Information on current and past 14er closures, usually due to private property issues.
Forum rules
This is a mountaineering forum, so please keep your posts on-topic. Posts do not all have to be related to the 14ers but should at least be mountaineering-related.
Personal attacks and confrontational behavior will result in removal from the forum at the discretion of the administrators.
Do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website.
Posts will be removed at the discretion of the site administrator or moderator(s), including: Troll posts, posts pushing political views or religious beliefs, and posts with the purpose of instigating conflict within the forum.
For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 11:58 amThe west is basically maxed out on people because we dont have enough water anyway.
Take out the 70%+ of freshwater that goes to grow really smart things like alfalfa in Arizona, and we'd actually not have an issue with water scarcity*. I'm a pretty big fan of beef, but western agriculture is some of the dumbest s**t this country has ever sunken so much resources into. Water does not follow the plow, it did once for like a decade back in the late 1800s and we human with big brain and best memory can't let it go.
*Not that I want the west to be more populated.
Also, Elon Musk and Mike Lee would be great in a real-life Saw movie. I'd pay to see it.
It doesn't mention BLM, but I believe this includes now the BLM land as 3200 square miles ≈ 200 million acres.
Only the current version of the bill is killed due to the Byrd rule. This is faarrr from over. Mike Lee has said he will reintroduce his bill with modifications in an attempt to comply with the Byrd rule in the BBB.
The battle may have been won, but the war on public lands will continue.
Definitely not over. I can't believe that this plan has any merit in providing affordable housing to desperate Americans when this is the same party that is formulating a bill that will kick millions of Medicaid. This sh%# don't add up. This provision needs to be stripped from the the One Big Brutal Bill once and for all. Mike Lee will stop at nothing to steal lands from us to sell of to his cronies. This is our land and our descendants land to pass on to their descendants.
Its easy to grin when your ship comes in
and you got the stock market beat.
And the man worth while is the man who can smile
when his shorts are tight in the seat... Smails.
Text is out for the revised version of this proposal. It hasn't been posted to the Senate ENR page, but PoliticoPro (subscription) got a copy and OutdoorLife appears to have ran a file compare between the two versions and posted online for free. Starts midway down page 13.
The bill basically has the exact same issues as it did before, only with just BLM land affected. Very limited guardrails and no sort restrictions on the bulk of the housing being affordable vs multi million dollar estates. Or honestly even for housing at all rather than the extremely vague "infrastructure and amenities to support housing". The word "amenity" seems to be newly added entirely.
Minimum of 0.25%, maximum of 0.50% of BLM land must be sold (612,500 to 1,225,000 acres)
Land must be within 5 miles of a "population center" but no such definition of a "population center" is given
"Interested Parties" that nominate land can be any state, local gov, or multi-billion dollar company or you or me, zero definition given. There is no requirement or process for public comment/objection
State/Tribes/Local govs must be consulted prior to listing land, but their objections are not binding
Priority should be given to plots nominated by states/local govs, land that is suitable for housing, has infrastructure, but this is *not* a requirement.
Land "may" be offered to state/tribes/local govs for a first right of refusal, but is not *required* to do so
Interesting switch to land may not be sold that "has an existing right" to land may not be sold that "has an exiting right that is incompatible with the development of housing or any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing". Not quite sure the implications on this for things such as ROWs
A person may not purchase more than 2 tracts in one sale, but does not limit them to purchasing 2 tracts in multiple sales. Also does not specific "entity" or "corporation" here. No definition of a tract given.
