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

[Bill]

I’m all in favor of logging, mining and drilling with the least damage possible. but not in favor of selling it off that’s for sure.

 

[Foggy47]

I agree with keeping ownership on much of this land. What can be an issue to me is the "preservationists" that want no change, ever, to the land that could hold so many benefits to our people. I think we do need to exploit some of these things. They were put there for us to use....but we need to do so wisely. That is not impossible.

I think we all know that land and habitat can be made better via management......so what is different in federally owned land?

 

[Skeeter]

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.

View attachment 79028

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

I think the title of the thread is a bit misleading. There may be over 250 million acres that qualify as eligible to be sold under the Senate proposal, but the proposal also limits the percentage of federal land that could be sold to between 0.5% to 0.75%. This creates a maximum of around 3.2 million acres that could be sold under the bill.
According to a quick Google search, approximately 40% of the land in the USA is owned by some level of government, 28% by the federal government alone. How much public land do we need? Is that really a responsibile use of resources?

 

[T-Max]

I think the title of the thread is a bit misleading. There may be over 250 million acres that qualify as eligible to be sold under the Senate proposal, but the proposal also limits the percentage of federal land that could be sold to between 0.5% to 0.75%. This creates a maximum of around 3.2 million acres that could be sold under the bill.
According to a quick Google search, approximately 40% of the land in the USA is owned by some level of government, 28% by the federal government alone. How much public land do we need? Is that really a responsibile use of resources?

Are we expecting politicians to exercise restraint once they figure out a way to sell off public land? It will all be gone soon if they pull this off. And when you say the “government” owns the land, that is actually me and you and my wife and my kids and my buddies and my great aunt and Ron Desantis and Oprah and…… It would be strange if the current setup worked for over 100 years and suddenly it all has to cease now. Sen. Lee is bought and paid for. Bank on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[T-Max]

Here is my biggest thing (and I mentioned it earlier), there is a clear process for the disposal of public land laid out in law. This attempt to do it through budget reconciliation is a clear attempt to circumvent that law. Plain and simple. Lee couldn’t pull it off legally so he did what politicians do. Disgusting, and everyone who votes for it is equally disgusting.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[b116757]

Guys I would like to know what percentage of total land in our county should be private and what percentage should be publicly owned what should those percentages look like what’s the balance? 75% private 25% public? 25% private 75% public? 50% each? What do you guys think is the proper percentage for each?

 

[Skeeter]

Are we expecting politicians to exercise restraint once they figure out a way to sell off public land? It will all be gone soon if they pull this off. And when you say the “government” owns the land, that is actually me and you and my wife and my kids and my buddies and my great aunt and Ron Desantis and Oprah and…… It would be strange if the current setup worked for over 100 years and suddenly it all has to cease now. Sen. Lee is bought and paid for. Bank on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I certainly don't agree with every clause of the proposal, but do feel that the title of the thread is inaccurate.
Public land is not the same as private land, so public land is not my land, or your land, or your great aunt's, etc. The government allows you to use government land as long as you follow their rules. On my land, I will cut down a tree or plow under an area whenever I choose. There are some restrictions, most of which are attempts to keep me from infringing on the rights of another, so it's not perfect, but not even close to the same thing as public land.
I'm not advocating for eliminating all public land but when the government owns 40 percent, we've gone too far.

 

[Newbie]

Are we expecting politicians to exercise restraint once they figure out a way to sell off public land? It will all be gone soon if they pull this off. And when you say the “government” owns the land, that is actually me and you and my wife and my kids and my buddies and my great aunt and Ron Desantis and Oprah and…… It would be strange if the current setup worked for over 100 years and suddenly it all has to cease now. Sen. Lee is bought and paid for. Bank on that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This exactly my concern. I’m not opposed to utilizing a select dedicated portion of land for extracting natural resources responsibly. But the way the bill was written, there’s a loophole that makes up to 250million acres eligible. Of course the bill doesn’t state they’re going to sell 250mil acres… but they didn’t write a loophole into the bill by accident.

Also, I can’t trust that it is done within reason or responsibly. I agree with Foggy & if it’s done right & in select areas it makes sense. But I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we are stripping funding for EPA and other environmental and conservation agencies. I don’t have faith that if it’s done right now, that I will be done responsibly.

Give them an inch, they’ll take a mile. Big corp is in bed with all our “representatives” & the incentives are not in the interests of the general public anymore.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Guys I would like to know what percentage of total land in our county should be private and what percentage should be publicly owned what should those percentages look like what’s the balance? 75% private 25% public? 25% private 75% public? 50% each? What do you guys think is the proper percentage for each?

I don't have an answer other than I hate to lose public land as the population grows. Status quo is good for me, better yet would be land swaps to make some of the inaccessible public lands accessible without net gain/loss. Unfortunately a lot of those land swaps typical end up with the public drawing the short straw.

 

[Westwind]

Complexity and nuance are something that gets lost in any discussion these days.

I do agree that thus does seem aimed at circumventing current procedures. And since they quit making land quite some time ago I’d rather the public keep access to what it currently has access to.

 

[Wind Gypsy]

Northern MN is covered in public lands, to the tune of most counties in the northern forest are 85% publicly owned, and the hunting and resource management is so bad up there, nobody hunts there. If you plopped a thousand private 40-acre parcels into the arrowhead region I guarantee you the wolf problem would be gone, moose would return, and there would be deer again.

I'd take status quo and being able to roam and experience the vast northwoods 100% of the time over a sea of 40 acre parcels I cant touch. Not just deer hunters either. Lots of grouse and woodcock hunting/killing gets done up there. [Edit: I read your post wrong - 1000 40 acre parcels would be a small portion of the arrowhead region and i'm not sure would make a huge difference?]

My parents had something like a 180 acres surrounded by tax forfeit (county land) and USFS and I spent more time on the public stuff surrounding it. Turn that 180 into a 40 and it'd get that much less interesting to me.

 

[Hoytvectrix]

One of the benefits of federally owned land is the ability for conducting large scale environmental research. If this land becomes privatized, that opportunity may be lost.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

One of the benefits of federally owned land is the ability for conducting large scale environmental research. If this land becomes privatized, that opportunity may be lost.

Not only that, which is a great benefit, but a lot of wildlife out west especially, depends on large scale due to migration on space dynamics. Once that gets chopped up it’s over for those species

 

[Telemark]

Yes and no (in my respectful & unprofessional opinion). I agree it’s better than technology prior, but not great. They did some pretty substantial horizontal drilling right next to my house. You can easily walk to the next horizontal pad down the road, they’ve improved the technology but we aren’t talking vast distances between rigs now.

On top of that, oil must be pumped leaving behind big jacks - gas must be compressed which requires MASSIVE compressor stations. The compressor near my place must have 8-10 generators so large the exhaust/muffler pipes are 15-20ft tall. They’re noisy and run 24/7. They can be heard miles away on a calm evening. Even the network of roads and construction/excavation is tremendously interruptive. Then we gotta dig massive pipelines to transport the energy out.

I agree the tech is better, but it’s not still not suitable for a wilderness area. What once was designated for wildlife and was enjoyed by hunters/fishermen/hikers would become a labyrinth of access roads, pipelines, drill sites, jacks and compressor stations the size of shopping malls.

They’ve been in my region the past 20yr and say there’s enough oil and gas here to keep them busy at least a century. It’s not a quick in-and-out operation.

It would be a disaster for the wildlife in such diverse ecosystems as the abroska mountains & Teton national forests (regions included in the proposed bill), and for everyone else who elects to enjoy these places responsibly.

I was camping out in a few of the regions proposed to be opened for either sale, lease, logging/OGM last summer. I was able to enjoy hiking and camping in this place 100% free of charge being a public land. I can’t hardly imagine this sunrise view being peppered by construction, roads, pipelines and drilling sites/rigs.
View attachment 79089


I really hope you don’t take it the wrong way, I’m not the leading expert on the matter & I hope I don’t sound like I’m pretending to be one. I’m just trying to convey my personal experience with these issues. I’d agree if there was a solution as you stated: “acceptable and compatible for the surrounding wilderness area” however I’m afraid the two are mutually exclusive.

Respectfully,
Newbie

Fair enough. I don't know enough about it to make policy. I want the land protected and public, but I also want us to be energy independent.