MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[Gila]

I thought the bill, even Lee's portion of it, was capped at max .75% over the next 5 years? Min .5% and max .75% is what everybody's been citing.

That slight of hand is a nutshell game! Those min - max percentages are meaningless.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Quite a few expert public lands hunting advocates have gone through this in the last few days. When you drop through Sen. Lee’s “fuzzy logic” it could very well be up to 250 million acres that are eventually sold. And not just across 11 states either….Once again, educate yourself and listen to the “Your Mountain” podcast on the subject.

So, 250 million is a slippery slope fallacy.

I'll listen to the podcast, but I am a little burnt out on echo chamber, sky-is-falling discussions trying to convince everyone to be a single issue voter and acting like there is wild game habitat on every acre of public land.

 

[CoMulies]

Oh I didn’t realize he proposed the SHUSH act, by all means, go ahead and sell off all our public then…

 

[IdahoBeav]

More simpleton logic and reasoning, lol

 

[Gila]

So, 250 million is a slippery slope fallacy.

I'll listen to the podcast, but I am a little burnt out on echo chamber, sky-is-falling discussions trying to convince everyone to be a single issue voter and acting like there is wild game habitat on every acre of public land.

FLPMA has been the guide with the processes to sell public lands since 1976. Sen. Lee’s provision tosses FLPMA out the window. Even if you endorse selling off some public lands, do you really want to do it this way? Because once the land is sold, it’s gone forever!

The only fallacy is about those who refuse to recognize this provision for what it is…

 

[CoMulies]

Yea it’s going to be so cool how quiet my rifle is when I go hunt the last little patch of public ground that’s left with 500 other guys. Can’t wait!

 

[IdahoBeav]

FLPMA has been the guide with the processes to sell public lands since 1976. Sen. Lee’s provision tosses FLPMA out the window. Even if you endorse selling off some public lands, do you really want to do it this way? Because once the land is sold, it’s gone forever!

The only fallacy is about those who refuse to recognize this provision for what it is…

I appreciate the specifics, and I will look further into it. FTR, I'm not a fan of much of this bill, especially the predicted effect on deficits. If public land is to be sold, it should be 100% clear and limited to the specific parcels, all of which should be largely void of game habitat, but when the discussion is limited to only hunters and the selling of any public land is a non-starter, it's not logical and not very productive. Most of the country doesn't use public land wild spaces, and those in DC are involved with much more work than just this single issue.

 

[sasquatch]

What a great idea, use our hard assets to make what would equate to about .0001% of 1 interest payment on the debt these sleazy snakes have got us into!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[IdahoBeav]

It's more a matter of if the government doesn't need to own it, they shouldn't. Never mind the the money gained from the sale. I assume you own a home, maybe some land? Should the feds own it or should you?

 

[CoMulies]

It's more a matter of if the government doesn't need to own it, they shouldn't. Never mind the the money gained from the sale. I assume you own a home, maybe some land? Should the feds own it or should you?

Stop paying your property taxes and get back to us on who really “owns” your land.

Yes, the government owning land that the public can access is clearly better than it getting sold off to a private buyer who will not let the public access. If the land was transferred to the states for the benefit of the public, that would be fine, but we all know damn well that’s not how this is going to go at all. It’s really very simple..

 

[sasquatch]

Stop paying your property taxes and get back to us on who really “owns” your land.

Yes, the government owning land that the public can access is clearly better than it getting sold off to a private buyer who will not let the public access. It’s really very simple..

Couldn’t have said it better

There’s is no greater accumulation of non distributed wealth in the country. Why ruin that? What would WE GAIN as a nation?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Gila]

I appreciate the specifics, and I will look further into it. FTR, I'm not a fan of much of this bill, especially the predicted effect on deficits. If public land is to be sold, it should be 100% clear and limited to the specific parcels, all of which should be largely void of game habitat, but when the discussion is limited to only hunters and the selling of any public land is a non-starter, it's not logical and not very productive. Most of the country doesn't use public land wild spaces, and those in DC are involved with much more work than just this single issue.

We no longer label habitat as game habitat. We look at it from the context that carry capacity is determined by the health of each unique ecosystem. Hunting is the only viable method of controlling populations and predation.

 

[IdahoBeav]

We no longer label habitat as game habitat. We look at it from the context that carry capacity is determined by the health of each unique ecosystem. Hunting is the only viable method of controlling populations and predation.

And humans are a native species, part of the ecosystem. They also need habitat.

Not all land is equal.

 

[IdahoBeav]

Yes, the government owning land that the public can access is clearly better than it getting sold off to a private buyer who will not let the public access. If the land was transferred to the states for the benefit of the public, that would be fine, but we all know damn well that’s not how this is going to go at all. It’s really very simple..

This is just an intellectually lazy argument assuming only an all-or-nothing scenario and that all land is equal.

The slippery slope and appeal to emotion isn't going to work outside of an echo chamber.

 

[sasquatch]

And humans are a native species, part of the ecosystem. They also need habitat.

Not all land is equal.

We have evolved into destroying wayyyyyy more habitat than we “need”

No other species comes even remotely close. We have huge WANTS, But very few basic NEEDS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CoMulies]

This is just an intellectually lazy argument assuming only an all-or-nothing scenario and that all land is equal.

The slippery slope and appeal to emotion isn't going to work outside of an echo chamber.

The current debt is $37T, selling off this land is not even going to come remotely close to putting a dent in that, and will be recreational opportunity lost for every single American. This will be nothing more than a cash grab for developers, which oddly enough is your profession, if I remember correctly.

I’m glad we’ve come full circle to the “not all land is equal” argument, like they’re going to be sticking housing in the desert with zero water or infrastructure to support more people. Get a grip dude

 

[IdahoBeav]

The current debt is $37T, selling off this land is not even going to come remotely close to putting a dent in that, and will be recreational opportunity lost for every single American. This will be nothing more than a cash grab for developers, which oddly enough is your profession, if I remember correctly.

I’m glad we’ve come full circle to the “not all land is equal” argument, like they’re going to be sticking housing in the desert with zero water or infrastructure to support more people. Get a grip dude

I've already addressed the national debt item, but if you want to continue to simp for the feds, go ahead.

I'm not a developer. I'm an engineer, and thank you for showing that you also have absolutely no clue about utilities and other infrastructure., and if you think there might be financial impact for me involving this issue, there isn't. I'm not sure I can say the same about Newberg, Tawney, and others that are feeding you their narrative.

Americans aren't going to lose any opportunity if federally owned wildlife-barren dirt lots are sold.

 

[CoMulies]

I've already addressed the national debt item, but if you want to continue to simp for the feds, go ahead.

I'm not a developer. I'm an engineer, and thank you for showing that you also have absolutely no clue about utilities and other infrastructure., and if you think there might be financial impact for me involving this issue, there isn't. I'm not sure I can say the same about Newberg, Tawney, and others that are feeding you their narrative.

Americans aren't going to lose any opportunity if federally owned wildlife-barren dirt lots are sold.

Simp for the feds lmfaooo. I don’t give a rats ass about the federal government, maintaining the status quo is absolutely preferable to the alternative that’s coming if this passes. I also don’t give a rats ass about, nor listen to, the Newberg types who, however well intentioned, have flooded every ridgeline in the west from September - novermber.

You should be smart enough to know then, that absolutely no one is going to be interested in purchasing only “wildlife barren dirt lots.” That’s not where this buck stops.

 

[yeti14]

I've already addressed the national debt item, but if you want to continue to simp for the feds, go ahead.

I'm not a developer. I'm an engineer, and thank you for showing that you also have absolutely no clue about utilities and other infrastructure., and if you think there might be financial impact for me involving this issue, there isn't. I'm not sure I can say the same about Newberg, Tawney, and others that are feeding you their narrative.

Americans aren't going to lose any opportunity if federally owned wildlife-barren dirt lots are sold.

I would say its pretty short sighted and self-interested to say only wildlife abundant lots provide opportunity for Americans. What about hiking, camping, ATVs, snow machines, shooting, mountain biking, rock climbing, photography, etc. These can all be done on so called "barren" lands. The bottom line is the public will loose opportunity to access lands that everyone owns, to do whatever they choose. And the public gains from this.....nothing.

 

[Poser]

The current debt is $37T, selling off this land is not even going to come remotely close to putting a dent in that, and will be recreational opportunity lost for every single American. This will be nothing more than a cash grab for developers, which oddly enough is your profession, if I remember correctly.

I’m glad we’ve come full circle to the “not all land is equal” argument, like they’re going to be sticking housing in the desert with zero water or infrastructure to support more people. Get a grip dude

I messed around with some figures on AI out of curiosity and it seems that, absolute best case, the initial sell off would pay for .027% of the deficit, interest not accounted for. If you account for an average interest rate of 3.362%, it would potentially save another 336 million in interest over the next year assuming there was no more debt added. However, the "Big Beautiful Bill" will add ~$361 billion per year to the deficit. This reduces the effectives of this public land sale payment, best case scenario, to reducing the deficit by 0.0268%