Yet another bad bill in congress
General Topic
Contributors to this thread:
Stix 08-May-22
LUNG$HOT 08-May-22
Sivart 08-May-22
Oryx35 08-May-22
yooper89 08-May-22
goyt 09-May-22
WV Mountaineer 09-May-22
Jaquomo 09-May-22
Stix 09-May-22
Brotsky 09-May-22
WV Mountaineer 09-May-22
Shaft2Long 09-May-22
LUNG$HOT 09-May-22
Jaquomo 09-May-22
sasquatch 10-May-22
From: Stix
08-May-22

Stix's Link
Bill to sell off BLM land, not to the state for management, but for HIGH DENSITY residential development

Send your opposition via the above link.

From: LUNG$HOT
08-May-22
Done!

From: Sivart
08-May-22
Done. Thanks for the link

From: Oryx35
08-May-22
Done.

From: yooper89
08-May-22
Saw this on Rokslide a while back. If I remember correctly, somebody showed screenshots of maps on where the land was located, and it was basically inside city limits. I might be mis-remembering, but if they could do some sort of land trade, sell off the land that you can’t even hunt anyway, and recoup it outside of town I don’t think it would be all that bad.

I know that’s a pipe dream especially given it’s Mike Lee in Utah but seems like there are logical ways to make that work.

From: goyt
09-May-22
Sam Johnson from SCJohnson in WI wanted some Federal land near Cable, WI. He was a large landowner in the area and the Feds traded him something like 1 acre of Federal land for every 6 to 8 acres of his land. He traded for around 40 acres. Seemed like a good deal for US citizens. This was maybe 40-50 years ago.

09-May-22
Yooper nailed it.

From: Jaquomo
09-May-22
BLM has always sold/traded land, especially land that isn't suitable for revenue generation. They traded away my elk spot where I learned to bowhunt elk, and in exchange they got a building in downtown Denver owned by USFWS, and USFWS got a bunch of prime wetland and waterfowl nesting habitat to add to the Arapahoe Refuge, that was owned by the rancher who ended up with the BLM land.

Everybody won, except me.

From: Stix
09-May-22
This is not a situation of trading the land, this is a situation of selling it off for a developer to make high density housing

From: Brotsky
09-May-22
Where is the land they are selling located? If it is within city limits and not usable for other public purposes like recreation or mineral extraction then absolutely they should sell it. Not all sales of federal land are a bad thing.

09-May-22
^^^^ Boom^^^

From: Shaft2Long
09-May-22
High density residential that will certainly include stipulations that a percentage be reserved for low income, read that to be no income, recipients. Regardless of where the land is located, you don’t want this.

From: LUNG$HOT
09-May-22
Done!

From: Jaquomo
09-May-22
Selling, trading; it's the same. I believe they are tasked by law to dispose of unproductive land. Really started in earnest during the Clinton Administration

From: sasquatch
10-May-22
Shaft for the win

  • Sitka Gear