120 million acres of public lands eligible for sale in SENR budget reconciliation package

[Ptglhs]

It seems totally reasonable to me. I mean, if people wanted to access thess lands then clearly they should have been born rich. It really is the fault of the poor people for being poor. The rich are just superior humans: they're stronger, smarter, and better. We all need to learn our place. Clearly they should be able to buy land, close off access, and not build houses or ranches or mines on that property. It's okay to hurt other people as long as you have money.

Or at least that's argument the social darwinists on this site constantly make. "I never thought the leopards would eat MY face," cry the people who voted for the 'leopards eating people's faces' party.

[k_fergie]

Does anyone have a downloadable file (KML, JSON, etc.) of what is available for sale that they can send to me? I am a complete ArcGIS noob and can't seem to figure out how to download the layers in the linked maps above. I'm in making some maps of this in Caltopo.

[k_fergie]

Does anyone have a downloadable file (KML, JSON, etc.) of what is available for sale that they can send to me? I am a complete ArcGIS noob and can't seem to figure out how to download the layers in the linked maps above. I'm in making some maps of this in Caltopo.

Nvm, found it on dropbox. Files are seemingly too large for Caltopo to handle, though.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/smwyjbbw ... ajlmw11m93

[maff]

A quick update: an exemption was removed, so the total amount of land eligible for sale is now up to 250 million acres (previously 120 million). There is 640 million acres of public land in the US total, so roughly 40% of public land would be eligible for sale under this current proposal.

https://wessiler.substack.com/p/lee-dai ... dium=email

[seano]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned that is Montana is fully excluded from this proposal. This is 100% an attempt to appease Ryan Zinke and possibly others (R-MT, former Sec of Interior) who has been pretty unequivocal he is a no vote on any sale of public land, and who killed a similar proposal for only Utah and Nevada in the house.

Well I'll be darned... I seemed to remember Zinke, in addition to being a wack-a-doodle, cutting off some public land in the Crazies for one of his friends while he was Secretary of the Interior, but maybe he feels which way the wind blows: https://flatheadbeacon.com/2024/02/21/z ... transfers/

Anyways, selling off USFS and BLM land seems likely to be a giveaway to people who can afford the ridiculous "hunting lodges" you find in rural Wyoming and west of the Never Summers, though I haven't looked at the parcels for sale. I don't remember there being a lot of USFS/BLM land bike/bus distance of most Front Range cities. Rezone Jefferson County for five-story apartments and we'd be in business.

[LURE]

It's an enormous amount of land eligible to be sold - google says it would be 250 million acres eligible. The current proposal now seems to stand at up to 3.3 million acres across the west will be sold if the senate amendment passes as is. Montana is now excluded to try and win over the votes of the montana delegation. Obviously it's 3.3 million of that 250 million and, sure, your favorite spot might not disappear, but the cat would be out of the bag and precedent set. Any acre sold under this proposal anywhere is an acre too many.

Hammer your reps, both house and senate, as much as you can on this no matter who you are and where you live. It has to go back to the house and the house public lands caucus can in theory garner the R votes needed to stop this. With so many huge priorities in this bill, some of the house R's seem unlikely to die on this hill, but the more we hammer them, the ones who do care about public lands may be willing to put their foot down.

[dwoodward13]

The current proposal now seems to stand at up to 3.3 million acres across the west will be sold if the senate amendment passes as is. Montana is now excluded to try and win over the votes of the montana delegation. Obviously it's 3.3 million of that 250 million and, sure, your favorite spot might not disappear, but the cat would be out of the bag and precedent set. Any acre sold under this proposal anywhere is an acre too many.

I think its important to note here the 3.3 million acres is the *requirement* to be sold but *not* the limit. As best I can tell there is no limit outside of course of the balance of the lands held minus exclusions like designated national parks and wilderness areas.


Edit:correction below

[LURE]

I think its important to note here the 3.3 million acres is the *requirement* to be sold but *not* the limit. As best I can tell there is no limit outside of course of the balance of the lands held minus exclusions like designated national parks and wilderness areas.

I believe it's at least 0.5% and up to 0.75% of all eligible BLM and USFS land. I think 3.3 million is that 0.75%.

[dwoodward13]

I think its important to note here the 3.3 million acres is the *requirement* to be sold but *not* the limit. As best I can tell there is no limit outside of course of the balance of the lands held minus exclusions like designated national parks and wilderness areas.

I believe it's at least 0.5% and up to 0.75% of all eligible BLM and USFS land. I think 3.3 million is that 0.75%.

Found the text and looks like this is correct my mistake. “…not less than 0.5% and not more than 0.75%…”

[LURE]

Found the text and looks like this is correct my mistake. “…not less than 0.5% and not more than 0.75%…”

And even so, I think you are right in what you said in thinking about what this means for the future.

Mike Lee gets his 0.75% now and then the skids are greased - it becomes easier to get more in the future. That's why it's so important to pour everything into stopping this now even if one's thinking is "well it's only 0.75%."

Selling public land doesn't, and won't ever, amount to even a drop in the giant bucket that is the federal budget deficit. Congress's perpetual inability to adequately fund what is one of the American Public's most prized possessions doesn't warrant their disposal, especially when the ultimate benefactors of the sales will not be the general public - affordable housing? a laughable guise.

Any lands that get sold are never coming back. Hiking, backpacking, climbing, fishing, hunting, biking, birding and beyond... all stand to lose in the long run.

[tdawg012]

Agreed that this site shouldn't be a political platform. However, our shared beloved lands where many of our adventures take place will become a permanent memory unless we somehow stop this.

I understand they're trying to pass it as quickly as possible? (by early July I think) Flood your congress people with calls and letters especially if you live in a state whose senators support this Bill.

Send a letter (and personalize it) to your local congress folk here:

https://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/20 ... ublic-land

[k_fergie]

To bring in the context of this website, I was going to try to do some GIS to figure out which 14ers/13ers would go up for sale, but am finding myself pretty busy. Doing a really quick look, the SJs get hit particularly hard, the Elks/Gore/Front Range less so, but I'd estimate at least 25% of the 13ers/14ers would go up for sale, probably more like 40%-60%.