MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[tdhanses]

Chevron, ExxonMobil, shell, conoco, yeah those are state companies...all large landowners right out my back door of lands that were formerly federal. And all large mineral right holders on federal land.

Companies aren’t just based where their HQ is located lasted I checked, if they own the land they have an interest in the state and pay state taxes.

 

[COelk89]

They do but not at 100% of capabilities, where you hunt are there any overgrown logging roads with dead trees and blow down?

Beef that grazed on federal lands with dirt cheap leases, yup I have.

So you would prefer those ranchers to have to lease private ground at 10X the price? Ruining our western heritage and increasing the cost of food and fiber.

Since you are a landowner, I sure hope you never have the opportunity to take advantage of programs through the NRCS for private landowners. On principal you shouldn't be eligible based on your comments in this thread.

 

[CoMulies]

Just for the record, this proposal is overwhelmingly unpopular not only with residents, but with everyone. If Mike Lee was actually doing his job to represent his constituents and the will of the people, this topic would never be raised again. But of course, that’s not what this is about.

 

[tdhanses]

This is a great topic for making a new thread. I mean that genuinely. Because it bothers me as well. However, I personally can’t fathom having my public land advocacy attached strictly to tags. I also think of that as an issue that can be improved upon eventually. More places to hunt will only help with that conversation. Less public hunting area will make people even more protective. We can move the needle for nonresident tags public land loss is permanent.

For many though the year and years of hearing that make them less likely to jump and say no to these ideas, there isn’t 1,000’s of members jumping on these topics, it’s just a few of us going back and forth, that right there should be an indicator that maybe more and more over the years are ok will selling federal land.

 

[tdhanses]

So you would prefer those ranchers to have to lease private ground at 10X the price? Ruining our western heritage and increasing the cost of food and fiber.

Since you are a landowner, I sure hope you never have the opportunity to take advantage of programs through the NRCS for private landowners. On principal you shouldn't be eligible based on your comments in this thread.

We never had to lease ground and had to pay for our own private, so yes they should pay market rates and if they can’t afford it some other rancher will.

 

[tdhanses]

Just for the record, this proposal is overwhelmingly unpopular not only with residents, but with everyone. If Mike Lee was actually doing his job to represent his constituents and the will of the people, this topic would never be raised again. But of course, that’s not what this is about.

View attachment 895986View attachment 895987

Don’t all of the above states have millions of acres of public land, look at the states that don’t and see how the polling relates to the above. Pretty interesting all other states are just one small portion. The sentiment should be from them not the states with the federal lands.

 

[CoMulies]

Don’t all of the above states have millions of acres of public land, look at the states that don’t and see how the polling relates to the above.

That’s what the bottom table with horizontal green bars shows. 71% of the American public, regardless of state, opposes the sale of federal lands. You’d actually be hard pressed to find a topic more Americans agree on.

 

[tdhanses]

That’s what the bottom table with horizontal green bars shows. 71% of the American public, regardless of state, opposes the sale of federal lands

Yeah but who knows if that’s accurate, maybe it is, also who knows if many of them realize what exactly federal lands are outside of national parks and monuments. I know a ton of people without any knowledge of blm or usfs lands, but they know about Yellowstone.

 

[CoMulies]

Yeah but who knows if that’s accurate, maybe it is.

I’m going to take it as more accurate than your pure speculation

 

[tdhanses]

I’m going to take it as more accurate than your pure speculation

Well of course, fits your desire.

 

[CoMulies]

Well of course, fits your desire.

Yea, also it’s two legitimate polls, and not just a finger in the wind estimate of an angry non resident. Even if you knocked 10% off as some kind of made up margin of error, that still leaves 2/3 of Americans opposing the sale. Take care man.

 

[huntsd]

No, they're exaggerating for clicks and links and likes and shock value.

More attention for a big issue I support it

 

[Rizzy]

IMO,
I think they know exactly what they are doing, land in the rocky mountains is worth a fortune right now. The equity from around the country is pouring into the intermountain west. Land developers and the politicians who have interest in land development LLC's need more land to build houses on.

 

[tdhanses]

Yea, also it’s two legitimate polls, and not just a finger in the wind estimate of an angry non resident. Even if you knocked 10% off as some kind of made up margin of error, that still leaves 2/3 of Americans opposing the sale. Take care man.

Haha, I’m not angry at all, I just see a positive in selling some lands is all.

 

[ColoradoV]

Oh boy now we got guys validating the sale of millions of acres of public land due NR butthurt over ever increasing demand for hunting licenses..

Touché sir you win…..

 

[Pro953]

Yeah but either way this won’t be a factor when the bill passes or doesn’t, the bill will pass at some point with give and take but this is not something that is on the radar of things that matter.

If they don’t pass the bill everyone’s taxes go up.

How can one make a genuine argument about addressing 30 trillion in national debt, but argue for decreasing revenues in the same breath. You cannot gain any ground with spending cuts if you cut revenue as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[benkahle9]

If this is the case it is a shame

 

[PLhunter]

Well of course, fits your desire.

Well, and it’s a poll with at least some hard data. Compared to one man’s intuition. This gets to the heart of public discourse issues. Data is refuted by better data. Yet, people substitute feelings and opinion as equal to data.

Haha, I’m not angry at all, I just see a positive in selling some lands is all.

I just don’t see the ROI in it for us, the normal people. Extremely short term gain if any gain at all. I do see it as a benefit though when it comes to exchanges. There already is a system in place and precedent for that though. This bill is a made up number that likely vastly exceeds what fits the ideal disposal.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Oh boy now we got guys validating the sale of millions of acres of public land due NR butthurt over ever increasing demand for hunting licenses..

Touché sir you win…..

Keep in mind that most American politics (for average people) is about making political enemies miserable via petty revenge. If that attitude happens to constantly enrich corporations and billionaires, even better.

 

[tdhanses]

How can one make a genuine argument about addressing 30 trillion in national debt, but argue for decreasing revenues in the same breath. You cannot gain any ground with spending cuts if you cut revenue as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well yes this alone won’t make a dent, same could be said about every individual thing within this bill or any reconciliation bill ever.