RED ALERT: SENATE BILL INCLUDES MAJOR CLIMBING AREAS FOR SALE

From the Outdoor Alliance: "Last week, the Senate released text of a major spending package, which included a proposal to sell off about 3 million acres of public land. Today, Outdoor Alliance released a map showing that nearly 300 million acres of public lands could be open for these proposed sales, an area that includes nearly 100,000 miles of trails, 8,232 climbing areas, and 3,405 river miles across the West."

Read the article here.

See a map of lands for sale here.

Take action here.

Even if your senators are likely to vote against this, they track traffic on topics. The more input they get, the harder they'll fight.

This is a big deal...!

So just to check my understanding, the map is simply a map of all BLM and National Forest land and .5% - .75% of that could possibly be sold. right?

"As written, the Senate’s bill would require the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to sell off at least 0.5%—and up to 0.75%—of all National Forest and BLM lands, totaling up to 3.3 million acres."

Public Lands Eligible for Sale

@James M 

It would also set the insane precedent of selling off public lands for "budget" reasons. So you can safely assume that, if it starts, it will keep happening until all public lands are sold.

Will Vandenberghwrote:

@James M 

It would also set the insane precedent of selling off public lands for "budget" reasons. So you can safely assume that, if it starts, it will keep happening until all public lands are sold.

"What is the slippery slope fallacy?"

I'll take $1000 in fallacious arguments to close out the category Alex...  Sorry...yes Sir, Mr Trebeck.... won't happen again Sir. 

@Jim U
Regardless of the slippery slope arguments presented above, how would you feel about even a million acres of public lands being sold off? What if you were to lose access to your favorite climbing area? 

FWIW legal precedent is a funny complication for the validity of the slippery slope fallacy. But I dunno im not a lawyer.

Jim Uwrote:

"What is the slippery slope fallacy?"

The post you quoted isn’t a slippery slope fallacy.

If I have to pay my electricity bill this month, expecting to pay it again next month isn’t a slippery slope fallacy. It’s basic budgeting.

The slippery slope argument would be, “if we start selling public land, next we’ll start giving away public land.”

If this year’s federal budget is partially funded by land sales, that doesn’t guarantee they’ll do the same next year. But there will be a precedent. Which is what the comment you quoted said.

Jim Uwrote:

"What is the slippery slope fallacy?"

I'll take $1000 in fallacious arguments to close out the category Alex...  Sorry...yes Sir, Mr Trebeck.... won't happen again Sir. 

“What is the fallacy fallacy?”

remember when social media was just a website you’d chat with your friends on? And now it’s the ultimate data-farming, spying, brain-rotting ad-riddled piece of shit? That didn’t happen all at once, things slipped little by little down that slope because it was profitable.

Corporations (and to a lesser degree individuals) will buy the land that is eligible for purchase because they will think (and they often are right) that they can make money off it — either by destroying it or by charging admittance. Then, they’ll do it again with the next batch. And again. And again. Some of that land will be destroyed forever, for our intents and purposes. The vast majority of it will not return to public ownership in our lifetimes (especially that which was bought by corporations).

Corporations and greedy weasels will always go where the money is.

So FOH with that argument

PLEASE MAKE THIS STICKY

How does one find out when these sales are going to occur if they do at all?

Much too early. This is just an early step in the legislative process. It is a section of a proposed piece of legislation that has been released by the Republican members of one Senate committee. There are multiple steps to go before it becomes a law ( and hopefully it never will--though with anti-environmental Republicans controlling the Senate, House, and President there is a serious risk that some version of this will be enacted). If it, or a version, does become law, an administrative process will need to be established to proceed further---and, undoubtedly, there will be lawsuits to further impact the end result. But trying to stop it now, in the early stage, especially as Republicans are trying to move the overall legislation very quickly,  is most important.  At the very least we might see the scope of the land open for sale significantly reduced and limitations on how and what can be sold, even if we can't prevent some version from being enacted.

Jared Ewrote:

“What is the fallacy fallacy?”

remember when social media was just a website you’d chat with your friends on? And now it’s the ultimate data-farming, spying, brain-rotting ad-riddled piece of shit? That didn’t happen all at once, things slipped little by little down that slope because it was profitable.

Corporations (and to a lesser degree individuals) will buy the land that is eligible for purchase because they will think (and they often are right) that they can make money off it — either by destroying it or by charging admittance. Then, they’ll do it again with the next batch. And again. And again. Some of that land will be destroyed forever, for our intents and purposes. The vast majority of it will not return to public ownership in our lifetimes (especially that which was bought by corporations).

Corporations and greedy weasels will always go where the money is.

So FOH with that argument

Government is a corporation

Sep Mwrote:

The post you quoted isn’t a slippery slope fallacy.

If I have to pay my electricity bill this month, expecting to pay it again next month isn’t a slippery slope fallacy. It’s basic budgeting.

The slippery slope argument would be, “if we start selling public land, next we’ll start giving away public land.”

If this year’s federal budget is partially funded by land sales, that doesn’t guarantee they’ll do the same next year. But there will be a precedent. Which is what the comment you quoted said.

In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends.....

"if it starts, it will keep happening until all public lands are sold."  - so if that isn't a logical fallacy of one event leading to another ridiculous one.  then it's what a chicken little fallacy?  "grandma is going to be eating dog food if we don't pass or stop this bill!!!!!" 

.5% - .75% of that could possibly be sold........  of 3million areas......  what's the maths on that gentlemen?   yes I just assumed your gender...

I've got an inherent problem with the federal gov't "owning" all this land to begin with.  Do I want strip malls from sea to shining sea, nope.  but to think that a 1% sale of 3million acres of land will lead to a 100% sale of everything is a stretch.....

I also don't think any foreign countries should own on inch of land in the US.  I can't got to MX or china as an US citizen and buy a piece of land...

Agree with the sentiment to let politicians know. so they know their constituents stand. Drown them in advocacy.

Climbing, camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, sightseeing, living in bliss in beautiful outdoor places... all being threatened.

The proposals are INSANE!

Interesting that Montana is exempt from this bill.  Are they the only western red state that has it together when it comes to maintaining public ownership of public land?

Jim Uwrote:

In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends.....

"if it starts, it will keep happening until all public lands are sold."  - so if that isn't a logical fallacy of one event leading to another ridiculous one.  then it's what a chicken little fallacy?  "grandma is going to be eating dog food if we don't pass or stop this bill!!!!!" 

.5% - .75% of that could possibly be sold........  of 3million areas......  what's the maths on that gentlemen?   yes I just assumed your gender...

I've got an inherent problem with the federal gov't "owning" all this land to begin with.  Do I want strip malls from sea to shining sea, nope.  but to think that a 1% sale of 3million acres of land will lead to a 100% sale of everything is a stretch.....

I also don't think any foreign countries should own on inch of land in the US.  I can't got to MX or china as an US citizen and buy a piece of land...

So easy for you to say when you’re a thousand miles away from ANY land that would be affected.

Isn’t that what you republicans and libertarians are always bitching about? City folk pushing their city folk legislation on rural folk? Yet here you are in TN talking about how land should be managed in the west, when everyone out here who gives a fuck about recreation is very happy to have all this federal land. Smh

Jim U., I'll take you at face value and assume that you are sincere. While I agree that in some circumstances 'slippery slope' arguments can be fallacies, the opposite is also sometimes true. Sometimes, slopes are indeed 'slippery' ---as a climber, have you ever been on an ice slope? If so, have you ever fallen? Self arrests aren't always successful and many have died in such situations. I know from your posts that you have a military, active service background, so I'm sure you are aware that certain positions can be critical and that their loss to the enemy can lead to defeat or, at least, retreat. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the same can be true regarding issues of public policy. So it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the sale of even a small amount of public land to help offset the deficit created by large tax cuts, would be very likely to lead to larger such sales to meet inevitable ( such deficits are built into the current BBB) future deficits.

So, that out of the way. What is your problem with us ( the citizens of the US through the Federal government) owning the common land ( putting aside that all that land was appropriated, usually by force or deceit, from the original inhabitants--a fact that I assume doesn't bother you at all)? To me it seems very reasonable and much better than any of the possible alternatives. And whether it is a foreign government, a large, likely multinational, corporation, or a very wealthy private individual ( we are long past the days of the Homestead Act), none are likely to treat the land well nor to keep it open for public recreation ( unless, in certain situations, for a substantial fee). 

Alan Rubinwrote:

Jim U., I'll take you on face value and assume that you are sincere. While I agree that in some circumstances 'slippery slope' arguments can be fallacies, the opposite is also sometimes true. Sometimes, slopes are indeed 'slippery' ---as a climber, have you ever been on an ice slope? If so, have you ever fallen? Self arrests aren't always successful and many have died in such situations. I know from your posts that you have a military, active service background, so I'm sure you are aware that certain positions can be critical and that their loss to the enemy can lead to defeat or, at least, retreat. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the same can be true regarding issues of public policy. So it is not at all unreasonable to assume that the sale of even a small amount of public land to help offset the deficit created by large tax cuts, would be very likely to lead to larger such sales to meet inevitable ( such deficits are built into the current BBB) future deficits.

So, that out of the way. What is your problem with us ( the citizens of the US through the Federal government) owning the common land ( putting aside that all that land was appropriated, usually by force or deceit, from the original inhabitants--a fact that I assume doesn't bother you at all)? To me it seems very reasonable and much better than any of the possible alternatives. And whether it is a foreign government, a large, likely multinational, corporation, or a very wealthy private individual ( we are long past the days of the Homestead Act), none are likely to treat the land well nor to keep it open for public recreation ( unless, in certain situations, for a substantial fee). 

yup familiar ice, glissading, self arrests - spend a bunch of time on glacier in AK in college.  so I get the analogy and I can completely understand drawing a line in the sand.  but when it's always "the sky is falling" or this person is hitler... one gets more than numb.  Let's add to that issue a 37 trillion debt caused by the ridiculous spending of the entire USG...both sides...  I will more than weight the voice of the US populace to make their voice known on this aspect of the BBB.  

I'm in rural TN, right next to GSMNP. so wide open stretches of land is not unfamiliar or undesired by any means. I would be more receptive to State/local gov't owned land vs federal ownership. when you look at those maps what's percentage of CO and NV that is owned by the feds? that's neither here not there, but that's my "bitch" WRT land ownership. by no means do i think we the people shouldn't own land... I just don't think Uncle Sugar should either...smells like gov't over reach.... I didn't think we should have gone into Iraq either..

by force or deceit from original inhabitants....not even touching that one

Mike Mullendorewrote:

How does one find out when these sales are going to occur if they do at all?

Historically land sales have been publicly posted. With this admin? Who knows. 

Jim Uwrote:

In a slippery slope argument, a course of action is rejected because, with little or no evidence, one insists that it will lead to a chain reaction resulting in an undesirable end or ends.....

With reference to precedence, an action is rejected because once precedence is set it is is likely to be repeated. Different beast from the fallacy. 

.5% - .75% of that could possibly be sold........  of 3million areas......  what's the maths on that gentlemen? 

Well to start out with, it’s 3 million acres (or more) being sold. That is about .5% of what the federal government manages on our behalf.

I've got an inherent problem with the federal gov't "owning" all this land to begin with.  

Me too. Which is why they keep saying they manage the land and the public owns it. It’s the worst way to keep land accessible, except for all the others.

I also don't think any foreign countries should own on inch of land in the US.  I can't got to MX or china as an US citizen and buy a piece of land...

Feel free to buy land in Mexico! There are some easily sidestepped restrictions in some places. Not sure it’s relevant to this thread, but don’t let your dream of owning a place in Mexico die just yet.

Terry Ewrote:

Interesting that Montana is exempt from this bill.  Are they the only western red state that has it together when it comes to maintaining public ownership of public land?

My guess is that they carved out an exemption for Montana in exchange for a vote from the senator there (zinke).