https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar...mpts-backlash/
Anyone else concerned about this?
https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar...mpts-backlash/
Anyone else concerned about this?
No.......... but I plan on buying as much as I can.
40 acres and a mule.
-John
I want to read the bill for myself. I haven't trusted "The Hill" for years.
I'm not sure but I think it's probably the typical hair-on-fire histrionics promoted across the leftist media and the environmental community. In many ways I'm connected to that community and am concerned that the proposed bill could be used inappropriately to offer public lands that should be protected for the public. But the bill cover only 3 million acres, and so much .gov land shouldn't be locked up and unproductive for society. Take for instance the huge tracts of BLM land on the west slope, much of it barren, some of it viable farmland, that can't be used productively. Three million acres is a drop in the bucket of the federal lands. Much reform needs to happen with these lands.
It would be nice to be able to buy some at reasonable prices
The Utah reps and senators have been trying to get this in to every budget bill that has come through in the last two decades. It gets voted out every time.
As for being concerned about it, eventually it may pass. As for what we can do about it, I'm pretty sure that none of the Colorado reps or senators both reps and dems are on board with this so there isn't really anyone for a concerned Coloradan to contact, they're already on your side.
I have news for you, it will not be sold to regular old citizens, if anyone is behind this thinking that they finally just might be able to buy an acre in the woods to call their own they are greatly mistaken.. It will be sold to corporations or sold in large swaths to the highest bidder. The Waltons, Malones, Turners and Kroenkes of the world will be the beneficiaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by DDT951
I completely oppose the sale of vast tracts of public land used for recreation and conservation.
I completely support selling specific tracts of land that "make sense" due to nearby or surrounding utilization. A section of BLM that is surrounded by development and has little to no intrinsic value to the public, but could be highly useful to the local area for housing or other infrastructure.
The Fed already controls approximately 40% of all land in the US, I don't really have a problem with taking some of the land (and control) from them govt. I wonder how much each state controls beyond that... maybe this is cause for celebration.
I can see each state redistributing funds to purchasing land they can't afford.
The part that has always kinda baffled me with federal land is PILT funding. Just feels like another back door tax scheme.
This was nuked by the senate rulemaker by the way, so not happening.
In the future, something to remember is even if it's 1% of 0.5% of federal lands, that's not random. There would be zero acres sold in the butthole of Nevada.
What would be sold is the prime and proftable tracks in national forest, adjacent to national parks, adjacent to good development areas (Grand Junction, Montrose, Salt Lake, etc.), likely prime free camping locations, etc...
It isn't going to be 40 acres of cheap land you or I could buy, it would be the Federal land that people with lobbying $ REALLY BADLY WANT. Things like, for instance, land adjacent to the Tetons. Or prime riverfront, waterfalls, campsites, caves, who knows. Things that real $ buys, not paltry peasant salaries.
Happy for that. My feelings echo yours. Too much corruption. I wrote to our esteemed (sic) senators before I posted this and only Bennet replied,Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxtArt
Well... nobody really talks about this much, but between the national debt, federal budget deficit, bailouts, superbills, and Biden running the money presses 24/7 during COVID, the economy is bankrupt. We just kinda sorta pretend it's not.Quote:
Originally Posted by William
One thing I hear from various people online is that this would help pay off the national debt but what is overlooked in Lee's proposal is that this land isn't being sold by the Federal Government to the end buyer, it is being given to State and Local Governments who in turn would be the agencies doing the final sale. What does this mean? The release of Federal land to the States does nothing to pay towards the National Debt.
Here's Lee's own quote on this issue: "“Washington has proven time and again it can’t manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands,” Lee said last Thursday."
Lee and other Utah Senetors and Reps have been pushing this for years as a means to help put more money in the pockets of their local land developers.
All very true and valid comments about why this was a VERY bad idea.
To these comments, I will add this: American citizens get the enjoyment of the land while it's under federal management. Once this land converts to some other ownership/management, NONE of us will ever be able to enjoy this land.
Considering we are not being allowed to use OUR land without permission….sell it.
Reality check:
If we sell significant chunks of public land (or all of it, as UT would prefer), then we can have the vast majority of people grow up strictly inside the confines of public/low income housing, with even more relying only upon electronic media and substances for enjoyment, never venturing past a public park (usually just to procure substances from the transients living there).
The very few that can afford to pay the sky-high recreation fees imposed by the companies rich enough to lobby for the sale (so they could acquire all the desireable tracts and charge sky high fees). The upper class will appreciate that all those middle-and-low class dregs can't disturb their hiking trails, and will enjoy power walking with their poodle, fifi.
Regular joes will not have bought any of the "public land".
This is one of many ways the right can shoot themselves in the foot.
I have never seen an inner city youth or public transportation at a wilderness trailhead.
National forest users are overwhelmingly middle aged white people.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/defaul...ary-Report.pdf. pages 14,15
I doubt any "rich company" buying land will be doing so to impose access fees to the few recreational users. Rather they will buy land to make real money by extracting oil, minerals or timber.
True, it will be unaccessible by the public so the end is the same but I disagree with your premise.
This afternoon we were noticing how much haze (smoke) was in the air. We have a really nice view from the trap club and can see the mountains. Not so well today....Quote:
Originally Posted by eddiememphis
A big reason we have such big fires is because of USDA "management." That is they let trees grow and sell the lumber permits to big companies. I'm playing devil's advocate here, but what would happen if the land did belong to the companies? Who would be responsible for fire management if one occurred? Would private ownership impact grazing rights? What about road maintenance? Gas/oil as well as timber currently use public roads. Would the companies manage those as well? I'm sure the bean counters in the big companies have ideas. What's the consensus on projected revenue from land sales versus use fees?
Just thoughts. I'm not picking on you, I agree with you. This is a very complex issue.
Who's responsible for fires?
The landowner. Always has been. Big timber companies like Weyerhaeuser manage their own land, have fire crews, and pay into state fire protection. They don’t rely on the feds. Weyerhaeuser alone owns and manages over 12 million acres now. The USFS manages 193 million acres and their firefighting capacity is responsible for fighting them. Their crews are underfunded and undermanned as we see every summer.
Grazing rights?
Up to the owner. Some leases would expire, some would continue, some renegotiated. Nothing new there. There is no right to run cattle or sheep on public land to carry over.
Public roads?
Still public. Land ownership doesn’t change road status. Forest Service roads are different but the State and County roads stay open.
Revenue: land sales vs use fees?
Hard to say, but land sales likely bring more upfront. Recreation fees barely cover maintenance. Campgrounds are closing in much of the NF because of lack of funds. Same with trails.
And the “USDA sells trees to big companies” thing?
Wrong direction. The real issue is they don’t cut enough. Thanks to decades of fire suppression and lawsuits, public lands are overgrown tinderboxes. Big timber mostly harvests their own land now — they avoid federal red tape like the plague.
Don't get me wrong. There is a need for public land that is managed by the government. I am a user and have visited every NF in Colorado and Utah. But I have always said to enjoy it while you can because closures are inevitable due to budget short falls, user conflicts and ever present lawsuits from certain groups that want to limit access.
The headlines that screamed "250+ Million Acres To Be Sold" were bullshit. The actual number was 3.3 million acres and BLM land was included in that.
I definitely don't want developers to get a hold of it, and the gov can't be trusted to not abuse power resulting in the people who own it losing access to use it. So basically we'll get screwed no mater what is done with it.