14ers.com

LURE wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:59 pm

dwoodward13 wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:46 pm 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.

You can go look up the short sighted selloff of Chicago parking meters and parking fees to private equity and banks.

Its like the perfect example of how bad it can get and thats parking in a single city.

Once public land is gone, its GONE.

The map is essentially saying anything that is USFS or BLM that is NOT National Park or designated Wilderness can be sold. Some other exceptions for some other protections, for example, the trail up Grays is a National Recreation Trail and is excluded, but the rest of the mountain is eligible for sale.

Looking at a few areas along I-70 and also the Sawatch (US 24/285):

The following ski areas would be eligible for sale - Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper, Keystone, most of Breckenridge, A-Basin, half of Loveland, Monarch. (I'm sure that would all go to affordable housing )

14ers - Grays (except the actual trail as noted above), Torreys, Most of Elbert, Princeton, Shavano, Tabeguache.

Seems the only 14ers not eligible for sale are in Wilderness or are Private Land.

A large section of Glenwood Canyon would be eligible, yep, not building any affordable housing on those cliffs!

Chicago Transplant wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:16 pm The map is essentially saying anything that is USFS or BLM that is NOT National Park or designated Wilderness can be sold. Some other exceptions for some other protections, for example, the trail up Grays is a National Recreation Trail and is excluded, but the rest of the mountain is eligible for sale.

Looking at a few areas along I-70 and also the Sawatch (US 24/285):

The following ski areas would be eligible for sale - Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper, Keystone, most of Breckenridge, A-Basin, half of Loveland, Monarch. (I'm sure that would all go to affordable housing )

14ers - Grays (except the actual trail as noted above), Torreys, Most of Elbert, Princeton, Shavano, Tabeguache.

Seems the only 14ers not eligible for sale are in Wilderness or are Private Land.

A large section of Glenwood Canyon would be eligible, yep, not building any affordable housing on those cliffs!

That is what is so weaselly about the language though. Leaving lands open that are explicitly not good for housing, a semantic set of shields are created.

"only 0.5 %"

"Only near developments"

"only for housing"

Rampaging Baloths wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:21 pm

Chicago Transplant wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 5:16 pm The map is essentially saying anything that is USFS or BLM that is NOT National Park or designated Wilderness can be sold. Some other exceptions for some other protections, for example, the trail up Grays is a National Recreation Trail and is excluded, but the rest of the mountain is eligible for sale.

Looking at a few areas along I-70 and also the Sawatch (US 24/285):

The following ski areas would be eligible for sale - Vail, Beaver Creek, Copper, Keystone, most of Breckenridge, A-Basin, half of Loveland, Monarch. (I'm sure that would all go to affordable housing )

14ers - Grays (except the actual trail as noted above), Torreys, Most of Elbert, Princeton, Shavano, Tabeguache.

Seems the only 14ers not eligible for sale are in Wilderness or are Private Land.

A large section of Glenwood Canyon would be eligible, yep, not building any affordable housing on those cliffs!

That is what is so weaselly about the language though. Leaving lands open that are explicitly not good for housing, a semantic set of shields are created.

"only 0.5 %"

"Only near developments"

"only for housing"

Well the ski resorts would qualify it just won't be affordable housing

LURE wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 3:59 pmAnd 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%."

Yes and it is worth mentioning that Mike Lee wants ALL public land sold (as in 100%), not just this percentage. He has always made that clear in his platform. This is just testing the waters if you will.

It is also worth mentioning that the lands sold will not be chosen by any public comments or input.

So here's how this is going to go down.

conservatives will cheer this on regardless of the consequences to the nation or even to themselves. Your average idiot will bitch and moan that the detractors of this are simply alarmists who should shut up and be paid no heed. The official tag line from Republican congresspeople will basically be "oh shut up, it's such a tiny amount, quit being so alarmist!" They'll stick to their word and only sell a small fraction of public lands, but in a number of different ways that abuse the process:

• Sell very narrow but lengthy edge parcels that block off access to a much larger area now surrounded entirely by private land. Think selling the borders of a square and then blocking all access to the inside of the square. The interior land will then go up for sale in the next round because shrugged shoulders the public can't access it anyway, quit crying.
• Sell land in a checkerboard pattern and either ignore the recent court of appeals ruling that allows for corner crossing, or simply change the law(s) such that a single private landowner can access all that land, but the American public can't access any of that land because you have to cross private holdings to get to the public land and goshdarnit, the greedy wants of the few outweigh the wants of all Americans.
• They'll reclassify the lands we do care about into "lesser" lands such that national parks and wilderness areas will in fact become vulnerable. You can already see this in action with the Trump Department of Justice saying the president has the power to unprotect national monuments. For those dipshits who immediately begin foaming at the mouth and sputtering "but muh pink haired NPR queers are lyin' to you!" here's the official DOJ memorandum supporting this very idea: https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1403101/dl. Bear's Ears National Monument in Utah will no doubt be the first battle using this strategy. If they win, they'll expand to ever more valuable monuments, wilderness areas, and even parts of/whole national parks.
• They'll sell land to private landowners who will charge users massively to use the land. Think Cielo Vista, with Culebra and a dozenish 13ers, but on a wider scale (I'd be curious to know if you pull the number of 13ers that could be sold, Kyle). How much will you pay to climb a 13er? How about a 12er? Who will go after these lists if it costs $25,000 to do instead of "merely" $1,000 (for the Cielo Vista 13ers). The landowners will then give a fraction of that to the government, perhaps in exchange for tax cuts or other forms of corruption. Someone mentioned Chicago's parking meters, which have a 99 year lease to some foreign company who recouped their initial investment in something like three years, and who have absolute control over pricing. Chicago's government cannot intervene. Now imagine that but for walking through the forest.

I'm sure there are all kinds of other evil, manipulative strategies these scumbags are working on. They're certainly a lot smarter than I am, and motivated. This is just what came to mind while reading through this thread this evening.

Overall for this first round, they'll sell largely useless land to fit their quota, land they know will not draw much ire. Think a stretch of salt flats or desert somewhere that has little value, even for recreation. They won't go straight for the Maroon Bells or Yosemite or even local hangouts like Hartman Rocks in Gunnison, etc. They will then use the lack of complaints to say "see, nobody cares we sold public lands, now we have to sell more/all of it!"

The same strategy is used to abuse minority groups and those who can't fight for themselves, but it can be used elsewhere, like here. Start small and when there's little to no pushback, expand the abuse. Boiling frog strategy, in essence. Note that this is exactly how abusers work in relationships as well - they don't just punch you in the face and isolate you from your friends on the first date, they slowly ramp up the manipulation and abuse until you're questioning your own reality and you have nothing left because they've taken everything from you. I know some people reading this will understand exactly what I'm talking about from their personal lives. This is the same strategy but on a national scale, and with politics instead of romance. Don't ignore the warning signs here.

To everyone who voted for this: I hope you get exactly what you voted for!

Clearly this is a classic win-win situation!!! The billionaires win because it gets them some massive tax savings.
And then they win again because they can use the saved money to buy cheap property!

supranihilest wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:44 pm the recent court of appeals ruling that allows for corner crossing

For anyone who doesn't follow this, there has been an epic battle over corner crossing on Elk Mountain, just south of I-80 in Wyoming, which is both a P3K and a popular place to hunt. It involved game cameras and 11-foot ladders to climb over 10-foot signs at the infinitesimal points where squares of public and private land meet. Basically, Fred Eshelman is a rich jerk who tried to block access to public land by owning half the checkerboard of parcels surrounding it, and he lost (https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-a ... lic-lands/). Public land access is a rare issue that doesn't break down neatly along red/blue lines: most people who live out west enjoy public land in one way or another, and take it for granted. They'll rise up if someone tries to take it away.

supranihilest wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 8:44 pm So here's how this is going to go down.

I'm sure there are all kinds of other evil, manipulative strategies these scumbags are working on. They're certainly a lot smarter than I am, and motivated. This is just what came to mind while reading through this thread this evening.

I wouldn't say that about their intelligence. In fact, I would say they're less intelligent than most people, given their lack of curiosity and originality. Basically, what you described is what we did to Native Americans in the 19th century.

seano wrote: ↑Tue Jun 17, 2025 9:13 pm Public land access is a rare issue that doesn't break down neatly along red/blue lines: most people who live out west enjoy public land in one way or another, and take it for granted. They'll rise up if someone tries to take it away.

You are absolutely right that this is politically suicidal for both sides of the aisle. That is why the public lands in the entire state of Montana are exempt: they need the votes of those two republican senators and they know it.

I’m not sure public opinion will matter at all if this budget passes with this in it. It’s designed to be done very quickly and without public input.

Tell people about this NOW. Especially if you know folks in your circle who care but don’t follow the news. Call your senators! Have your friends and family call THEIR senators.

Coloradans, our senators are opposed but hey! We can still let them know how we feel.

Personally, I’m absolutely gutted that my way of life is being threatened so rich people don’t have to pay taxes. I’m furious that my nieces’ and nephews’ birthright is being stolen from them.

More peaks and land going private would be horrendous for this community and harm Colorado’s tourism economy. It would do practically nothing to ease the national debt or cost of living. To do the latter we already have plenty of land where it counts, we just need to use it better.

These stated justifications are obviously nonsense, the goal is really because they don’t want the land to be public and freely accessible for ideological reasons. Get ready to cough up $150 for more 14ers.

At least they’re “only” selling a few million acres. What a useless mess.

jglimp wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 7:43 am That is why the public lands in the entire state of Montana are exempt: they need the votes of those two republican senators and they know it.

And this should tell you pretty much EVERYTHING you need to know about this particular portion of this horrendous bill.