- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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: UPDATE : Big beautiful bill’ to include millions acres of public lands FOR SALE
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:08 am to LemmyLives
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:08 am to LemmyLives
quote:
Why do they need to own 80% of Nevada, 46% of Wyoming, and 63% of Utah? Missile silos don't take up that much relative space, and even bombing ranges like White Sands (3,200 square miles) don't need that much out of the states.
They don't need to own that much land.
The fact that they do is what makes America special. Most other countries don't prioritize public lands like we do.
Getting rid of public land is unamerican.
2
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:09 am to LemmyLives
quote:Of all the governments shortcomings, public lands have done well
We should be protecting that green space.
Nobody better at protecting stuff than government.
It makes ZERO sense to sell our assets, that anyone can go and use anytime they want, under the guise of lowering our National Debt when this bill itself is over budget
DUMB DUMB DUMB
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:13 am to AwgustaDawg
The federal government has been selling land to citizens pretty much since day 1 and the money has always or almost always gone into the treasury. The federal government bought the land with taxpayer money (like the Louisiana Purchase and other treaties) and returns the proceeds to the Treasury.
If they wanted to add a provision that they had to use the proceeds from this to buy other land and preserve it, I would not at all be opposed to that, but to act like this is some sort of evil plan is just silly.
If they wanted to add a provision that they had to use the proceeds from this to buy other land and preserve it, I would not at all be opposed to that, but to act like this is some sort of evil plan is just silly.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:17 am to Bison
quote:
Bison
Dear God, suffer much from TDS?
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:17 am to dinner roll
quote:
I’m fully confident that every penny of every sale will be used in ways that will benefit all Americans and in no way will any of the money disappear into the pockets of government officials.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:18 am to Bison
BHA has a form letter you can use to email your reps or provide your info and the page will send them for you.
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/
Management of public lands is one of the few things that the fed and state government generally do a good job of. They shouldn't be looking to liquidate them to balance the budget when there are so many other better ways to cut spending. Management of public land is mostly self funded, it's not a huge drain on the treasury. This sets a dangerous precedence of the government selling off OUR land to fund their irresponsible spending habits.
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/
Management of public lands is one of the few things that the fed and state government generally do a good job of. They shouldn't be looking to liquidate them to balance the budget when there are so many other better ways to cut spending. Management of public land is mostly self funded, it's not a huge drain on the treasury. This sets a dangerous precedence of the government selling off OUR land to fund their irresponsible spending habits.
This post was edited on 6/16/25 at 7:29 am
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:19 am to Bison
we have a board for this.
you post there often.
you post there often.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:22 am to Bison
This bill is insanity.
They're just trying to cram a year's worth of legislation in a normal Congress into one bill. Nobody should be supporting this piece of garbage.
They're just trying to cram a year's worth of legislation in a normal Congress into one bill. Nobody should be supporting this piece of garbage.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:23 am to Klark Kent
quote:
we have a board for this.
you post there often.
He likes the responses he gets over here! Wonder why?
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:23 am to SulphursFinest
The US government owns 47% of the land in the 11 western states.. a quick google search shows the us government owns more than 1,000,000 sq miles. Thats 640,000,000 acres. Selling 3 million acres makes sense as long as countries like China don’t grab it up. Thats less than 0.5% of the land. Look at a map of the west and how much of it the government owns. This is common sense not something sinister.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:24 am to lsutiger266
That’s my land. That’s your land. Leave it alone.
“As long as China doesn’t buy it”
“As long as China doesn’t buy it”
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:27 am to idontyield
quote:
And the land would have to be used for residential housing.
Woohoo, more rental housing owned by private equity.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:27 am to lsutiger266
Most of the group in this thread is wistfully remembering watching a tourist get gored at Yosemite, and thinks that their favorite campground is going to be closed to build a Costco because of this.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:28 am to lsutiger266
quote:
The US government owns 47% of the land in the 11 western states.. a quick google search shows the us government owns more than 1,000,000 sq miles. Thats 640,000,000 acres. Selling 3 million acres makes sense as long as countries like China don’t grab it up. Thats less than 0.5% of the land. Look at a map of the west and how much of it the government owns. This is common sense not something sinister.
As I read it, this provision would allow the Feds to sell the land to the state or local governments for the purpose of creating residential housing. So it would be the state or local government who made the decisions based on their community's needs. Local citizens could support or protest their plans as they saw fit.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:29 am to idontyield
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:30 am to idontyield
That’s so wrong. I wish the states would fight it.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 7:30 am to Bison
If this bill wasn't adding to the debt I'd be interested, but it's another rob Peter to pay Paul. fricking sick of politicians that just spend spend spend. Kamala still would have been worse, but goddamn Trump is doing everything he can to piss off the people that value financial sanity.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:03 am to LemmyLives
quote:
FedGov should own far less land than it does.
Agreed. HOWEVER, I don't think the bureaucracy should be responsible for "divestment". Maybe if they only sell to private land trusts, maybe....
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:12 am to Dixie2023
quote:
That’s so wrong. I wish the states would fight it.
The states could always buy the offered lands and put them into a state park. The states have the right of first refusal.
I'm amused at all the people saying the Federal government should never sell any land. It's very, very likely that where you are right now was once owned by the Federal government, before they sold it.
Posted on 6/16/25 at 8:13 am to idontyield
quote:
You should link the bill that covers this. You read the bill didn’t you? You saw where the land would be sold by BLM to state or local governments right? And the land would have to be used for residential housing.
The vast majority of outdoorsmen are conservative. Politically speaking this is a stupid move. You are going to piss off millions of conservative voters. There are already incredibly influential hunting/outdoor “celebrities” that are speaking out on this, Cam Hanes in particular. As razor thin as the republicans margins are in national elections, this is a bad idea.
Page 2 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News