- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Selling off Public Lands - Histrionics Part 47(B)(III)(q)(iv)
Posted on 3/8/25 at 2:01 pm to McLemore
Posted on 3/8/25 at 2:01 pm to McLemore
Utah wants some of its land from the fed.
This is from Utah.gov
quote:
The federal government manages about 43.5% of Utah's land, which is more than the entire state of Illinois.
This is from Utah.gov
quote:
The federal government controls nearly 70% of the land in Utah. In comparison, the federal government controls less than 1% of the land in Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island, and less than 3% of the land in Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. While half of this public land has been designated as national parks, national forests, national conservation areas, or the like, the other half is “unappropriated” land, meaning that the United States simply holds the land without any designated purpose.
Utah has filed a landmark public lands lawsuit asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the federal government can simply hold unappropriated lands within a state indefinitely. The “unappropriated” land in question is approximately 18.5 million acres, or 34% of land in Utah, controlled by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) under the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA).
This post was edited on 3/8/25 at 2:04 pm
0
Posted on 3/8/25 at 2:02 pm to CoonassatTEXAS
Hell yeah brother, let's bring back feudalism and let Bill Gates and billionaires own and close off all the land.
How can any freedom loving person seriously be against public land.
How can any freedom loving person seriously be against public land.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 2:06 pm to BoudinChicot
quote:
Hell yeah brother, let's bring back feudalism and let Bill Gates and billionaires own and close off all the land. How can any freedom loving person seriously be against public land.
Read above.
How can any freedom loving person be okay with the federal government holding land in a state hostage?
Posted on 3/8/25 at 2:21 pm to CoonassatTEXAS
quote:
once again, why should my tax dollars go to fund your socialist agenda?
Because publicly accesible wilderness & wilderness conservation in general are easy ideas to sell to the general public. It's really that simple.
Dont like it, work on your pitch & convince people why it should be changed. But you're likely going to find that people are much more interested in fixing other issues before they care to mess with public lands.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 2:33 pm to CoonassatTEXAS
Roosevelt was a traitor? Public land should be sold off? Hell NO! I am as conservative as they come, but this is wrong on so many levels. The proceeds from the sale will be pissed away and in the aftermath, the public will be the loser. The ability to be free to utilize public lands is what sets the USA apart from other countries.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 2:52 pm to HagaDaga
quote:
Conservation is important, but letting lefties hinder proper MGMT is not good.
It's a good thing people showed up to save nature.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 3:28 pm to McLemore
I’m all about keeping public lands, but I’m also a person that uses them for hunting. I think most people that are ok with selling them off either don’t utilize them or understand the benefit of having them.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 4:32 pm to LARancher1991
Our house in Montana is in Missoula by campus but we can walk a half block and be on a trail system that will get you to Canada or pretty close. Selfishly I wouldn’t want that touched.
Our property in Upstate SC backs up to 5000 acres of a combo of state WMA and Clemson public lands. And then connects with areas that some private nonprofits have bought and protected and will likely sell to the state for more WMA.
I sort of own my potential philosophical and political inconsistencies when it comes to public land. It’s very selfish. I could probably make it all consistent if I tried.
Generally think the social contract in a free and just society allows for a broad spectrum of %s of public v private land. I bristle at both the entitlement attitude that somehow we the people deserve XYZ particularly land or amount of land.
But I also hate blight and ugly developments and clear cutting where it doesn’t make sense, etc.
I also assume that political hacks are going to just make shite up to fuel their TDS.
Our property in Upstate SC backs up to 5000 acres of a combo of state WMA and Clemson public lands. And then connects with areas that some private nonprofits have bought and protected and will likely sell to the state for more WMA.
I sort of own my potential philosophical and political inconsistencies when it comes to public land. It’s very selfish. I could probably make it all consistent if I tried.
Generally think the social contract in a free and just society allows for a broad spectrum of %s of public v private land. I bristle at both the entitlement attitude that somehow we the people deserve XYZ particularly land or amount of land.
But I also hate blight and ugly developments and clear cutting where it doesn’t make sense, etc.
I also assume that political hacks are going to just make shite up to fuel their TDS.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 4:57 pm to CoonassatTEXAS
Same reason your tax dollars fund a bridge in Alaska you'll never drive over and a library in Oklahoma you'll never read a book in.
It isn't my fault you don't take advantage of the incredible resources available to you in this great country.
You're a damned idiot.
It isn't my fault you don't take advantage of the incredible resources available to you in this great country.
You're a damned idiot.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 5:28 pm to dwr353
quote:
Public land should be sold off? Hell NO! I am as conservative as they come, but this is wrong on so many levels. The proceeds from the sale will be pissed away and in the aftermath, the public will be the loser. The ability to be free to utilize public lands is what sets the USA apart from other countries.
What specifically are you talking about?
What specific parcels of public lands are "up for sale"?
This thread seems to be mostly people who have no idea wtf public lands actually are or how they work or what the Trump administration is going to do.
1. Go to your favorite AI chat bot and ask what are the different types of federal public lands.
2. Ask what each designation means, what it protects, what is allowed, what is not allowed, what has to be done to change a designation.
3. Ask what the USFS and BLM are, what their mission is, what types of leases they do
4. Ask what it means for the federal government to "sell off public lands"
I typed all this shite out but it was like 500 words and nobody is going to read all that.
This topic is a good one for people to educate themselves about beyond hashtags and tweets and rage posts on Reddit and Bluesky.
Our public lands are like nothing else in the entire world and they are worth protecting. But ignorant slap fighting and platitudes does not accomplish that
OP, sorry I don't have anything for you. I have not heard anything from the actual administration about "selling off public lands" and I had to exit all of the outdoor recreation groups I was in because they were hijacked by libtards as soon as Trump won. In 2016.
Posted on 3/8/25 at 5:38 pm to McLemore
quote:
Our house in Montana is in Missoula by campus but we can walk a half block and be on a trail system that will get you to Canada or pretty close. Selfishly I wouldn’t want that touched.
Our property in Upstate SC backs up to 5000 acres of a combo of state WMA and Clemson public lands. And then connects with areas that some private nonprofits have bought and protected and will likely sell to the state for more WMA
Damn, congrats on living life right to set yourself up for this.
It is possible that USFS lands around Missoula could see more logging.
They will not be going into the Bob or Glacier or Yellowstone. Nothing with a designation should be affected.
But random plots of basic USFS land with tree stands that are suitable economically could be.
Over in ID they used to log the frick out of the Kootenai NF but wouldn't touch the Frank Church.
Edit: I doubt they would tear up a trail network near town or a disc golf course or whatever. And having a Senator from MT who is going to be very influential with USFS and the new US Wildland Firefighting Agency they are working on should help protect MT lands that have value to the public. There is so much public lands out west they could probably 10x or even 100x the ranching and logging leases and still not touch any lands that people actually recreate on
This post was edited on 3/8/25 at 5:43 pm
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News