MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[Dos Perros]

I think some people cross into the nutso category when they spout rhetoric like not a single acre never. Certainly there are acres worth disposing of. The message should be "there is a process for this, use the process, no new bills are needed."

 

[elkhunter505]

I think some people cross into the nutso category when they spout rhetoric like not a single acre never. Certainly there are acres worth disposing of. The message should be "there is a process for this, use the process, no new bills are needed."

Yeah it should be going through FLPMA but as unfortunate as it is, the extremists prevent it from being used as intended. I feel like almost every fight with this administration and GOP is about processes they’re trying to circumvent currently. Not saying some of those processes don’t need reform. If they need reform, reform them, don’t just throw them out the window and go around them. Unfortunately I missed most of the time when politics were less polarizing due to a factor called not being born yet.

 

[CoMulies]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935822264999514472

Mike Lee showing his true colors. Would rather have Blackrock own the land (the likeliest outcome btw) than the feds.

 

[elkhunter505]

If anything is gonna get through to some people, it might be that

 

[chanson_roland]

At least part of the answer is that it was laid out right there before us in Project 2025, a political initiative spurred by The Heritage Foundation with the explicit intent of consolidating the executive power and reshaping the federal government to meet the objectives.

In relation to the public lands, the stated goals of Project 2025:

-Reviewing and potentially dismantling protections
-Targeting specific areas for resource extraction
-Limiting environmental reviews
-Potential sale of public lands for development

 

[HairyScandinavian]

They are brining attention to an important issue for everyone on this form. Good on them for making a big deal about it.

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

 

[tdhanses]

Yes and 0.75% of that land is 3 million acres, which is the roughly the size of Connecticut.

Based on math, .75% of 250 million is 1.875 million acres.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

I think some people cross into the nutso category when they spout rhetoric like not a single acre never. Certainly there are acres worth disposing of. The message should be "there is a process for this, use the process, no new bills are needed."

I can get down with this.

 

[PLhunter]

Also, drop in to your local forest service and BLM office and meet those people. They are truly the good folks. Mike Lee and the GOP are trying to say these people are a bigger threat to you than say, Black Rock, they are not. The managers are your neighbors, your fellow outdoorsmen, get to know them. This is all a lie. They are better managers than anything you’re going to get by transferring to private ownership. lol, it’s not like we can’t already compare and contrast.

 

[tdhanses]

Also, drop in to your local forest service and BLM office and meet those people. They are truly the good folks. Mike Lee and the GOP are trying to say these people are a bigger threat to you than say, Black Rock, they are not. The managers are your neighbors, your fellow outdoorsmen, get to know them. This is all a lie. They are better managers than anything you’re going to get by transferring to private ownership. lol, it’s not like we can’t already compare and contrast.

You do realize 90% + of people in the country have zero local blm or usfs lands close to them right? So no local offices to just drop into.

Also most people in the country have other things way more important to them then to email senators about, the handful of states senators with these lands are a minority still, in time we’ll see federal lands reduced and I’m not necessarily against it. We won’t see all lands go away in our lifetime but if we do that doesn’t mean we will not be able to access these lands, we may just have to pay a fee which really isn’t a big deal for NR hunters, we already pay some big fees, what’s another for access.

 

[PLhunter]

I think some people cross into the nutso category when they spout rhetoric like not a single acre never. Certainly there are acres worth disposing of. The message should be "there is a process for this, use the process, no new bills are needed."

I’d be in the needs to be a net positive for the public category in order to transfer. I like some of the trades that have been made. Some people go nuts because it’s a net acreage loss but the quality available to the public goes up. I’m okay with that. I’m not okay with slow chipping away without clear benefit. I’m in the no single transaction that doesn’t have an environmental, wildlife, or hunting fishing access benefit. Remember, mining companies etc.. aren’t in their board meetings going “well, what about the hunters?” Advocate selfishly, the other side is.

 

[HairyScandinavian]

I’d be in the needs to be a net positive for the public category in order to transfer. I like some of the trades that have been made. Some people go nuts because it’s a net acreage loss but the quality available to the public goes up. I’m okay with that. I’m not okay with slow chipping away without clear benefit. I’m in the no single transaction that doesn’t have an environmental, wildlife, or hunting fishing access benefit. Remember, mining companies etc.. aren’t in their board meetings going “well, what about the hunters?” Advocate selfishly, the other side is.

I don't disagree with any of that. So what makes you think this won't fit all your criteria, considering the articles I read stated that the BLM and USFS will identify the properties? I trust them to choose wisely.

 

[PLhunter]

You do realize 90% + of people in the country have zero local blm or usfs lands close to them right? So no local offices to just drop into.

Many areas being manipulated into making these people the enemy do have them nearby. Some don’t you are correct if you don’t have one it doesn’t apply to you. The crowd here leans western hunting so decent chance a few do.

I interact with these people regularly. It’s absolutely shocking to me people can be convinced that some company will represent their interest better than these fine folks.

 

[tdhanses]

Many areas being manipulated into making these people the enemy do have them nearby. Some don’t you are correct if you don’t have one it doesn’t apply to you. The crowd here leans western hunting so decent chance a few do.

I interact with these people regularly. It’s absolutely shocking to me people can be convinced that some company will represent their interest better than these fine folks.

Exactly in the areas they are within but they have maybe a total population of less then 1 million people close by in all states with these lands that will care?

Yes a few nonresidents will help but again, maybe a few million take the time to do anything.

The crowd does lean western hunting but I bet most of the crowd doesn’t live close to one of these offices but this crowd is a fraction of a fraction of hunters and will not move the needle.

The only thing that will make a difference is getting a majority of the country behind this or it will pass, very unlikely a majority will care about a small % of public lands being sold, especially when the majority has hardly any federal public land close to them to utilize.

As western states continue to make it more difficult to hunt for nonresidents, support will diminish on this subject. Just as hunting participation continues to decrease as access is removed, tags are apart of access.

 

[PLhunter]

I don't disagree with any of that. So what makes you think this won't fit all your criteria, considering the articles I read stated that the BLM and USFS will identify the properties? I trust them to choose wisely.

I trust the career “bureaucrats” that have been demonized actually working in the offices. They are unlikely to be the ones making these final decisions. I do not trust in the least the political appointees who do not have a hunting, fishing, or conservation slant. Also, the minimum acreage is arbitrary. Go through the system in place.

Edit: also these experts would or could use the system in place. This by Mike Lee is going over the heads of those fine people. I don’t see any rangeland biologist or career blm people advocating for this. I’d rather they do their ideas instead of having a number of acreage ramroded by a egomaniacal Utard senator.

 

[Wyattbankhead]

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

When is this supposed to go through?

 

[HairyScandinavian]

I think we can all agree that Mike Lee needs to go. I still have some faith in BLM and USFS making decisions though. I don't think this ends up near as bad as Newberg wants to portray it but I also don't like the slippery slope and don't want it normalized to continue in the future. Seems like once Mike Lee is gone it'll come to an end

 

[CoMulies]

I think we can all agree that Mike Lee needs to go. I still have some faith in BLM and USFS making decisions though. I don't think this ends up near as bad as Newberg wants to portray it but I also don't like the slippery slope and don't want it normalized to continue in the future. Seems like once Mike Lee is gone it'll come to an end

+1. We have found common ground

 

[Poser]

When is this supposed to go through?

It’s in the “One Big Beautiful Bill” which appears to be stalled at the moment, not to mention a 64% disapproval rating from the public. It’s taken a bit of a backseat to Iran this week, but there are more cracks forming in the GOP over Iran, over the OBBB in relation to spending, Medicaid, SNAP etc. add on a looming war with Iran with a lot of internal MAGA disagreement over that and we’re starting to see some vocal criticism from some hardcore MAGA Senators, which is a bit surprising. A super conservative TN Senators just called his colleagues “war pimps” in an interview. Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is personally ready to roll his sleeves up and load ordinance onto bombers.

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

 

[plebe]

I think we can all agree that Mike Lee needs to go. I still have some faith in BLM and USFS making decisions though. I don't think this ends up near as bad as Newberg wants to portray it but I also don't like the slippery slope and don't want it normalized to continue in the future. Seems like once Mike Lee is gone it'll come to an end

Despite the sensationalization, it’s still a chunk of land the size of/bigger than a state that is being mandated for sale. There isn’t a map of what’s been selected for sale, specifically, is there? Just what’s eligible, and some soft language, right?

Seems like square peg, round hole planning.