RED ALERT: SENATE BILL INCLUDES MAJOR CLIMBING AREAS FOR SALE

If your crag is open to mineral entry, file a mining claim. Can at least preserve those that are. 

We have also consistently supported small-scale land transfers, exchanges, sales, and disposals that convert lands with little — if any — recreation value to other uses. The Lee proposal is modeled after a law introduced and passed by Democratic lawmakers called the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), which made 2.3% of the 3 million acres managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management available to sell specifically for housing. We have monitored the land sales proposed through this act, and they have been overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.....

The full article....  https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/...

I think it worth noting that the media is noticing, and majority public opinion does not support the land grab. 

And I think worth re-stating that the more public outcry, the better the chances this idiocy will go down in flames. 

Be vocal, and urge your local politicians to squash privatization of public lands.

https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5358034-proposed-sale-of-millions-of-acres-of-public-land-under-gop-budget-bill-prompts-backlash/

Jim U, You come across as simply not wanting to listen to other climbers' perspectives. Having personally seen three shady land deals at climbing areas dear to me (2 defeated), the rich oligarchs and politicians do not play fair, are not transparent, and will secretly leverage their shady deals even easier when it is state managed. Many climbing areas don't have designated recreation acronyms and even well used crags are not given "recreation value" by the land managers. Either you've never enjoyed the public lands out west (compared to the east) or your just trolling the issue. If the politicians wanted to set aside some land adjacent to rural communities for housing, write that explicitly into a standalone bill with restrictions on affordable housing, rather than signing a blank check to make billionaires, foreign companies, and foreign states shady land deals. I wonder how many of those politicians are receiving untraceable political donations from those same entities in exchange for their vote. The author of this legislation, is definitely not transparent on where he gets his millions of dollars.

Plain and simple, The precedent of selling off public lands for "budget" reasons is not OK. 

Jim Uwrote:

We have also consistently supported small-scale land transfers, exchanges, sales, and disposals that convert lands with little — if any — recreation value to other uses. The Lee proposal is modeled after a law introduced and passed by Democratic lawmakers called the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), which made 2.3% of the 3 million acres managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management available to sell specifically for housing. We have monitored the land sales proposed through this act, and they have been overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.....

The full article....  https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/...

Thanks for that link, there's some specifics there that are very worth keeping in mind. That makes this process sound a lot less alarming. I'd recommend everyone here go and read it. It's not long. 

It's worth keeping in mind that just as corporations have a vested interest in making money (as many have pointed out) that the media has a vested interest in manufacturing outrage (or at least leaning that direction vs well reasoned analytical detailed writing) simply because it sells. So I'm always cautious of any 'the sky is falling' take that comes from someone else writing who makes money off of others reading what they write. It's way more often overblown than the inverse.

Nathan Jwrote:

Thanks for that link, there's some specifics there that are very worth keeping in mind. That makes this process sound a lot less alarming. I'd recommend everyone here go and read it. It's not long. 

It's worth keeping in mind that just as corporations have a vested interest in making money (as many have pointed out) that the media has a vested interest in manufacturing outrage (or at least leaning that direction vs well reasoned analytical detailed writing) simply because it sells. So I'm always cautious of any 'the sky is falling' take that comes from someone else writing who makes money off of others reading what they write. It's way more often overblown than the inverse.

It's worth looking into what the Blue Ribbon Coalition does if you are going to take anything they say at face value without doing the leg work to prove or disprove their stance.  

https://www.monitoringinfluence.org/org/blueribbon-coalition/

The entire point of the article is that it sounds less alarming. You have to ask yourself “who would benefit from this?” If you can’t think of an answer maybe it is just altruism, but when there’s a clear answer of who stands to gain from making the entire issue seem unimportant, that’s potentially just them trying to make it easier to fly under the radar.

ryan lairdwrote:

Jim U, You come across as simply not wanting to listen to other climbers' perspectives. Having personally seen three shady land deals at climbing areas dear to me (2 defeated), the rich oligarchs and politicians do not play fair, are not transparent, and will secretly leverage their shady deals even easier when it is state managed. Many climbing areas don't have designated recreation acronyms and even well used crags are not given "recreation value" by the land managers. Either you've never enjoyed the public lands out west (compared to the east) or your just trolling the issue. If the politicians wanted to set aside some land adjacent to rural communities for housing, write that explicitly into the bill with restrictions on affordable housing, rather than signing a blank check to make billionaires, foreign companies, and foreign states shady land deals. I wonder how many of those politicians are receiving untraceable political donations from those same entities in exchange for their vote. The author of this legislation, is definitely not transparent on where he gets his millions of dollars.

Plain and simple, The precedent of selling off public lands for "budget" reasons is not OK. 

nice job with liberally sprinkled in the buzzwords...great job comrade.  how about you read the article I just posted.

If this bill was being pushed by the other side it would be "you need to pass it to see what's in it..."  instead it's grandma is going have to eat dogfood to survive.

outrage equals donations at this point...

Jim Uwrote:

nice job with liberally sprinkled in the buzzwords...great job comrade.  how about you read the article I just posted.

If this bill was being pushed by the other side it would be "you need to pass it to see what's in it..."  instead it's grandma is going have to eat dogfood to survive.

outrage equals donations at this point...

Jim U, I read the article. nice job on your Russian propaganda and confirming you're an anonymous troll with no interest in listening or thinking. Pretty ironic when Orange Jesus threatens a 68% tax rate and a 1929 great depression if the bill doesn't pass.

I love public property.  I mean, who needs nets on the basketball hoops anyway?  

Jim Uwrote:

We have also consistently supported small-scale land transfers, exchanges, sales, and disposals that convert lands with little — if any — recreation value to other uses. The Lee proposal is modeled after a law introduced and passed by Democratic lawmakers called the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), which made 2.3% of the 3 million acres managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management available to sell specifically for housing. We have monitored the land sales proposed through this act, and they have been overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.....

The full article....  https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/...

The law was passed in 1998 when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress so it was not in fact passed by Democrats. Leaving that aside the scope of the sales are narrow being restricted to areas of Clark County adjacent to Las Vegas. The use of the proceeds is also restricted and they do not go into the general federal budget where they can be used to pay for tax cuts. It's also hard to argue the situation around Los Vegas with it's rapid growth is applicable to many areas covered by the current bill where virtually no one lives.

As to why Montana is excluded from the current bill Senator Daines is one of it's co sponsors so it sounds like he has doubts about how his constituents will view it.

Daniel H Bryantwrote:

If your crag is open to mineral entry, file a mining claim. Can at least preserve those that are. 

let's buy shelf road. it's close enough to cripple creek that there's probably gold there too 

ryan lairdwrote:

Jim U, I read the article. nice job on your Russian propaganda and confirming you're an anonymous troll with no interest in listening or thinking. Pretty ironic when Orange Jesus threatens a 68% tax rate and a 1929 great depression if the bill doesn't pass.

comparing MP profiles says one of us is a anon troll sweetie, it ain't me.  p.s. your TDS slip is showing.

you embody everything you are complaining about

Jim Uwrote:

comparing MP profiles says one of us is a anon troll sweetie, it ain't me.  p.s. your TDS slip is showing.

you embody everything you are complaining about

Jim U, Keep demonstrating your lack of critical thinking skills. I've got my name in my profile while you keep going on anonymously.

The politicians want us to argue with each other.  It's a distraction from their self service.

Jim Uwrote:

We have also consistently supported small-scale land transfers, exchanges, sales, and disposals that convert lands with little — if any — recreation value to other uses. The Lee proposal is modeled after a law introduced and passed by Democratic lawmakers called the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), which made 2.3% of the 3 million acres managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management available to sell specifically for housing. We have monitored the land sales proposed through this act, and they have been overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.....

The full article....  https://blueribboncoalition.org/blueribbons-stance-on-sen-mike-lees-public-land-proposal/...

It is valuable to read this, if only to understand how facts can be twisted to make this proposal sound not as bad as it really is. And, as has been pointed out, Blue Ribbon Coalition's main goal is motorized off-road activity with no regulation. 

Jim U wrote:

We have also consistently supported small-scale land transfers, exchanges, sales, and disposals that convert lands with little — if any — recreation value to other uses. The Lee proposal is modeled after a law introduced and passed by Democratic lawmakers called the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA), which made 2.3% of the 3 million acres managed by the Southern Nevada District Office of the Bureau of Land Management available to sell specifically for housing. We have monitored the land sales proposed through this act, and they have been overwhelmingly uncontroversial and have not resulted in impacts to recreation access.....

The full article....   blueribboncoalition.org/blu…...

Randywrote:

It is valuable to read this, if only to understand how facts can be twisted to make this proposal sound not as bad as it really is. And, as has been pointed out, Blue Ribbon Coalition's main goal is motorized off-road activity with no regulation. 

The SNPLMA concerns ONLY land for housing in Las Vegas.  It did cause more sprawl and dense planned housing around Vegas, however that use of land for housing has NOTHING to do with the current proposal in the Senate.  The current proposal can be used for BLM or USFS land anywhere, completely dependent on the crookedness of the Republicans and trump.  Who ever pays trump the most will get their proposed land sale, for any purpose.   blm.gov/sites/default/files…(508).pdf

Randywrote:

 And, as has been pointed out, Blue Ribbon Coalition's main goal is motorized off-road activity with no regulation. 

I get that you don't support BRC's mission. But your statement is untrue and unfair I've supported BRC since its beginning, and I don't always agree with their stances, but promoting responsible recreation use is their goal.  They do this by educating the users. Just like I don't agree with AF all the time, they do promote responsible recreation use. And they've done a good job in educating the public too.

Luigi Mwrote:

let's buy shelf road. it's close enough to cripple creek that there's probably gold there too 

You do not have to mine a claim to maintain a claim, but you do have to pay the annual dues or perform equivalent improvements.At this very moment in time, if a crag is open to mineral entry, anyone can follow the steps to file a claim, pay the dues, and then have right to the minerals on the claim.  This all falls under the 1872 mining act. 

Point being, as a claim, it is less likely to show up on the inventory list proposed by the topic of this thread. 

....btw, there's no gold in the limestone at Shelf, otherwise anglogold/newmont/ssr would have raped it long ago. 

While we definitely still need to continue making our voices heard on this, through contacting members of Congress, signing petitions, writing letters to the editor, etc., I am becoming cautiously optimistic that this 'thing' will be defeated.

I read an article yesterday evening that reported that bi-partisan opposition to this proposed piece of legislation is increasing, even among some conservatives, including Senators. One of those publically stating his opposition is Senator Zinke from Montana, who was Secretary of the Interior during Trump's first administration, so influential among Republicans on such issues. It is likely that land in Montana was not included among the areas to be available for sale in an effort to keep him from opposing the proposal.

Since Senator Lee and his co-sponsors, are trying to have this proposal incorporated as part of Trump's Big Beautiful Bill boondoggle and the Republican Senate leadership is ( appropriately) having considerable trouble lining up sufficient votes for even the 'core' parts of that legislation, it is likely that they will want to kill any extraneous provisions, such as this one, that may cost them additional votes. So let's keep the pressure on!!!!