RED ALERT: SENATE BILL INCLUDES MAJOR CLIMBING AREAS FOR SALE

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.  

Sep Mwrote:

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

Fewer jobs, less economic value-

https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/trends-performance/outdoor-recreation-economy-by-state/

https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr258/psw_gtr258_371.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-service/recreation-workers.htm

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/logging-workers.htm

More frequent catastrophic fires-

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46702-0

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240325113210.htm

https://cpaws-southernalberta.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Does-Logging-Stop-Fire.pdf

Selective thinning and prescribed burns, 2 strategies necessary to restore natural fire cycles DO NOT require roads.  Forest roads are necessary for one thing- profitable extraction.

Andy Shoemakerwrote:

Fewer jobs, less economic value-

https://headwaterseconomics.org/economic-development/trends-performance/outdoor-recreation-economy-by-state/

https://www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr258/psw_gtr258_371.pdf

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/personal-care-and-service/recreation-workers.htm

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/logging-workers.htm

More frequent catastrophic fires-

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46702-0

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/03/240325113210.htm

https://cpaws-southernalberta.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/Does-Logging-Stop-Fire.pdf

Selective thinning and prescribed burns, 2 strategies necessary to restore natural fire cycles DO NOT require roads.  Forest roads are necessary for one thing- profitable extraction.

Excellent points, Andy. Another useful resource from the Sonoran Institute contrasts the long-term economic benefits of conservation based tourism economies against those based on resource extraction.

https://sonoraninstitute.org/files/pdf/public-lands-conservation-and-economic-well-being-07102004.pdf

Sorry, can't get the link to work. Just google it 

Bruno Schullwrote:

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.  

Can we agree that the country is overpopulated?

Haven't Democrats learned yet that facts don't matter to at least half the country? Hell, even a lot of the Dems don't have much regard for facts.

Eric Mosswrote:

Can we agree that the country is overpopulated?

Yes.

So how are you going to fix it?

Eric Mosswrote:

Can we agree that the country is overpopulated?

Hey Eric, yes, I agree that the world is overpopulated.  

However, real solutions to overpopulation are not promoted by conservatives.  

The best way to reduce the global population is to invest heavily in poor and developing countries.  This includes investment in all areas of society, but many would make good points that targeting aid especially at women's rights, health care, and job opportunities has the greatest effect. 

As countries develop, fertility rates naturally fall.  This is somewhat offset by longer lifespans, but the expected global population plateau at perhaps 10-11 million willl be driven primarily by development.  

So, to reduce population, invest in poor countries. 

Can we agree on that?

apogeewrote:

Haven't Democrats learned yet that facts don't matter to at least half the country? Hell, even a lot of the Dems don't have much regard for facts.

Democrats? Republicans? Just a bunch of pots and kettles calling each other names. Facts dont make soundbites!

Bruno Schullwrote:

Hey Eric, yes, I agree that the world is overpopulated.  

However, real solutions to overpopulation are not promoted by conservatives.  

The best way to reduce the global population is to invest heavily in poor and developing countries.  This includes investment in all areas of society, but many would make good points that targeting aid especially at women's rights, health care, and job opportunities has the greatest effect. 

As countries develop, fertility rates naturally fall.  This is somewhat offset by longer lifespans, but the expected global population plateau at perhaps 10-11 million willl be driven primarily by development.  

So, to reduce population, invest in poor countries. 

Can we agree on that?

Well, no, because you guys want to bring everybody over here.  If another country overpopulates, that's not our job to absorb the excess.

Eric Mosswrote:

Well, no, because you guys want to bring everybody over here.  If another country overpopulates, that's not our job to absorb the excess.

No Eric, however you define "you guys", it is extremely unlikely that any of 'them' want "to bring everybody over here", or anything close to that. However, immigration is a very important part of the fabric of this country--I seriously doubt that your earliest ancestors, or anything more than a couple of generations of them, were born on this continent, and ongoing immigration helps to continue to 'rejuvenate' our society.

Anyway, all this really has basically nothing to do with the efforts to sell or destroy through material exploitation, to benefit a few, our public lands.

Alan Rubinwrote:

No Eric, however you define "you guys", it is extremely unlikely that any of 'them' want "to bring everybody over here", or anything close to that. However, immigration is a very important part of the fabric of this country--I seriously doubt that your earliest ancestors, or anything more than a couple of generations of them, were born on this continent, and ongoing immigration helps to continue to 'rejuvenate' our society.

Anyway, all this really has basically nothing to do with the efforts to sell or destroy through material exploitation, to benefit a few, our public lands.

You clearly want to bring people here.  That's what you mean when you say "immigration is a very important...". 

If you acknowledge we're overpopulated, then why do we need MORE people?  How will bringing in MORE people lower the population?

I want us to remain open to new people arriving, as we always have been--remember that statue in NY harbor? That is different that 'bringing' people in. If you are going to debate, then be precise in your use of words.

As far as overpopulation. I don't know your personal stance, but right now many in the 'conservative movement' ( which you seem to be supporting in your posts on here)  are vocally advocating for more children ( and women to stay home to care for them instead of having 'outside' careers)---and these are also the same people trying to sell off,or otherwise destroy, our public lands. So overpopulation, as such, doesn't seem to be a problem for them. What is your stance on this 'conservative' policy position?

I'll now be post-capped for the day.

Eric Mosswrote:

Well, no, because you guys want to bring everybody over here.  If another country overpopulates, that's not our job to absorb the excess.

Hey Eric.  

To be honest, we may agree on more than you think.  

First off, I grew up in NYC, the son of an immigrant. I deeply beleive in the idea of the melting pot, that immigrants bring an enormous amount to countries, that accepting refugees and asylum seekers is sane and good, and so on.  

At the same time, the last fifteen years living in Switzerland, a very small country with a very large foreign population (30-40% in urban centers) has helped me see that a complete "open borders" position is untenable.  Immigration (somehow) needs to be balanced and managed. 

However, there are several basic economic realities that make restricting immigration difficult or impossible. Highly developed countries, like Switzerland, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US, just couldn't survive without immigrants. 

You are likely aware of the demographic problem posed by an aging population and declining fertility rates--there are fewer and fewer young people working and paying into pensions to support the elderly.  One solution to this problem is immigrants, hence countries like Germany open their borders.  They need young people to keep the economy running. 

Then there's the fact that in all these countries immigrants form the base of the economic pyramid--without imigrants to perform the lowest paying jobs, cleaning floors in hospitals, washing dishes, caring for children and the elderly, picking fruits and vegetables, performing manual labor, the economy would collapse.  

Further, countries need masses of people to consume cheap goods, once again to keep the economy running. 

Now, you and I might agree that it would be great if there were less people in the world, or that migration was limited, but the way our economies function essentially makes this impossible.

--

All that said, it bears no relevance to this discussion.  The conservatives who want to sell this land do not want to built public housing for immirgants or poor citizens, they want to extract resources, build golf courses and gated communities, shopping malls, and so on. 

Immigrants really have nothing to do with this, except that they will be the ones doing the manual labor for any construction projects that do take place.  

Bruno Schullwrote:

Hey Eric.  

To be honest, we may agree on more than you think.  

First off, I grew up in NYC, the son of an immigrant. I deeply beleive in the idea of the melting pot, that immigrants bring an enormous amount to countries, that accepting refugees and asylum seekers is sane and good, and so on.  

At the same time, the last fifteen years living in Switzerland, a very small country with a very large foreign population (30-40% in urban centers) has helped me see that a complete "open borders" position is untenable.  Immigration (somehow) needs to be balanced and managed. 

However, there are several basic economic realities that make restricting immigration difficult or impossible. Highly developed countries, like Switzerland, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US, just couldn't survive without immigrants. 

You are likely aware of the demographic problem posed by an aging population and declining fertility rates--there are fewer and fewer young people working and paying into pensions to support the elderly.  One solution to this problem is immigrants, hence countries like Germany open their borders.  They need young people to keep the economy running. 

Then there's the fact that in all these countries immigrants form the base of the economic pyramid--without imigrants to perform the lowest paying jobs, cleaning floors in hospitals, washing dishes, caring for children and the elderly, picking fruits and vegetables, performing manual labor, the economy would collapse.  

Further, countries need masses of people to consume cheap goods, once again to keep the economy running. 

Now, you and I might agree that it would be great if there were less people in the world, or that migration was limited, but the way our economies function essentially makes this impossible.

--

All that said, it bears no relevance to this discussion.  The conservatives who want to sell this land do not want to built public housing for immirgants or poor citizens, they want to extract resources, build golf courses and gated communities, shopping malls, and so on. 

Immigrants really have nothing to do with this, except that they will be the ones doing the manual labor for any construction projects that do take place.  

I remember a time when the population was less than 2/3 of what it is now.  The economy did not collapse, it was great actually.

Demographic trends were not the subject of this thread and were introduced to this thread as a typical right wing whataboutism.
However since the Senate giveaway of public land is on hold for now, demographics is an interesting subject this year.
Population growth is FAR from uniform across the world. Very different in the first world than the third world. Because countries like the USA had such a boom and then bust in birthrate, controlled immigration is the best way to level this out to prevent very negative effects on the economy. However steady immigration rates are best, not big increases such as under Biden, nor big decreases such as under trump. And the best way to help decrease population growth in the third world is increasing their typical income and education, policies that Trump has cut.

Between April 2020 and July 2023, the nation’s white population declined by 2.1 million, a figure more than countered by the combined gains of people of color.  Trump is trying to reverse the diversification of the USA. 

There will be more deaths than births in the US by 2036

Factoring in immigration (based on long term trends before 2025), the US population will peak in 2080

The median age in the US is 38.5, up from 34.3 in the year 2000

Without immigration, the working-age US population would not have grown since 2000

Three-fifths of advanced economies worldwide already have more deaths than births

Two-thirds of the global population live in countries where fertility is below the replacement rate

The global population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s

China is forecast to lose over half of its current population by 2100

CBO projects that the total fertility rate declines through 2035 to 1.60 births per woman of childbearing age (the rate for full population replacement is 2.1), consistent with the 1.62 rate observed in 2024. Clearly a major cultural change has occurred affecting fertility, which CBO is recognizing in its population projections. By contrast, the Trustees’ Reports for Social Security and Medicare, and by extension, the Financial Report for the US Government and long-range budget projections coming from the Office of Management and Budget, which rely on the assumptions of the Trustees, project that the fertility rate will increase from 1.70 in 2025 to 1.90 by 2036. (The Census Bureau, like CBO, also projects a 1.60 rate.)  In particular, unlike CBO, the Trustees do not expect the fertility rate for women under 30 to decline.   ...this unrealistic assumption makes the long-range projections of the Trustees (and the budget scores for program reforms and changes upon which they are based) unreliable for Social Security, Medicare, and indeed the entire federal budget. The Trustees should change it.

The ratio of people 65+ to working age people 1:6.5 in 1962.  In 2000 it was 1:5.5.  Today it is 1:3.5.  By 2060, the ratio will be about 1:2.5.  So there will be 41 people aged 65 and older for every 100 work-age adults between 18 and 64 years. 

https://explodingtopics.com/blog/demographic-transition-statistics
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/census-shows-americas-post-2020-population-is-driven-by-diversity-especially-among-the-young/
https://newrepublic.com/post/196820/report-trump-businesses-rely-immigrants
https://www.aei.org/economics/the-demographic-shift/
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf

tom donnellywrote:

Demographic trends were not the subject of this thread and were introduced to this thread as a typical right wing whataboutism.
However since the Senate giveaway of public land is on hold for now, demographics is an interesting subject this year.
Population growth is FAR from uniform across the world. Very different in the first world than the third world. Because countries like the USA had such a boom and then bust in birthrate, controlled immigration is the best way to level this out to prevent very negative effects on the economy. However steady immigration rates are best, not big increases such as under Biden, nor big decreases such as under trump. And the best way to help decrease population growth in the third world is increasing their typical income and education, policies that Trump has cut.

Between April 2020 and July 2023, the nation’s white population declined by 2.1 million, a figure more than countered by the combined gains of people of color.  Trump is trying to reverse the diversification of the USA. 

There will be more deaths than births in the US by 2036

Factoring in immigration (based on long term trends before 2025), the US population will peak in 2080

The median age in the US is 38.5, up from 34.3 in the year 2000

Without immigration, the working-age US population would not have grown since 2000

Three-fifths of advanced economies worldwide already have more deaths than births

Two-thirds of the global population live in countries where fertility is below the replacement rate

The global population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s

China is forecast to lose over half of its current population by 2100

CBO projects that the total fertility rate declines through 2035 to 1.60 births per woman of childbearing age (the rate for full population replacement is 2.1), consistent with the 1.62 rate observed in 2024. Clearly a major cultural change has occurred affecting fertility, which CBO is recognizing in its population projections. By contrast, the Trustees’ Reports for Social Security and Medicare, and by extension, the Financial Report for the US Government and long-range budget projections coming from the Office of Management and Budget, which rely on the assumptions of the Trustees, project that the fertility rate will increase from 1.70 in 2025 to 1.90 by 2036. (The Census Bureau, like CBO, also projects a 1.60 rate.)  In particular, unlike CBO, the Trustees do not expect the fertility rate for women under 30 to decline.   ...this unrealistic assumption makes the long-range projections of the Trustees (and the budget scores for program reforms and changes upon which they are based) unreliable for Social Security, Medicare, and indeed the entire federal budget. The Trustees should change it.

The ratio of people 65+ to working age people 1:6.5 in 1962.  In 2000 it was 1:5.5.  Today it is 1:3.5.  By 2060, the ratio will be about 1:2.5.  So there will be 41 people aged 65 and older for every 100 work-age adults between 18 and 64 years. 

https://explodingtopics.com/blog/demographic-transition-statistics
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/census-shows-americas-post-2020-population-is-driven-by-diversity-especially-among-the-young/
https://newrepublic.com/post/196820/report-trump-businesses-rely-immigrants
https://www.aei.org/economics/the-demographic-shift/
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf

Respect for the links/citations at the end my friend. Don’t care if I agree. Facts are cold and hard like granite in the dead of winter.

Bah.

I kind of have to laugh at Tania's Outdoor alliance "victory" email yesterday. Ain't no victory. Lee's not going to back off: 

Today from article on  "The Hill"

Revised plan sells 1.2M acres of public lands

by Rachel Frazin - 06/25/25 6:47 PM ET

The updated text would require the sales of between 0.25 and 0.5 percent of the 245 million acres currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management, or between 612,500 and 1.225 million acres.

 Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), is spearheading the plan, which would be included in the GOP’s megabill to advance much of President Trump’s agenda.

 Lee has said he would revise his original plan, which would have sold off between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it could not go inside the party’s budget package. 

Lee’s office did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment. 

 The text obtained by The Hill only pertains to Bureau of Land Management lands, complying with Lee’s promise to ax provisions in his original bill that would have also included National Forests.

 The updated version also makes further changes: It specifies that land that is sold must be used “solely for the development of housing or to address any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing.

 It also requires land sold to be within 5 miles of the “the border of a population center.”

mountainhickwrote:

Bah.

I kind of have to laugh at Tania's Outdoor alliance "victory" email yesterday. Ain't no victory. Lee's not going to back off: 

Today from article on  "The Hill"

Revised plan sells 1.2M acres of public lands

by Rachel Frazin - 06/25/25 6:47 PM ET

The updated text would require the sales of between 0.25 and 0.5 percent of the 245 million acres currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management, or between 612,500 and 1.225 million acres.

 Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), is spearheading the plan, which would be included in the GOP’s megabill to advance much of President Trump’s agenda.

 Lee has said he would revise his original plan, which would have sold off between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres, after the Senate parliamentarian ruled it could not go inside the party’s budget package. 

Lee’s office did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment. 

 The text obtained by The Hill only pertains to Bureau of Land Management lands, complying with Lee’s promise to ax provisions in his original bill that would have also included National Forests.

 The updated version also makes further changes: It specifies that land that is sold must be used “solely for the development of housing or to address any infrastructure and amenities to support local needs associated with housing.

 It also requires land sold to be within 5 miles of the “the border of a population center.”

Exactly. Nothing is "on hold" and there is no "victory". Only constant vigilene. They only have to win once, then that slope is greased...

*Public Land Is Not And Should Never Be For Sale*

tom donnellywrote:

Demographic trends were not the subject of this thread and were introduced to this thread as a typical right wing whataboutism.
However since the Senate giveaway of public land is on hold for now, demographics is an interesting subject this year.
Population growth is FAR from uniform across the world. Very different in the first world than the third world. Because countries like the USA had such a boom and then bust in birthrate, controlled immigration is the best way to level this out to prevent very negative effects on the economy. However steady immigration rates are best, not big increases such as under Biden, nor big decreases such as under trump. And the best way to help decrease population growth in the third world is increasing their typical income and education, policies that Trump has cut.

Between April 2020 and July 2023, the nation’s white population declined by 2.1 million, a figure more than countered by the combined gains of people of color.  Trump is trying to reverse the diversification of the USA. 

There will be more deaths than births in the US by 2036

Factoring in immigration (based on long term trends before 2025), the US population will peak in 2080

The median age in the US is 38.5, up from 34.3 in the year 2000

Without immigration, the working-age US population would not have grown since 2000

Three-fifths of advanced economies worldwide already have more deaths than births

Two-thirds of the global population live in countries where fertility is below the replacement rate

The global population is projected to peak at 10.3 billion in the mid-2080s

China is forecast to lose over half of its current population by 2100

CBO projects that the total fertility rate declines through 2035 to 1.60 births per woman of childbearing age (the rate for full population replacement is 2.1), consistent with the 1.62 rate observed in 2024. Clearly a major cultural change has occurred affecting fertility, which CBO is recognizing in its population projections. By contrast, the Trustees’ Reports for Social Security and Medicare, and by extension, the Financial Report for the US Government and long-range budget projections coming from the Office of Management and Budget, which rely on the assumptions of the Trustees, project that the fertility rate will increase from 1.70 in 2025 to 1.90 by 2036. (The Census Bureau, like CBO, also projects a 1.60 rate.)  In particular, unlike CBO, the Trustees do not expect the fertility rate for women under 30 to decline.   ...this unrealistic assumption makes the long-range projections of the Trustees (and the budget scores for program reforms and changes upon which they are based) unreliable for Social Security, Medicare, and indeed the entire federal budget. The Trustees should change it.

The ratio of people 65+ to working age people 1:6.5 in 1962.  In 2000 it was 1:5.5.  Today it is 1:3.5.  By 2060, the ratio will be about 1:2.5.  So there will be 41 people aged 65 and older for every 100 work-age adults between 18 and 64 years. 

https://explodingtopics.com/blog/demographic-transition-statistics
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/census-shows-americas-post-2020-population-is-driven-by-diversity-especially-among-the-young/
https://newrepublic.com/post/196820/report-trump-businesses-rely-immigrants
https://www.aei.org/economics/the-demographic-shift/
https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2020/demo/p25-1144.pdf

Some things might be more expensive temporarily, but that is a small price to pay for conserving nature - and the prices will equilibrate without immigration.  I am telling you, the 90's existed - maybe you weren't there, but I remember.  Do not buy into the establishment narrative, who are chasing GDP gains.

Your thinking has us on an endless hamster wheel of population gain, that can only lead to one place.