About Me

I'm a proud Aggie, a proud American, and a proud outdoor enthusiast. After living in Texas for the first 22 years of my life, I moved out west to Utah and lived there for almost a decade. This is where my enthusiasm for the great outdoors began to grow significantly. After moving to California for 2 years for my job, I then moved to Washington to pursue a lifestyle where I could be surrounded more by nature and less by the hustle and bustle of city life. In the past 5 years while in Washington, I've traveled over 2,000 miles through public lands and have come to realize how incredible our wilderness areas in the U.S. are.

My Ask

The U.S. Senate may vote before the July 4th recess on the "One Big Beautiful Bill" (H.R. 1). This bill will open up the sell-off of large portions of our public lands to private entities. Call the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and ask your senators (Ted Cruz and John Cornyn) to vote 'NO' on the land sell-off in H.R. 1. Let's keep our national forests and wild places open for all to enjoy.

What I Can Do for You

If you want to come out to Washington, I'll be more than happy to show you around or give you some recommendations on some incredible spots. Our public lands have given so much back to me, and I want to share that with anyone who is willing to protect these invaluable places.

Here are some of the public lands in Washington that will be inaccessible if the land sell-off is approved.

Group buy?

Can't believe this is happening….

More outrage farming lies...

Now there is some useless desert scrub BLM land in Nevada and Utah on the outskirts of rapidly growing cities that might be sold for development to ease housing shortages in those areas.

But show us some more beautiful national parks and tell us how the big bad Trump is gonna break them up and sell them off.

It's entertaining!

SunrayAg said:

---

More outrage farming lies...

Now there is some useless desert scrub BLM land in Nevada and Utah on the outskirts of rapidly growing cities that might be sold for development to ease housing shortages in those areas.

But show us some more beautiful national parks and tell us how the big bad Trump is gonna break them up and sell them off.

It's entertaining!

---

The areas a stood on where I took the photos all sit outside of National Parks and Wilderness Areas which are not at risk to be sold. These photos are all from within the Wenatchee-Okanogan National Forest or the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest...access to these photo locations are at risk per this map: USFS and BLM lands eligible for sale in the Senate Reconciliation Bill

Sell it off and pay down the dept

I want me suppressors and SBRs

If you want it, buy it.

Most people will never set foot there, and could benefit from the sale to pay down debt/slow the growth of debt. No reason the feds should own so much land.

AggieT said:

---

could benefit from the sale to pay down debt/slow the growth of debt.

---

Completely setting aside the main issue in the thread for a moment…

Selling assets to service the debt means nothing if the govt wont cut spending.

And we all just saw how they reacted to trying to find and cut waste and abuse.

Completely agree.

just a quickly formed thought…. let states buy these public lands on a 20 yr mortgage with decent interest…… Win/win… pays down national debt…. still allows for public access… and I dont know sheet about sheet

AggieT said:

---

If you want it, buy it.

Most people will never set foot there, and could benefit from the sale to pay down debt/slow the growth of debt. No reason the feds should own so much land.

---

It's OUR land because it's federally owned. WE can hunt on it, WE can fish on it, WE can camp and recreate on it. It's estimated 5-7 million people visit Washington's BLM and national forests per year. The loss of these lands has cascading impacts in terms of scarcity, overcrowding, and ecological impacts. The land is much more valuable in our hands than it is in private hands.

I get it. It's beautiful land that I'd love to visit. I also love to hunt, fish, hike, and camp. It looks like heaven.

Maybe the State of Washington can buy it and maintain it.

Last year's budget was nearly five trillion. This land sale would raise 5-10 billion. So between 1/1000 and 1/500th of one year's budget to sell of land we will never get back for public use (unless the states end up with it and protect it). And little of the land is close enough to major cities to actually help housing. And if it were, then you are taking away some of the closest recreational land people could visit. But the government is too cowardly to do anything that would actually work towards fixing our debt problem, so we get another cheap excuse for a solution that won't help anyone in the long term.
Jmo.

agclassof2012 said:

---

AggieT said:

---

If you want it, buy it.

Most people will never set foot there, and could benefit from the sale to pay down debt/slow the growth of debt. No reason the feds should own so much land.

---

It's OUR land because it's federally owned. WE can hunt on it, WE can fish on it, WE can camp and recreate on it. It's estimated 5-7 million people visit Washington's BLM and national forests per year. The loss of these lands has cascading impacts in terms of scarcity, overcrowding, and ecological impacts. The land is much more valuable in our hands than it is in private hands.

---

And yet the fact remains that the only parcels of land set to be sold are desert scrub on the outskirts of fast growing cities in Nevada and Utah, which both have an overwhelming majority of the land in the state owned by the federal government.

Not the beautiful mountains and idyllic lakes pictured in your false OP.

Barren desert scrub land on the outskirts of Reno, Vegas, and St George.

But by all means, tell us some more lies.

The first post of this type to show up on this site was titled "Ghettostone"... and was meant to imply that the big bad Trump was going to build low income housing in national parks.

It's sad that crap like that works on the weak minded.

SunrayAg said:

---

agclassof2012 said:

---

AggieT said:

---

If you want it, buy it.

Most people will never set foot there, and could benefit from the sale to pay down debt/slow the growth of debt. No reason the feds should own so much land.

---

It's OUR land because it's federally owned. WE can hunt on it, WE can fish on it, WE can camp and recreate on it. It's estimated 5-7 million people visit Washington's BLM and national forests per year. The loss of these lands has cascading impacts in terms of scarcity, overcrowding, and ecological impacts. The land is much more valuable in our hands than it is in private hands.

---

And yet the fact remains that the only parcels of land set to be sold are desert scrub on the outskirts of fast growing cities in Nevada and Utah, which both have an overwhelming majority of the land in the state owned by the federal government.

Not the beautiful mountains and idyllic lakes pictured in your false OP.

Barren desert scrub land on the outskirts of Reno, Vegas, and St George.

But by all means, tell us some more lies.

The first post of this type to show up on this site was titled "Ghettostone"... and was meant to imply that the big bad Trump was going to build low income housing in national parks.

It's sad that crap like that works on the weak minded.

---

I'll go one by one till you understand this is not a lie.

This photo was taken between Heather Pass and Maple Pass adjacent to North Cascades National Park (48.5082136,-120.7651667). Access to this location is via the Rainy Lake Trailhead along SR-20. This is arguably the most populate hike in Washington in late September/October due to the fall colors and the larch trees turning golden.



Per USFS and BLM lands eligible for sale in the Senate Reconciliation Bill, the Rainy Lake Trailhead is on Okanogan-Wenatchee NF that is available to be sold. The snippet below shows the access to the viewpoint via the red line.

Didn't Trump attempt to do this with Bears Ears in his first term but it got stopped when he left office?

That wasn't scrub land.

I get that on the surface this seems like a financial move to help our government....

But a) this is irreversible once it enters private hands, b) this will make VERY little impact to the debt, c) there are MANY other programs that should be scrapped first, d) none of this does ANY good if the government doesn't stop spending.

It's just like spitting into the ocean.

The US citizens get f'ed as some entity gets a great buy on land and makes a fortunune off of it at our expense.

To the couple comments on selling to the states. The states have proven all they will do is immediately sell it off to private or restrict public access. It's ideal, but not a working solution. I admit there are some crap lands out there owned by the feds, but I guarantee you 99 % of the people would lump where I hunt blue quail in NM into that pile of crap land. Selling off these public lands will not be a drop in the bucket to our debt. This has been thrown in by some senators that have some development per projects they want to enable. It sets a terrible precedent. I'll be emailing my senators.

AgRyan04 said:

---

Didn't Trump attempt to do this with Bears Ears in his first term but it got stopped when he left office?

That wasn't scrub land.

I get that on the surface this seems like a financial move to help our government....

But a) this is irreversible once it enters private hands, b) this will make VERY little impact to the debt, c) there are MANY other programs that should be scrapped first, d) none of this does ANY good if the government doesn't stop spending.

It's just like spitting into the ocean.

The US citizens get f'ed as some entity gets a great buy on land and makes a fortunune off of it at our expense.

---

It has nothing to do with debt.

It has to do with housing availability in overcrowded western cities in Nevada and Utah.

The land in question looks like this.



The OP is a leftbot trying to drum up opposition to Trump's bill.

Greetings fellow outdoorsmen. I've come to tell you of the horrors of Trumps big bad bill, and how it will end all access to all of the beautiful places in the west.

It won't.

SunrayAg said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

Didn't Trump attempt to do this with Bears Ears in his first term but it got stopped when he left office?

That wasn't scrub land.

I get that on the surface this seems like a financial move to help our government....

But a) this is irreversible once it enters private hands, b) this will make VERY little impact to the debt, c) there are MANY other programs that should be scrapped first, d) none of this does ANY good if the government doesn't stop spending.

It's just like spitting into the ocean.

The US citizens get f'ed as some entity gets a great buy on land and makes a fortunune off of it at our expense.

---

It has nothing to do with debt.

It has to do with housing availability in overcrowded western cities in Nevada and Utah.

The land in question looks like this.



The OP is a leftbot trying to drum up opposition to Trump's bill.

Greetings fellow outdoorsmen. I've come to tell you of the horrors of Trumps big bad bill, and how it will end all access to all of the beautiful places in the west.

It won't.

---

The information I'm seeing is telling me that some of the most beautiful land in the west is up for sale. I understand your skepticism because it seems too absurd to be true, but you've yet to produce any reference that says otherwise. The bill is vague enough that it creates uncertainty on what will be for sale and when it will be for sale. And when faced with uncertainty on something that is so vital, I'm not going to give it the benefit of the doubt. I'm not here to debate other parts of the bill. I'm not here to debate Trump. I'm here to prevent the sale of our beloved public lands. There is no room for error on this one.

Here is a good Meateater article on it:

Land for sale


Important to note that the Bill requires 2 - 3 million acres of land to be sold over the next 5 years, and will come from the green on the map linked on the article. If its about housing needs, it would be better of to invest in struggling small towns or even inner city foreclosures. There you have roads, water and electricity already in place.

SunrayAg said:

---

useless desert scrub

---

I keep hearing this and it makes me wonder who decides what is useless or not? So only idyllic mountain scenes need to be preserved? That makes no sense.

The federal government owns nearly half a BILLION acres, and there are millions of acres of BLM/Forest Service land that should be sold. We're not talking scenic hiking/camping areas and parks here, we're talking single sections (or more) of National Grasslands and such miles from any other sections. We're talking desert and scrub brush acreage where the cost of Federal employees overseeing it for grazing exceeds the income. We're talking chunks of country the public doesn't even tread on, much less hike/bike or camp on. Look at a map…….

https://www.westernplanner.org/201604issue/2017/8/9/federal-lands-in-the-west-a-few-facts-and-figures

Drillbit4 said:

---

Here is a good Meateater article on it:

Land for sale


Important to note that the Bill requires 2 - 3 million acres of land to be sold over the next 5 years, and will come from the green on the map linked on the article. If its about housing needs, it would be better of to invest in struggling small towns or even inner city foreclosures. There you have roads, water and electricity already in place.

---

The problem is the bill is obtuse on purpose and no one from f16 is ever going to agree that there is any chance of useful public land being sold to fund 16 hours of the Government's budget.

AggieT said:

---

Group buy?

---

Funny thing is we already own it as a group.

I don't particularly have an issue with the Feds selling land (because they should), but I don't trust them to do it well.

If it were to be done strategically, avoiding hunting, camping, and major wildlife areas, and in a way to encourage ambitious young Americans to move there, procreate and prosper (say, we'll give you this section of land, but you have to farm it with these crops or cultivate this type of something for whatever reason), it'd be great.

But, that won't happen, so I'm against the sale.

SunrayAg said:

---

AgRyan04 said:

---

Didn't Trump attempt to do this with Bears Ears in his first term but it got stopped when he left office?

That wasn't scrub land.

I get that on the surface this seems like a financial move to help our government....

But a) this is irreversible once it enters private hands, b) this will make VERY little impact to the debt, c) there are MANY other programs that should be scrapped first, d) none of this does ANY good if the government doesn't stop spending.

It's just like spitting into the ocean.

The US citizens get f'ed as some entity gets a great buy on land and makes a fortunune off of it at our expense.

---

It has nothing to do with debt.

It has to do with housing availability in overcrowded western cities in Nevada and Utah.

The land in question looks like this.



The OP is a leftbot trying to drum up opposition to Trump's bill.

Greetings fellow outdoorsmen. I've come to tell you of the horrors of Trumps big bad bill, and how it will end all access to all of the beautiful places in the west.

It won't.

---

Exactly what my wife's family homes look like in the Reno area SE of town. BLM land right off the neighborhoods that has a bunch of pita wild horses and pita federal employees managing it. The damn horses regularly get out and there have been plenty of bad vehicle accidents they've caused, some which were miles away from the horse infested land. But they continue to supplement feed and care for the horses while not assuming any liability for the problems they cause.

We live in a world where we cannot destroy land fast enough. It's just how we are. I don't give a damn about the debt. It's a bogus number we can never repay. F--- it. Let it ride. I'd rather keep the land. I just watched a 200 acre ranch get sold off. It is currently having warehouses built on every single inch of it.

The map in this article shows some pretty pristine ground up for sale, not what some posters are describing above.

https://www.fieldandstream.com/stories/conservation/public-lands-and-waters/map-of-public-lands-for-sale-budget-bill

Here is the map

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=821970f0212d46d7aa854718aac42310&fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaeOtyx5JMXlLa14ClFLH2eXT63uzBTpANA89Dn0I2_cpjw_RW3rigSPV1Mfmg_aem_FzvHTi_ycj4l_-k8Y83WTA

I have been against this from the start and despise Mike Lee even more.

After looking at some of the parcels even further, wow. They are wanting to get rid of basically the best parts of the White River National Forest, where I spend probably 40 weekends a year. Sad that people want this to happen. Actually, it is disgusting and makes my stomach churn knowing people are okay with this.

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/take_action#/487

What a stupid take. Yeah, selling off this land for a few billion will have a huge impact on reducing our national debt. We have no interest in reducing our national debt, so why should we give up something and get absolutely nothing in return?

I may never set foot on any of this land, but I still want others to have the opportunity to do so.