WRO]

I’m emailing my Senators and Representatives. Maybe I missed it somehow, but is this scheduled for the next vote yet?

It’s a committee recommendation at this point, I’m guessing it dies like Mike lees last provision a couple weeks ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poser]

It’s a committee recommendation at this point, I’m guessing it dies like Mike lees last provision a couple weeks ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's my rationale take on it as well. However, part of me wonders what could have possibly emboldened him to submit a very aggressive version of what failed a few weeks ago? If he had submitted this section with a smaller provision than 500,000 acres to try and squeeze it through to establish his cause, I could understand the motive. But to come back with the "when you fail, go bigger" version leaves one to wonder.

 

[WRO]

That's my rationale take on it as well. However, part of me wonders what could have possibly emboldened him to submit a very aggressive version of what failed a few weeks ago? If he had submitted this section with a smaller provision than 500,000 acres to try and squeeze it through to establish his cause, I could understand the motive. But to come back with the "when you fail, go bigger" version leaves one to wonder.

Mike Lee has submitted these kind of proposals and provisions since he’s been in office. He excluded Montana this time in hopes of getting tester onboard, which I doubt will happen considering his stance on the his last attempt.

 

[PLhunter]

Some very important winter range and decent deer and elk hunting on the chopping block in my backyard. This isn’t all junk inaccessible lands. This is premium deer and elk habitat. Everyone who even considers this should be voted out or more.

 

[7layerburrito]

Allow me to zag -- if Rokslide could simply pool together, say, nine hundred million dollars, we could have some PRETTY nice parcels to go around.

In all seriousness, it's heartening to see guys come in here and state facts and come out against this -- HARD -- no matter who you voted for in the past. We have to keep sending the message that these proposals just aren't un-serious, they're hostile towards regular people.

 

[PLhunter]

Allow me to zag -- if Rokslide could simply pool together, say, nine hundred million dollars, we could have some PRETTY nice parcels to go around.

In all seriousness, it's heartening to see guys come in here and state facts and come out against this -- HARD -- no matter who you voted for in the pass. We have to keep sending the message that these proposals just aren't un-serious, their hostile towards regular people.

You spelt billion wrong lol.

Mike Lee has to go. Do better Utah.

 

[buzzy]

what does this amendment have to do with Trump at this point?

If this has to be explained further then you just don’t get it.

 

[CJ19]

It is a section of the Senate Draft version of the "One Big Beautiful Bill."
The Trump admin desperately wants this bill to pass.
If any version of the "OBB" passes the Senate and the House that contains Mike Lee's provision and the president signs it, how is Trump not responsible?

Now, if the president tells Mike Lee to specifically remove this section of the bill, or he won't sign it or, if the MAGA-loyalists senators threaten the same, you certainly have a case for Trump not enabling this section of the bill. Mike Lee will still vote "yes" for this bill whether it contains the public land transfer section or not, Democrats will most likely vote "no" so it really does fall on Republican shoulders, at least some of whom are sworn Trump loyalists, to take a stand against it.

So, to answer your question, we don't know yet, but, at the moment, it appears that Trump is, at a minimum, tentatively complicit in this and, if he signs the final version of the bill with this section intact, fully responsible. And no amount of mental gymnastics will get you around that. I do hope this does not end up being the case.

The answer to the question "What does Trump has to do with this right now?? is - nothing. Trump has nothing to do with this amendment presently. I doubt Trump even knows this provision has gone back in. Like usual, the conservation lobby has just added their personal politics into an issue that should be about public lands.

This was added by Mike Lee. Now if Trump signs it, you will be correct. At that point, it will be a Trump issue. But this is an issue that Trump will probably rely entirely on those around him to inform him on if this amendment even makes it to his desk as part of the budget bill. Public land transfer is not a prior item for him or 90% of normal people right now.

 

[S.Clancy]

Mike Lee has submitted these kind of proposals and provisions since he’s been in office. He excluded Montana this time in hopes of getting tester onboard, which I doubt will happen considering his stance on the his last attempt.

Tester (a Democrat) was voted out in the last cycle. The relevant Senators are Sheehy and Daines (both R), both of which ran on anti-public land sales platforms.

 

[PLhunter]

Tester (a Democrat) was voted out in the last cycle. The relevant Senators are Sheehy and Daines (both R), both of which ran on anti-public land sales platforms.

Seems to be some sort of pattern….

 

[S.Clancy]

Seems to be some sort of pattern….

So far neither has voted for any public land sale legislation, I hope that continues.

Edit: I see my original post if misleading. Both ran on platforms that stated they would not vote for any sale of public land.