MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[mostlybirch]

We have vast forests to log worth trillions going to waste and to keep wild.

I can't speak for forestry, but the minerals on public lands, at least BLM, are generally open to extraction. Just because USGS has listed mineral resources doesn't mean they are economic to extract. When those go to private hands its generally off-limits.

 

[gelton]

Could you explain this please?

In the early days of scouting some of the best tools out there were from USGS. They have completely mapped the potential value of all the timber, oil, gold, rare earth minerals on all the publicly owned lands of the United States a looong time ago.

 

[CoMulies]

We have vast forests to log worth trillions going to waste and to keep wild.

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

 

[tdhanses]

How can you say the amount to use these lands keep decreasing?? I’m pretty confident the usages have been going up not down.

I’m not but 38, but have been camping and hunting on public lands since I was old enough to walk and there’s no doubt a growing use of public lands.

People complain about crowds now, for reason. And that reason is more people using them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes we saw a big bump for Covid, but not all 330 million people in this country are who you see, you see maybe .001%, seems like a lot though.

Yeah there are big crowds in a small percentage of federal lands, the blm lands do not have millions visiting them each week, most usfs land is not having millions visiting them them, when you see the number of annual visitors to federal lands, 90% of that is to national parks and monuments.

All I can say is this, if 90% of blm and usfs lands went away, most wouldn’t notice it, they would still have the places to vacation at.

You could see 500 new vehicles a week at your local trailhead and that would still be a fraction of a percent of the population.

 

[tdhanses]

I can't speak for forestry, but the minerals on public lands, at least BLM, are generally open to extraction. Just because USGS has listed mineral resources doesn't mean they are economic to extract. When those go to private hands its generally off-limits.

Yes but not the forests, the timber companies would buy large tracts of land and probably allow access to hunt.

 

[elkhunter505]

selling federal land gives us all an opportunity to buy large tracts of land, if one desires, the more available land there is the prices will drop per acre in the short term.

That’s the thing. Opportunity is not true opportunity when you have the Wilks, BlackRock, Ted Turner, insert your favorite giant landowner/corporation here, bidding on these lands in the future. Right now, they have minimal access to buy that land. If you think for a second that the average guy working a middle class job has the ability to buy large tracts of land for hunting, I’d implore you to look at England or another European country and tell me how many average middle class citizens get to enjoy hunting. With wealth inequality growing between the upper and lower classes, the vast majority of us will have no means to buy even a small piece when larger corporations come to the table.

Also, some of us don’t even want to own the land. Some of us out here want nonresident opportunities because that means I have nonresident opportunities elsewhere. Some of us want the ability to hunt many different places and species rather than being confined to a small lease property. I’d rather not own the land. I’d rather see a bunch of people be able to recreate on it even though 5% of them are a pain in the ass and cause massive headaches for the 95%.

 

[mostlybirch]

In the early days of scouting some of the best tools out there were from USGS. They have completely mapped the potential value of all the timber, oil, gold, rare earth minerals on all the publicly owned lands of the United States a looong time ago.

That's just incorrect. The USGS has not completely mapped the potential value of all gold, rare earths, etc. They have estimates, but that is all. It takes large effort and vast sums of money to understand mineral resources and it is by and large done by industry. New discoveries are made all the time. And again, just because the minerals are in the ground doesn't mean they are economic to extract. What does that have to do with the debt? And if anything it argues the point of leaving those ground public so they can be explored.

 

[CoMulies]

Only 4% of Texas is public land. This is their end goal.

 

[tdhanses]

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

Yup CO is doing a great job protecting the forests, it’s a tinderbox about to explode, heck my property was burned in 2017 due to the great protection of the Beatles killed forests., there is so much downfall and fuel a big wildfire is coming, it’s amazing how clean the forest floor is after it burns out 120,000 acres of land.

Wonder how big the wildfires will be this year or next.

 

[tdhanses]

That’s the thing. Opportunity is not true opportunity when you have the Wilks, BlackRock, Ted Turner, insert your favorite giant landowner/corporation here, bidding on these lands in the future. Right now, they have minimal access to buy that land. If you think for a second that the average guy working a middle class job has the ability to buy large tracts of land for hunting, I’d implore you to look at England or another European country and tell me how many average middle class citizens get to enjoy hunting. With wealth inequality growing between the upper and lower classes, the vast majority of us will have no means to buy even a small piece when larger corporations come to the table.

Also, some of us don’t even want to own the land. Some of us out here want nonresident opportunities because that means I have nonresident opportunities elsewhere. Some of us want the ability to hunt many different places and species rather than being confined to a small lease property. I’d rather not own the land. I’d rather see a bunch of people be able to recreate on it even though 5% of them are a pain in the ass and cause massive headaches for the 95%.

There would still be opportunities.

 

[gelton]

I have been consistent on this very issue on this very forum for more than a decade. What the west doesn’t realize is the population centers are all on the East. Much like our population centers in the big cities (many of which have more people on them than some of your entire states) for us in the south and east of the Mississippi decide our political fate even though the majority of the land mass by far votes conservative, the population centers dictate more often than not how our states and counties are governed. In this case the role is reversed and if the majority of those fighting for public lands would have realized that before fighting for more restrictive access to non residents who come from the population centers, then maybe more would heed your cry.

Edit: ie. You might own the rights to the wildlife but the value that can be extracted from those lands belong to all of us.

 

[CoMulies]

I have been consistent on this very issue on this very forum for more than a decade. What the west doesn’t realize is the population centers are all on the East. Much like our population centers in the big cities (many of which have more people on them than some of your entire states) for us in the south and east of the Mississippi decide our political fate even though the majority of the land mass by far votes conservative, the population centers dictate more often than not how our states and counties are governed. In this case the role is reversed and if the majority of those fighting for public lands would have realized that before fighting for more restrictive access to non residents who come from the population centers, then maybe more would heed your cry.

Once again, you’re conflating access to tags with access to the land. You (and anyone else) are free to recreate on western public lands whenever you want. Absolutely no one has “fought for more restrictive access to non residents.” Millions of NR recreate here every single year. This is more sour grapes over draw odds.

 

[tdhanses]

I have been consistent on this very issue on this very forum for more than a decade. What the west doesn’t realize is the population centers are all on the East. Much like our population centers in the big cities (many of which have more people on them than some of your entire states) for us in the south and east of the Mississippi decide our political fate even though the majority of the land mass by far votes conservative, the population centers dictate more often than not how our states and counties are governed. In this case the role is reversed and if the majority of those fighting for public lands would have realized that before fighting for more restrictive access to non residents who come from the population centers, then maybe more would heed your cry.

I believe we both have said this for years.

 

[tdhanses]

Once again, you’re conflating access to tags with access to the land. You (and anyone else) are free to recreate on western public lands whenever you want. Absolutely no one has “fought for more restrictive access to non residents.” Millions of NR recreate here every single year. This is more sour grapes over draw odds.

And your not with your own desire to hunt, would you give up your right to hunt to keep federal lands to access? Don’t be shocked when hunting is for a few.

 

[gelton]

Once again, you’re conflating access to tags with access to the land. You (and anyone else) are free to recreate on western public lands whenever you want. Absolutely no one has “fought for more restrictive access to non residents.” Millions of NR recreate here every single year. This is more sour grapes over draw odds.

Your conflating the ownership of wildlife management to ownership of resources.

 

[CoMulies]

And your not with your own desire to hunt, would you give up your right to hunt to keep federal lands to access? Don’t be shocked when hunting is for a few.

Yes 100%. If I had to chose between hunting and the current access I have to public land in Colorado and across the west, I would take the land every single time. Just last weekend I spent 3 days fishing alpine lakes in a wilderness area. You literally cannot put a price on that opportunity.

 

[tdhanses]

Yes 100%. If I had to chose between hunting and the current access I have to public land in Colorado and across the west, I would take the land every single time. Just last weekend I spent 3 days fishing alpine lakes in a wilderness area. You literally cannot put a price on that opportunity.

Well you may see that sooner than you think. And even if we sell some federal land it will not be the wilderness or alpine areas, it’ll be the areas close to highways and roads.

 

[sasquatch]

There would still be opportunities.

Say what, a great scenario would be all hunters could afford 200 acres??

It’d sure be tough to hunt elk, mule deer, antelope, moose, bear, etc on a piece that size. Or, have success at it anyway.

This ain’t really white tails we talking about

But, I’d take my ability to recreate on 1 million acres vs own 200 and give that up.

I love turkey hunting, and can afford a decent piece of land near home. However I realize buying a relatively small piece could never compare to what the many management areas I hunt provide.

I am an easterner, what the west offers is unreal compared to back home as far as open land to access. I’d hate to see that jeopardized no matter how much residents want to restrict my tag access


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tdhanses]

Say what, a great scenario would be all hunters could afford 200 acres??

It’d sure be tough to hunt elk, mule deer, antelope, moose, bear, etc on a piece that size. Or, have success at it anyway.

This ain’t really white tails we talking about

But, I’d take my ability to recreate on 1 million acres vs own 200 and give that up.

I love turkey hunting, and can afford a decent piece of land near home. However I realize buying a relatively small piece could never compare to what the many management areas I hunt provide.

I am an easterner, what the west offers is unreal compared to back home as far as open land to access. I’d hate to see that jeopardized no matter how much residents want to restrict my tag access


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So if they sell 1 acre you’ll be restricted, if they sell 1% it’s highly unlikely you would even notice.

Something is going to change, federal lands will either be sold or developed for the benefit of the majority, like it or not. Now some lands won’t be touched for 100yrs+.

 

[CoMulies]

So if they sell 1 acre you’ll be restricted, if they sell 1% it’s highly unlikely you would even notice.

Something is going to change, federal lands will either be sold or developed for the benefit of the majority, like it or not. Now some lands won’t be touched for 100yrs+.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve gathered you don’t live in a western state.. what exactly do you think you, or any other American, actually stands to gain from this? We’ve already established it’s not going to even put a dent in the debt, so that’s off the table. We’re still buying this fairytale that it will actually be used for “affordable housing?”