If sold would these lands not be on the tax base then? I have stated this before we used to give land to settlers to develop, why not do this now?

If sold would these lands not be on the tax base then? I have stated this before we used to give land to settlers to develop, why not do this now?

If sold would these lands not be on the tax base then? I have stated this before we used to give land to settlers to develop, why not do this now?

I pay taxes on land i bought from the public.

The Feds looking to sell 2 million acres of 650 million acres, doesn't seem like much.

The state should have first dibs on federal land sales if the people of that state want it to remain public ground. I'm sure in counties where these grounds are becoming available that a handful of landowners own the majority of the private land now available. I'm sure these land owners would like to keep it that way and the county control that comes with it. They would likely be against the sale of federal land to the general public.

Why does the government own 90% of nevada anyway?

We own it. It’s public land.

Not sure how much private land is "owned" stop paying property taxes and see what happens.

Do we really though?

Because then they become private and an asset to a smaller number of folks to utilize and enjoy…..likely rich and select folks. And you know they’ll play the shell game and NOT likely actually pay taxes.

I guess in your opinion then, you better call your senators and tell them to push this through and liquidate all the public lands for “settlers”. They are actually doing this in the guise of “affordable housing”! They ain’t fooling me! Happy trapping! ScottW

Public land is one of the single greatest achievements this nation has ever accomplished. The ability to go where I want, when I want, hunt, fish, trap free of charge, asking no one for permission, on the lands that surround me are an experience that is unique in this world. I’ve been to the states that have very little public land and have no desire to live in area that restricts my movement and ability to recreate on the lands that much. Anyone supporting the sale or transfer of federal public land has no concept of the amount of freedom this jeapordizes in a country where freedom is already dwindling by the day. I have and will continue to urgently ask my senators to remove this language from the reconciliation bill. Fortunately Idaho has a representative who has already strongly opposed these efforts in the house.

Scott, I won't be calling.

I don't think the federal government should own as much as they do.

Why does the government own 90% of nevada anyway?

Why does the government own 90% of nevada anyway?

Wouldn't privitizing public land be something conservative free market people support?

All federal lands will eventually be off-limits to human habitation. It's already happening. The video shows you the future of federal lands. The less land the feds own the better! JMO!

I don't like it, but can understand some being sold.

With a growing population, we need more energy and raw materials.

Public land is one of the single greatest achievements this nation has ever accomplished. The ability to go where I want, when I want, hunt, fish, trap free of charge, asking no one for permission, on the lands that surround me are an experience that is unique in this world. I’ve been to the states that have very little public land and have no desire to live in area that restricts my movement and ability to recreate on the lands that much. Anyone supporting the sale or transfer of federal public land has no concept of the amount of freedom this jeapordizes in a country where freedom is already dwindling by the day. I have and will continue to urgently ask my senators to remove this language from the reconciliation bill. Fortunately Idaho has a representative who has already strongly opposed these efforts in the house.

I have made my living here on public land and yet I am not so selfish as to block more useful and productive private sales and utilization of these lands that will benefit more people and the country more than just little ole me. This nimbi crap is why the U.S.is not developing. Might as well join Greenpeace.

What ever happened to homesteading? I wonder why it was done away with?

Hope it doesn't sell but the fact is that I would guess way less than 1% of Americans are utilizing public land.

Break it up in 10 acre plots and allow only a one plot purchase per household or corporation.

Out west 99% or more of trappers are in that 1%. Just sayin'

What ever happened to homesteading? I wonder why it was done away with?

It's a terrible, short sighted bill. Teddy Roosevelt is turning in his grave. The bill lists3-5 million acres must be sold,
however, it makes 250 million acres eligible. And it's not just about trapping, people. This land has miles of pristine public waters that is great fishing, and millions of acres of public hunting areas. For any outdoorsman and conservationist to support this shows a blind, follow the Leader, sheep mentality.

15 million acres up for grabs in Wy alone, Im sure the timber companies and coal companies will let you hunt for the right price.

Wouldn't privitizing public land be something conservative free market people support?

Federal land u.s.

I don’t know how fishing,hunting, and trapping can even occur east of the Colorado State line?

It's a terrible, short sighted bill. Teddy Roosevelt is turning in his grave. The bill lists3-5 million acres must be sold,
however, it makes 250 million acres eligible. And it's not just about trapping, people. This land has miles of pristine public waters that is great fishing, and millions of acres of public hunting areas. For any outdoorsman and conservationist to support this shows a blind, follow the Leader, sheep mentality.

ScottW, I’m with you. Public land was set aside by the greatest president in U.S. history, who understood the long-term value this land would provide toward not just recreation, but CONSERVATION. Without this land, the North American Model of Conservation would be lost, along with all the hunting and trapping rights every person on Trapperman enjoys. These dudes don’t get it, don’t want to get it, and won’t ever get it. It’s a selfish mindset.

Greatest? He was the worst till recent times. He gets a lot of credit because of the war and conservation but he was a socialist the rest of his time. He was the original progressive.

so was SNIPERBBB

so was SNIPERBBB

If we didn't have teddy, we wouldn't of had Woodrow Wilson and likely never had FDR

So emminent domain to take your house is good but selling it back is bad?

Lot of rich people hate on this thread?

I'll say out loud what we all know. The few people on here that are twisting this issue around to try to make it defensible would be wailing and nashing their teeth if the Biden administration had proposed this. And that's all you really need to know.....

Not really a fair comparison and not how eminent domain is used, they don't sell your house back to you. I'm glad ole Teddy did what he did so I'll say yes, I appreciate what he did and all the reasons behind it. Public lands were set aside for us and should never be sold for any reason including private or political gain.

You know as well as I do that if sold they will be raped and pillaged by the wealthy or good Lord forbid, foreigners. To me, public lands are not a commodity and the US sure ain't that poor to justify selling. It's bad enough that we all experience some sort of loss of access to public lands, think about the precedent it will set to sell off a huge chunk.

If DC follows the Constitution then so be it, nothing to do about it I reckon. I truly can't believe on a outdoor forum people are advocating for the selling of OUR public land. It's a win win for the rich to get richer and a loose loose for all the rest, including the redneck hilljacks like me. I'm sure the federal gov will spend that sale money wisely.

Not really a fair comparison and not how eminent domain is used, they don't sell your house back to you. I'm glad ole Teddy did what he did so I'll say yes, I appreciate what he did and all the reasons behind it. Public lands were set aside for us and should never be sold for any reason including private or political gain.

You know as well as I do that if sold they will be raped and pillaged by the wealthy or good Lord forbid, foreigners. To me, public lands are not a commodity and the US sure ain't that poor to justify selling. It's bad enough that we all experience some sort of loss of access to public lands, think about the precedent it will set to sell off a huge chunk.

If DC follows the Constitution then so be it, nothing to do about it I reckon. I truly can't believe on a outdoor forum people are advocating for the selling of OUR public land. It's a win win for the rich to get richer and a loose loose for all the rest, including the redneck hilljacks like me. I'm sure the federal gov will spend that sale money wisely.

(2) NOMINATIONS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES.— (A) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary concerned shall publish a notice soliciting nominations of tracts of Bureau of Land Management land and National Forest System land for disposal by the Secretary concerned under this section from interested parties, including 25 States and units of local governmen

(B) CONSULTATION.—Before selecting for disposal under this section any tract of Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest System land nominated for disposal under subparagraph (A), the Secretary concerned shall consult with— (i) the Governor of the State in which the nominated tract is located regarding the suitability of the area for residential development; (ii) each applicable unit of local government; and (iii) each applicable Indian Tribe. (C) REQUIREMENTS.—A nomination of a tract of Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest System land for disposal submitted by an interested party under subparagraph (A) shall include a description of— (i) the planned use of the tract of Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest System land; and (ii) the extent to which the development of the tract of Bureau of Land Management land or National Forest System 25 land would address local housing needs (including housing supply and affordability) or any associated community needs. (3) PRIORITY CONSIDERATION.—In selecting tracts of Bureau of Land Management land and National Forest System land for disposal under this section, the Secretary concerned shall give priority consideration to the disposal of tracts of Bureau of Land Management land and National Forest System land that, as determined by the Secretary concerned— (A) are nominated by States or units of local governments; (B) are adjacent to existing developed areas; (C) have access to existing infrastructure; (D) are suitable for residential housing; (E) reduce checkerboard land patterns; or (F) are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.

e) FAIR MARKET VALUE.—A sale of a tract of covered Federal land under this section shall be for not less than fair market value. (f) RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.—The Secretary concerned may provide a State or unit of local government in which a tract of covered Federal land is located a right of first refusal to purchase the applicable tract of covered Federal land for community development purposes, subject to subsection (e). (g) LIMITATIONS.— (1) USE.—A tract of covered Federal land disposed of under this section shall be used solely for the development of housing or to address associated community needs as defined by the Secretary concerned. (2) MAXIMUM TOTAL ACREAGE.—The Secretary concerned shall establish a maximum total acreage of tracts of covered Federal land that a person may purchase under this section. (3) RESTRICTIVE COVENANT.— (A) IN GENERAL.—As a condition of the conveyance of a tract of covered Federal land under this section, the conveyance shall include a restrictive covenant requiring that the tract of 25 covered Federal land conveyed be used for a period of not less than 10 years in accordance with the planned use of the tract of covered Federal land— (i) as described pursuant to paragraph (2)(C)(i) of subsection (c), in the case of covered Federal land nominated under that paragraph; or (ii) as identified by the Secretary concerned, in the case of covered Federal land initially identified for disposal by the Secretary concerned. (B) RIGHT OF ENFORCEMENT.—The United States shall retain a right of enforcement against any use inconsistent with a restrictive covenant included in a conveyance of a tract of Federal land under subparagraph (A). (4) FEDERALLY PROTECTED LAND; VALID EXISTING RIGHTS; OUTSIDE ELIGIBLE STATES.—The Secretary concerned may not dispose of any tract of covered Federal land that is— (A) federally protected land; (B) subject to valid existing rights; or (C) not located in an eligible State.
(5) NUMBER OF TRACTS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), a person may not purchase more than 2 tracts of covered Federal land in any 1 sale under this section unless the person owns land surrounding the tracts of covered Federal land to be sold under this section. (B) EXCEPTION.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a State or unit of local government.

Land suitable for housing and near a road.

Population growth, your gonna need housing. Here we're losing farm ground at an alarming rate to houses, maybe its that way most places and this is to relieve some of that pressure?

You're also going to need energy for the growth, another thing that good farm ground is going to here. Solar farms going up, and is a major issue for candidates in our local elections as to if they support them or not.

Reality sucks sometimes.

A forced reality would be more accurate. One thing is solar plots, solar systems, solar mines, not solar "farms", they do not meet the def of a farm. "Solar farm" is a term used to connect them to nature and they don't belong in nature. They belong on top of buildings, vacant city lots that are left vacant, not utilized for housing, parking garages etc. Industrial solar has no business on land zoned for AG or our public lands, solar destroys wildlife and the ground it's on. Also, the Chinese nor any foreign Country should own any of our soil.

As for population, we grew what, 0.98% last year. Figuring the boomers @ 20% and Xer's @20% I don't see a real surge in population unless they keep the borders open. Plus, everywhere I look there's vacant housing, vacant apartment complexes that aren't being utilized. The Gov has set this up and now tell us hey, it's reality. I digress, if this sale goes through it will be the tip of the iceberg. It will sell to "any interested party", who will take the oil, timber, mine it and move on to the next tract for sale cause hey, it's just reality.

Scott, I won't be calling.

I don't think the federal government should own as much as they do.

Exactly!
The public land should have been conveyed to the State upon statehood.

I get that hippie! I'd rather they gather up the illegals and ship'em back and keep our public lands. I'd rather see the gov do something about all the vacant properties in the cities to help with housing and slap panels on'em if they want. I'd rather see a build up in the current coal mines we have. I'm not in favor of the gov liquidating our land to fund their personal agendas.

IMO, in 50 years the US won't be the US anymore. The Alpha gen are for the most part girly girls and will adopt the all white flag. I would like to keep as much freedom as possible, for as long as possible and the selling of our public hunting, trapping, and fishing is a loss of freedom.

Because then they become private and an asset to a smaller number of folks to utilize and enjoy…..likely rich and select folks. And you know they’ll play the shell game and NOT likely actually pay taxes.

I guess in your opinion then, you better call your senators and tell them to push this through and liquidate all the public lands for “settlers”. They are actually doing this in the guise of “affordable housing”! They ain’t fooling me! Happy trapping! ScottW

Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

Hunting fishing no mention of trapping. No skin off my nose.

Once it's gone, it's gone forever.

Land suitable for housing and near a road.

Population growth, your gonna need housing. Here we're losing farm ground at an alarming rate to houses, maybe its that way most places and this is to relieve some of that pressure?

You're also going to need energy for the growth, another thing that good farm ground is going to here. Solar farms going up, and is a major issue for candidates in our local elections as to if they support them or not.

Reality sucks sometimes.

A lot of it is people leaving big cities. The trend began during Covid, now it’s happening more and more. People have realized cities suck, the problem is when they relocate they bring the city with them. South Park did an episode about it, it was wildly accurate. I’m glad I bought real estate when I was younger (not that I’m old now, I was just apparently a wise man at 18-20 years old) because now land around here has skyrocketed because of people migrating from Washington, California, and Oregon (in that order it seems)

I love the emotional rhetoric on this thread. Trappers and the center for biodiversity working together.Public enemies

PF,

I’m sorry if that seemed attacking, I thought it was pretty casual and I’m attacking. I just didn’t feel the need to answer the question at the moment as I felt the answers were fairly obvious. FYI, I did read it and think of his points.

I think this has been a great and important discussion and I wish I could participate more but I just don’t have the time to write page upon page on it all though I’m trying to stay somewhat engaged since I was the OP. Happy trapping! ScottW