MAP - Public Lands for Sale in US Senate Bill

[elkhunter505]

Exactly, it’s .5 to .75 of those possible acres.

Actually its 0.5 to 0.75 of the total acreage of BLM and FS land in the nation. So the total amount of land is calculated based on all of the lands in the nation rather than just the land on this map. That is from the Your Mountain podcast that was linked earlier in this or another thread. So in that case the 3 million acres that has been suggested as the number is actually closer to 1.2% of the lands pictured on this map rather than the 0.5% to 0.75% that is written in the text. They’re conveniently doing that to make the number smaller.

 

[UTJL]

Exactly, it’s .5 to .75 of those possible acres.

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

 

[PLhunter]

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.

Then maybe next time they should put in the bill the only eligible lands for sale as federally owned wildlife barren dirt lots for sale. Also, the lots sound great. Should go for a price well worth the risks. Until then we will say, “no thanks”. You’re arguing on behalf of some other fictional idealized bill. Not the one at hand.

 

[IdahoBeav]

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.

You're losing your mind at the idea of ANY land transferring from federal to private hands. You very much are simping for the feds, lol. People buy barren lots all the time and develop them. It gets ridiculous when there is a checkerboard piece of federal land adjacent to developing land. So many scream at the idea of the feds losing it, but no one ever recreates there.

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.”

This is going to come down to personal politics, but the answer to your question is that Mike Lee and the GOP are better than the alternative on almost every other issue. I could understand wanting to vote Lee out in a primary, but to act like this one issue negates all of his other work is plain foolish.

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.

You do not have any demonstrable evidence or reliably accurate forecast for Lee's or anyone else's plans or eventual outcomes involving a possible sale of federal lands. You have a bunch of extreme-scenario speculations and scare tactics from the public lands lobby, which is a career for some and involves a ton of players with other agendas beyond public lands. Ryan Busse is a prime example.

Then maybe next time they should put in the bill the only eligible lands for sale as federally owned wildlife barren dirt lots for sale. Also, the lots sound great. Should go for a price well worth the risks. Until then we will say, “no thanks”. You’re arguing on behalf of some other fictional idealized bill. Not the one at hand.

I touched on this in another comment, but yes, you are right, there are plenty of specifics to argue against, but screaming that absolutely no public lands should ever be sold and that every politician with an unfavorable position on this one issue absolutely needs to be replaced by the alternative, it's a foolish and unrealistic rant. It flies in an echo chamber like RS, but it's not a sensible conversation. Most people in this country don't hunt or use undeveloped public lands.

 

[PLhunter]

You're losing your mind at the idea of ANY land transferring from federal to private hands. You very much are simping for the feds, lol. People buy barren lots all the time and develop them. It gets ridiculous when there is a checkerboard piece of federal land adjacent to developing land. So many scream at the idea of the feds losing it, but no one ever recreates there.

This is going to come down to personal politics, but the answer to your question is that Mike Lee and the GOP are better than the alternative on almost every other issue. I could understand wanting to vote Lee out in a primary, but to act like this one issue negates all of his other work is plain foolish.

You do not have any demonstrable evidence or reliably accurate forecast for Lee's or anyone else's plans or eventual outcomes involving a possible sale of federal lands. You have a bunch of extreme-scenario speculations and scare tactics from the public lands lobby, which is a career for some and involves a ton of players with other agendas beyond public lands. Ryan Busse is a prime example.

I touched on this in another comment, but yes, you are right, there are plenty of specifics to argue against, but screaming that absolutely no public lands should ever be sold and that every politician with an unfavorable position on this one issue absolutely needs to be replaced by the alternative, it's a foolish and unrealistic rant. It flies in an echo chamber like RS, but it's not a sensible conversation. Most people in this country don't hunt or use undeveloped public lands.

You use the exact same tactics that you accuse others of and can’t see it.

“You do not have any demonstrable evidence or reliably accurate forecast for Lee's or anyone else's plans or eventual outcomes involving a possible sale of federal lands. (This in itself is a logically dubious, putting the burden of proving a future outcome with a high degree of certainty on me, which is an unreasonable burden of proof. There is plenty evidence of plans, desires, and motives for wanting more. I do not have to prove a future outcome is certain to use it to support why I think Mike Lee’s plans are worth opposing) have a bunch of extreme-scenario speculations and scare tactics from the public lands lobby (you’re labeling my ideas and exaggerating them, me saying that I think this is a bad idea already and that Mike Lee likely has greater aspirations and stating why I think that is not to any objective observer as extreme scenario speculation. Cite an example of an extreme that I’ve stated? This is a straw man. Additionally, on top of that you are trying guilty by association and tying me to a “lobby” of which I’ve not referenced or used as the basis for why I think my ideas are correct, I would have needed to use one of these personalities as the primary basis for why I was correct in order to have that relevant to the argument. Ex, I’m right on this subject because Randy Newberg agrees with me and he’s never wrong) , which is a career for some and involves a ton of players with other agendas beyond public lands. Ryan Busse is a prime example.”

You’re calling people simpletons with logically flawed arguments from a precarious position. Everyone is typing no one is screaming. You continue to try to artificially add an unreasonable element to opposing views to strengthen your argument. Because the actual content is weak if taken objectively. You tend to use best case scenarios of both intent and scale of Mike Lees proposal then accuse us of only talking worst extreme case. Yet ignore when we say that even as is we disagree with it and why we do.

 

[PLhunter]

“You're losing your mind (really what demonstrable evidence or reliable accurate forecast of his mental state do you have to say this? This is an absolute off the cuff exaggeration by you.) at the idea of ANY (really? has he mentioned ANY (whose screaming again?) no he hasn’t at all. He’s arguing this bill and what’s in it. You’re making it about ANY not him. You’re changing the argument to ANY because it’s easier to argue than the real topic at hand.) You very much are simping for the feds, lol (what’s the value of this? No substance. Simping for the feds? Could be said with equal credibility which is little that your simping for some senators and private industry. Going back and forth on accused simping is both immature and lazy). People buy barren lots all the time and develop them. (Again not on topic, we are not arguing barren lots the bill doesn’t specify barren lots, stick to the topic, and also he never made mention to opposing the sale of barren lots straw man again) It gets ridiculous when there is a checkerboard piece of federal land adjacent to developing land. (Cool, again show me where this is the target of the bill and how this will be the outcome of this bill we oppose, I don’t see it) So many scream (you’re appealing to emotion more than anyone here) at the idea of the feds losing it, but no one ever recreates there. (Where in the bill is this “there” you’re using? We are going off the potential map, I see a lot of “there” that people do recreate in, to us it’s simply not worth the risk that they pick the wrong there. Several million acres is a whole lot of there to make a statement about what goes on “there”. You’re arguing again on behalf of selling barren lots that no one uses. Which will be a great argument to have when/if a bill comes up that says that your “there” is the “there”. Until then our simpleton minds have made that risks assessment about the potential “there” based on the given information and said nope not enough benefit to risk)” -idahobeav

 

[elkhunter505]

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.

For anyone that may be a GIS whiz and is interested in this. I attempted to do this but my computer is not powerful enough. The shapefiles that they put up as open source data were collapsed into state specific pieces rather than leaving each individual polygon out. My computer could not grid it out in a reasonable amount of time to be able to do this. I was going to grid it to 1 square mile patches and then randomly sample them to show how much it would be visually. The data is available at the end of the article here.

 

[PLhunter]

For anyone that may be a GIS whiz and is interested in this. I attempted to do this but my computer is not powerful enough. The shapefiles that they put up as open source data were collapsed into state specific pieces rather than leaving each individual polygon out. My computer could not grid it out in a reasonable amount of time to be able to do this. I was going to grid it to 1 square mile patches and then randomly sample them to show how much it would be visually. The data is available at the end of the article here.

Whoa dude stop screaming!? Kidding. That’s cool. What you’re trying to do is provide visual representation to what the potential for the bill as is would do? Right? Not some worst case scenario. Just looking for a way to visualize some objective information regarding the bill as is?

 

[CoMulies]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935711612029239350

Seems that Trump is very much in the know on the issue

 

[PLhunter]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1935711612029239350

Seems that Trump is very much in the know on the issue

It’s funny because there are ways to test this hypothesis and figure out the limiting reagent.

For one simply evaluate what buildable land is available. Is the non federally managed land all used up? Is there nowhere else to build? Is it the limiting factor in affordable housing?

Two, test and see whether home prices or cost are higher near public lands vs where private land is available for development. Isolating for other factors (education, employment, etc. waiting for idahobeav to pick Jackson as an example and some southern town)

Three, are housing and life outcomes for Americans better in areas surrounded by private lands vs public lands? How and why? Does it make us greater in the long run?

That should give you some idea as to whether or not the transfer of these lands is worth the cost. Will it accomplish the goal of cheap housing? Is housing cheap away from public lands? Is the availability of buildable space the reason why?

I think the answers matter. I have a sneaking suspicion that affordable housing is an excuse for another objective. But man if those criteria show a true real need that is worth the risk and cost. Then it’s time to consider.

 

[Dos Perros]

It’s funny because there are ways to test this hypothesis and figure out the limiting reagent.

For one simply evaluate what buildable land is available. Is the non federally managed land all used up? Is there nowhere else to build? Is it the limiting factor in affordable housing?

Two, test and see whether home prices or cost are higher near public lands vs where private land is available for development. Isolating for other factors (education, employment, etc. waiting for idahobeav to pick Jackson as an example and some southern town)

Three, are housing and life outcomes for Americans better in areas surrounded by private lands vs public lands? How and why? Does it make us greater in the long run?

That should give you some idea as to whether or not the transfer of these lands is worth the cost. Will it accomplish the goal of cheap housing? Is housing cheap away from public lands? Is the availability of buildable space the reason why?

I think the answers matter. I have a sneaking suspicion that affordable housing is an excuse for another objective. But man if those criteria show a true real need that is worth the risk and cost. Then it’s time to consider.

4) kill the clock by coming up with answers to these endless questions, and ultimately step 5
5) do nothing

 

[PLhunter]

4) kill the clock by coming up with answers to these endless questions, and ultimately step 5
5) do nothing

As opposed to just making a decision that doesn’t achieve the desired benefit and we lose something for nothing? Also, they ended at three, which is a high number, but far from endless. Doing nothing might be the best option.

Not seeing the value proposition in this particular federal government. Keep paying the same and getting less and less for it.

 

[elkhunter505]

Whoa dude stop screaming!? Kidding. That’s cool. What you’re trying to do is provide visual representation to what the potential for the bill as is would do? Right? Not some worst case scenario. Just looking for a way to visualize some objective information regarding the bill as is?

Yes I was just going to sample out 3 million and see what it looked like in a couple different configurations. I think the thing some folks are missing here is they seem to think it 0.5 to 0.75% of the land in their state that can be sold, but I think based on what I see that there is no provision for the amount of land that can be sold in each state. I mean hell, 3 million acres is literally 1/5 of the land available for sale in Wyoming. That’s an insane amount of land. There’s already a process for this and we want them to follow it rather than go around it. I’m not sure anyone is dying over the inner city parcels, it’s the process itself and the amount.

 

[sasquatch]

Most politicians are pretty much brain dead and can’t come up with much real solutions to problems themselves. They ONLY know how to take more, more being whatever they choose. Generally it’s taxes, but now it’s our assets.

Which then leads me to wonder, what lobbyist is pushing them for this and really came up with the idea?? That will answer the question of what this is really about


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Poser]

Which then leads me to wonder, what lobbyist is pushing them for this and really came up with the idea?? That will answer the question of what this is really about

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

 

[Dos Perros]

Yes I was just going to sample out 3 million and see what it looked like in a couple different configurations. I think the thing some folks are missing here is they seem to think it 0.5 to 0.75% of the land in their state that can be sold, but I think based on what I see that there is no provision for the amount of land that can be sold in each state. I mean hell, 3 million acres is literally 1/5 of the land available for sale in Wyoming. That’s an insane amount of land. There’s already a process for this and we want them to follow it rather than go around it. I’m not sure anyone is dying over the inner city parcels, it’s the process itself and the amount.

What is the process for the inner city parcels? Why isn't it being used?

 

[huntsd]

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

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

 

[mostlybirch]

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.

Extractive industries on public lands aren't the favorite of hunters, but I will highlight that just in the State of Nevada (>80% of land area managed by feds), in 2019 $260M was spent on mineral exploration alone. I say this to point out the multi-use aspect of public land, BLM in particular. The ability of these "barren lands" to generate mining, O&G, recreation, hunting, etc. revenue for local communities is immense.

 

[PLhunter]

What is the process for the inner city parcels? Why isn't it being used?

https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/lup/63197/78293/88633/Appendix06_Disposal-Criteria.pdf

It is used. Every year land that meets the existing disposal criteria and goes through the process is disposed. I’ll try to come up with a number example but it is indeed used. It’s just tough to find overall numbers but area specific numbers are available.

Edit: trying to find a better source but for now: “In the 10-year period between 2014 and 2023, 1.08 million acres of land were sold or transferred and 291,400 acres acquired for a net decline of about 800,000 acres in BLM land holdings, a mere 0.3 percent of total BLM land.”

 

[PLhunter]

What is the process for the inner city parcels? Why isn't it being used?

Truth is, they know damn well what processes already exist to get the lands that qualify for the criteria that they and allies like Idahobeaver are selling to the public that they are after. “Barren, useless, locked up, no benefit etc..” Reality is, this bill isn’t to go after those lands, they can get them anyway, it’s to expand on it and transfer more valuable assets to private parties. At the discretion of development and business minded political appointees. Hard to see this as being a net positive for the people.