RED ALERT: SENATE BILL INCLUDES MAJOR CLIMBING AREAS FOR SALE

Carolinawrote:

If the government wasn’t broke, they wouldn’t have to sell their land.  

But 'they' are pushing hard to pass a bill that will very substantially increase that debt, all to establish tax cuts that will overwhelmingly assist the already very rich, at various costs, including the potential public land sales, for the rest of us.

Carolinawrote:

If the government wasn’t broke, they wouldn’t have to sell their land.  

If the government wasn’t broke, they wouldn’t have to sell OUR land.

Fixed that for you. The masses have very little left in terms of assets of all forms when compared to the oligarchs. By selling one of our collective assets to the wealthy, foreign investors, corporations, they take the little we have left and make it theirs. 

Alan Rubinwrote:

But 'they' are pushing hard to pass a bill that will very substantially increase that debt, all to establish tax cuts that will overwhelmingly assist the already very rich, at various costs, including the potential public land sales, for the rest of us.

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

Eric Mosswrote:

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

The folks at the CBO certainly have heard of the Laffer Curve, and they project that this bill will dramatically increase the national debt. The US has been to the left of the curve peak for decades, and this would push it even farther to the left (decreasing overall revenue). 

If you think losing access to your local climbing crags won't happen to you, history shows otherwise. The lack of public land in the east is a blatant example and once climbing access is lost, it is rarely returned. If you need help understanding, take the opportunity to be escorted out of the Gunks Skytop area or try navigating a climbing trip to Hueco.

Do you think the current political climate will offer more transparency, honesty, and public input on these land deals?  The shady land deal sneaks in when you least expect it. Even your volunteer local climbing organizations can't keep up with the onslaught. Do you think not notifying adjacent land owners or known land users, and only printing a public notice for 30 days in a defunct local paper is adequate public notice? Here are 3 specific examples of threatened/lost climbing access in Colorado and Wyoming, ranging from federal, state, and county government.

1) Reese Mountain:  https://www.awayfromthegrind.com/conservation/reese-mountain-saved-for-now/  and   https://www.climbing.com/travel/dirty-dingus-mcgee-and-the-reese-mountain-gang/

2) Escalante Cabin Wall: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/120330114/escalante-cabin-wall-closed-to-climbing?page=8

3) Ralston Buttes: https://www.mountainproject.com/forum/topic/106123195/ralston-buttes-access

Speak up and let your elected officials know your opinion.

James Mwrote:

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."

appreciate the clarification.  

If we don't fact check hysterical Instagram post in our echo chambers, we're just as ignorant as MAGA

(that being said, still don't want this to be passed, just don't think the sky is falling. I'm far more worried about how this bill will affect the national debt)

Eric Mosswrote:

Ever heard of the Laffer Curve?

Yes, I am aware of the Laffer Curve/ supply side fallacy.

Alan Rubinwrote:

Yes, I am aware of the Laffer Curve/ supply side fallacy.

So you think everything should be free?  How would that work?

With public lands potentially being sold with climbing areas, climbers should demonstrate to keep these lands public. There are between 6 to 10 million climbers in the US so this is voice that should be heard. The demonstration should be organized to be non-partisan- essentially we want these lands/cliffs to stay public. A day should be selected and demonstrations should be held at the climbing areas and at all the US climbing gyms. The demonstration should be nationwide since every climber I know seems to want to climb at least once in the areas listed for potential closure. Many of the town businesses in these areas also rely on climbing $$$ to stay afloat so the communities have a steak in this too.
East coast - west coast, this action affects all climbers. I think a day should be chosen just for a climbing demonstration! If we are silent, we will lose these special places. 

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...

Conservatives have been vehemently opposed to public lands for 150 years. What makes you think they wouldn’t try to sell every acre they could? For shits sake they’re telling you right now that they’re trying to do that and you’re finding ways to not believe them..

And if you’re not into the fed owning the public land, tell us, who should own and manage it? Ikon?

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?

Deal made during the reconciliation period.

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/06/18/by-the-way-montana-is-exempt-from-public-land-sales-in-budget-bill/

Tony Danzawrote:

Conservatives have been vehemently opposed to public lands for 150 years. What makes you think they wouldn’t try to sell every acre they could? For shits sake they’re telling you right now that they’re trying to do that and you’re finding ways to not believe them..

And if you’re not into the fed owning the public land, tell us, who should own and manage it? Ikon?

Local government?

If ownership and management of the public lands surrounding my mountain town were left to local government, they’d be sold and developed by any entity with the cash to do it. In this unincorporated area, it’s the wild wild west, and it’s already seen significant degradation due to poor local governance. 

Eric Mosswrote:

Local government?

Oh like what Utah would love to do with public land surrounding the “Mighty 5” national parks?

“Both National Forest and Bureau of Land Management land surrounding Utah’s ‘Mighty 5′ national parks — Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef and Zion — are marked eligible for sale, the map shows. Lands within the national parks’ boundaries are not eligible for sale under the proposal.”

I’m not saying the federal government is perfect, but it’s far better than what most local governments would do.

Tony Danzawrote:

Oh like what Utah would love to do with public land surrounding the “Mighty 5” national parks?

“Both National Forest and Bureau of Land Management land surrounding Utah’s ‘Mighty 5′ national parks — Arches, Bryce Canyon, Canyonlands, Capitol Reef and Zion — are marked eligible for sale, the map shows. Lands within the national parks’ boundaries are not eligible for sale under the proposal.”

I’m not saying the federal government is perfect, but it’s far better than what most local governments would do.

Well that's democracy for you

Eric Mosswrote:

Government is a corporation

yes it is

Eric Mosswrote:

Well that's democracy for you

How so? The majority of people polled do not support selling off public lands. It’s their elected officials that do.

Tony Danzawrote:

How so? The majority of people polled do not support selling off public lands. It’s their elected officials that do.

Representative democracy

Do we have a true representative democracy?