Mountain Project Logo

Public Lands Eligible for Sale

Sep M · · Boulder, co · Joined Apr 2019 · Points: 0
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?

Andy Bennett · · Scarizona · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 726

Admins Make Sticky, please!

Garrett Genereux · · Redmond · Joined Apr 2012 · Points: 35

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

Alan Rubin · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2015 · Points: 10

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.

Jared E · · CO-based healthcare traveler · Joined Nov 2022 · Points: 370
Alan Rubin wrote:

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 …

B B · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2023 · Points: 0

I have called my Utah legislatures yesterday, and today, I will spend my lunch calling Mike Lee and Curtis. They will be on speed dial at this point to make calling them easier.
Also call them while you are on the way to the crag, the trail head, etc. and let them know that. let them know you are actively using the land. May not do anything… but makes me feel better I guess. 

Tim Bratten · · Balcarce, AR · Joined May 2017 · Points: 4,421
PWZ wrote:

you keep repeating this in multiple threads, but what you're really calling "left" is barely center.

In today's Republican narrative, American's public lands tradition, the inheritance of GOP President T. Roosevelt expresses the values of communist, radical-left lunatics

Jiggs Casey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2024 · Points: 5
Bruno Schull wrote:

If land is sold, what will happen to it?  Where will it go?

Mining, oil, expensive condos, gated communities, shopping malls, golf courses, etc.  These will make a very small number of people very rich.  

I'm really curious: tthere are plenty of people here with a very conservative, free-market, laissez-faire political views.  You know, government should be small and exist only to enfoerce contracts and uphold the consitution, private industry will run anything more efficiently than the government, if the market makes something available then nothing should stand in the way, and so forth. 

What do people who hold those views say about this?

As long as it owns the libs, that’s all that matters to them.

If you’re conservative you shouldn’t even be allowed in national parks and public lands, your party has been against public lands since before public lands existed. 70% of conservative congressmen at the time voted against the creation of Yellowstone national park in 1872, and with a few minor exceptions, conservatives have been against every public land measure since.

Imagine if I spend a century and a half voting against funding the fire department but meanwhile I call the fire department for help? 

Alan Rubin · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2015 · Points: 10
Jiggs Casey wrote:

As long as it owns the libs, that’s all that matters to them.

If you’re Republican you shouldn’t even be allowed in national parks and public lands, your party has been against public lands since before public lands existed.

As I wrote on the other thread about this ( Red Alert), there is cause for some optimism that this proposed piece of legislation might be defeated--and, if so, largely due to the opposition of some conservative, but somewhat outdoor recreational use-friendly, Senators. We have to keep up the pressure though.

apogee · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2009 · Points: 0
Jiggs Casey wrote:

… your party has been against public lands since before public lands existed. 

Ok, you made me look. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, Republican Presidents have created a good number of National Monuments, but not much since Teddy Roosevelt. In recent years, Obama and Clinton top the list.

Jiggs Casey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2024 · Points: 5
apogee wrote:

Ok, you made me look. According to the National Parks Conservation Association, Republican Presidents have created a good number of National Monuments, but not much since Teddy Roosevelt. In recent years, Obama and Clinton top the list.

Roosevelt was a Republican when the racist kkk Southerners were democrats, party alignment switched since then, which is why I use the word conservative. Roosevelt was a progressive, not a conservative, and you’re correct, outside of him, the Republican Party has done almost squat for public lands.

The Exfoliator · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2025 · Points: 0

The Federal Reserve lends money to the Federal Government, gets paid back with interest. That interest is currently the #2 expenditure of the Federal Government. The beneficiaries of this land sell-off (Blackrock) have also been accumulating the capital to make these purchases directly from this lending/debt system you people who just worship the Federal State has been extorting from all of us.

End. The. Fed. 

Both Reserve and State 

Recognize that it's the Federal State and its unconstitutional control of land, plus its debt slavery currency system that is exactly why this problem exists. If were only your state, at least the people responsible for the land live among you and are much more easily replaced 

Eric Moss · · Exton, PA · Joined Apr 2016 · Points: 95
Jiggs Casey wrote:

If you’re conservative you shouldn’t even be allowed in national parks and public lands

Read that again, slowly.

Jiggs Casey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Feb 2024 · Points: 5
Eric Moss wrote:

Read that again, slowly.

If you vote against something why should you be allowed in that something? If I vote against funding the fire department, should I be allowed to call them? If not for liberals and progressives, there wouldn’t even be public lands, and you’d need an Ikon pass to visit Jellystone Natural Park.

I hadn’t felt this way before Trump, but if they’re gonna vote to destroy our entire democratic republic, public lands included, then yea this is how I feel.

This topic is locked and closed to new replies.

Log In to Reply
Welcome

Join the Community! It's FREE

Already have an account? Login to close this notice.