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

[freedom_in_4low]

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

Is there anything in the bill keeping it from going to private ownership? There are plenty of billionaires with money to throw around ...most states aren't running a big budget surplus.

My expectation is that the majority ends up with a billionaire sitting on it and keeping everybody out, or land developers that will ruin it to build strip malls and 2000 copies of the same 4 houses in every square mile. I'm not ok with that even if it's land that I don't currently use for something.

 

[Apparition]

Is there anything in the bill keeping it from going to private ownership? There are plenty of billionaires with money to throw around ...most states aren't running a big budget surplus.

My expectation is that the majority ends up with a billionaire sitting on it and keeping everybody out, or land developers that will ruin it to build strip malls and 2000 copies of the same 4 houses in every square mile. I'm not ok with that even if it's land that I don't currently use for something.

I’ll quote what I posted from BRC on page 1

We have also consistently supported small-scale land transfers, exchanges, sales, and disposals that convert lands with little — if any — recreation value to other uses. The Lee proposal is modeled after a law introduced and passed by Democratic lawmakers called the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), which made 2.3% of the 3 million acres managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management available to sell specifically for housing. We have monitored the land sales proposed through this act, and they have been overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.

Because the risk to recreation access is high with this proposal, we’ve been analyzing the language in this bill and speaking with our members, officials in rural western communities where housing is a top priority, and policy experts. Other organizations have used this time to push a misleading narrative. Many of the maps and articles being shared about this proposal fail to recognize the protections written into this bill that would prevent the vast majority of lands with recreation value from being considered. The proposal excludes all federal land with a designation (like national parks, national monuments, national recreation areas, wilderness, etc.). It excludes lands with valid existing rights which will protect grazing leases and mining claims. It requires prioritizing lands next to already developed areas or orphaned parcels. The consultation requirements and right of first refusal for local governments is a strong guardrail that is often left out of other mass disposal policies. Most importantly to BRC and its members, the proposal excludes lands with an existing right-of-way, which protects many of our backcountry roads and trails. It is also clear that if this proposal becomes law, the policy will move forward with extensive public input, and the maps of what land is actually available for sale will be determined through a public process.

This proposal clearly defines recreation protections to safeguard access more than any other mass disposal policy we have seen. Yet, we are committed to protecting every inch of valuable recreation access to our public lands. Many have expressed concerns that the scope of the proposal is too large, the timeline for disposal is too rushed, the hard acreage requirement for sale is too rigid, and it isn’t clear which lands will ultimately be affected until the agencies identify which lands are available to sell. We are communicating these concerns to Senator Lee’s office, and we have let them know that these concerns must be addressed for BRC to support this proposal.

 

[BlackJeep23]

Guess you better elect a better governor

As long as the LDS church (which is who would buy most of the land in Utah) controls the state, that won't happen.

 

[John Cooper]

As long as the LDS church (which is who would buy most of the land in Utah) controls the state, that won't happen.

Well y'all do have Mittens Romney out there.

 

[Wildman]

This is from a group I belong to on Facebook called Forest Access for All

Forest Access For All​

A heated debate is currently unfolding across the country over whether public lands should be sold off for private use. It's an emotional topic with strong feelings on both sides. At Forest Access For All (FAFA), we too feel the tension—especially when we see federal bureaucrats treating public lands as if they were private property, closing off access through road decommissioning, gates, and other restrictions without public input.
We’re left asking a simple but profound question: If access to public lands can be restricted so easily, were they ever truly public domain to begin with?
Before 1905, when the U.S. Forest Service was established, these lands were unquestionably part of the public domain—open to all. When the idea of creating National Forest Reserves was first proposed, our ancestors were assured that access and traditional use of the land would remain protected. But fast forward 120 years, and what do we see? Roads decommissioned, trails obliterated, and historical routes erased—not to protect the land, but to fulfill the ideals of individuals who seldom set foot in these forests.
We should take a lesson from Indian Country, where tribal communities learned long ago how hollow the promises from Washington, D.C. could be. History has shown a pattern of government speaking with a forked tongue—offering reassurances while advancing policies that contradict them. Today’s debate is no different. Some policymakers claim to champion public access, yet they quietly support restrictions that serve their own values or personal interests, treating public lands as if they own them.
To us, public lands are a shared treasure. They exist to sustain communities—whether for recreation, subsistence, or spiritual connection. We believe in the right of the people to access and benefit from these lands openly and freely. Either public lands are truly public, open to all, or they are not. If they are to be regulated as if privately held, then let’s be honest about what they’ve become—no longer the public domain our forebears were promised.
That is why FAFA continues to call for the full rescission of the 2005 Travel Management Rule and the Roadless Rule. These policies, though couched in environmental language, are at the core of the problem. They enable unelected agency staff to restrict motorized access to vast areas of our national forests—often without the consent or meaningful involvement of local communities. These very rules are driving the same access restrictions that many legislators now claim to oppose, creating a contradiction between political rhetoric and federal land management actions.
Public lands should reflect the principles they were founded on: openness, shared stewardship, and access for all. The current path dishonors those promises and undermines the very idea of public land.