Newest US Senate Land Sale Amendment

[Wildabeest]

I really see your intent, but I also ask where is your line? At this point, my stance is not one single acre. As a scientist I am always open, but will need to see the data to consider it.

To me it’s not about a line. It’s about killing Lee’s amendment. Federal land has and will continue to be sold or exchanged under existing laws, so we’re not getting “not one single acre” either way.

 

[Hammsolo]

To me it’s not about a line. It’s about killing Lee’s amendment. Federal land has and will continue to be sold or exchanged under existing laws, so we’re not getting “not one single acre” either way.

Hmmmm… what’s the end goal? What about not another acre in sum? Maybe if they give up 2 I could consider 1. No promises.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

@Big Fin when is your podcast with representative simpson dropping?

 

[El Jason]

Any updates on where this is at? I see various articles proclaiming victory, but IMO it’s not over till the bill is out of the Senate.

 

[KingOfTagSoup]

 

[Pucky Freak]

Hmmmm… what’s the end goal? What about not another acre in sum? Maybe if they give up 2 I could consider 1. No promises.

I’d be interested on a deep dive into how the greater outdoor community can more seriously take some Western State residents’ grievances about federal overreach in land management. They might be in the minority, but just because the public land advocates have the upper hand at the moment does not mean we will forever.

I have lived in a small Western town hemmed in by public land. Beautiful landscapes and easy access to recreation out my back door. Those are wonderful community attributes. It also creates a reality where the needs of a small population can be difficult to meet.

I am not talking about Mike Lee-esque mini mansions, resorts, and residential sprawl on the outskirts of town. Rather, there are times when a utility line needs to be rerouted, or water supply infrastructure needs constructed or repaired, or telecom station needs built, or roads and bridges need fixed, or an erosion control project to protect people’s homes, businesses, and properties.

It can be an enormous headache to deal with the local BLM or USFS office on permitting, egress/ingress, surveying, etc., let alone something bigger like parcel swap. Federal agency staff are can be understaffed, underfunded, and tasks they want to assist with can involve a lot of red tape.

“Not one acre” sounds nice, but when a bentonite mudslide fills up your backyard and you can’t get your federal neighbor to clean it up in a timely manner and do some earth work to keep it from happening again, it is a PIA.

FLTFA is helpful, but it could use some streamlining and expansion, IMO. Let’s say 10k acres of federal land a year are sold, 5k new acres are purchased, and remaining proceeds buy permanent easements opening up inaccessible public. I know it is not that simple, but under FLTFA or revised FLTFA something like that is within the realm of reality. After 100 years at that rate, 500k (72 sq. miles) of public could be sold and an equal amount opened to public access. Compared to Sen. Lee’s 3.2 million square miles gone in 2 years, that is 8 sq. miles/yr. vs 1,600,000 sq. miles/yr, or a rate x200,000 slower.

I would wager that many forum members have a religious drive to preserve public land and access that rivals Mike Lee’s religious drive to eliminate it. I identify with the existential public land concept. I also want to pay consideration to other stakeholders who are less etherial in their motivations, and have real, concrete, economic, and logistical barriers that are interfering with their livelihood.

 

[Mudranger1]

Just my opinion...and I understand the not one acre concept. People turn and twist words to get reactions or stir the pot. With the original intent being not one acre to mike Lee's proposals. But like the housing market if you sold if you sell 10000 acres can you even realistically replace it with 5000?

 

[SAJ-99]

I’d be interested on a deep dive into how the greater outdoor community can more seriously take some Western State residents’ grievances about federal overreach in land management. They might be in the minority, but just because the public land advocates have the upper hand at the moment does not mean we will forever.

I have lived in a small Western town hemmed in by public land. Beautiful landscapes and easy access to recreation out my back door. Those are wonderful community attributes. It also creates a reality where the needs of a small population can be difficult to meet.

I am not talking about Mike Lee-esque mini mansions, resorts, and residential sprawl on the outskirts of town. Rather, there are times when a utility line needs to be rerouted, or water supply infrastructure needs constructed or repaired, or telecom station needs built, or roads and bridges need fixed, or an erosion control project to protect people’s homes, businesses, and properties.

It can be an enormous headache to deal with the local BLM or USFS office on permitting, egress/ingress, surveying, etc., let alone something bigger like parcel swap. Federal agency staff are can be understaffed, underfunded, and tasks they want to assist with can involve a lot of red tape.

“Not one acre” sounds nice, but when a bentonite mudslide fills up your backyard and you can’t get your federal neighbor to clean it up in a timely manner and do some earth work to keep it from happening again, it is a PIA.

FLTFA is helpful, but it could use some streamlining and expansion, IMO. Let’s say 10k acres of federal land a year are sold, 5k new acres are purchased, and remaining proceeds buy permanent easements opening up inaccessible public. I know it is not that simple, but under FLTFA or revised FLTFA something like that is within the realm of reality. After 100 years at that rate, 500k (72 sq. miles) of public could be sold and an equal amount opened to public access. Compared to Sen. Lee’s 3.2 million square miles gone in 2 years, that is 8 sq. miles/yr. vs 1,600,000 sq. miles/yr, or a rate x200,000 slower.

I would wager that many forum members have a religious drive to preserve public land and access that rivals Mike Lee’s religious drive to eliminate it. I identify with the existential public land concept. I also want to pay consideration to other stakeholders who are less etherial in their motivations, and have real, concrete, economic, and logistical barriers that are interfering with their livelihood.

You make a good point. But, and you knew there would be a but, a lot of the problems are local and not best solved unilaterally by the Feds. That is being tried now too, even in this bill. Thing like eliminating environmental reviews. If this passed with any version of Lee’s idea, most of the acres would be NIMBY’ed totally away from any “affordable” housing. I’m open to some compromise on some things, and sounds like you are too. There are areas for improvement in anything. But the reality is most people want everything and don’t want to sacrifice anything to get it.

Also, zero is a good number to make the point to Lee.

 

[winmag]

They’re going to twist and contort whatever you say and still label you a Marxist either way, so you might as well use a catchy slogan that gets right to the point.

 

[np307]

I’d be interested on a deep dive into how the greater outdoor community can more seriously take some Western State residents’ grievances about federal overreach in land management. They might be in the minority, but just because the public land advocates have the upper hand at the moment does not mean we will forever.

I have lived in a small Western town hemmed in by public land. Beautiful landscapes and easy access to recreation out my back door. Those are wonderful community attributes. It also creates a reality where the needs of a small population can be difficult to meet.

I am not talking about Mike Lee-esque mini mansions, resorts, and residential sprawl on the outskirts of town. Rather, there are times when a utility line needs to be rerouted, or water supply infrastructure needs constructed or repaired, or telecom station needs built, or roads and bridges need fixed, or an erosion control project to protect people’s homes, businesses, and properties.

It can be an enormous headache to deal with the local BLM or USFS office on permitting, egress/ingress, surveying, etc., let alone something bigger like parcel swap. Federal agency staff are can be understaffed, underfunded, and tasks they want to assist with can involve a lot of red tape.

“Not one acre” sounds nice, but when a bentonite mudslide fills up your backyard and you can’t get your federal neighbor to clean it up in a timely manner and do some earth work to keep it from happening again, it is a PIA.

FLTFA is helpful, but it could use some streamlining and expansion, IMO. Let’s say 10k acres of federal land a year are sold, 5k new acres are purchased, and remaining proceeds buy permanent easements opening up inaccessible public. I know it is not that simple, but under FLTFA or revised FLTFA something like that is within the realm of reality. After 100 years at that rate, 500k (72 sq. miles) of public could be sold and an equal amount opened to public access. Compared to Sen. Lee’s 3.2 million square miles gone in 2 years, that is 8 sq. miles/yr. vs 1,600,000 sq. miles/yr, or a rate x200,000 slower.

I would wager that many forum members have a religious drive to preserve public land and access that rivals Mike Lee’s religious drive to eliminate it. I identify with the existential public land concept. I also want to pay consideration to other stakeholders who are less etherial in their motivations, and have real, concrete, economic, and logistical barriers that are interfering with their livelihood.

Not voting for the guy promising to slash the budgets of the agencies geared toward helping in the situations you mentioned would be a good step toward solving those problems.

 

[Straight Arrow]

It can be an enormous headache to deal with the local BLM or USFS office on permitting, egress/ingress, surveying, etc., let alone something bigger like parcel swap. Federal agency staff are can be understaffed, underfunded, and tasks they want to assist with can involve a lot of red tape.

“Not one acre” sounds nice, but when a bentonite mudslide fills up your backyard and you can’t get your federal neighbor to clean it up in a timely manner and do some earth work to keep it from happening again, it is a PIA.

Such argument is oft heard. Realize "red tape" and rules are legislated for good reason. Rash changes with adverse impacts or unintended consequences forever are worse. To make the assertion that local control, local rules, and agencies would be better, more timely acting, and involve less "red tape" is unrealistic. Funding and staffing locally is even slower in responding due to fiscal shortcomings in most areas.
Tranferring federal public lands to underfunded local control or selling them outright is NOT the best solution. Ideally, the most effective solution is to adequately fund the agency to assist with the mudslide disaster and to push for legislation which makes the process more timely and more smoothly completed.

 

[Big Fin]

@Big Fin when is your podcast with representative simpson dropping?

It's edited. Just waiting for his staff to approve. So, hopefully this afternoon.

 

[abqbw]

He'll do anything for $ for his constituents,the uber wealthy.
After they pass the second largest shift of wealth from working folks to those who steal for a living(do nothing and pay no taxes), they will run the land steal again.
More jobs for the commies is their slogan

Meanwhile here in New Mexico where you and I live our state government privatizes 34% of all of our big game tags. 67% of pronghorn, 45% of elk, 23% of oryx, 22% of deer, and 20% of bighorn tags in New Mexico are privatized. Mostly through transferable private landowner (elk and bighorn) and unlimited private land permits while all public land permits are strictly limited ( pronghorn, deer, oryx, core area Barbary). But also through the blanket 10% outfitter draw set aside.

54.7% of federal BLM + Forest service public land in NM is BLM. Obviously these two agency managed lands are where most of us hunt. So 0.5% of that is .27% of Forest Service plus BLM is currently on the chopping block. If New Mexico tag privatization were to be reduced to “only” ten times that, 2.7% of big game tags instead of the current 34% of tags we would be dancing in the street.

Public land disposal is really bad for hunters. Hunters can’t believe that in DC that they want to transfer ANY of our public land to the uber/rich. But here in New Mexico it would barely register as a rounding error compared to tag privatization with respect to the negative impact on public big game hunting opportunity.

If 0.5% of blm land privatization by federal elected officials is deplorable (it is) then I don’t know what you would call privatization of 34% of our big game tags by New Mexico state elected officials. Satanic?

 

[SAJ-99]

If 0.5% of blm land privatization by federal elected officials is deplorable (it is) then I don’t know what you would call privatization of 34% of our big game tags by New Mexico state elected officials. Satanic?

I call it a choice made by the collective citizens of the state.

 

[Hammsolo]

I’d be interested on a deep dive into how the greater outdoor community can more seriously take some Western State residents’ grievances about federal overreach in land management. They might be in the minority, but just because the public land advocates have the upper hand at the moment does not mean we will forever.

I have lived in a small Western town hemmed in by public land. Beautiful landscapes and easy access to recreation out my back door. Those are wonderful community attributes. It also creates a reality where the needs of a small population can be difficult to meet.

I am not talking about Mike Lee-esque mini mansions, resorts, and residential sprawl on the outskirts of town. Rather, there are times when a utility line needs to be rerouted, or water supply infrastructure needs constructed or repaired, or telecom station needs built, or roads and bridges need fixed, or an erosion control project to protect people’s homes, businesses, and properties.

It can be an enormous headache to deal with the local BLM or USFS office on permitting, egress/ingress, surveying, etc., let alone something bigger like parcel swap. Federal agency staff are can be understaffed, underfunded, and tasks they want to assist with can involve a lot of red tape.

“Not one acre” sounds nice, but when a bentonite mudslide fills up your backyard and you can’t get your federal neighbor to clean it up in a timely manner and do some earth work to keep it from happening again, it is a PIA.

FLTFA is helpful, but it could use some streamlining and expansion, IMO. Let’s say 10k acres of federal land a year are sold, 5k new acres are purchased, and remaining proceeds buy permanent easements opening up inaccessible public. I know it is not that simple, but under FLTFA or revised FLTFA something like that is within the realm of reality. After 100 years at that rate, 500k (72 sq. miles) of public could be sold and an equal amount opened to public access. Compared to Sen. Lee’s 3.2 million square miles gone in 2 years, that is 8 sq. miles/yr. vs 1,600,000 sq. miles/yr, or a rate x200,000 slower.

I would wager that many forum members have a religious drive to preserve public land and access that rivals Mike Lee’s religious drive to eliminate it. I identify with the existential public land concept. I also want to pay consideration to other stakeholders who are less etherial in their motivations, and have real, concrete, economic, and logistical barriers that are interfering with their livelihood.

I think not giving a millimeter is situational. In this situation, I’m not down for a single one. In a different situation and time, I may behave differently. Mike Lee, and the current political dynamic, are dangerous. He is a snake oil salesman, a conman. We need different leadership, and then I’ll consider it.

 

[Big Fin]

Any updates on where this is at? I see various articles proclaiming victory, but IMO it’s not over till the bill is out of the Senate.

We are waiting on a decision from the Parliamentarian to day, as to whether or not the new language is any better than the old language. Fingers crossed, but in some ways, I'd love to see it come to a vote or have a Senate floor amendment come to a vote.

I too worry about these claims of victory.

Even if it is killed in the Senate or the House, Senator Lee will bring this back again, when there is another vote that is not subject to the 60-vote Senate filibuster. There are always bills that are huge priority that meet that Senate allowance for a simple majority. I suspect the next time they need to raise the debt limit, or when they run out of money and need a continuing resolution to keep the government from shutting down, or (insert crisis due to Congressional ineptitude).

This fight for public lands will never be over, so long as their exists ideologues such as Lee and his supporters. Yes, if we kill this one, we take a quick victor lap. Even better might be finding ways to leverage the cohesive mass that has risen in the outdoor space and use the momentum to our advantage.

 

[Wildabeest]

I think not giving a millimeter is situational. In this situation, I’m not down for a single one. In a different situation and time, I may behave differently. Mike Lee, and the current political dynamic, are dangerous. He is a snake oil salesman, a conman. We need different leadership, and then I’ll consider it.

Perhaps we change the rally cry to “not one single Mike Lee amendment!”

 

[Wildabeest]

We are waiting on a decision from the Parliamentarian to day, as to whether or not the new language is any better than the old language. Fingers crossed, but in some ways, I'd love to see it come to a vote or have a Senate floor amendment come to a vote.

I too worry about these claims of victory.

Even if it is killed in the Senate or the House, Senator Lee will bring this back again, when there is another vote that is not subject to the 60-vote Senate filibuster. There are always bills that are huge priority that meet that Senate allowance for a simple majority. I suspect the next time they need to raise the debt limit, or when they run out of money and need a continuing resolution to keep the government from shutting down, or (insert crisis due to Congressional ineptitude).

This fight for public lands will never be over, so long as their exists ideologues such as Lee and his supporters. Yes, if we kill this one, we take a quick victor lap. Even better might be finding ways to leverage the cohesive mass that has risen in the outdoor space and use the momentum to our advantage.

Time for a “Public lands in public hands “ PAC?

 

[MNElkNut]

..........Even better might be finding ways to leverage the cohesive mass that has risen in the outdoor space and use the momentum to our advantage.

I wonder if anyone is capturing all of the media outlets/personalities/influencers and organizations that are fighting this. Having a list may be extremely beneficial in the future.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I’d be interested on a deep dive into how the greater outdoor community can more seriously take some Western State residents’ grievances about federal overreach in land management. They might be in the minority, but just because the public land advocates have the upper hand at the moment does not mean we will forever.

I have lived in a small Western town hemmed in by public land. Beautiful landscapes and easy access to recreation out my back door. Those are wonderful community attributes. It also creates a reality where the needs of a small population can be difficult to meet.

I am not talking about Mike Lee-esque mini mansions, resorts, and residential sprawl on the outskirts of town. Rather, there are times when a utility line needs to be rerouted, or water supply infrastructure needs constructed or repaired, or telecom station needs built, or roads and bridges need fixed, or an erosion control project to protect people’s homes, businesses, and properties.

It can be an enormous headache to deal with the local BLM or USFS office on permitting, egress/ingress, surveying, etc., let alone something bigger like parcel swap. Federal agency staff are can be understaffed, underfunded, and tasks they want to assist with can involve a lot of red tape.

“Not one acre” sounds nice, but when a bentonite mudslide fills up your backyard and you can’t get your federal neighbor to clean it up in a timely manner and do some earth work to keep it from happening again, it is a PIA.

FLTFA is helpful, but it could use some streamlining and expansion, IMO. Let’s say 10k acres of federal land a year are sold, 5k new acres are purchased, and remaining proceeds buy permanent easements opening up inaccessible public. I know it is not that simple, but under FLTFA or revised FLTFA something like that is within the realm of reality. After 100 years at that rate, 500k (72 sq. miles) of public could be sold and an equal amount opened to public access. Compared to Sen. Lee’s 3.2 million square miles gone in 2 years, that is 8 sq. miles/yr. vs 1,600,000 sq. miles/yr, or a rate x200,000 slower.

I would wager that many forum members have a religious drive to preserve public land and access that rivals Mike Lee’s religious drive to eliminate it. I identify with the existential public land concept. I also want to pay consideration to other stakeholders who are less etherial in their motivations, and have real, concrete, economic, and logistical barriers that are interfering with their livelihood.

My $0.02 as someone who has lived and worked in the I-80 checkerboard for the last 30 years. I don't know anyone, me included, that wants Fed land to be granted to the States with the expressed intent that it all be sold to private entities. I do know a few people that would like for some of it to be sold in order to streamline development (housing, mining, renewable energy, O&G, etc.). By far the majority of folks that I know want it to remain exactly as it is today, public land. Whether that be Federally owned public land or State-owned public land, they do not really care. The only reason they think State transfer might be a good idea is to eliminate the back and forth with Federal Administrations and how they perform their duties on land management. It has almost nothing to do with local offices. But rather how those local offices are directed to act from the Federal Administration. Take the Rock Springs BLM RMP. Local BLM officials and the local community worked hand in glove to develop a RMP option that worked for the businesses that make Rock Springs and Green River anything other than a ghost town. It was the DC based BLM officials that recommended an option that had real and significant impacts to the local community. The Buffalo BLM RMP is much the same only more significant in its impacts. I know for a fact that local BLM officials did not support or recommend these options. I have spoken to them directly. A decade of honest, hard work on the local level, comes crashing down because the National Level had a different desired outcome. For me personally, I want the land to remain in Fed control, and I want it to remain public. But more so I want the Federal Agencies tasked with managing it to have a more consistent management stance. Where I am at, the Biden years set back cooperation between the local community and the Federal agencies. Just as the Bush years did, just on the other side of the coin.

I see directly how the local Federal Offices turn on a dime with a change in Administration. A year ago, I could not get a phone call returned from a certain Federal agency that was stonewalling a proposed project. Since January of 2025, if I call, they answer. Don't always give me the answer I was hoping for but nobody in these local agencies wants to be seen as the person slow walking a Fossil Fuels project. Under the Biden administration, it was the exact opposite, no one wanted to be the one allowing a coal project to proceed. Those that are in favor of transfer to the State, believe this back and forth would stop if the State had control, given that the switch between D and R administrations on a state level are so much less than on a Fed level.

When folks on HT wonder how could anyone in Wyo vote for Rep. Hageman given her stance on Federal Land transfer, what they don't see is her fighting for other things that are important to them. It would be awesome if my only concern was having an easily accessible place to recreate. But myself and many other folks in Wyoming have other things that keep us up at night. And quite honestly Rep. Hageman is a great advocate for many of these concerns. I happen to think that she is wrong on this Amendment and I have voiced this to her directly. I also happen to know that she is an excellent advocate for many other issues that concern and impact me and many others in Wyoming. She will continue to get my vote just as she will continue to hear from me that I think she is wrong on her Federal Land sale/transfer beliefs.

I have seen firsthand BLM land swaps work great and allow for sensible development. I have also seen chunks of BLM land remain as they are with housing development all around. These many times work out great as folks in those areas love having a section of land out their back door they can play on. To come at it with the thought of "not one single acre", is as unrealistic and foolish as "sell it all for American prosperity".