Jump to content

This Land Is Mine! public lands (NPS, BLM, NFS, etc.)


Recommended Posts

Posted

threadworthy topic? 🤔

i feel like this issue is one of the most crucial and possibly closest to 'bipartisan' as we're likely to get nowadays, and the details of whatever happens are going to generate substantial discussion.

on a personal level, other than the brownshirts (which, i can't even), this is the issue i find most upsetting. 

so... everybody knows the senate parliamentarian threw out Mike Lee's first version on a technicality. i'm not convinced there wasn't a push to find something from his colleagues, whose staff are probably (hopefully!) getting an earful from constituents. 

Revised GOP plan would sell up to 1.2M acres of public lands

* from 3.3 to 1.5 million acres
* excludes National Forests
* specifies it must be sold for housing or infrastructure to support housing and it must be within five miles of a population center border
* excludes federally protected grazing land

doesn't change the terribleness of the idea. also i do not trust them at all. but if most of the land was still in UT (i don't know), well, they elected him.

i hope there is enough resistance on both sides to kill it altogether. 🖕

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 5
Posted

1.2 million acres today (plus weakened protections of 58 million additional acres with the rescinded roadless rule), NWRs, NFs and NPs tomorrow.

I think anyone who lives in Texas and gives the tiniest shit about the outdoors would agree that more federal lands is preferable to our situation, where over 96% of the land is privately held. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted

YES

Lee pulls federal land sales from megabill

Sen. Mike Lee’s decision to withdraw his proposal removes a major headache for GOP leadership in both chambers as they look to advance their megabill.

 

🤞may this be the shortest thread in the CR.

also...did the pressure actually work?? cuz it seems like the pressure worked. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 3
Posted
On 6/25/2025 at 8:13 PM, hookem2010 said:

1.2 million acres today (plus weakened protections of 58 million additional acres with the rescinded roadless rule), NWRs, NFs and NPs tomorrow.

I think anyone who lives in Texas and gives the tiniest shit about the outdoors would agree that more federal lands is preferable to our situation, where over 96% of the land is privately held. 

you’re not wrong re: the sentiment, but the vast majority of land in Texas is privately owned, with the second biggest chunk being state owned.   

only 1.9% of the land in Texas is federally owned.  which means this is meh issue for nearly all Texans.  only a minuscule number are even going to know about this, and even then it’ll mostly be a combination of hikers, campers, Sierra Club folks and hunters who lottery hunt out west.  
 

I’m 3 of the 4, so i personally hope Mike Lee gets a red hot fire poker shoved up his ass by some pissed of gang of campers.  

  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, mchookem said:

YES

Lee pulls federal land sales from megabill

Sen. Mike Lee’s decision to withdraw his proposal removes a major headache for GOP leadership in both chambers as they look to advance their megabill.

 

🤞may this be the shortest thread in the CR.

also...did the pressure actually work?? cuz it seems like the pressure worked. 

Don’t fuck with our lands. As you stated, this seems to be one of the last bipartisan subjects left. That said, this fight will go on forever because shitheads just can’t seem to stop themselves from trying this over and over. 
 

To paraphrase John Muir: the enemies of wildness are invincible and unwavering. But for every acre that you gain, the trees and their lovers will sing their praises, and generations yet unborn will rise up and call them blessed.

  • Hook 'Em 7
Posted
4 hours ago, mchookem said:

YES

Lee pulls federal land sales from megabill

Sen. Mike Lee’s decision to withdraw his proposal removes a major headache for GOP leadership in both chambers as they look to advance their megabill.

 

🤞may this be the shortest thread in the CR.

also...did the pressure actually work?? cuz it seems like the pressure worked. 

YES, the pressure actually worked. I am very much relieved and energized this morning to read this after going to bed last night fearing the worst!

And you know what? This bill isn't done yet. It now goes back to the House where they'll need to iron out the differences. For starters, the House bill cut $800B from Medicaid. The Senate version cuts $1 trillion AND MAKES CUTS TO MEDICARE. Yes, Medicare. For old people. Retirees. What that means is that some chickenshit GOP reps who were counting on the Senate being the sane ones and watering this thing down somewhat, as is usually the case, now need to start feeling the heat from their constituents. This is probably not something they are normally used to, as this third rail of American politics has never been touched.

People need to get on the fucking phone and call their reps. Call their Senators too. If nothing else, make their staffers walk into work Monday morning with hundreds of messages on voicemail. 

(202) 224-3121 gets to the congressional switchboard. They will connect you directly with your rep's or senator's office if you don't want to find the number directly.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

I’m pessimistic about the growing movement to sell federal land to states if not private industry. Like @Kyrie Eleison stated many regions don’t have much federal land so this is a non issue for them. Second this is an idea that may only need to succeed once then the land would be privatized forever.

ive seen a few billionaires (wanna be) types argue that the US is sitting on trillions of dollars of land value that could be sold to pay off the national debt. Maybe there’s partial accuracy in that, but pawning your assets is a big step in eventual downfalls of organizations.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted

If we were worried about the national debt, we could solve it on the spending side.

Nobody wants to.

The notion of selling land to remedy the debt is like the degenerate gambler who puts the rent money on black.  Actually, the gambler has a MUCH better shot at achieving a win.  The debt has ZERO weight in the discussion, IMHO.  It's lip service.

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck You 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Iceman said:

If we were worried about the national debt, we could solve it on the spending side.

Nobody wants to.

The notion of selling land to remedy the debt is like the degenerate gambler who puts the rent money on black.  Actually, the gambler has a MUCH better shot at achieving a win.  The debt has ZERO weight in the discussion, IMHO.  It's lip service.

Yep, they'd sell the public land disguised as raising money to pay national debt.  Sales wouldn't go toward paying national debt, however, and it would open the floodgates to sell more public land for private exploitation.  Make no mistake, these jackasses in charge aren't for helping the public in any way.  The vaccine research cancellations out front should have warned people. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
11 minutes ago, Iceman said:

If we were worried about the national debt, we could solve it on the spending side.

Nobody wants to.

The notion of selling land to remedy the debt is like the degenerate gambler who puts the rent money on black.  Actually, the gambler has a MUCH better shot at achieving a win.  The debt has ZERO weight in the discussion, IMHO.  It's lip service.

Well it's not like the president has driven multiple casinos into bankruptcy or anything right? Maybe the ghost of Fred trump can bail out America like he did the trump taj mahal

Posted
1 hour ago, Iceman said:

If we were worried about the national debt, we could solve it on the spending side.

Nobody wants to.

The notion of selling land to remedy the debt is like the degenerate gambler who puts the rent money on black.  Actually, the gambler has a MUCH better shot at achieving a win.  The debt has ZERO weight in the discussion, IMHO.  It's lip service.

Both sides!

Posted
5 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Disagree. Our national debt is a both sides issue similar to the splinter-log issue. 

The actions demonstrate that nobody wants to solve the national debt.

It is not a matter of revenue, either.  They simply will not stop spending.  It is the crack cocaine of politics.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Iceman said:

It is not a matter of revenue, either.  They simply will not stop spending.  It is the crack cocaine of politics.

A significant portion of US GDP is driven by stimulus via government spending. I thought you like LGU economics?

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
11 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

And Lisa Murkowski is a jelly fish spined wuss.  She ended up voting for the bill.  

I can’t imagine that plays well with the Alaskan natives.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
35 minutes ago, Iceman said:

The actions demonstrate that nobody wants to solve the national debt.

It is not a matter of revenue, either.  They simply will not stop spending.  It is the crack cocaine of politics.

Except the Dems actually balanced the balance diet under Clinton, and reduced deficit spending under all their presidents since

Republican presidents explode the debt. Dems don’t. It is that simple.

  • Hook 'Em 1


×
×
  • Create New...