MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[tdhanses]

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.

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.

Well if it actually works as proposed and is used in population centers it would be a benefit, it isn’t supposed to create new 3rd homes for the wealthy. It’s just every time this subject comes up the sky is falling and everyone says their hunting spot is on the list, the list showed all public land but a very tiny portion is even eligible.

This really should be pulled out and put through on it’s own but then that can be said about everything in the bill and nothing will get passed.

Maybe they need to add that the land needs to be next to population centers with 50,000 people or more and only within a mile of said population center.

 

[PLhunter]

For those of who trust the process of the departments selecting the millions of acres of required disposal. Keep in mind that it won’t be local land managers, that we know and largely trust, making those decisions. It’ll be the political appointees under pressure from the administration.

Bergum the Secretary of the Interior, sold the family farm to found a software company and is a REAL ESTATE investor.

Rollins the Secretary of Agriculture is the cofounder the “American First Policy Institute.”

I just don’t see them picking out what is best for me or us with their backgrounds, conflict of interest, and the pressure they will be getting from above.

To those that think Don Jr. will save you. Why? He will have first rights to hunt lands that daddy paved the way for them to own. Hell he might even buy some himself. He’s fine. I don’t think Jr. loses sleep about my hunting future.

 

[PLhunter]

Well if it actually works as proposed and is used in population centers it would be a benefit, it isn’t supposed to create new 3rd homes for the wealthy. It’s just every time this subject comes up the sky is falling and everyone says their hunting spot is on the list, the list showed all public land but a very tiny portion is even eligible.

This really should be pulled out and put through on it’s own but then that can be said about everything in the bill and nothing will get passed.

Maybe they need to add that the land needs to be next to population centers with 50,000 people or more and only within a mile of said population center.

I think you might be misinterpreting the map a bit. It’s all eligible but it’s not all going to be sold because of the limitations on how much. We don’t know what of the eligible lands will be sold, especially, with the weird nomination language.

The bill should be pulled. Destroyed. The people who put it in should share the same fate and never be seen again. Then we should us the process already in place.

Reality is public lands are not our housing problem nor really any of our problems. It’s a nothing-burger focus on better things Senator.

 

[tdhanses]

I think you might be misinterpreting the map a bit. It’s all eligible but it’s not all going to be sold because of the limitations on how much. We don’t know what of the eligible lands will be sold, especially, with the weird nomination language.

The bill should be pulled. Destroyed. The people who put it in should share the same fate and never be seen again. Then we should us the process already in place.

Reality is public lands are not our housing problem nor really any of our problems. It’s a nothing-burger focus on better things Senator.

But it really isn’t all eligible, not all of that land meets requirements.

 

[PLhunter]

But it really isn’t all eligible, not all of that land meets requirements.

No, actually the language is vague enough that determining which lands meet the requirements is not easy and with no requirement for public input it’ll be hard to call out when the criteria as sold isn’t met. The bill includes provisions that could make wilderness study areas, critical environmental areas, roadless areas, and wildlife habitat eligible. The 250 million acres are the acres that fit the criteria. An “interested party” nomination is an unrestricted category meaning doesn’t have to meet those limited and vague criteria.

 

[IdahoBeav]

“Going to waste”. It’s not even worth wasting breath on you if you think protecting a forest is just going to waste.. JFC

This is what really exposed the public lands movement. They refuse to acknowledge forest management and the role that logging plays. Very similar can also be said about cattle grazing.

 

[MtnW]

This bill is way to vague. If passed ,this is he type of bill that is open to total corruption and personal gain to the billionaires like the Walton family and it’s other family members who are buying up huge ranches for their personal use and gain. Along with other greedy USA billionaires. Mike Lee of Utah sounds like he is in on the take. Politicians can not be trusted. Any form of this bill needs exact specific land descriptions. I mailed my senators and congressman/woman. Hope everyone else does the same. What do Utah residents think of Mike Lee?

 

[CoMulies]

This is what really exposed the public lands movement. They refuse to acknowledge forest management and the role that logging plays. Very similar can also be said about cattle grazing.

I’m not against responsible logging and appropriate forest management. I am against another clause being snuck into the bill that requires a compounding 250m in incremental board ft each year until 2034. There is so much BS pork stuffed into this bill it’s insane.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936101506807185644

 

[PLhunter]

This is what really exposed the public lands movement. They refuse to acknowledge forest management and the role that logging plays. Very similar can also be said about cattle grazing.

No, it’s simply not every use everywhere all the time. We get it, across the broad spectrum of public lands they need to be multiple use. We see the role it plays we simply don’t put our worth on the land as AUM’s and board feet. Not every place needs to be producing pounds on cattle or board feet to be useful. Also, in some areas grazing is beneficial in some very harmful. In some areas and eco types logging can be beneficial in some harmful. Areas left to go through the process of aging and death and fire etc. are not worthless because they aren’t producing board feet. They are valuable because they are providing a different use than the land that is, multiple use.

It depends on the area. When I’m hunting the coastal side it’s clear that mixed logging benefits game and other species. However, in the already mixed ponderosa forest interspersed with meadows habitat in eastern Oregon, logging and roads and disturbance would provide less of a net benefit. You’re not exposing anything we understand these things we simply don’t have them as must have criteria for value nor do we speak of their benefits overly broadly. It’s also false to say that some forest don’t need or don’t benefit from protection. Saying that protecting the redwoods or some eastern hardwoods is a good idea and worth doing doesn’t fly in the face of understanding broader forest management.

 

[PLhunter]

I’m not against responsible logging and appropriate forest management. I am against another clause being snuck into the bill that requires a compounding 250m in incremental board ft each year until 2034. There is so much BS pork stuffed into this bill it’s insane.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1936101506807185644

I just don’t trust that the people who wrote this bill did the math on what was sustainable here. Call me a skeptic but I doubt they consulted foresters and biologist when generating that number.

 

[CoMulies]

I just don’t trust that the people who wrote this bill did the math on what was sustainable here. Call me a skeptic but I doubt they consulted foresters and biologist when generating that number.

Zero chance. This bill would require the harvest of 2.7 BILLION board feet from public lands in 2034 alone

 

[PLhunter]

Zero chance. This bill would require the harvest of 2.7 BILLION board feet from public lands in 2034 alone

When it’s all stripped and eroded we will be able to extract that vast mineral wealth much easier and no one will care anymore.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

There’s somewhat a chance this whole bill could crumble. Not because of public lands, but because the unity is falling apart.

There's too much spending in it, lots of people are balking.

edit: I just realized my alert took me to page 7 and I replied to a comment from page 7 on page 14. I think I'm in over my head on this thread. LOL

 

[IdahoBeav]

The state of Oregon alone harvests over 3.5 billion bf per year.

I really wonder if the green decoys even know what a board foot is, lol.

 

[PLhunter]

The state of Oregon alone harvests over 3.5 billion bf per year.

I really wonder if the green decoys even know what a board foot is, lol.

lol, what am I? You create this fictional easy to defeat foe at your keyboard that you argue against with every post. Your straw man game is creative and strong. You in your post didn’t have a point so you created an easier to attack foe. The feared green decoy. That’s textbook straw man.

Your public land advocates that don’t ever talk about forest management and grazing benefits are who? Tell me who these who people are and I’ll find you quotes and sound bites of them discussing the very damn topic. You create an unreasonable enemy with every post. Your straw man exaggerates the positions holds all or nothing beliefs and doesn’t match a damn real person here.

 

[CoMulies]

The state of Oregon alone harvests over 3.5 billion bf per year.

I really wonder if the green decoys even know what a board foot is, lol.

It’s additional bf, not total. That’s an additional 15B in bf over current levels across the next decade.

I’m not even the tree hugger you’re making me out to be. I voted for trump 3 times. This bill is a disaster

 

[IdahoBeav]

It’s additional bf, not total. That’s an additional 15B in bf over current levels across the next decade.

I’m not even the tree hugger you’re making me out to be. I voted for trump 3 times. This bill is a disaster

I'm not a fan of the bill either, but the logging is nothing to worry about.

 

[PLhunter]

Zero chance. This bill would require the harvest of 2.7 BILLION board feet from public lands in 2034 alone

Well it’s actually in addition the the previous years starting point so I am reading it right the compounded rate would be much much higher.

 

[CoMulies]

I'm not a fan of the bill either, but the logging is nothing to worry about.

It’s not that alone for me. It’s the culmination of a bunch of bad policy throughout. But anyway, I’ve beat a dead horse several times over here and will leave it be.

 

[IdahoBeav]

It’s not that alone for me. It’s the culmination of a bunch of bad policy throughout. But anyway, I’ve beat a dead horse several times over here and will leave it be.

No one in this thread is saying they like everything about this bill. I don't even know if anyone is saying they want it to pass. I'm only speaking on the logging item with my last few comments. I grew up in Oregon. The dishonest beating that the logging industry took and the economical effects were a disaster that rural western Oregon has still not recovered from and probably never will. We want to hunt and fish on public land. Logging at the level included in the language of this bill is not going to hurt our interests. If anything, it will only make it better. There is enough in this bill to criticize. We don't need to hitch to this anti logging wagon.