14ers.com

Wentzl wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 4:42 pm Has anyone read the amendment to the BBB that would facilitate sale of public land proposed by Mike Lee?

AnnaG22 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 12:55 am

desertdog wrote: ↑Wed Jun 18, 2025 10:04 am Let's all chip in, buy the Rockies, secede from the union. We could create a paradise.

Seriously, call your representatives. Vote in the mid terms.

I have almost no moneys right now, but I like this notion. lol

Wentzl wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 4:42 pm Has anyone read the amendment to the BBB that would facilitate sale of public land proposed by Mike Lee? I have not.

But I did listen to him speak about the proposal and why it is not the disaster described so uniformly here. I don't have a link to the interview, but this article hits on the main points:

https://reason.com/2025/06/20/the-feder ... mmunities/

I don't have an opinion yet about whether I support or oppose the amendment yet, but it does seem an idea worth discussing, rather than denigrating.

Wentzl wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 4:42 pm Has anyone read the amendment to the BBB that would facilitate sale of public land proposed by Mike Lee? I have not.

But I did listen to him speak about the proposal and why it is not the disaster described so uniformly here. I don't have a link to the interview, but this article hits on the main points:

https://reason.com/2025/06/20/the-feder ... mmunities/

I don't have an opinion yet about whether I support or oppose the amendment yet, but it does seem an idea worth discussing, rather than denigrating.

• Lands can be nominated for sale by anyone or any corporation (see section on "interested parties"), not just the towns that abut public lands, which would make the most use of land that supposed to be for housing

• The states/local govs/tribal nations have to be consulted, but any objections they may have for a sale are not binding and may be ignored. There is no input process or requirement for the larger public defined in the bill

• Priority is supposed to be given to those parcels that are close to infrastructure and existing towns and are suitable for housing, but that's not a requirement (!)

• Parcels are not required to be offered to the state/locals/tribes for purchase first before they go to the market (the language used is the secretaries "may" offer not "required to offer")

• Lee will say that any person or corporation can only by 2 tracts, but what he fails to mention (unintentionally or intentionally) is that the language actually says "2 tracts in any 1 sale". If there is a sale a week, someone (or something) could buy much, much more than just 2 whole tracts. And what is considered a tract? 1 acre? The standard 640 acres? 1000 acres? The bill doesn't say

supranihilest wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:27 pm ...
Christopher, you've climbed Mount Sneffels 101 times according to your checklist. Guess what'd be for sale? The entirety of upper Yankee Boy Basin, Blaine Basin, Blue Lakes trailhead and most of the Blue Lakes approach, Lavender couloir, the southwest ridge, the Snake, and the summit of Mount Sneffels itself (it lies on a boundary between basic USFS land and wilderness - I bet most people who have climbed Mount Sneffels don't even know that the eastern half of the Sneffels Range is not designated wilderness). Good luck ever climbing it again if it were to be sold. The Rock of Ages trailhead and approach, and the upper standard route of Mount Wilson would be for sale. 13 ascents of Mount Wilson for you. Good luck ever climbing it again if it were to be sold. This is like selling a kidney, or part of one anyway, to pay off a billionaire's gambling debt. You won't get it back and now things are actually worse. And those are just TWO examples. Take a look at the map, most of the northeast Sneffels Range is for sale, including the 13ers there. There's got to be dozens, maybe hundreds of other 13ers that could go up for sale, and certainly hundreds of lower peaks, many of which many site members recreate on. Most (all?) trailheads are outside of wilderness areas and therefore would be up for sale. Why you're even sniffing at the idea of this part of the bill is shocking to me.
...

Teresa Gergen wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:54 am So I wrote my congressmen, but they're not the problem. Montana is exempt because an R congressman, Zinke, drew a red line. Now Idaho's R congressmen are taking a stand:
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/pol ... 27310.html

If more western states in addition to Montana get exempted because the BBB needs the votes of their R congresspeople to pass, then I guess the whole required amount of land sales will come from the states without R congresspeople speaking up, like Colorado. It's the constituents of Boebert etc, and those here from other states who live in R districts, who we need to get this provision of the Bill removed, even if it ends up necessary to wait until the Senate version goes back to the House.

https://www.sfgate.com/northcoast/artic ... 383907.php

cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:02 am

Teresa Gergen wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:54 am So I wrote my congressmen, but they're not the problem. Montana is exempt because an R congressman, Zinke, drew a red line. Now Idaho's R congressmen are taking a stand:
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/pol ... 27310.html

If more western states in addition to Montana get exempted because the BBB needs the votes of their R congresspeople to pass, then I guess the whole required amount of land sales will come from the states without R congresspeople speaking up, like Colorado. It's the constituents of Boebert etc, and those here from other states who live in R districts, who we need to get this provision of the Bill removed, even if it ends up necessary to wait until the Senate version goes back to the House.

https://www.sfgate.com/northcoast/artic ... 383907.php

from my understanding because of the way votes will be handled, dem senators will already vote against, if you live in wyoming montana idaho utah write your senator, otherwise you can safely assume that your senator is already voting against it

if you have a R house rep its also worth writing

susanjoypaul wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:22 am

cottonmountaineering wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 8:02 am

Teresa Gergen wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 7:54 am So I wrote my congressmen, but they're not the problem. Montana is exempt because an R congressman, Zinke, drew a red line. Now Idaho's R congressmen are taking a stand:
https://www.idahostatesman.com/news/pol ... 27310.html

If more western states in addition to Montana get exempted because the BBB needs the votes of their R congresspeople to pass, then I guess the whole required amount of land sales will come from the states without R congresspeople speaking up, like Colorado. It's the constituents of Boebert etc, and those here from other states who live in R districts, who we need to get this provision of the Bill removed, even if it ends up necessary to wait until the Senate version goes back to the House.

https://www.sfgate.com/northcoast/artic ... 383907.php

from my understanding because of the way votes will be handled, dem senators will already vote against, if you live in wyoming montana idaho utah write your senator, otherwise you can safely assume that your senator is already voting against it

if you have a R house rep its also worth writing

That makes sense. I filled out the REI thing shared here on Page 6 by catfish hank and got an automated response from R rep Jeff Crank. Wondered about contacting our senators, but I'm pretty sure they're already on board.

LURE wrote: ↑Mon Jun 23, 2025 9:03 am Forget the form e-mails.

Send your own e-mails and call reps offices.

Thank you for contacting me regarding proposals to sell public lands. I appreciate hearing from you.

I share your love of our public lands across the United States, especially in Colorado. I have fought to protect and maintain our public lands, an integral part of Colorado’s heritage, economy, and Western way of life, through legislation such as theColorado Outdoor Recreation & Economy (CORE) Act and theGunnison Outdoor Resources Protection (GORP) Act.

Public lands are the foundation of Colorado’s economy and our heritage. Unfortunately, in their budget reconciliation bill, Senate Republicans have proposed selling our public lands. As written, the bill would make some of Colorado’s best and most treasured places eligible for sale—places where Coloradans bike, hike, hunt, and fish. Their radical proposal would sell off our children’s and grandchildren’s inheritance, and I will fight to get these provisions removed from the bill.

I will continue to oppose any legislation that threatens public lands.

Should this legislation be introduced in the Senate, I will keep your thoughts in mind.

I value the input of fellow Coloradans in considering the wide variety of important issues and legislative initiatives that come before the Senate. I hope you will continue to inform me of your thoughts and concerns.

For more information about my priorities as a U.S. Senator, I invite you to visit my website at http://bennet.senate.gov/. Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,
Michael F. Bennet
United States Senator