250+ Million Acres of Public Land Could Be Sold Under New Budget Bill

[Newbie]

I hope this is the correct place to share this, and I hope we can have a respectful and thoughtful conversation about this.

The Senate's updated version of the budget reconciliation bill (or Big Beautiful Bill) proposes increasing leasing of public land to logging and oil and gas development as well as selling protected public land. I'm sure there is going to be an array of opinions on this, but as a group of likeminded outdoorsmen, I think this is something we should all be aware of. Our elected officials are proposing a massive land and resource transfer from from the American masses to a select group of corporate elite. These lands were protected with bipartisan support over many decades, and I feel should remain in the hands of the American public.

I've been fortunate to spend time hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, etc. in many of these places, both on the East Coast and throughout the American West. I deeply love this nation and feel incredibly fortunate to be born here. Access to vast, beautiful, diverse and unadultered lands is one of the many things I love about this nation. Political affiliation aside, I desperately hope to see these lands remain protected for the enjoyment of the generations to come.

This map visualizes the 250+ million acres of public lands eligible for sale in the Senate budget reconciliation package.



Regardless of which side of the coin you land on this matter, consider reaching out to your senator to voice your opinion.

 

[KY wild]

My opinion is it should never be sold or leased out and kept exactly like it is now. Period.
Now if you are on the other side then at least run a test to see how it goes instead of jumping off the cliff. Maybe open up 200,000 acres in 5 states to equal 1 million acres and try that for a decade and see if it positive or negative for America and then make a decision.

 

[Newbie]

My opinion is it should never be sold or leased out and kept exactly like it is now. Period.
Now if you are on the other side then at least run a test to see how it goes instead of jumping off the cliff. Maybe open up 200,000 acres in 5 states to equal 1 million acres and try that for a decade and see if it positive or negative for America and then make a decision.

I'm in full agreement. The way legislation is made, there is always a backdoor and a few loop holes to exploit. Initial legislation may say X, but the fine print opens the door for XYZ. Legislation nearly always benefits the wealthy, they're the ones with the ability and resources to exploit those "loopholes" that are inaccessible to the vast majority. I'm sure there is an argument to be made about the benefits to this proposal, however, I'm almost certain it would never make it's way to the commoners like I. It certainly looks like a thinly veiled transfer of wealth from the masses to a few corporate and political elite.

I'm not a highly political person, but this is one of those things that nearly makes me sick. It would be a massive disservice to the American public & one I felt obligated to raise objection to. Once those lands are disturbed, they're gone for good.

 

[SwampCat]

Is there a link to the article and map?

 

[Cool Hand Luke]

Darn it man! That's everything Teddy Roosevelt fought to preserve. I guess we've been took, (again).

 

[SwampCat]

Sell “our” land to pay off “their” debt

 

[Newbie]

There's a ton of information coming out on it the past few days. Meat Eater published a short article on it recently.

[UPDATE] This Map Shows The 250+ Million Acres of Public Land that Could Be Sold Under New Bill

Editor's Note: Since this article was first published, the Senate has amended the original version of this legislation to allow to sale of federal lands under grazing permits. That changed added over 130 million acres to the original total. So, the original estimation we published was 120 million...

www.themeateater.com

Outdoor Alliance has been waving the flag about it too.

Take Action to Protect the Places You Love to Play | Outdoor Alliance

Easy ways to take action to protect the places you love to play. Write your members of Congress and ask them to protect public lands and waters.

www.outdooralliance.org

I fully understand these aren't point of source outlets, but that is where it crossed my plate. I've done some digging around and there's information coming out about it from several sources now. I'm not sitting down and reading the entire bill (nor could I) but I did plug it into AI sources and had them summarize the land use portions of the bill and it checked out there as well.

By no means am I an expert on this, and I don't pretend to be one online, but I just wanted to share what I came across & let everyone come to your own conclusions on it.

 

[jsasker007]

Sell “our” land to pay off “their” debt

They are already taking 1/3 of every working persons money. No one should be surprised by our crooked government. Future generations aren't going to have much of a chance at a decent life in my opinion. Government only tries to give the illusion that they give a shit. They don't. jmho

 

[Hoytvectrix]

I think the best argument in favor of this that I have seen has come down on the side of allowing states to control what happens to it. I tend to yield to that on principle, but this is a terrible idea in my opinion. It's probably not news to anyone here, but one of the very best aspects of our country is the natural resources. Right now, these lands belong to everyone. A quick buck is going to be made by the states but this land will be privatized in the process. If you thought hunting pressure was bad before, what's going to happen when people have dramatically fewer acres to hunt?

The timing of this is not incidental. With all of the rest that is going on in the world, this is deliberately being pursued right now. This is a hugely unpopular portion of the current Senate bill. Please take a few minutes and contact your senators, regardless of where you live or what party they belong to. Matter of fact, call them ESPECIALLY if you have Republican senators.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

When I was deep in the fly fishing world I remember I read an article in the Drake about the editor being a single issue voter. And that issue was protection of natural resources. I’m not sure I could be that driven by an issue but I’m close. I hate this idea so much that it could make me keep some strange bedfellows. I can’t back any politician who backs this. It would lead to the destruction of so many opportunities we currently enjoy in an effort to make a buck.

 

[jsasker007]

Lots of people are not entitled to the mineral rights under their own feet on their own land. I'm lucky enough to still own the mineral rights to anything on my property but just got lucky that's the case. I didn't know anything about it until after I already bought my property back in 1993.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Lots of people are not entitled to the mineral rights under their own feet on their own land. I'm lucky enough to still own the mineral rights to anything on my property but just got lucky that's the case. I didn't know anything about it until after I already bought my property back in 1993.

Are you outside the mille lacs Res boundary?

 

[Wind Gypsy]

I'm against the legislation and notion that we need to rid ourselves of 3 million acres. But I'm not an extremely hard liner that thinks there aren't some likely one off situations where the greater good would be to be divested of some specific parcels..

The One Big Brutal Debt Increase Bill has one good thing going for it though - removal of suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs from the NFA.

 

[jsasker007]

Are you outside the mille lacs Res boundary?

For now yes until GOV WALZ gives away another 61,000 acres like he just did a few years ago. If that happens I might have to kiss ass to the tribal elders and see if they will grant me a land patent that supposedly only tribal elders are entitled to do in the USA. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it? SHIT SHOW

 

[KY wild]

When I was deep in the fly fishing world I remember I read an article in the Drake about the editor being a single issue voter. And that issue was protection of natural resources. I’m not sure I could be that driven by an issue but I’m close. I hate this idea so much that it could make me keep some strange bedfellows. I can’t back any politician who backs this. It would lead to the destruction of so many opportunities we currently enjoy in an effort to make a buck.

I agree if my senators vote for this, I will vote against them in the next election. Really not as bad for me since I have land I can enjoy, think about all the kids that grow up that don't even have a yard to look for 4 leaf clovers or a field to catch lightening bugs. We need public land that all can enjoy. Our city park last year had a public easter egg hunt and expected 200 kids and over 1500 showed up. The public knows when fish and wildlife will release fish in public lakes in my area and people are shoulder to shoulder around those lakes the first few days after the release. We do not need to get rid of any of our public wild areas.

 

[Newbie]

When I was deep in the fly fishing world I remember I read an article in the Drake about the editor being a single issue voter. And that issue was protection of natural resources. I’m not sure I could be that driven by an issue but I’m close. I hate this idea so much that it could make me keep some strange bedfellows. I can’t back any politician who backs this. It would lead to the destruction of so many opportunities we currently enjoy in an effort to make a buck.

I'm with you here. I categorically can not support a politician who doesn't respect this issue. The complete lack of respect for conservation and public land access for the American public is a huge issue to me. You cannot claim to be "for the people" while you auction off land (or the rights to it) to the highest bidder, regardless of political ideation. They'll smile to your face and make all kinds of rosey promises, then turn around and stab you in the back on behalf of whichever political action committee is willing to stuff the most Benjamin's in their pockets.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I agree if my senators vote for this, I will vote against them in the next election. Really not as bad for me since I have land I can enjoy, think about all the kids that grow up that don't even have a yard to look for 4 leaf clovers or a field to catch lightening bugs. We need public land that all can enjoy. Our city park last year had a public easter egg hunt and expected 200 kids and over 1500 showed up. The public knows when fish and wildlife will release fish in public lakes in my area and people are shoulder to shoulder around those lakes the first few days after the release. We do not need to get rid of any of our public wild areas.

Agreed and while I have my own land too, there’s not much more I enjoy than going out west to fish. And yeah most of that won’t go but I’ve fished some sneaky stuff that flies under most radars that could easily get lost. Additionally, there is millions of acres of public land I will never see or use, but it’s good for the soul to know it’s there and protected. And it’s the acme of arrogance to say becuase I don’t use something it’s lack importance to someone else

 

[Newbie]

I agree if my senators vote for this, I will vote against them in the next election. Really not as bad for me since I have land I can enjoy, think about all the kids that grow up that don't even have a yard to look for 4 leaf clovers or a field to catch lightening bugs. We need public land that all can enjoy. Our city park last year had a public easter egg hunt and expected 200 kids and over 1500 showed up. The public knows when fish and wildlife will release fish in public lakes in my area and people are shoulder to shoulder around those lakes the first few days after the release. We do not need to get rid of any of our public wild areas.

Like you said, this issue likely isn't happening in many of our backyards... yet. Once the gate is open, the cows will get out. Once Uncle Sam quits valuing public land, conservation, and access for us, there's nothing stopping that effect from proliferating to game lands, state forests, etc.

I've got land of my own to enjoy, but I absolutely love putting miles on in the gamelands and state forests in my area. I travel west as often as possible to do the same. Our lives are increasingly sterile as is and they're trying to strip the last few opportunities of ours to go out and experience the real wilderness, a small taste of what this nation was like back in the day.

 

[b116757]

The sale of this will not even put a dent in national debt so I don’t think that’s the real reason they are considering it. I’d say based on the listed lands actual usage or usage potential they are considering selling it. In the case of it being rented out already for pasture ground if it’s sold the rent to the federallies stops but property taxes will be then paid to the state so from these states standpoints this is great for them.

 

[Telemark]

I'm against selling it or leasing it. I'm fine with oil and gas exploration as long they do minimal damage during extraction and fix the land after they are done.