Map of public lands to be sold under Senate Bill

[clearwater]

This is a map of the national public lands in 11 western states that could be sold under the Senate version of the BBB.

It's a huge amount of land. Much include important watersheds for city and agriculture. You can check and see if it is places you hunt or get your water, travel thru etc. Privately owned, this could greatly limit where everyone is allowed to not only recreate, cut firewood, forage, hunt etc, but could lock off remaining public lands to those uses.

Senate Reconciliation - National Public Lands Available for Sale

also news
Wyoming Newspaper

Deseret News

 

[salmonchaser]

Yep, most of the area around us.

 

[Wolfshead]

We need to encourage everyone we can to contact our reps!
I’m from the northeast, but I certainly do not want this to become a thing
I pray that this does not go through

 

[clearwater]

Senators from Idaho opposed. Spokesman Review

 

[clearwater]

Looks like it has been pulled for now. Needed 60% of the senate for this type of legislation on this type of bill apparently.

A related order by Trump just came out to allow road construction, development and such on National Forest land in currently roadless areas. My Dad designed alot of the current forest roads in Idaho and Washington. As I remember, when the USFS contracted the building of roads, some of the cost was born by the logging company etc. However, the long term costs to keep them open were born by the taxpayer. Benefit to the public needs to be considered for the long term. While reducing fuel loads helps with fire prevention, not all logging operations have best practices for fire hazard reduction. Local input and government oversight of contracts is important.

 

[PJGunner]

I can just see major developers foaming at the mouth hoping some of that land becomes available so they can hopefully get it cheap and build more tacky houses and get richer. My dislike for developers goes a long, long way back when a certain developer sued to get the only shooting range available condemned.He then bought the land pennies on the dollar value and made multimillions of dollars building houses.
At that point, the only range open to the public was the one for the San Francisco police Dept. When the Coastside Club range was shut down, the City of San Francisco opened their range to the public on weekends. We had that for a couple of year until the late great Dianne Feinstein as mayor of San Francisco had it shut down for civilian use.
My shooting buddy in Winnemuca told me just about every place we used to hunt rabbits and coyotes is now wall to wall houses. The greed of some developed just makes me sick to my soul.
Paul B.

 

[trapper10]

Elections have consequences!

 

[Vince]

I have no issue with this as I don’t believe that the federal government has the constitutional authority to own land except in very limited circumstances.

As most of you know, old timers here, I believe that federal land should belong to the representative states. Federal land is to be “disposed of” once the land becomes part of a state.

Vince

 

[bkordon]

The federal government technically isn't the landowner. We, the public are. They manage it for the American people. They have zero right to sell it off to the highest bidder, nor do they have the right to lock the public out. States mostly don't have the resources to manage these lands on a large scale, particularly in the western states.

 

[Vince]

The federal government technically isn't the landowner. We, the public are. They manage it for the American people. They have zero right to sell it off to the highest bidder, nor do they have the right to lock the public out. States mostly don't have the resources to manage these lands on a large scale, particularly in the western states.

The federal government does not have Constitutional authority to “manage” land once that land is within the borders of a state. They can only manage territories.

Vince

 

[bkordon]

The federal government does not have Constitutional authority to “manage” land once that land is within the borders of a state. They can only manage territories.

Vince

There is also no constitutional authority to sell public land off to the highest bidder; which precisely why there was an attempt to cram it into a bill.

 

[Vince]

There is also no constitutional authority to sell public land off to the highest bidder; which precisely why there was an attempt to cram it into a bill.

I believe you are wrong.
The federal government is to “dispose of land” and that can mean sale.

Vince

 

[bkordon]

Article IV, Section 3, Paragrah 2 states the following:
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

In no way does this state that the federal governed is "required" to dispose of land. It gives them the possibility, but if you look at the entirety of section 3, it is referring to the creation of states, not within the boundaries of existing states. Paragraph 2 says absolutely nothing about selling off public land to the highest bidder. We are not talking about turning over jurisdiction to the states, we are talking about taking public lands and making them private lands. This is by no means respecting the territory.

Public lands are exactly that; public.

 

[Vince]

Article IV, Section 3, Paragrah 2 states the following:
"The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

In no way does this state that the federal governed is "required" to dispose of land. It gives them the possibility, but if you look at the entirety of section 3, it is referring to the creation of states, not within the boundaries of existing states. Paragraph 2 says absolutely nothing about selling off public land to the highest bidder. We are not talking about turning over jurisdiction to the states, we are talking about taking public lands and making them private lands. This is by no means respecting the territory.

Public lands are exactly that; public.

I don’t have time to deep dive this but I will say that with limited exceptions, ports of entry and military bases, the land belongs to the respective states not the federal government. If one wants to follow strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Indian reservations granted prior to statehood are not part of that state and are property of that respective nation. That’s right, they should be viewed as a separate foreign country. All reservations created after statehood should be null and void.

I realize this is a concept that goes against the grain but those that say that states cannot manage the land are wrong in my opinion. Would there be higher state taxes? Maybe. Or maybe the state would impose fees on those companies that profit from the resources like Alaska does. This would give them the capital to manage the resources and land.

It’s only been recently, in historical context, that the concept of public land has come about and that’s because we live a more leisurely lifestyle than our ancestors.

Vince