U.S. moves to terminate leases on public lands.

[SKIP IN7RO]

Deny Depose Delay

[old goat]

Decide

[civilcoconut]

https://www.wilderness.org/articles/...iation-package

• The bill forces the arbitrary sale of at least 2 million acres of Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands in 11 Western states over the next five years, and it gives the secretaries of the interior and agriculture broad discretion to choose which places should be sold off. This, just weeks after bipartisan outrage over land sell off text threatened passage of the House bill. That provision was ultimately removed from the House bill and should be removed from the Senate accordingly.
• The bill directs what is likely the largest single sale of national public lands in modern history to help cut taxes for the richest people in the country. It trades ordinary Americans’ access to outdoor recreation for a short-term payoff that disproportionately benefits the privileged and well-connected.

[brutah]

Fuck Mike Lee

[Blaster]

Fuck Mike Lee

Yes and call or email the living daylights out of your senators and congressional representatives.

The outdoor alliance has a form you can use that takes literally 20 seconds. https://www.outdooralliance.org/blog...of-public-land

[byates1]

I'd imagine this is fairly farfetched? Ppl on both sides will be like yeah nah.

Although I've been joking ynp is being sold to Saudi Arabia to pay off national debt

[yeahman]

Since Trump is president, why doesn't he just declare the U.S. bankrupt and screw over all our creditors? Wipe the slate clean. That's what he does with his own businesses, right? Surprised he hasn't threatened to do it.

[mcski]

There are many that fear Trump will attempt just that. Then our economy will be truly fucked and everyone’s mortgage will be underwater. Just the mention of it as a real possibility causes the markets to freak out

[byates1]

Guess I better get more trumpcoin. The only way out

[skaredshtles]

Interesting that no public lands in Montana are included...

[byates1]

Was wondering if that was a glitch. Quiet up here.

[muted reborn]

I'd imagine this is fairly farfetched? Ppl on both sides will be like yeah nah.

Its suprisingly looking possible at this point, although Id guess the terms and amount of acres will change and no its not a sure thing anything passes.

While the over the top non-profit wilderness fearmongers will lead you to believe we are putting new neighborhoods and a local Chevron in the middle of Bears Ears or your local shangri-la, most likely it will be limited to checkerboard acres near or on city limits adjacent to existing infrastructure. Then again, they are liars not to be trusted. So Im completely opposed to this and fuck mike lee and fuck Lyman and Celeste and the Sagebrush rebellion 2.0 because ultimately they want all federal land in Utah to be run by Utah and this is a great first step/lie.

[altacoup]

The majority of lands to be sold are in the PNW and California. It’s actually very surprising how few federal lands in Utah are included in the bill. Obviously they are trying to get Zinke to vote for it by not selling Montana lands. The entire GOP is fucking evil. Selling public lands and taking away healthcare to fund tax cuts for the richest people in the world. While still creating a huge add on to the debt.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[californiagrown]

Its suprisingly looking possible at this point, although Id guess the terms and amount of acres will change and no its not a sure thing anything passes. While the over the top non-profit wilderness fearmongers will lead you to believe we are putting new neighborhoods and a local Chevron in the middle of Bears Ears or your local shangri-la, most likely it will be limited to checkerboard acres near or on city limits adjacent to existing infrastructure. Then again, they are liars not to be trusted. So Im completely opposed to this and fuck mike lee and fuck Lyman and Celeste and the Sagebrush rebellion 2.0 because ultimately they want all federal land in Utah to be run by Utah and this is a great first step/lie.

I think the intent is to open up protected areas for resource extraction (mineral, fossile fuel, timber, etc), along with providing the billionaire class new opportunity to buy up vast swathes for their ranches/estates... there are currently way more people with money looking for huge acreage in the west to build a compound, than there is available, desireable land to buy. This would fix that. The obvious concern is that this would actually eliminate access to your shangri-la, because it would either now be on private property, or the trail/road access to it would be on private property... and timber sales would greatly impact the ecology and aesthetics of way more places.

On the whole this is a terrible, awful, shortsighted idea. But, if it does go through, i garauntee there will be more than a few TGR mags looking to buy up mountain acreage themselves, or to pool money into buying up large mountain acreage. It could be interesting.

[Phall]

UT inclusion has changed. They removed grazing as a protected lease in recent update yesterday. Most of UT is on the chopping block right now.

[m2711c]

I wanna buy a mountain top!

[Mofro261]

I wanna buy a mountain top!

Well Im sorry, my son, you are too late in asking. Mr Peabodys coal train has hauled it away.

[byates1]

Sent form email to my reps got form email back. Maybe I should do everything via forms and just have form comms. Forms for everything

[singlesline]

on city limits adjacent to existing infrastructure

That seems like exactly the land that is most worth protecting.

While yes, the land near dense population centers is the land that is most tempting for developers to buy and build on (especially at a chummy discount for donors...)...that's also the land that has some of the most possible recreation and environmental value.

A square of checkerboard in the middle of nowhere, maybe not a big deal. But the chunks of forest near a city? That's the most accessible type of public land. It provides places for trails, it provides greenery and helps clean the air. Not to mention habitat for animals and vegetation.

It is also the hardest type of land to replace. Once it is gone it is gone. Occasionally you get cities creating new parks from previously developed land but it is rare (and usually small and limited in scope). If they take the land and develop it, it is now developed land pretty much forever. Its not like that land will end up in the hands of a timber company or even an oil drilling company that will keep it mostly wild where it could potentially be returned to the public at some point.

[skysos]

The map looks to include forest service land that is already leased to ski resorts (and other types of operators), so normally I'd say this has a 0% chance of actually happening. But since the current executive branch seems ready to completely ignore the courts I'm terrified and enraged now. WTF?!?Take a look at the Chair 4 area of Kirkwood for example, which looks to be for sale. And most of Heavenly.

[Trackhead]

Possibly stopped via Byrd Rule?

[altacoup]

At this point an asshole like Mike Lee is just trying to sneak bs like this into the big shit pile of a bill, because they know the republicans have to do something, they’ve done absolutely nothing besides the Laken Riley act. And if they don’t get this through before the debt ceiling then they’ll really look like the morons they are because it’s doubtful they’ll get that through. Trump will demand they vote yes so scum bags like Lee see an opportunity to put crap like this in there. This has to be the worst bill to ever be considered since they’ve tried to pack all the crap into one instead of multiple bills. And if 3 democrats hadn’t died since January they wouldn’t have had the votes to get out of the house. There’s never ever been a congress that’s passed so little legislation at this point, and they have both branches of congress and the executive branch.


Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[jackstraw]

It would be ironic if Mike Lee was shot by some psycho leftist

[muted reborn]

That seems like exactly the land that is most worth protecting. While yes, the land near dense population centers is the land that is most tempting for developers to buy and build on (especially at a chummy discount for donors...)...that's also the land that has some of the most possible recreation and environmental value. A square of checkerboard in the middle of nowhere, maybe not a big deal. But the chunks of forest near a city? That's the most accessible type of public land. It provides places for trails, it provides greenery and helps clean the air. Not to mention habitat for animals and vegetation. It is also the hardest type of land to replace. Once it is gone it is gone. Occasionally you get cities creating new parks from previously developed land but it is rare (and usually small and limited in scope). If they take the land and develop it, it is now developed land pretty much forever. Its not like that land will end up in the hands of a timber company or even an oil drilling company that will keep it mostly wild where it could potentially be returned to the public at some point.

You are right to be worried about these parcels but local governments and states will protest poor choices or recommend certain parcels to develop. I can't imagine a local government cutting off access to to their local trails by selling land with a trailhead on it. But it's certainly not worth the risk to sit back and accept this bullshit.

I can't even imagine putting affordbale housing on prime land near mansions, but is this even about affordbale housing?

The map looks to include forest service land that is already leased to ski resorts (and other types of operators), so normally I'd say this has a 0% chance of actually happening. But since the current executive branch seems ready to completely ignore the courts I'm terrified and enraged now. WTF?!?Take a look at the Chair 4 area of Kirkwood for example, which looks to be for sale. And most of Heavenly.

i don't know what map you are looking at but all the maps I've seen are land that qualifies to be sold, not what land that will be sold.

[skysos]

Yes, (for sale) is not correct. (qualifies to be sold) is more accurate and its a huge distinction. I just hope it plays out that if this passes very few of these parcels will actually end up for sale.