Selling roughly 3 million acres of public land to be required by updated budget bill

[Tob]

Zoom out. The entire discussion of selling public lands is a red herring, because the source of the problem is a federal government far beyond its constitutional scope and power that spends more than it takes from its citizens.

Without removing the inherently perverse incentive structures built into the governmental system,

(for example, voting for the politician who gives you the most of others’ money so you don’t have to work; basing every choice on maintaining office rather than representing your constituency; appealing to generous bribes rather than representing your constituency, etc.)

the problem will not be solved, and even if solved, will return. The 16th amendment was the beginning of the end of freedom, and the 17th and 19th only accelerated it.

Nothing will turn around in the right direction until a critical mass of the country hits rock bottom economically and support a radical change. Only then can someone like Javier Milei step up and decrease the size and scope of the government.

In other words, you have to get to “Venezuela” before you can “Argentina”.

 

[Apparition]

So you are for selling public lands for the purpose of making rich people richer?

No, I'm for selling it because I don't think the government needs to own it but I don't see how it can possibly be done without being a shit show.

 

[John Cooper]

So you are for selling public lands for the purpose of making rich people richer?

What makes them public, they are owned by the .gov. and they decide what they want to do. If tomorrow to shut it all down what can you do?

I am against the .gov owning any land at all, because it really doesn't belong to we the people due to the critters in Washington doing what they want to, because no one holds them accountable.

 

[InOmaha]

Soon all places like Moab will be high rent condos and you'll pile in the back of "off road" tour vehicles for a day at $100/person. Maybe if we are lucky they'll sell passes for $1000/week and let us go on our own.

Like everything in life. You can do anything if you have enough money.

Making everything private does not keep government out. Look at your life. It's everywhere. Car registration, licenses, property taxes, HOAs, county regs, toll roads, ..... .gov could eminent domain any of us out of our property right now and hand it over to a developer.

My guess is the more land like this becomes private, the more politics and politicians use it to negatively affect people overall. At the federal, state, and local levels.

 

[Apparition]

Soon all places like Moab will be high rent condos and you'll pile in the back of "off road" tour vehicles for a day at $100/person. Maybe if we are lucky they'll sell passes for $1000/week and let us go on our own.

Like everything in life. You can do anything if you have enough money.

Making everything private does not keep government out. Look at your life. It's everywhere. Car registration, licenses, property taxes, HOAs, county regs, toll roads, ..... .gov could eminent domain any of us out of our property right now and hand it over to a developer.

My guess is the more land like this becomes private, the more politics and politicians use it to negatively affect people overall. At the federal, state, and local levels.

Moab is already an expensive place to live.

 

[g.hayduke]

So you folks who don't like the government (aka "we the people") owning land think access to what is now public land will be improved by selling it off to billionaires?

And some of you must have drank enough Kool-Aid to believe selling off our public lands will somehow decrease the debt and/or provide affordable housing? I would really like some of whatever you gullible folks are smoking.

The management of our public lands by the federal government complies with laws passed by our elected representatives in congress. The management of private land is largely under the near-complete control of the land owner. Very little privately-owned land is accessible for outdoor recreation by the public. At nearly every public/private property boundary here in the Great American West there are signs prohibiting access to private land. Those who think selling our public lands to billionaires is a good thing must like running into locked gates and "No Trespassing" signs.

If you haven't visited any of the western states where this public land is at risk, you should do 2 things:

• Take a trip. See firsthand what is at risk.
• STFU until you have experienced the grandeur and freedom of exploring our public lands that are at risk with this Mike Lee proposal.

 

[Apparition]

No, I'm for selling it because I don't think the government needs to own it but I don't see how it can possibly be done without being a shit show.

I'm going to correct one omission above. By government I meant Federal Government. Maybe that will take a twist or two out of @g.hayduke undies.

And I'm not opposed to National Parks, I quite enjoy Yellowstone where I visited at the height of covid and all the visitors centers were closed but all the gift shops were open. I think the local state could do a better job managing what is considered a national park.

 

[Wildman]

I believe that we should have National monuments, if the states want public land then they should own it and it should be able to support itself.

Wilderness areas im not so hip on either. With them the .gov has complete control.

Here in the south east the timber companies own a ton of land. I used to pay for a permit and could hunt or ride all I wanted, till morons started tearing the land up and the companies started only leasing hunting rights to it.

THEIR LAND THEIR RULES. and that's cool. I don't mind paying to ride at a local OHV park. It's become that here in the east.


I still don't think the .gov should be a land owner, it just gives them one more thing to control and screw up.

If the states want it, then let the states buy or lease it for their.

I am a states rights person, because on the state level I have more control as a citizen than I do on a national level.

The rest was me ranting and getting off topic and I do apologize for that.

I'm for little government too but I for SURE don't think states should own a lot of this land. I'll take the federal over state at this point but I happen to live in a BLUE state that has been BLUE for 20+ years and is majority ran BLUE where if it ever happens it'll be YEARS before we're Purple again.

And yes I've lived back east and did the ORV park thing. I'm spoiled from living out west and having all this public land.

 

[Apparition]

I'm for little government too but I for SURE don't think states should own a lot of this land. I'll take the federal over state at this point but I happen to live in a RED state that has been RED for 20+ years and is majority ran RED where if it ever happens it'll be YEARS before we're Purple again.

And yes I've lived back east and did the ORV park thing. I'm spoiled from living out west and having all this public land.

What part of Washington State is red?

 

[Wildman]

What part of Washington State is red?

Damn I wrote that all wrong.. It's mostly Blue with the east side being RED...

Fixed it...

 

[Wildman]

BDR Statement on Public Land Legislation and Access Concerns​

 

[Harold&Cat]

I am the odd man out,

I don't think the feds should own any land.

I don't think someone should be able to stay in office more than 2 terms.

I think there should be no government unions.

I think all congress and senators should only make an average income and not be able to play the stock market.

Lastly if you run for an elected office you have to have already been working a real job(not a community organizer) .. pretty much always private sector job.

Our elected officials have been able to become millionaires only after a couple of terms, that's hogwash.

Agreed 100%

 

[g.hayduke]

I'm not opposed to National Parks, I quite enjoy Yellowstone where I visited

If National Parks are the only flavor of federal public lands you've visited and enjoyed, you're missing out big time. There are many, many, amazing places scattered across millions of acres of National Forest and BLM land accessible to all for FREE.

Many of these amazing places have all the features of a National Park with only 2 things missing: miles of pavement and hordes of people.

There are places in this country where you can explore for days in a vehicle, on foot, on horseback, without seeing another person. I like that and so should everybody who enjoys the freedom to explore the innumerable, amazing, remote destinations in our amazing country accessible to all for FREE.

I truly don't understand how anyone who is not positioned to personally profit could support the sale of millions or acres of our public lands. The stated purpose of the proposed sell-off is clearly bullshit.

 

[g.hayduke]

no one holds them accountable

Not true. They are all voted in or potentially voted out. That is the form of accountability we have in our democratic system. (queue election BS).

The current pathetic slate of people serving in congress were all elected by we the people. We have the government our fellow Americans voted for.

 

[Apparition]

If National Parks are the only flavor of federal public lands you've visited and enjoyed, you're missing out big time. There are many, many, amazing places scattered across millions of acres of National Forest and BLM land accessible to all for FREE.

Many of these amazing places have all the features of a National Park with only 2 things missing: miles of pavement and hordes of people.

There are places in this country where you can explore for days in a vehicle, on foot, on horseback, without seeing another person. I like that and so should everybody who enjoys the freedom to explore the innumerable, amazing, remote destinations in our amazing country accessible to all for FREE.

I truly don't understand how anyone who is not positioned to personally profit could support the sale of millions or acres of our public lands. The stated purpose of the proposed sell-off is clearly bullshit.

I grew up in the state that’s tied for the lowest amount of federal land. Zero national parks. I had 1,000’s of acres of land to utilize that was state or county owned.

Seems to me you are too bothered by this to read what I said.

I said the federal government shouldn’t own it. I also said the federal government is too corrupt and misguided to allow them to sell anything. Hence I’m saying nothing should be done.

But as a practical note they are talking about selling up to 3 million acres out of 640 million. Blue Ribbon Coalition is ok with it and they are the ones that are fighting to reverse the feds closing down access to the federal lands. They are also the ones I’ve been sending money to hoping to help them in reopening lands that were closed. I can only hope you are as well.

 

[John Cooper]

Not true. They are all voted in or potentially voted out. That is the form of accountability we have in our democratic system. (queue election BS).

The current pathetic slate of people serving in congress were all elected by we the people. We have the government our fellow Americans voted for.

That's why I live in a solid Red state, for now.

I don't know what you are talking about (election BS) state wise I got who I voted for and they are doing a decent job.

I would say Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and even got what they voted for also. Could be why those states are turning purple, but I don't live out there so I don't really know.

 

[g.hayduke]

I said the federal government shouldn’t own it. I also said the federal government is too corrupt and misguided to allow them to sell anything. Hence I’m saying nothing should be done

Exactly. I totally read all your inconsistent words.

When you say "nothing should be done", we are in complete agreement. Leave it the fuck alone and stop firing the people who work hard every day across this great land to keep it accessible and try to keep some of it unburnt.

When you say "the federal government shouldn’t own it". We completely disagree because there is no other entity who could possibly own it where freer access than the status quo is likely. And since you say access is important, again, I cannot conceive how access could possibly be better if this land falls into private ownership, as proposed.

Somebody needs to answer this question. How will selling our public lands to private entities improve access for offroad, hunting, fishing, hiking, etc.?

 

[John Cooper]

Not true. They are all voted in or potentially voted out.

Tell me why folks like Shumer, Pelosi, McConnell and Linty Graham haven't been voted out?

I'll give you a clue, money, they are making to much on the side and just do enough for their states to stay in.

 

[Apparition]

When you say "the federal government shouldn’t own it". We completely disagree because there is no other entity who could possibly own it where freer access than the status quo is likely. And since you say access is important, again, I cannot conceive how access could possibly be better if this land falls into private ownership, as proposed.

Where did I say it should all go to private ownership?

 

[Apparition]

We completely disagree because there is no other entity who could possibly own it where freer access than the status quo is likely.

Are you familiar with the 300 miles of trails recently closed by the BLM near Moab that even the state of Utah is trying to reopen? It’s really not difficult to determine who should be in charge of that land.