MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[sasquatch]

Every budget passed talked about how it will reduced the deficit over the next C amount of years

Yest the debt is ALWAYS going up. The Math don’t math but Everytime the masses are fooled


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[3325]

I wrote to Senator Barrasso, Senator Lummis, and Congresswoman Hageman voicing my opposition to this. At the moment that’s all I can do.

 

[tdhanses]

I don’t understand the angst against residents? Each American citizen owns the same amount of public land. No one in New Mexico has complained about non-residents. In fact we are trying to get rid of the outfitters pool to give non-residents better odds and more tags. Residents and non-residents should have equal opportunity to book with an outfitter or not. There should not be any landowner tags that can be used to hunt public lands. Take those land owner tags and put them into the public draw. That way residents will actually get 90% percent of something and the non-residents would have 10% of something.

That way If a non-resident or resident for that matter, draws a tag for a unit they can choose to book a hunt on private land with an outfit like Infinite Outdoors or an outfitter if they choose for that matter. At the present time the big-game hunting is almost completely commercialized for non-residents. There are so few tags in the public draw for residents that we go for years without drawing any big-game tags at all. Few non-residents can afford to spend 30K per season to hunt big-game in another state. Obviously the outfitters will put the hate on residents and Infinite Outdoors so they can keep more slices of the pizza.

But know this. If Public lands disappear, so will the land owner tags and then residents and non-residents alike, even the wealthiest of non-residents, won’t be hunting.

Well when residents continually push out nonresidents for public land hunting I’m just saying don’t expect support for your hobby. Hunting is purely a hobby and most residents rely on federal public land to use, state land great i get that but to limit those that pay for your play ground and then say hey we live here and pay taxes etc just doesn’t matter to the 99% paying for your playground.

Federal land hunting should be 100% random draw, state land can be 100% resident. If public land fades or is substantially reduced, private will get allocated tags and all hunting will be a pay to play game open to all through an outfitter or landowner, for many nonresidents it won’t cost much more then most pay now but we’ll get to go every year.

Yes it will price out those that can’t spend thousands but there will be plenty of demand still, even if one can only afford it every 5 years that still hunting WY more often then the direction it is heading.

WY, MT, ID, UT and CO have vast tracts of federal land, not state resident land, yes the state manages the animals but the feds own the land and it will sell eventually and while residents many have easy tag access to state owned animals, good luck with land access.

Residents shouldn’t get a priority to federal lands for hunting and many nonresidents believe this, yes this will piss off residents that want to have cheap hunting and free land access, well hunters are an extreme minority, it is going to change like it or not and in the end it won’t matter resident or not, hunting is a hobby not a way of life even if people convince themselves it is a way of life.

Every state should have a 100% random draw for tags good only for federal lands, state land they can do as they like, the feds won’t manage this so in the end many will support selling federal land and as time goes on more and more will be ok with it.

I would say most nonresidents aren’t wealthy but they do save and pay a ton to hunt these few states with the residents constantly changing the rules to improve their opportunities, you know 10 tags for an avg price of $25 a tag just isn’t enough, oh and these tags are only good on federal lands since most don’t have access to private lands.

When you think about it, in these states there is maybe 300k hunters total that are residents out of a country of 330 million, at some point it’s going to bust for the residents where all the public land is located.

The government could sell off 85% of it and still meet the needs of all the others that recreate on federal land or 90% of them.

 

[CoMulies]

I don’t know how many times this needs to get covered on this website, but you are not drawing a tag to hunt land, you are drawing a tag to hunt a certain states animals. You have access to federal land in whatever western state you want, whenever you want it, that’s what your taxes are going towards. You do not have priority to that’s states animals over its own residents. Animals are kept in trust by each state for the benefit of its own residents, non-residents have no legal claim to hunting them unless granted by the state.

 

[tdhanses]

I don’t know how many times this needs to get covered on this website, but you are not drawing a tag to hunt land, you are drawing a tag to hunt a certain states animals. You have access to federal land in whatever western state you want, whenever you want it, that’s what your taxes are going towards. You do not have priority to that’s states animals over its own residents. Animals are kept in trust by each state for the benefit of its own residents, non-residents have no legal claim to hunting them unless granted by the state.

Yes we know that, yet many of those tags are only good on federal right?

I’m glad the animals are yours as a resident, the land is everyone else’s and yours but more then likely your voting population is a fraction of the rest of the country that could careless about these lands.

And the small percentage of nonresidents that don’t hunt that maybe visit these lands outside of national parks/monuments aren’t enough to save them and they will decrease with time, in the end public lands will decrease no matter who is in government.

CO voters will eventually ban all hunting in time as well, it may take 20-30yrs but it’ll happen, in time all predator hunting will be banned and then herd numbers will drop reducing and eventually ending hunting with management being state sharp shooters so that the wolves, cougars and bears have plenty to eat.

 

[CoMulies]

Hunters are but a small population of those recreating on federal lands out here in the west. In fact, hunting season in the mountains is quieter than it is with recreational users in the spring and summer. You can also ask anyone who lives out here, there are plenty of out of state plates at each trailhead taking advantage of those public opportunities.

 

[tdhanses]

Hunters are but a small population of those recreating on federal lands out here in the west. In fact, hunting season in the mountains is quieter than it is with recreational users in the spring and summer. You can also ask anyone who lives out here, there are plenty of out of state plates at each trailhead taking advantage of those public opportunities.

Yeah but that is still a minority of the population.

 

[MeatInTheFreezer]

This is the map. Holy guacamole!

[UPDATE] This Map Shows The 250+ Million Acres of Public Land that Could Be Sold Under New Bill

Editor's Note: Since this article was first published, the Senate has amended the original version of this legislation to allow to sale of federal lands under grazing permits. That changed added over 130 million acres to the original total. So, the original estimation we published was 120 million...

www.themeateater.com

 

[HairyScandinavian]

It's literally a map of all property that's not a designated park or whatever. It's a clickbait tactic. Newberg and Rinella are loving all this. Lol

 

[MeatInTheFreezer]

Find your Colorado Senators here:

All Senators | Colorado General Assembly

leg.colorado.gov

 

[elkhunter505]

View attachment 895421This is the map. Holy guacamole!

[UPDATE] This Map Shows The 250+ Million Acres of Public Land that Could Be Sold Under New Bill

Editor's Note: Since this article was first published, the Senate has amended the original version of this legislation to allow to sale of federal lands under grazing permits. That changed added over 130 million acres to the original total. So, the original estimation we published was 120 million...

www.themeateater.com

I’d love if the wilderness society would randomly select parcels that add up to the amount of land that could be taken and show that in comparison to what it is now. Maybe one interspersed and one blocked together so people can get a sense of how much land it is. 3 million acres doesn’t sound like a lot in comparison to 250 million but I bet it’d look a lot bigger on a map.

 

[UTJL]

I’d love if the wilderness society would randomly select parcels that add up to the amount of land that could be taken and show that in comparison to what it is now. Maybe one interspersed and one blocked together so people can get a sense of how much land it is. 3 million acres doesn’t sound like a lot in comparison to 250 million but I bet it’d look a lot bigger on a map.

It’s roughly the size on Connecticut. It’s a massive amount of land, that will be sold without any oversight.

Whoever supports the sale of these lands, who do you think is going to benefit from this?

It won’t be your average American, like most of us. This won’t decrease our taxes or lessen the cost of housing. Corporations, other nations and the incredibly wealthy will buy these lands and use them or resell them to turn a profit.

 

[PLhunter]

Did you just equate selling 250 million acres of public land to making your pew pew quieter??

Touché sir you win

lol, not only that but a pew pew quieter that you can already make quieter. It’ll just be a bit cheaper and easier. Terrible trade. NO DEAL!

 

[PLhunter]

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.

What’s your single issue that is somehow convincing you to justify this? What issue could MiKe Lee and the GOP be so much better compared to the alternative that you’re willing to start the process of selling our public land? Which really will be a tremendous transfer of wealth from us, to the few who buy access to the sales. Like how hard is it to say. “This is ******. Stop it or I will advocate against you.”

 

[PLhunter]

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 Tapatal

Natural species who came up with nukes. Nukes are natural. Therefor we should just accept the consequences without trying to advocate for a solution that will work best for the most for the longest.

 

[PLhunter]

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.

But your house logic and analogy was perfectly sound?

Dude, we get it. You think you’re coming at this from such a nuanced and practical angle that we’re all just missing. Any analogy by us is logical fallacy. Any by you is sound.

Thing is we all get it. The housing, the debt, the balancing multiple needs and demands. We just quickly reconcile those with the situation and what the alternatives are or could be for those issues and problems that don’t require solutions that are as costly to us. We understand the logic Mike Lee is trying to sell to people. We just don’t feel the need to play devils advocate for him. It’s not a lack of understanding it’s simply having the ability to quickly trouble shoot and move on to the specific issue at hand and the pros and cons and alternatives related to that issue.

Edit: additionally, you keep bringing up slippery slope fallacy. Because you memorized your logical fallacies. However, A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy when there's a demonstrable and logical connection between the initial action and the subsequent consequences, and when the predicted outcomes are reasonably likely to occur. Mike Lees past desires for other land transfers. The fact that so much land is marked as eligible for sale. And past statements and policies by decision makers and people of political influence in this administration creates plenty of demonstrable and logical connection to potential future consequences.

 

[sasquatch]

Natural species who came up with nukes. Nukes are natural. Therefor we should just accept the consequences without trying to advocate for a solution that will work best for the most for the longest.

Whattttttt??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MeatInTheFreezer]

Find your Colorado Senators here:

All Senators | Colorado General Assembly

leg.colorado.gov

US Senators for Colorado;

Write to Michael - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet

www.bennet.senate.gov

Email John | Senator John Hickenlooper

www.hickenlooper.senate.gov

 

[elkhunter505]

Edit: additionally, you keep bringing up slippery slope fallacy. Because you memorized your logical fallacies. However, A slippery slope argument is not a fallacy when there's a demonstrable and logical connection between the initial action and the subsequent consequences, and when the predicted outcomes are reasonably likely to occur.

I’m sure this will be somewhat controversial but anyone who is going to claim the slippery slope fallacy here as a way to not be concerned about this better be consistent and be okay with universal background checks or other “common sense” gun control measures. You cannot be calling it a fallacy on one end and then turn around and vehemently use the exact same fallacy on a different issue in my mind. But I’m a hypocrite about that as well, so I don’t have a ton of room to stand. Just seems like from the outside that we’re claiming the slippery slope is a fallacy on this issue but when the argument against universal background checks, etc. is constantly the slippery slope it’s not a fallacy then.

 

[PLhunter]

I’m sure this will be somewhat controversial but anyone who is going to claim the slippery slope fallacy here as a way to not be concerned about this better be consistent and be okay with universal background checks or other “common sense” gun control measures. You cannot be calling it a fallacy on one end and then turn around and vehemently use the exact same fallacy on a different issue in my mind. But I’m a hypocrite about that as well, so I don’t have a ton of room to stand. Just seems like from the outside that we’re claiming the slippery slope is a fallacy on this issue but when the argument against universal background checks, etc. is constantly the slippery slope it’s not a fallacy then.

It’s not a fallacy if it’s not a fallacious. A slippery slope fallacy claim is only really valid when it lacks sufficient support by a demonstrable or logical connection to future consequences. All fallacy claims really try to get people to argue the point at hand using support and demonstration. There is nothing inherently logically flawed about laying out a potential series of events that can follow an action. There is though when it makes huge jumps without support. Ex: “If we reduce building regulations, next thing you know all our houses will be falling down!” Likely Slippery slope fallacy unless they can support that jump or potential jump.

There is the “fallacy of fallacy” or “argument from fallacy.” Which is where the person making the claim of fallacy in order to make themselves seem correct without actually logically arguing the issue. Ex. Person 1, “you’re an idiot! The earth isn’t hexagonal (sad, I couldn’t use flat because it may be too controversial here)! We have images from space and use the spherical model for accurate navigation! Dumbass!” Person 2: “Ad Hominem!!! You have to resort to personal attacks. That’s why I’m right and you’re wrong.” They didn’t support their hexagon earth theory the only argument they have is to claim logical fallacies by name and are not arguing the issue at hand.

So in the context of this argument many presenters feel like there is a logical argument to how this large land transfer could allow a pathway to more attempts and provide a new precedent. A slippery slope. It’s hard to argue that’s fallacious when the politicians at hand have had greater aspirations and even write into the very bill ways to expand on the land transfer. So while a slippery slope it’s not a slippery slope without some proof as to why it’s inconceivable or very unlikely to happen. Just like a hillside there are indeed some slopes truly slippery.

Also, claims of fallacy are sometimes used to address only one point of an argument without addressing logically valid other points. A perfectly reasonable and defensible opinion here could have nothing to do with slippery slope. Simply saying any transfer doesn’t have enough benefit to them or the nation to justify its cost to them or the nation is defensible. They could then choose to provide supporting information regarding why it’s not that beneficial when confronted with the arguments by the Mike Lee apologist. If the person arguing on behalf of Senator Lee just claims slippery slope fallacy when your main argument is just the direct consequences of this particular bill.