Sale of public lands proposed in the new budget bill

[bigbAZ]

Unless I missed it I haven't seen this being discussed here yet.

250 million acres of public land to be sold off

Legislation mandates that two government agencies sell more than 2 million acres over the next five years.

www.newsweek.com

New Map Reveals Specific Public Lands Eligible for Sale in Budget Bill

An interactive map from the Wilderness Society highlights the tracts of US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands that could go up for sale if the Senate's version of the budget bill passes.

www.fieldandstream.com

 

[TXMOOSE]

I didn't catch the hole thing but I saw this little video of my fire stick about the land sale. Ment to look it up and see what stupid thing we were doing there.

 

[Kirk]

Is a political discussion OK here? That subject is difficult to debate without any political comments.

 

[bigbAZ]

Is a political discussion OK here? That subject is difficult to debate without any political comments.

I wondered about that as well. I posted in the Boondocking section as it seems appropriate there. It will certainly have an affect on boondocking. I don't know at what point a civil discussion of the pros and cons of selling our public lands becomes political or offensive to some. Maybe a mod can offer some advice that can keep this thread on track. It just seems too important to the RV lifestyle to ignore.

 

[TXMOOSE]

It's not going to work. Some on here will jump on the political side and it will get nasty.

 

[bigbAZ]

Maybe if we just stick to what the proposal says, the pros and cons, and what anyone who is opposed or in favor of can do, like contacting your representatives. There are 2 discussions going on right now on 2 other forums I belong to and so far have remained very civil and enlightening. I can post links to those if desired.

 

[TXMOOSE]

I respect what your thinking but that's just silly. The people here's are great but, and they know who they are, some just can't help it.
After just that one out burst this quiet little discussion will get the hammer.

It's a good thought though Bigb56.

 

[ButchW1]

Not political for me... It's just a bad idea to sell off our heritage lands, that we'll never see again.. These are some beautiful, irreplaceable lands and wildlife. just to put $$ in the coffers of which ever politician is in office (Republican or Democrat) when they hand them over to special interest...
Butch

 

[LarsMac]

Well, The bill will allow millions of acres of current federally owned Forest and park lands to be sold off for Oil and wood extraction. It will have an effect on Recreational activities for millions, and is, therefor quite relevant to RV and Camping lifestyles.
How to draw that line will be a problem for the mods, but it will require civility among all of us.

 

[TXMOOSE]

I don't like to see things like that happen. I do know there are ways for this country to gain and save. I do support the team coming up with the help for our country, but I'm not sure if I want to see things ruined.
Now if I were to say , " hey it's s.all areas it won't be noticed ," that would come out wrong to others understanding me and as they say give an inch they take a mile.
I do feel if the idea was liked , others may push it bigger.
This is not political, it's just a mickey mouse thought.

 

[Wasillaguy]

How to draw that line will be a problem for the mods, but it will require civility among all of us.

Civility is the line. Mods have demonstrated they will tolerate "political" comments, up to the point someone starts getting nasty with personal attacks. This happens nearly immediately with some. The result is the conversation is lost, unfortunately.

 

[scottydl]

You all seem to understand the importance of civility here, and staying away from political positions that can quickly turn away from “the friendliest place to discuss RVs” that our forum claims to be.

Otherwise, it does sound like a pretty interesting conversation for Boondocking… as a land that are proposed to be sold, I wonder what percentage of overall public lands that represents.

 

[bigbAZ]

You all seem to understand the importance of civility here, and staying away from political positions that can quickly turn away from “the friendliest place to discuss RVs” that our forum claims to be.

Otherwise, it does sound like a pretty interesting conversation for Boondocking… as a land that are proposed to be sold, I wonder what percentage of overall public lands that represents.

It's a small percentage but apparently leaves the door open for more, about 250 million acres. There is a member on another forum who is researching it, I have known this guy for a couple years and I consider him extremely intelligent and sensible. I'm going to quote some bullet points from his research below with credit to Midwestdrifter on the Sprinter forum:

• Public input is not required. Existing laws require this.
• Public notice is either not required, either when plots are put up for sale, or when they sell. Imagine showing up to your favorite trail or fishing spot to have a fence and no trespassing signs.
• Agencies must consider sales upon the request of private entities.
• Land usage is not enforced, and the current administration can decide what use types are accepted, AFTER the sale. So if a piece of land is earmarked for single family or medium/low income housing, it can be changed after the fact to 10 acre plots with million dollar homes.
• Looking at the maps, many areas which are prioritized for conservation are included. Backcountry and wildlife conservation areas. Many of these have no roads at all. I can image the damage that will be done.
• The bill exempts these sales from existing laws which require agencies to consider public benefit (cultural, water conservation, etc).
• There are no requirements for affordability, lot sizes etc, for land sold for "housing".
• There is no mechanism in place to deal with resource conflicts. So if a large plot is sold in the middle of a wilderness district, the agency is now obligated to allow road construction.
• While the 2-3 million acres are required to be sold, the bill explicitly makes the 250 million acres open to sale under the above provisions. I am not clear if this is in perpetuity, but it could be. Which essentially means a nearly complete removal of the guardrails which help prevent corruption and abuse via local regulatory capture, or just classic corruption. The current system isn't perfect, but that is no excuse to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[UTTransplant]

The big hunting and fishing groups like the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, are against the bill. They note that once the land is removed from public ownership, it won’t come back. No more public hunting, no more public fishing access, no more trails to hike or bike or ride. It will be gone from you and me. This is OUR land, and it should stay OUR land.

TRCP Opposes Mandatory Sale of Public Lands in Senate Budget Reconciliation Proposal | Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Senate draft would fast-track disposal of up to 3 million acres across the West

www.trcp.org

 

[Jackiemac]

I guess I shouldn't really have a say but in my opinion it should stay as is, especially wilderness areas. Unless there is an exceptionally good reason to sell which I doubt there is.

 

[Alaskansnowbirds]

Why are there no areas east of the Mississippi for sale???

 

[Arch Hoagland]

Why are there no areas east of the Mississippi for sale???

Excellent question.

 

[Oldgator73]

Is a political discussion OK here? That subject is difficult to debate without any political comments.

I promise this is my first and only reply.

 

[ferfer]

Quartzsite BLM land is on the map as for sale. Hope I read the map wrong!

 

[Wasillaguy]

I share concerns about how much would be sold, but a fraction of 1% of BLM land going to the private sector could spur enough growth to make housing affordable again.