Public Lands Eligible for Sale

Please write your senators, write letters to the editors of your local papers, get the word out. Lots of lies being told to people about how this wouldn't impact their recreation.

Don’t let anyone trick you with the “only 0.5-0.75%” quote. That land will go private and most of it won’t go back, particularly the land that goes to businesses. They’ll chip and chip away

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 N wrote:

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 Moss wrote:

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 Bindseil wrote:

I’ve heard calls have a significant effect 

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

Eric Moss wrote:

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 Rubin wrote:

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 Moss wrote:

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 Marsters wrote:

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. 

Democrat senators Chickenlooper and Bennet from CO don't give a fuck about our public lands. those fucking DINOs/MAGA-lites both voted for climate change denier doug burgum to lead the DOI. fuck both of those backstabbing two-faced pieces of shit. i almost immediately got an email response from my democrat Rep. but have yet to hear back from either of those dipshits

take TAKE wrote:

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 Stein wrote:

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!