RED ALERT: SENATE BILL INCLUDES MAJOR CLIMBING AREAS FOR SALE

Do we have a true representative democracy? 

Camdon Kaywrote:

Do we have a true representative democracy? 

Sure

In case it's useful for anyone, here's what I wrote in addition to the pre-written Access Fund letter:

In addition to the pre-written (and truthful) message below, I would like to add that this is an ineffective and unacceptable way to pay for an ineffective and unacceptable increase of the national deficit that would be the incontrovertible result of the passage of the OBBB. Even though only 0.5% of the land would be sold off at first, such a sale sets a precedent that the national treasure of this one, big, beautiful country, our United States, may be plundered piecemeal in order to pay for whatever temporary economic gains that whichever party temporarily in power thinks is worth the cost. 

The notion that this land will be used for affordable housing is laughable -- almost all of it would not be habitable without billions of dollars worth of destruction to its natural beauty. The proposal that the selloff of America's forests and mountains, those eternal monuments that are the symbols of our rugged nature and untamed freedom, might be justified by a need to fund some ephemeral tax break or line some weapons contractor's pocket while he makes a 10x margin, is self-evidently absurd. 

For mortal politicians, the way to immortality is through preservation of immortal beauty. Thus are Teddy Roosevelt and John Muir written forever into the identity of all who live on this land and enjoy its bounty. You who would squander it will not be remembered except in sorrow as a faceless contingent of short-sighted ignorance.

Here is a list of senators on the energy committee. Put the pressure on them to pull this.

https://www.energy.senate.gov/

George Mwrote:

In case it's useful for anyone, here's what I wrote in addition to the pre-written Access Fund letter:

You really drove home the smugness.  Nice job 

Kerwin Loukusawrote:

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

Daines and Sheehy are the MT "senators"

George Mwrote:

In case it's useful for anyone, here's what I wrote in addition to the pre-written Access Fund letter:

Nailed it. George for Prezzzz

Looks like the bullet may be dodged.

https://x.com/andrewdesiderio/status/1937339661611073624?s=46&t=FiWE5pUVdpq47aPdhS64vg

Good news if it sticks. 

The language has been "ammended". BLM land within five miles of a "population center" is still up for sale. Lee has also said that he is revising the plan over the next few weeks. We need to maintain the pressure. Slippery slope still applies...

It never ends. The Trump administration just announced ( to a gleefull reception by, at least most, western GOP governors and members of Congress ), that it is opening up approximately 59 million acres of National Forest land ( previously ' protected' by the 'roadless rule' ) for road building and resource 'extraction'. So even if they can't sell the land outright, much of it will still be closed off to public use and devastated. This will undoubtedly include many climbing areas.

Yes, they are relentless.

Mike Lee

@SenMikeLee

Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that. Thanks to YOU—the AMERICAN PEOPLE—here’s what I plan to do: 
1. REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests. 
2. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible. 
3. Establish FREEDOM ZONES to ensure these lands benefit AMERICAN FAMILIES. 
4. PROTECT our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first. 
Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward. Stay tuned. We’re just getting started.

mountainhickwrote:

Yes, they are relentless.

Mike Lee

@SenMikeLee

Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that. Thanks to YOU—the AMERICAN PEOPLE—here’s what I plan to do: 
1. REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests. 
2. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible. 
3. Establish FREEDOM ZONES to ensure these lands benefit AMERICAN FAMILIES. 
4. PROTECT our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first. 
Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward. Stay tuned. We’re just getting started.

1. What exactly does 'remove all forest service land' but 'NOT selling off our forests' actually mean, anyway?

2. What will define a 'population center'? A gas station? A home? An outbuilding abandoned 40 years ago?

3. 'Freedom Zones'? WHAT IN THE F**K is THAT?

4. Protect recreational users by removing access to the lands they recreate on?

The Sale of Public Lands provision in the OBBB got removed simply because of a parliamentarian procedural issue. This ain't dead yet, not by a long shot...it'll just come back in some new horrific version.

And....Mike Lee is truly a POS.

The US is overpopulated 

apogeewrote:

1. What exactly does 'remove all forest service land' but 'NOT selling off our forests' actually mean, anyway?

2. What will define a 'population center'? A gas station? A home? An outbuilding abandoned 40 years ago?

3. 'Freedom Zones'? WHAT IN THE F**K is THAT?

4. Protect recreational users by removing access to the lands they recreate on?

The Sale of Public Lands provision in the OBBB got removed simply because of a parliamentarian procedural issue. This ain't dead yet, not by a long shot...it'll just come back in some new horrific version.

And....Mike Lee is truly a POS.

Yeah, someone was mentioning slippery slope before... 

Re: FS lands, means he will not include those lands as sale-able in his next proposal.  Doesn't mean he won't get back to that in the future. 

The rest, yes, Lee is slippery as an eeL.

I really have to wonder if the majority of Utahn's want federal lands in Utah privatized. 

If Senator Lee is removing the USFS and keeping the same stated intent to allow rural cities to develop adjacent BLM land for housing, as I understand the issue, that can already be done using the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976. But there is oversight, rules to follow, a public input process, and the revenue/benefit is for the rural community not the feds. 

It appears Mr. Lee wants to remove the oversight and leave the interpretation, extent, and final decision of the land deals to be dictated by the secretary of interior with limited public input and just extract all the resources they can from the forest service lands.

As Alan mentioned- the greed fueled culture war tactics of exploitation and extraction continue-

https://www.npr.org/2025/06/23/g-s1-74136/trump-to-rescind-roadless-rule-which-protects-58-million-acres-of-forest-land

Here's the propaganda from the Feds about it-

https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/06/23/secretary-rollins-rescinds-roadless-rule-eliminating-impediment-responsible-forest-management

As a soon to graduate environmental scientist, soon to-be environmental law student I'm confident in calling this USDA release 100% propaganda.

Building roads is step 1 in destruction of healthy forest ecosystems.  It DOES NOT support forest health and biodiversity as Rollins claims.  It DOES NOT reduce the risk to humans of wildfire.  It DOES NOT help jobs or economic development.  

It DOES harm public land by destroying habitat and increasing fragmentation of healthy ecosystems.  It DOES harm public land by interfering with natural fire cycles, increasing the risk of catastrophic fires.  It DOES harm by creating more edge habitat which has a long list of damaging ecological impacts.  It DOES increase the introduction of invasive species.  It DOES increase erosion and soil degradation.  It DOES increase chemical and noise pollution. It DOES lead to interfering with natural hydrologic processes. 

If you are rolling your eyes at any of these facts, I'm happy to provide peer reviewed, evidence based research that supports every one- PM me or ask here.  If you are sitting there thinking, but it's the public's lumber, lumber is expensive, lets extract and build stuff with it- we already have 300 million acres of working forests in the US. As the price of a 2x4 has nearly doubled in 5 years Weyerhauser has paid out $6 billion in dividends in that time.  The much smaller Boise Cascade had $2.2 billion in profits since 2021.  

Meanwhile species are going extinct at a rate 100-1000x the historical average- species that are valuable to humans for pharmacology, for food security, for recreational enjoyment, for ecosystem services (read- clear air, clean water, stable food supply (pollinators)).  Stop turning these life supporting assets into dollars sitting in bank accounts by calling your representatives, by attending local government meetings, by turning out to the polls, by actively engaging with people who support extraction and participating in civil, fact based discourse.

As simple minded as I perceive Trump and his operatives to be, they time and again appear to be experts at trolling progressives on many fronts keeping their focus diluted regarding the critical issues at present.

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

 It DOES NOT help jobs or economic development.  

 It DOES harm public land by interfering with natural fire cycles, increasing the risk of catastrophic fires.  

If you are rolling your eyes at any of these facts, I'm happy to provide peer reviewed, evidence based research that supports every one- PM me or ask here.

Yes please on evidence, especially for the two claims above, and especially in the face of changing fire regimes.

Dow Williamswrote:

As simple minded as I perceive Trump and his operatives to be, they time and again appear to be experts at trolling progressives on many fronts keeping their focus diluted regarding the critical issues at present.

I get what you're saying, but I actually think the environmental concerns are the most critical issues at present.  Everything else can be changed, reversed, modified, and so forth.  But one species and ecosystems dissapear...they're gone for good.