Public Lands Eligible for Sale

From Mike Lee's Website:

As Utah’s population grows, access to the land will become even more urgent and necessary. Some will need to accommodate affordable housing, roads to ease congestion, schools, etc; other acreage that contains critical minerals and energy sources will need to be responsibly and safely tapped; and finally, others will need to be preserved for fishing, hunting, climbing, and other outdoor sports that bring families together and are simply a way of life in the west.

Contact Senator Mike Lee here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/contact 

I don't believe that politicians actually read their mail, much less that a well-crafted appeal will change their minds.

Cory Nwrote:

From Mike Lee's Website:

Contact Senator Mike Lee here: https://www.lee.senate.gov/contact 

Mike Lee wrote the provision in question. Isn’t he about the least likely senator of all to be convinced to vote against it?

On the other hand, if he wrote it, can he unilaterally remove it? I don’t know the procedures for that kind of thing. My ChatGPT says no, but it’s often wrong.

Eric Mosswrote:

I don't believe that politicians actually read their mail, much less that a well-crafted appeal will change their minds.

I’ve heard calls have a significant effect 

TJ Bindseilwrote:

I’ve heard calls have a significant effect 

Unfortunately, Mike Lee is probably actually worse than trump by just about every metric. 

Eric Mosswrote:

I don't believe that politicians actually read their mail, much less that a well-crafted appeal will change their minds.

Wrong. Politicians are very cognizant of their mail ( and phone calls, emails, etc), especially from constituents. Large amounts of negative input can have a significant impact, though, of course, not always. In particular, if Senator Lee is deluged by mail on this from angry Utahans, it could make a difference.

As far as Lee unilaterally removing the provision, since it hasn't yet been voted on, it is always subject to change. I'm sure, unlikely as it is, that if he requests it to be removed at this stage of the process, that would happen.

Alan Rubinwrote:

Wrong. Politicians are very cognizant of their mail ( and phone calls, emails, etc), especially from constituents. Large amounts of negative input can have a significant impact, though, of course, not always. In particular, if Senator Lee is deluged by mail on this from angry Utahans, it could make a difference.

As far as Lee unilaterally removing the provision, since it hasn't yet been voted on, it is always subject to change. I'm sure, unlikely as it is, that if he requests it to be removed at this stage if the process, that would happen.

RE: Mike Lee

Not going to happen. Not only he but the entire Utah delegation is tone deaf on this issue.

Someone needs to list Republican senators who may be susceptible to pressure. There is not any democrats that are going to vote for this.

Call Mike Lee's DC office at 202-224-5444

Also call your own Senators and Representatives in your state!

5calls.org

Im not sure if fighting about who is bad or why or whatever is helping us. Maybe just send the letter and see what happens?

Eric Mosswrote:

I don't believe that politicians actually read their mail, much less that a well-crafted appeal will change their minds.

My senators’ offices have actually called me back to engage on issues (DOGE, specifically). Some won’t but some absolutely do, particularly if you’re of their party and your opinions indicate a primary threat. 

Since submitting that letter yesterday (created by Outdoor Alliance), I have received two auto-replies from my state’s Democratic Senators- I think they are prolly listening, but I’m preaching to the choir. Still, a worthwhile effort.

No response from the Republican Representative of my district, however. Not surprising given his history…I have a feeling that one will just vaporize.

If a private entity does buy a crag, is anybody aware of current legal protections for the landowner if they provide access? 

Last I heard in CO (stemming from the 14ers and Air Force Academy mtb access issue), is that the owner has to post fairly detailed signs discussing risk. I believe some have waivers. Even if that does provide some protection in a case, are they still subject to hassle from those looking for a quick settlement?

Here's an idea: Mining claims are excluded and can be cheap to file. Won't work everywhere, not free, master's tools, etc. But a creative and actionable move! 

Read more: https://www.reddit.com/r/climbing/comments/1lefz6h/stake_mining_claims_over_public_climbing_areas_to/

Ryan Marsterswrote:

If a private entity does buy a crag, is anybody aware of current legal protections for the landowner if they provide access? 

Last I heard in CO (stemming from the 14ers and Air Force Academy mtb access issue), is that the owner has to post fairly detailed signs discussing risk. I believe some have waivers. Even if that does provide some protection in a case, are they still subject to hassle from those looking for a quick settlement?

Each state is different---the joys of Federalism!!! Many states have specific 'recreational use statutes' for such situations. These statutes also vary in their specifics from state to state, but in general provide liability protection for landowners who open their land, free of charge, for outdoor recreational use. All such statutes, though, either in their language or through common law, contain exceptions for such things as willfully creating a dangerous situation. Other states have no such statutes and instead rely on general liability laws, including such things as 'assumption of the risk' on the part of the recreational user.

But, as you suggest, whether or not there are such statutes or other protections doesn't prevent an injured party, or their heirs, from suing in the hope that either the landowner ( or their insurance company) will want to settle quickly to avoid the hassle and cost of invariably drawn-out litigation or, even, that a sympathetic jury might find for them if the case does actually go to trial. 

take TAKEwrote:

Here's an idea: Mining claims are excluded and can be cheap to file. Won't work everywhere, not free, master's tools, etc. But a creative and actionable move! 

Read more: https://www.reddit.com/r/climbing/comments/1lefz6h/stake_mining_claims_over_public_climbing_areas_to/

A few years back, an individual was prosecuted in Utah for filing mining claims and bidding on the leases with the intention of not exploiting them.

Frank Steinwrote:

A few years back, an individual was prosecuted in Utah for filing mining claims and bidding on the leases with the intention of not exploiting them.

How much chipping do you need to do for it to be legally considered mining?

Admins Make Sticky, please!

Here’s a great, short substack that goes below the surface of the amendment. It has the updated map that shows it is now actually 290+ million acres.

Wes Siler’s Explanation

I was discussing this with a friend and I thought that philosophically and in reality he made a really great point in the same thread of the tragedy of the commons. When you compare the financial assets (stocks, actual money, etc.) of the masses to the wealthiest of this country, we pale in comparison to the oligarchs. However, property is an asset too. We all own these 290,000,000 acres of land. While we don’t profit directly from them (and would never if they are sold in this manner anyway), we still collectively hold them as an asset. Now, the wealthiest want to own that too and take it away from us. They want it all. Greedy motherfuckers. 

Call all the R senators, and D’s for that matter of the Western states. If you don’t live there either:

A) lie and give them a zip code within their state making yourself one of their constituents, or 

B) let them know that you visit their state and spend money in their state because of the recreational opportunities available 

Mike Crapo, ID 202-224-6142

Jim Risch, ID 202-224-2752

Mike Lee, UT 202-224-5444

John Curtis, UT 202-224-5251

John Barrasso, WY 202-224-6441

Cynthia Lummis, WY 202-224-3424

One of the ( multiple) ridiculous things concerning this piece of prospective legislation, is that one of the main justifications Sen. Lee and other supporters are claiming is that it will be used to provide land for "affordable housing"!!! Well, looking at those maps, virtually none of the sections of land at risk are anywhere near urban areas or any place else that would be appropriate for such housing. Clearly this is just a fake 'selling point' to make this look like an effort to assist those in need, instead of its true purpose to cater to the 'very needy' exploitative industries.

Alan Rubinwrote:

One of the ( multiple) ridiculous things concerning this piece of prospective legislation, is that one of the main justifications Sen. Lee and other supporters are claiming is that it will be used to provide land for "affordable housing"!!! Well, looking at those maps, virtually none of the sections of land at risk are anywhere near urban areas or any place else that would be appropriate for such housing. Clearly this is just a fake 'selling point' to make this look like an effort to assist those in need, instead of its true purpose to cater to the 'very needy' exploitative industries.

Affordable… for the Jeff bezoses …