Save your Public Land

OrangeJuice158 wrote:

I don’t understand how the greenies play into this. Are they not two completely independent threats to riding the public lands we love?

Titan1 wrote:

As I said earlier, I hate these radical greenie groups because of their half truths, exaggerated consequences, and outright lies they use to progress their agenda….and...

As I said earlier, I hate these radical greenie groups because of their half truths, exaggerated consequences, and outright lies they use to progress their agenda….and this map is a perfect example of those same disingenuous tactics…

Since the 3.3 Million acres potentially up for sale, hasn’t been identified, these groups are putting up a headline like “Big beautiful bill puts public land up for sale”…anda “click this link to see a map of land potentially up for sale”…and then you have to pay close attention and read the entire article in order to understand all land on said map won’t be sold…just .5%-.75% of public land (3.3 million acres)…

But the liars know people will read the headline, look at the map, get pissed hate Trump and give them money, and that is all they really want anyway…

So, just to clarify, that is a map of all public land in America…virtually none of it will be sold (.5%-.75% of it)…

Still oppose this, but it’s a perfect example of the disingenuous tactics of the radical greenie groups…

RichieW13 wrote:

What are the lies?  The highlighted areas on the map are the areas eligible for sale, not a map of all publicly owned land    I can...

What are the lies? 

 

The highlighted areas on the map are the areas eligible for sale, not a map of all publicly owned land    I can tell by drilling down to the OHV areas I am familiar with and see that only chunks are highlighted. 

I'd love to know what method way used to determine which parcels were eligible. 

OrangeJuice158 wrote:

I don’t understand how the greenies play into this. Are they not two completely independent threats to riding the public lands we love?

Pat327 wrote:

They don't, it's just people making assumptions.

bm2ktom wrote:

All this talk of "greenies" and closing of trails misses the point, I grew up in California so I know of land that can be closed...

All this talk of "greenies" and closing of trails misses the point, I grew up in California so I know of land that can be closed to OHV due to "greenies" causes but the difference is I can petition my government to reopen the land for use and regain access. I now live in Idaho for the past 20 years and we have seen what happens when land is sold off to rich billionaires. Look up the wilks brothers, they bought thousands of acres of land that was originally owned by cascade timber which was open for hunting and OHV riding, the first thing they did was put up gates across forrest roads that have existed for generations and have a legal easement across the land to close off any and all access to their land and the public land that laid beyond. What was Idaho's recourse? To fine them which they gladly paid over and over again as it was very very small potatoes to them. Our state hunting organization petitioned the government to allow the public to sue them as they were blocking access to thousands more acres of public land by closing the roads and literally having armed guards threaten people to leave the legal road or be shot, the state turned down the hunting group claiming they had no standing. We have now lost access to the trails and the land of everything they purchased and the still public land that lays beyond with no way to access it. Want another example? Go look up David and Michael Boren, the same mike Boren trump has nominated to lead the US forrest service. He and his brother have fought to close numerous trails in and around sun valley and have harassed construction workers working on a trail with their helicopter and even have petitioned the supreme Court to close a trail that goes across an easement on their property, an easement that has existed long before they bought it mind you. 

People can complain all they want about the "greenies" but I know for me who has kept me off of more public land and closed off more access and it hasn't been the "greenies" and based on this administrations choices in leadership it's only going to get worse. 

bm2ktom wrote:

All this talk of "greenies" and closing of trails misses the point, I grew up in California so I know of land that can be closed...

All this talk of "greenies" and closing of trails misses the point, I grew up in California so I know of land that can be closed to OHV due to "greenies" causes but the difference is I can petition my government to reopen the land for use and regain access. I now live in Idaho for the past 20 years and we have seen what happens when land is sold off to rich billionaires. Look up the wilks brothers, they bought thousands of acres of land that was originally owned by cascade timber which was open for hunting and OHV riding, the first thing they did was put up gates across forrest roads that have existed for generations and have a legal easement across the land to close off any and all access to their land and the public land that laid beyond. What was Idaho's recourse? To fine them which they gladly paid over and over again as it was very very small potatoes to them. Our state hunting organization petitioned the government to allow the public to sue them as they were blocking access to thousands more acres of public land by closing the roads and literally having armed guards threaten people to leave the legal road or be shot, the state turned down the hunting group claiming they had no standing. We have now lost access to the trails and the land of everything they purchased and the still public land that lays beyond with no way to access it. Want another example? Go look up David and Michael Boren, the same mike Boren trump has nominated to lead the US forrest service. He and his brother have fought to close numerous trails in and around sun valley and have harassed construction workers working on a trail with their helicopter and even have petitioned the supreme Court to close a trail that goes across an easement on their property, an easement that has existed long before they bought it mind you. 

People can complain all they want about the "greenies" but I know for me who has kept me off of more public land and closed off more access and it hasn't been the "greenies" and based on this administrations choices in leadership it's only going to get worse. 

Titan1 wrote:

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…When is comes to federal...

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…

When is comes to federal land…which isn’t sold very often if at all ever (at least in Utah)…I’ve lost WAY more trails on federal land to the lobbying greenie groups than I have to do rich people buying federal land…and it’s not even close.  

bm2ktom wrote:

All this talk of "greenies" and closing of trails misses the point, I grew up in California so I know of land that can be closed...

All this talk of "greenies" and closing of trails misses the point, I grew up in California so I know of land that can be closed to OHV due to "greenies" causes but the difference is I can petition my government to reopen the land for use and regain access. I now live in Idaho for the past 20 years and we have seen what happens when land is sold off to rich billionaires. Look up the wilks brothers, they bought thousands of acres of land that was originally owned by cascade timber which was open for hunting and OHV riding, the first thing they did was put up gates across forrest roads that have existed for generations and have a legal easement across the land to close off any and all access to their land and the public land that laid beyond. What was Idaho's recourse? To fine them which they gladly paid over and over again as it was very very small potatoes to them. Our state hunting organization petitioned the government to allow the public to sue them as they were blocking access to thousands more acres of public land by closing the roads and literally having armed guards threaten people to leave the legal road or be shot, the state turned down the hunting group claiming they had no standing. We have now lost access to the trails and the land of everything they purchased and the still public land that lays beyond with no way to access it. Want another example? Go look up David and Michael Boren, the same mike Boren trump has nominated to lead the US forrest service. He and his brother have fought to close numerous trails in and around sun valley and have harassed construction workers working on a trail with their helicopter and even have petitioned the supreme Court to close a trail that goes across an easement on their property, an easement that has existed long before they bought it mind you. 

People can complain all they want about the "greenies" but I know for me who has kept me off of more public land and closed off more access and it hasn't been the "greenies" and based on this administrations choices in leadership it's only going to get worse. 

Titan1 wrote:

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…When is comes to federal...

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…

When is comes to federal land…which isn’t sold very often if at all ever (at least in Utah)…I’ve lost WAY more trails on federal land to the lobbying greenie groups than I have to do rich people buying federal land…and it’s not even close.  

bm2ktom wrote:

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever...

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever bought the property closing off access to thousands of acres of still public land, land that is larger than what they bought. 

If you think the 3.3 million acres is all they going to close from these sales then you might want to do some research on corner crossing and land locked public lands. Why buy millions upon millions of acres when you can essentially own it all for the fraction of the price by buying the land surrounding it. These rich assholes have land surveyors pouring over these public land maps seeing what they can lock up for the smallest amount of money and I wouldn't be surprised if these maps of land for sale are directly from these assholes knowing they can buy it and lock up all the public land behind it. 

Also no one is advocating for you or anyone else to donate to "greenie" groups but sometimes the enemy of my enemy can be a friend and in this case I'll take any allies we can get in the fight against public land sales as public outcry is our only weapon against this. 

Sandberm656 wrote:

For those who do not know, this also a huge issue in the hunting community.

bm2ktom wrote:

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever...

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever bought the property closing off access to thousands of acres of still public land, land that is larger than what they bought. 

If you think the 3.3 million acres is all they going to close from these sales then you might want to do some research on corner crossing and land locked public lands. Why buy millions upon millions of acres when you can essentially own it all for the fraction of the price by buying the land surrounding it. These rich assholes have land surveyors pouring over these public land maps seeing what they can lock up for the smallest amount of money and I wouldn't be surprised if these maps of land for sale are directly from these assholes knowing they can buy it and lock up all the public land behind it. 

Also no one is advocating for you or anyone else to donate to "greenie" groups but sometimes the enemy of my enemy can be a friend and in this case I'll take any allies we can get in the fight against public land sales as public outcry is our only weapon against this. 

Tim507 wrote:

For starters, I AM against the selling of public lands. I have signed the appropriate petitions and stand firmly in defense of open access, stewardship, and...

For starters, I AM against the selling of public lands. I have signed the appropriate petitions and stand firmly in defense of open access, stewardship, and sacred trust.

In the spirit of discernment, I Am of the viewpoint that the widely circulated “Big Beautiful Bill” referenced in grassroots backlash against public land sell-offs is not the same as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act referenced by President Trump in 2024–2025.

I recognize this as a case of narrative hijack — a strategy used to sow confusion and create division using Trump-coded language.

As a sovereign observer and participant in the awakening process, I commit to holding the frequency of clarity, not reaction. My allegiance is to truth, not to parties, personas, or programming.

Two Distinct “Big Beautiful Bills”

1. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”

Origin: Referenced recently by President Trump (2024–2025 rallies and media)

Official Name: One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Contents:

Permanency of 2017 Trump-era tax cuts

Medicaid work requirements

Immigration policy (possibly tied to asylum reform)

Housing and university endowment tax changes

Intent: Large-scale legislative consolidation of key Republican/conservative policy goals

This is a broad, sweeping domestic reform package, with no direct connection to public land sell-offs.

 

2. The Senate’s 2025 Appropriations Land Sell-Off

Origin: Authored and pushed quietly within the Senate spending/appropriations cycle

Contents:

Authorization to sell up to 3.3 million acres of federal land

Primarily BLM-controlled, western states

Framed as budget balancing but spearheaded by Sen. Mike Lee

Nickname in Public Discourse: “Big Beautiful Bill” — used informally, likely mocking Trump-style phrasing

This version is being circulated by grassroots users (like on Vital MX) or activist groups — NOT by Trump himself.

 

So Is It Plagiarism or Hijack?

More likely: Narrative hijack or meme-weaponization. The phrase “Big Beautiful ___” is Trump-coded language, and critics may be intentionally attaching it to the land sell-off as a signal to his base that:

“This is not your guy’s bill — but it’s being sold like one.”

So yes — it’s a different bill, and using the same label is misleading, whether accidental or strategic. This kind of memetic language hijacking is increasingly common in the hybrid political-info landscape.

Tim507 wrote:

For starters, I AM against the selling of public lands. I have signed the appropriate petitions and stand firmly in defense of open access, stewardship, and...

For starters, I AM against the selling of public lands. I have signed the appropriate petitions and stand firmly in defense of open access, stewardship, and sacred trust.

In the spirit of discernment, I Am of the viewpoint that the widely circulated “Big Beautiful Bill” referenced in grassroots backlash against public land sell-offs is not the same as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act referenced by President Trump in 2024–2025.

I recognize this as a case of narrative hijack — a strategy used to sow confusion and create division using Trump-coded language.

As a sovereign observer and participant in the awakening process, I commit to holding the frequency of clarity, not reaction. My allegiance is to truth, not to parties, personas, or programming.

Two Distinct “Big Beautiful Bills”

1. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”

Origin: Referenced recently by President Trump (2024–2025 rallies and media)

Official Name: One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Contents:

Permanency of 2017 Trump-era tax cuts

Medicaid work requirements

Immigration policy (possibly tied to asylum reform)

Housing and university endowment tax changes

Intent: Large-scale legislative consolidation of key Republican/conservative policy goals

This is a broad, sweeping domestic reform package, with no direct connection to public land sell-offs.

 

2. The Senate’s 2025 Appropriations Land Sell-Off

Origin: Authored and pushed quietly within the Senate spending/appropriations cycle

Contents:

Authorization to sell up to 3.3 million acres of federal land

Primarily BLM-controlled, western states

Framed as budget balancing but spearheaded by Sen. Mike Lee

Nickname in Public Discourse: “Big Beautiful Bill” — used informally, likely mocking Trump-style phrasing

This version is being circulated by grassroots users (like on Vital MX) or activist groups — NOT by Trump himself.

 

So Is It Plagiarism or Hijack?

More likely: Narrative hijack or meme-weaponization. The phrase “Big Beautiful ___” is Trump-coded language, and critics may be intentionally attaching it to the land sell-off as a signal to his base that:

“This is not your guy’s bill — but it’s being sold like one.”

So yes — it’s a different bill, and using the same label is misleading, whether accidental or strategic. This kind of memetic language hijacking is increasingly common in the hybrid political-info landscape.

aeffertz wrote:

What? No, this absolutely is part of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”. Did you just conspire this all on your own or?

bm2ktom wrote:

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever...

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever bought the property closing off access to thousands of acres of still public land, land that is larger than what they bought. 

If you think the 3.3 million acres is all they going to close from these sales then you might want to do some research on corner crossing and land locked public lands. Why buy millions upon millions of acres when you can essentially own it all for the fraction of the price by buying the land surrounding it. These rich assholes have land surveyors pouring over these public land maps seeing what they can lock up for the smallest amount of money and I wouldn't be surprised if these maps of land for sale are directly from these assholes knowing they can buy it and lock up all the public land behind it. 

Also no one is advocating for you or anyone else to donate to "greenie" groups but sometimes the enemy of my enemy can be a friend and in this case I'll take any allies we can get in the fight against public land sales as public outcry is our only weapon against this. 

yak651 wrote:

This times 100. When our own organization (AMA) will not help with this issue, we don’t join the “greenies” but we welcome their support to fight...

This times 100. When our own organization (AMA) will not help with this issue, we don’t join the “greenies” but we welcome their support to fight this. Sometimes you find allies in the strangest places, take their help since we aren’t getting it from our industry. 

bm2ktom wrote:

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever...

I guess you chose to ignore the whole part about them closing access to the roads across legal easements that have existed long before they ever bought the property closing off access to thousands of acres of still public land, land that is larger than what they bought. 

If you think the 3.3 million acres is all they going to close from these sales then you might want to do some research on corner crossing and land locked public lands. Why buy millions upon millions of acres when you can essentially own it all for the fraction of the price by buying the land surrounding it. These rich assholes have land surveyors pouring over these public land maps seeing what they can lock up for the smallest amount of money and I wouldn't be surprised if these maps of land for sale are directly from these assholes knowing they can buy it and lock up all the public land behind it. 

Also no one is advocating for you or anyone else to donate to "greenie" groups but sometimes the enemy of my enemy can be a friend and in this case I'll take any allies we can get in the fight against public land sales as public outcry is our only weapon against this. 

yak651 wrote:

This times 100. When our own organization (AMA) will not help with this issue, we don’t join the “greenies” but we welcome their support to fight...

This times 100. When our own organization (AMA) will not help with this issue, we don’t join the “greenies” but we welcome their support to fight this. Sometimes you find allies in the strangest places, take their help since we aren’t getting it from our industry. 

Tim507 wrote:

For starters, I AM against the selling of public lands. I have signed the appropriate petitions and stand firmly in defense of open access, stewardship, and...

For starters, I AM against the selling of public lands. I have signed the appropriate petitions and stand firmly in defense of open access, stewardship, and sacred trust.

In the spirit of discernment, I Am of the viewpoint that the widely circulated “Big Beautiful Bill” referenced in grassroots backlash against public land sell-offs is not the same as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act referenced by President Trump in 2024–2025.

I recognize this as a case of narrative hijack — a strategy used to sow confusion and create division using Trump-coded language.

As a sovereign observer and participant in the awakening process, I commit to holding the frequency of clarity, not reaction. My allegiance is to truth, not to parties, personas, or programming.

Two Distinct “Big Beautiful Bills”

1. Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”

Origin: Referenced recently by President Trump (2024–2025 rallies and media)

Official Name: One Big Beautiful Bill Act

Contents:

Permanency of 2017 Trump-era tax cuts

Medicaid work requirements

Immigration policy (possibly tied to asylum reform)

Housing and university endowment tax changes

Intent: Large-scale legislative consolidation of key Republican/conservative policy goals

This is a broad, sweeping domestic reform package, with no direct connection to public land sell-offs.

 

2. The Senate’s 2025 Appropriations Land Sell-Off

Origin: Authored and pushed quietly within the Senate spending/appropriations cycle

Contents:

Authorization to sell up to 3.3 million acres of federal land

Primarily BLM-controlled, western states

Framed as budget balancing but spearheaded by Sen. Mike Lee

Nickname in Public Discourse: “Big Beautiful Bill” — used informally, likely mocking Trump-style phrasing

This version is being circulated by grassroots users (like on Vital MX) or activist groups — NOT by Trump himself.

 

So Is It Plagiarism or Hijack?

More likely: Narrative hijack or meme-weaponization. The phrase “Big Beautiful ___” is Trump-coded language, and critics may be intentionally attaching it to the land sell-off as a signal to his base that:

“This is not your guy’s bill — but it’s being sold like one.”

So yes — it’s a different bill, and using the same label is misleading, whether accidental or strategic. This kind of memetic language hijacking is increasingly common in the hybrid political-info landscape.

aeffertz wrote:

What? No, this absolutely is part of the “One Big, Beautiful Bill Act”. Did you just conspire this all on your own or?

Titan1 wrote:

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…When is comes to federal...

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…

When is comes to federal land…which isn’t sold very often if at all ever (at least in Utah)…I’ve lost WAY more trails on federal land to the lobbying greenie groups than I have to do rich people buying federal land…and it’s not even close.  

Titan1 wrote:

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…When is comes to federal...

so a private company, not the government, sold the land they owned, in your example…not the same as government selling public land…

When is comes to federal land…which isn’t sold very often if at all ever (at least in Utah)…I’ve lost WAY more trails on federal land to the lobbying greenie groups than I have to do rich people buying federal land…and it’s not even close.  

LungButter wrote:

A little bit apple to oranges on this specific case for sure.But that Private Timber land that the Wilkes bought started our as State Land.  It's...

A little bit apple to oranges on this specific case for sure.

But that Private Timber land that the Wilkes bought started our as State Land.  It's an example of what happens when the States gain control of these big tracts of land, they sell them.

That's the ultimate goal that Mike Lee and his homies have is to get all Federal Lands under State Control so they are then easier to sell off.

Multiple layers to this.

Sandberm656 wrote:

For those who do not know, this also a huge issue in the hunting community.

profeshenal125 wrote:

Or even walking on the land.  I,ve parked the truck & roamed or explored in probably 38 states.   Including Utah I climbed this huge hill...

Or even walking on the land.  I,ve parked the truck & roamed or explored in probably 38 states.   Including Utah I climbed this huge hill at night with my spot light . It looked  so cool that I waited for daylight . And climbed it again at sunrise . I would yell across a mile long valley & hear it echo.  I think I drove threw 2or 3 national parks in Utah.  It was the best scenery of Utah. Earlier in the week it was up state Ny. To the last exit b4 Quebec. Then cross 2 huge lake to get to Burlington , Vt.  I didn’t think the cheap boss would pay for the ferry from ny.  To Vt.  That was an amazing week of beautiful scenery.  Fact is there’s enough oil in west Tx. Already drilled to power the world for 10,000 yrs.  Statement was from 2 engineers with 40 yrs experience.   Gas should be .79 since we,ll never be able to use it all.  Why don’t we sell our access oil we could never use up ?  This land here belongs to the people to experience what being free feels like .  Not some billionaire to ruin it.  Pathetic on how broke the government is.  Super elitist from dc live a few miles out in Md. by far the richest people in America.  I del ovr priced Xmas plants & decorative tiny trees to 5 towns on narrow back roads.  Threw a private government golf course . I had drones rt next to each door filming me.  I gave them a thumbs up & smiled .  Haha. It was crazy they had round castles on each side of the narrow rd .  These people are crazy Rich with mansions 10 times bigger than any entertainer .  Massive perimeter walls with stone I never saw anywhere in America. For sure it came from another part of the world .  You should,very seen the looks I was getting from the people out there in Bentleys . It was priceless . Totally beat up Lithuanian Chicago mob truck . Hoho oh yeah . I pu the Xmas plants up in Oregon. Broke down for almost 3 days in Omaha it’s like 14 degrees & snowing, no heat . Doing laundry I noticed the water wasn’t working. Then I said check that out a black driver just had a towel on & said. Hey man what’s going on who shut the water off.  A driver eventually showed up & gave me a lap top & plug ins .  I used my phones WiFi then a Chicago mob shop hacked the truck & deleted the def system.  Made it too Chicago dp thd trl then off to a shop .  I was hoping another driver would finish the load . Because I didn’t want to convince the stores that the plants where not dead .  I would’ve paid anything to hear the rich complain on why there plants died early.  Haha 

Muzzle wrote:

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will...

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will be happy to take our money to fight the sale of public lands then stab us in the back while they fight to eliminate all OHV access. Below is a link to an article from the Blue Ribbon Coalition with their stance on the proposed legislation. It contains some interesting facts that are contrary to what some “journalists” are reporting and as such they have not yet openly opposed the bill

https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLAVXRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHrR73dL9wAdEbSdtC5lHPOIYkC4eN_Cz9_DRNqmS8-bu72QHAXx4rUTUdwIK_aem_O5-yLEzq3AP-3JNDHwRcoQ

Muzzle wrote:

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will...

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will be happy to take our money to fight the sale of public lands then stab us in the back while they fight to eliminate all OHV access. Below is a link to an article from the Blue Ribbon Coalition with their stance on the proposed legislation. It contains some interesting facts that are contrary to what some “journalists” are reporting and as such they have not yet openly opposed the bill

https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLAVXRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHrR73dL9wAdEbSdtC5lHPOIYkC4eN_Cz9_DRNqmS8-bu72QHAXx4rUTUdwIK_aem_O5-yLEzq3AP-3JNDHwRcoQ

RichieW13 wrote:

I don't really see much new (to me) in that article, except that it linked to a separate article. This article did provide some new information for...

I don't really see much new (to me) in that article, except that it linked to a separate article. 

This article did provide some new information for me. This article claims that the main goal of this proposal is to make more land available for housing. I think that is a good thing. Though I'm not sure how successful it will be if that intent is adhered to, because I'm not sure how much BLM land is in places that people really want to live. (unless it's vacation homes for the rich).  Likewise, that would be good news for OHV, because most good OHV areas are not really that great for housing. 

 

The other thing is that the bill supposedly doesn't allow the land to be purchased for speculation. Of course that would rely on enforcement, which is something the government typically isn't very good at. 

 

https://utahpla.com/understanding-the-lee-amendment-a-balanced-look-at-…

Muzzle wrote:

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will...

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will be happy to take our money to fight the sale of public lands then stab us in the back while they fight to eliminate all OHV access. Below is a link to an article from the Blue Ribbon Coalition with their stance on the proposed legislation. It contains some interesting facts that are contrary to what some “journalists” are reporting and as such they have not yet openly opposed the bill

https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLAVXRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHrR73dL9wAdEbSdtC5lHPOIYkC4eN_Cz9_DRNqmS8-bu72QHAXx4rUTUdwIK_aem_O5-yLEzq3AP-3JNDHwRcoQ

RichieW13 wrote:

I don't really see much new (to me) in that article, except that it linked to a separate article. This article did provide some new information for...

I don't really see much new (to me) in that article, except that it linked to a separate article. 

This article did provide some new information for me. This article claims that the main goal of this proposal is to make more land available for housing. I think that is a good thing. Though I'm not sure how successful it will be if that intent is adhered to, because I'm not sure how much BLM land is in places that people really want to live. (unless it's vacation homes for the rich).  Likewise, that would be good news for OHV, because most good OHV areas are not really that great for housing. 

 

The other thing is that the bill supposedly doesn't allow the land to be purchased for speculation. Of course that would rely on enforcement, which is something the government typically isn't very good at. 

 

https://utahpla.com/understanding-the-lee-amendment-a-balanced-look-at-…

Muzzle wrote:

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will...

I agree with many in this thread and oppose the sale of public lands and also share the warning with us supporting environmentalist organizations  that will be happy to take our money to fight the sale of public lands then stab us in the back while they fight to eliminate all OHV access. Below is a link to an article from the Blue Ribbon Coalition with their stance on the proposed legislation. It contains some interesting facts that are contrary to what some “journalists” are reporting and as such they have not yet openly opposed the bill

https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/?fbclid=IwY2xjawLAVXRleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHrR73dL9wAdEbSdtC5lHPOIYkC4eN_Cz9_DRNqmS8-bu72QHAXx4rUTUdwIK_aem_O5-yLEzq3AP-3JNDHwRcoQ

RichieW13 wrote:

I don't really see much new (to me) in that article, except that it linked to a separate article. This article did provide some new information for...

I don't really see much new (to me) in that article, except that it linked to a separate article. 

This article did provide some new information for me. This article claims that the main goal of this proposal is to make more land available for housing. I think that is a good thing. Though I'm not sure how successful it will be if that intent is adhered to, because I'm not sure how much BLM land is in places that people really want to live. (unless it's vacation homes for the rich).  Likewise, that would be good news for OHV, because most good OHV areas are not really that great for housing. 

 

The other thing is that the bill supposedly doesn't allow the land to be purchased for speculation. Of course that would rely on enforcement, which is something the government typically isn't very good at. 

 

https://utahpla.com/understanding-the-lee-amendment-a-balanced-look-at-…

soggy wrote:

Yea remote off the grid areas make for great housing for the lower/middle class 🙄

Fuck Mike Lee

APLMAN99 wrote:

Making the move from Washington to Texas was a real eye opener when it came to public lands. Texas is a huge state but it sure...

Making the move from Washington to Texas was a real eye opener when it came to public lands. Texas is a huge state but it sure seems like there’s less than 5% of the public lands as Washington has. It’s pretty disheartening. 

Granted, the government agencies can often have some crazy access rules to them, but it’s usually a bazillion times better access than private lands end up being. 

I’d oppose selling off public lands in almost all instances, even if that land isn’t currently accessible to the activities I enjoy. There’s always a slight chance to change those restrictions, but once the property is sold that chance pretty much completely disappears.