Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment

Post videos online of you and the family enjoying a drive, a picnic, hiking on USDA-FS lands.
All the "news" talk is of selling Nat. Parks.
To divert attention from the sale of 4 million acres of Forest Service lands.

BLM is more and not just around Las Vegas.

This public service notice from Sen. Tester...
 
Why would they? They'll keep hunting the same lands, but without competition from the public.
Like them or not probably the biggest hunting YouTube channel The Hunting Public actually is putting out the word. Now honestly IMO they are probably the average hunter unaware of all that goes on but hey they are trying
 
“That’s not sustainable,” he says in the recording. “It’s not fair. It’s not serving the Americans who actually live here. “We’re opening underused federal land to expand housing, support local development, and get Washington, D.C. out of the way of communities that are just trying to grow.”

In the video, Lee assuages the conservation community, which has been almost unanimously opposed to smaller land sales proposed in earlier budget drafts.

“To our hunters, anglers, and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven it can’t manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.”



Disingenuous and dishonest Mike Lee trying to say that you won't lose access to land he wants to sell to developers to build subdivisions. Imagine an endless landscape of tract homes a la any Ogden-SLC-Provo suburb, but don't worry, you won't lose access.

He must think we are stupid.

Might be preaching to the choir, but phone calls carry more weight than emails, especially template emails. Call, and call again. This thing seems to have some legs, and Lee is putting the pieces into position to potentially finally get his grimy hands on our lands.
 
“To our hunters, anglers, and sportsmen, you will not lose access to the lands you love. Washington has proven it can’t manage this land. This bill puts it in better hands.”
There are thousands of acres in this amendment I hunt. So yeah, it’s patently false to say I won’t lose access to to lands I love.
 
I recommend reiterating again and again the threat that Sen. Daines and Sheehy (for MT folk) will NOT be reelected by Montanans if they support or vote for the sale of public lands in this Budget Bill or in the future. It would so clearly go against our values.

We can't rely on a politician's good heart to "do the right thing", but must strike that chord they really care about which is the self-interest of getting re-elected.

We have to try different angles in the hope, however idealistic, that our messaging can stick for the longer term and not just address the current political fire we're trying to put out.
 
Someone shared this land disposal map on the Santa Fe subreddit:

I'm not exactly sure of the source but I'm guessing it's the FLTFA lands with the Montana carve out?

Theft
There is far too much land shown on this map. Maybe we're just missing the boat and they are ramping up to sell everything off! Did I miss somewhere that they upped the amount to sell off? There is 3.7 million acres shown in Colorado alone not to mention almost 80 million acres in Alaska.
 
There is far too much land shown on this map. Maybe we're just missing the boat and they are ramping up to sell everything off! Did I miss somewhere that they upped the amount to sell off? There is 3.7 million acres shown in Colorado alone not to mention almost 80 million acres in Alaska.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the map looks like the FLTFA lands which is something like 40 million acres total (EDIT: I'm wrong here somehow, someone hit me over the head please). The current proposal is to sell 3 million acres out of these lands. Lee probably knows he can't get the whole thing done in one fell swoop, but he could get a few million acres in to get started. In my opinion, he just needs one 'affordable house' to be built on a parcel near a blue city, and that would be the marketing campaign to get the rest of the acres to auction.
 
I was compelled to email my elected officials when this was in the house. After seeing the recent headlines, and watching Randy's passionate call to action, I sent personalized emails to everyone senator on committee.

Realizing it's likely a canned response, Daines is the only one to write back with anything substantive.

It seems like he takes a pretty firm position. Can this be interpreted to mean that he will oppose this provision, or am I missing the political weaselness?
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250616_140007_Email.jpg
    Screenshot_20250616_140007_Email.jpg
    760.1 KB · Views: 35
Looks like the map is out there on some other sites as well.



 
Uncle Randy (@Big Fin),

I was a bit surprised to hear on your latest ElkTalk podcast with Cory that you think there are only 4 elk hunters in Congress and that even fewer are willing to come on your platforms. Almost half of Congress are members of the Sportsmen's Caucus-- surely more than four chase elk, right? Have y'all reached out to some of the less prominent members of the caucus to see if they are interested in being interviewed?

Of note, our friends Sen. Lee and Rep. Amodei are members... so clearly calling oneself a sportsman and supporting public lands are not one and the same. And I'm here to tell you Sen. McConnell likely hasn't had a fishing rod in his hand since Moby Dick was a minnow.

1750097441661.png 1750097468404.png
 
Last edited:
I was compelled to email my elected officials when this was in the house. After seeing the recent headlines, and watching Randy's passionate call to action, I sent personalized emails to everyone senator on committee.

Realizing it's likely a canned response, Daines is the only one to write back with anything substantive.

It seems like he takes a pretty firm position. Can this be interpreted to mean that he will oppose this provision, or am I missing the political weaselness?
I got the same response, word-for-word when I emailed about PLT several months ago. The third paragraph concerns me - it seems like he's saying without saying that he thinks the state of Montana could do a better job of managing those lands than the feds. But everyone willing to be even a little bit honest with themselves know that's just the gateway to selling them.
 
I believe the map posted above shows eligible lands that could be nominated/selected, up to 0.75% of FS and BLM lands in total.

I see comments in this thread about "affordable housing," but note that the word "affordable" does not appear in the bill. The word "affordability" appears once. There is no requirement, and in fact little suggestion, that lands sold will be used for "affordable housing." Outside of the title, the word "housing" appears 5 times, in the following contexts:

  • the extent to which the development of the tract of Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest System land would address local housing needs (including housing supply and affordability) or any associated community needs.

  • the Secretary concerned shall give priority consideration to the disposal of tracts of Bureau of Land Management land and National Forest System land that, as determined by the Secretary concerned— (A) are nominated by States or units of local governments; (B) are adjacent to existing developed areas; (C) have access to existing infrastructure; (D) are suitable for residential housing; (E) reduce checkerboard land patterns; or (F) are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.

  • A tract of covered Federal land disposed of under this section shall be used solely for the development of housing or to address associated community needs as defined by the Secretary concerned.

  • Amounts distributed to a unit of local government under subparagraph (A) shall be used by the unit of local government solely for essential infrastructure directly supporting housing development or other associated community needs, as determined by the Secretary concerned.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
117,757
Messages
2,167,563
Members
38,340
Latest member
bravokilo
Back
Top