The part that has always kinda baffled me with federal land is PILT funding. Just feels like another back door tax scheme.
Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
Welcome to the Colorado AR-15 Shooters Club Discussion Forums.
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.
Last edited by FoxtArt; 06-25-2025 at 12:10.
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,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.
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.
Ginsue - Admin
Proud Infidel Since 1965
"You can't spell genius without Ginsue." -Ray1970, Apr 2020
Ginsue's Feedback
Considering we are not being allowed to use OUR land without permission….sell it.
If you want peace, prepare for war.
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.
Last edited by FoxtArt; 08-02-2025 at 10:48.
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....
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote