Public Land

[NCL]

A number of the hunting and fishing groups/organization that I subscribe to are sending out informational emails that in the budget reconciliation bill in the Senate there are provisions to sell off a huge amount of public land. The last figure I saw this morning was the sale would encompass about 260 million acres of USFS and BLM land. The sale would be in 11 Western States so would not have any impact on hunters throughout the rest of the country.

From reading OG for several years there appears to be many turkey hunters that only have access to public lands. The concern from the groups I have read that access could end or be very restricted if these sale are completed, which obviously would have a significant impact on hunting and fishing on these lands along with other outdoor activities.  Also it was mentioned that this sale could impact cattle ranchers who utilize public grazing lands.

I am posting this as information only and not about the merits of this sale.

[10th Legionaire]

It's a not good proposition that is designed to circumvent land sales procedures that are already in place. Plus it's being done under what I personally believe is a BS pretense. The story the politicians that are trying to get it done are putting out is that it is to balance the budget and have areas to build affordable housing.

[Hook hanger]

The questions I have about this i haven't seen answers for. How many acres are they going to sell exactly and is it mainly land locked ground the public can't use? What are the funds of land sales going to be used for? Who will have the opportunity to buy the ground they are trying to sell off?

[NCL]

The article was in Field & Stream and there was a break down by state with Alaska having the biggest share at 82 million acres and the smallest amount was Washington at 5.3 million acres. I did see a map of the effected areas, not in the aforementioned article, but it did not breakdown if the lands were landlocked by private lands. My understanding is the funds from the sale would go toward the expenditures in the bill. I would assume anyone with available resources could purchase the land. 

[GobbleNut]

It's a not good proposition that is designed to circumvent land sales procedures that are already in place. Plus it's being done under what I personally believe is a BS pretense. The story the politicians that are trying to get it done are putting out is that it is to balance the budget and have areas to build affordable housing.

This ^^^
I have heard all sorts of rumors about the bill and the impacts it could have for public land users. From what I have seen, pretty much every informed outdoors-oriented individual, as well as most all of the outdoor publications/entities I am aware of have expressed grave concerns about the wording of this provision and what it might lead to in terms of loss of our public lands and the recreational opportunities they provide. The course-of-action at this time is to simply contact your two senators in your state and strongly express your opposition to this provision in the bill.

[Hook hanger]

The article was in Field & Stream and there was a break down by state with Alaska having the biggest share at 82 million acres and the smallest amount was Washington at 5.3 million acres. I did see a map of the effected areas, not in the aforementioned article, but it did not breakdown if the lands were landlocked by private lands. My understanding is the funds from the sale would go toward the expenditures in the bill. I would assume anyone with available resources could purchase the land. 

The article was in Field & Stream and there was a break down by state with Alaska having the biggest share at 82 million acres and the smallest amount was Washington at 5.3 million acres. I did see a map of the effected areas, not in the aforementioned article, but it did not breakdown if the lands were landlocked by private lands. My understanding is the funds from the sale would go toward the expenditures in the bill. I would assume anyone with available resources could purchase the land. 

First I want to say I DON'T approve of selling of public lands. Depending on what they get for the land sold i wouldn't think they would even sell off close to the number of acres that have been discussed. Does the government need to be 80 trillion in the positive?

[Tail Feathers]

Texas is about 96% private land if I recall the number exactly.  Keep those public lands, they are more valuable for public access than $.  Of course Congress would promptly waste all that money on who knows what and then we wouldn't have the land or the money. 
No thanks.

[arkrem870]

Don't give an inch. Keep public lands public! 

[NCL]

I just saw a report this morning that the provision has been removed as it doesn't belong in a budget reconciliation bill. J hope this is correct. As pointed out once this land is gone it will not return.

I did find the map I reference above but it was only for Washington, Oregon and California, much of the land appeared to be timber land which would probably have been bought by the timber companies.

[10th Legionaire]

Here's a video with an explanation of how it got pulled and potential end arounds to keep an eye out for. Yes, I know the guy is a YouTube public land hunter but his podcasts have been informative in this fight.

https://youtu.be/1ymB4ESWqVc?si=MIpLlvKb2nIP0iIF

[NCL]

Very detailed video. Thank you for posting. I thought it was a done deal but the video indicated it was still possible.

[10th Legionaire]

I got an email yesterday saying that Lee has amended his bill and is trying to get it included. Link below

https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/public-lands-and-waters/mike-lees-amended-bill-will-still-require-sale-of-public-lands