Senate vote public lands sale



This should get some reaction

Speaking strictly for Northern Nevada, which I know extremely well, the map listed within that article is a much more accurate representation of the land eligible to be identified for sale than any other map I’ve seen. That said it’s still missing a few hundred acres close by where I live that I know BLM has wanted to sell off for several years but that’s a minor thing in comparison to other maps posted in this and other threads.

Here’s a direct link to the Wilderness Society map @LostArra posted:

https://wilderness.maps.arcgis.com/...x.html?appid=821970f0212d46d7aa854718aac42310
 
A couple more things, I contacted NV’s two democratic senators and the Republican representative and heard back from the two democrats but not from the Republican (Mark Amodie). Amodie has made appearances and portrayed himself as a supporter of Nevada based hunting NGOs in the past but was one of the representatives who pushed the bill through the house before it was modified in the senate.

The other thing I’ve noticed is the groups such as RMEF, Wilderness Society and Backcountry Hunters and Anglers are actively opposing this but those same groups seem to get more criticism than love on these forums.
 
I contacted Senate Majority Leader John Thune today. I’d recommend everyone do the same.

John Thune, like him or not is an avid hunter apparently. He is likely to be sympathetic to our opposition to this, and if not that, will understand how much of a political fumble it is for the GOP to piss off a bunch of hunters that usually lean more to the right.

I made it clear that if this stays in the bill, I will be staying home next November.
 
I contacted Senate Majority Leader John Thune today. I’d recommend everyone do the same.

John Thune, like him or not is an avid hunter apparently. He is likely to be sympathetic to our opposition to this, and if not that, will understand how much of a political fumble it is for the GOP to piss off a bunch of hunters that usually lean more to the right.

I made it clear that if this stays in the bill, I will be staying home next November.

Thanks for posting. I just contacted him as well.
 
So can someone explain what was amended yesterday if they know? If not, I’ll delve into it after work. The Wilderness Society map has now 250 million acres eligible rather the 120 million originally. Map says it was updated as of June 16th based on the text of the bill.

 
So can someone explain what was amended yesterday if they know? If not, I’ll delve into it after work. The Wilderness Society map has now 250 million acres eligible rather the 120 million originally. Map says it was updated as of June 16th based on the text of the bill.


I don’t know what, if anything changed in the bill but I don’t think that had any impact on the maps you’re seeing. I thought the previous maps were garbage. IMO and from someone who’s lived in the state with the highest percentage of Federal land and also someone whose home of the last 20+ years is surrounded by BLM, the Wilderness Society map is simply a more accurate representation of the land eligible to be identified for sale than any other map I’ve seen posted on this or any other thread.

Also, it seems many posting on this thread are under the impression that all the land shown on some of the maps will be sold which isn’t even close to reality if the bill passed. Either that or they are just prone to hyperbole and like stirring the pot.
 
Your entire argument depends on people not understanding development and going along with you. Every voter in the country should familiarize themselves with it, although the sources of federal information that used to be reliable and informative has been censored, altered, deleted and now only talks the party line. Dig deeper into affordable housing.

You’re not really telling the whole story are you. The Trump budget will slash the HUD budget by almost half and essentially do away with many of the tax incentives for low income housing. You know, the tax incentives that have been the backbone of developing new affordable multi family. The part you don’t even mention.

So if developers get free land and the tax incentives go away, are the developers going to subsidize rent out of the goodness of their hearts? No, they will say it’s not their fault the tax incentives went away and claim there is no choice but to rent at market rates. Who benefits? The developers.

The entire budget is gamed for the benefit of the top 10% at the expense of the bottom 90% and the crazy thing is how many people in that 90% voted for it. Stop voting for oligarchs. Stop believing oligarchs are here to help you.
Every tax cut is a good thing. Money is far more beneficial remaining in the private sector than the public. The budget and deficit are due to overspending. Until spending is corrected, there will be a problem. Regardless of how much is taken on taxes and which party is in control, the government has overspent. Anything and everything within government needs to be cut and slashed, and HUD is near the top of the list of departments that need to go.

The market rate for rent on multi family housing is far less than most other options. Creating more multifamily housing benefits everyone.

FYI, when you use the term "oligarch", most people don't take your message seriously. They think of an 83 year old man that has been in Washington for almost 35 years and has never had a real job in his entire life.

Stop believing the government is here to help you.
 
The office of the vice president is another good thing to try and reach out to.

Whether you like JD Vance or not, he holds a lot of sway in the Senate and has a much more populist/working class worldview than most Republicans. He’s also shown an ability to adapt his views with new and changing information.

I know he mentioned selling public lands as a solution to the housing crisis during the debates, but I think of enough people reach out and can articulate why and how this is a bad idea and not a solution to that, not to mention massively unpopular, I think he can be swayed.

Selling public land isn’t some fundamental belief of his like it is Mike Lee.
 
I don’t know what, if anything changed in the bill but I don’t think that had any impact on the maps you’re seeing. I thought the previous maps were garbage. IMO and from someone who’s lived in the state with the highest percentage of Federal land and also someone whose home of the last 20+ years is surrounded by BLM, the Wilderness Society map is simply a more accurate representation of the land eligible to be identified for sale than any other map I’ve seen posted on this or any other thread.

Also, it seems many posting on this thread are under the impression that all the land shown on some of the maps will be sold which isn’t even close to reality if the bill passed. Either that or they are just prone to hyperbole and like stirring the pot.
Alright. Yeah I understand that nowhere near that much is on the block, but give an inch and they take a mile is my thought. My best deer spot is on there along with tons of good barbary sheep spots I’ve hunted.
 
I contacted Senate Majority Leader John Thune today. I’d recommend everyone do the same.

John Thune, like him or not is an avid hunter apparently. He is likely to be sympathetic to our opposition to this, and if not that, will understand how much of a political fumble it is for the GOP to piss off a bunch of hunters that usually lean more to the right.

I made it clear that if this stays in the bill, I will be staying home next November.
Sen. Thune is probably the last person that would vote in opposition. I mean any comments help, so I am not trying to dissuade anyone from giving input. Sen Thune got his job in the Senate because the Adninistration picked him to shove this Bill down our throats in short order. The Feds own only 5% of the land in SD. South Dakota has the best private land recruitment programs in the US. So far they have recruited 1.3 million acres of private land for public hunting access. No public land is on the chopping block in South Dakota. Montana is also exempt.

Actually, the public land sales provision does not need to be voted on by the natural resources committee. The entire bill as a whole could be voted on by the budget committee. I am not aware of any republican senators in opposition to the public land sales provision. More likely than not, the Bill will go back to the House with the provision intact. Then Rep Zinke would have to lead the pack once again to get the provision stripped from the Bill. I can tell you with a fair amount of certainty that Johnson will peddle the snake oil. I am just trying to be a realist here.
 
The office of the vice president is another good thing to try and reach out to.

Whether you like JD Vance or not, he holds a lot of sway in the Senate and has a much more populist/working class worldview than most Republicans. He’s also shown an ability to adapt his views with new and changing information.

I know he mentioned selling public lands as a solution to the housing crisis during the debates, but I think of enough people reach out and can articulate why and how this is a bad idea and not a solution to that, not to mention massively unpopular, I think he can be swayed.

Selling public land isn’t some fundamental belief of his like it is Mike Lee.
JD holds the deciding vote in the Senate. He does not believe in a Democracy or public lands for that matter. His philosophy appears to be that city states own everything and all city states are to be ruled by a King who is the CEO of the entire mess. He is NRX (Curtis Yarvin and Steven Thiel). Their idea is that if you don’t like what is going on in a “City State” then you vote with your feet and move out. Besides all of that, he will never vote against the reconciliation bill no matter what is in the Bill.
 
One of the most irksome things I keep seeing in this debate is the bias that assumes the land is irredeemably mismanaged by the feds, as if selling the land to developers or foreign interests means the land would be managed better. The issue with the sale of these lands is not about management. It's about access, and privatization will severely limit that for the average American.

Another comment has been made about resident vs non-resident stake in public lands given supposedly waning opportunity in the West for non-resident hunters. I think this is arguable and depends on your definition of "opportunity", but even so I would oppose these land sales on the principle of access alone whether I can get a tag or not. Even if hunting was off the table, I would still want to preserve access to land in all the western states to hike, camp, and pass on an appreciation of our natural world to my kids.
 
Seems relevant as Daines is on the committee. Here is his response. It’s canned as I have gotten the same response multiple times since this all started.


Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to selling federal public lands. As a fifth generation Montanan and an avid outdoorsman, access to Montana's public lands is important to our way of life and our state's heritage. I spent much of my youth backpacking in the Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness and want to preserve Montana's unparalleled natural beauty so my children and grandchildren can do the same. Let me first stress that I do not support the mass transfer or sale of federal public lands to state or private ownership. Further, I do not support reducing Montanans' access to our public lands. Montana's public lands are an important part of our state's heritage, our economy, and our way of life.

As you may know, I championed the passage of the Great American Outdoors Act, which provides permanent, dedicated funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) program and addresses the deferred maintenance backlog on our public lands. The LWCF is a critical conservation tool that has expanded public access to public lands, addressed checkerboard land ownership patterns, and increased sportsmen and recreation opportunities.

I also believe we need to do a better job managing our federal lands, however. The worsening health of Montana's forests has resulted in increased risk of catastrophic wildfires. The economies in our forested counties are suffering and have some of the highest unemployment rates in Montana due to the dramatic decrease in timber harvest on federal lands. I will continue to work across party lines in order to cut unnecessary red tape, eliminate frivolous litigation, create good-paying timber jobs, and give the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) the tools needed to protect our communities from deadly wildfires. As a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources which has jurisdiction over federal land management and forestry issues, please know that I will keep your views in mind as I work both to ensure that Montana's natural heritage is preserved and to protect livelihoods that rely on access to our lands.

Again, thanks for contacting me. It is my number one priority in the Senate to represent the values and interests of the people of Montana, and your input is very helpful as I do. I invite you to visit my website, www.daines.senate.gov, for updates about activities in Washington that affect our lives in Montana or to contact me. I look forward to hearing from you again in the future.
 
^ like I said earlier, not including Montana (on the first round of sales) gives Daines and Sheehy some protection and could easily have been orchestrated that way.

I'm going to leave a message for each of them via the telephone number that was posted saying I don't want any public lands sold period.
 
JD holds the deciding vote in the Senate. He does not believe in a Democracy or public lands for that matter. His philosophy appears to be that city states own everything and all city states are to be ruled by a King who is the CEO of the entire mess. He is NRX (Curtis Yarvin and Steven Thiel). Their idea is that if you don’t like what is going on in a “City State” then you vote with your feet and move out. Besides all of that, he will never vote against the reconciliation bill no matter what is in the Bill.
The only thing about this that seems to be based in facts or reality is the first sentence.

I’ve been in and around Republican politics for a long time. Being anti-public land is not some deeply held tenet of most on the right. I won’t argue that it is a sentiment held by some on the right, but the majority of GOP voters I know deeply value public land.

There is a reason Mike Lee had to pull some shady bullshit to get this into the bill in the first place.

This is one of the most bipartisan issues left in America. There is simply zero downside of reminding JD Vance, or anyone for that matter that that is the case.

The one thing all of them care more about than selling public lands is winning elections and staying in power.
 
Back
Top