Fire sale of BLM and NFS lands

Wow, that is a big chunk of mt hood national forest and Gifford pinchot national forest near me.

It would be a disaster for us. All the forest service land surrounding our wilderness areas are on that map, which includes heavily used hiking trails, peaks, etc. Not to mention all the trailheads and approaches.

https://www.outdooralliance.org/blog/2025/6/12/senate-spending-package-proposes-selling-off-33-million-acres-of-public-land

I’m trying to get the facts of the proposed bill. It appears up to 3 million acres are at risk, not 250 million. But the bill still sets an unprecedented and unacceptable trend. Here’s an article,  not sure who or what to believe:

https://southtahoenow.com/06/18/2025/presidents-proposed-public-land-sale-includes-beloved-lake-tahoe-sites

Thanks, good article

“The mandates of the bill call for the sale of .5-.75 percent of each BLM and USFS land across 11 western states, or about 3.3 million acres. It opens up 250 million acres for “developers to pick from,” to get to the 3.3 million acres, according to Oliva Tanager of the Sierra Club. The bill fast-tracks the land sales at a fast pace.”

And then there will be lawsuits…

We’re being barraged by chaos.  Hard to figure what to worry about are what to do about it.

The sell off will affect all of us. It is a long term policy change that will allow the extractive industry to run amok. If you use or benefit from public lands (that’s everyone) make calls.

when lands are sold there will be a one time reduction in deficit to allow more tax cuts and spending, so it just “kicks the can down the road” on our deficit problems

people that are politically connected will be able to buy land at fire sell prices and increase their wealth.  The oligarchs.

If the intention is to sell some specific land that has valuable critical minerals, etc., I wish they had been more focused with the map. Instead of including virtually every parcel of public land in the western US.

Yes, it does appear 3.3 million acres is the total limit on the amount to be sold, but the “menu choices” for buyers are 250 million acres.

Not good if they can select the most valuable 3.3 million acres.  That’s a lot of land.

There have been land swaps.  Government will buy some private land that’s surrounded by public land, and pay for it by selling land that’s isolated.  That’s how they could accommodate the need for more land to develop, or to extract resources from

It’s the lack of transparency that bothers me. I actually think some land could be utilized better. But there’s not matrix of current utilization vs potential benefit that is being used. It’s looks like the insiders have the upper hand. Favors and paybacks.

Direct link to a map of sale-eligible lands:

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=821970f0212d46d7aa854718aac42310&fbclid=PAQ0xDSwLAR3xleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABpzIoPygxfxqOTYIBs6NjD-AhuecONRYAm5AwEFwCw1486vaZ-0hJUUYZUoXA_aem_ulJWjiQDG_p3pa-x3vxcfw

Five acres in the right spot is enough to block off access to much more.

One way to let your representative/senator know how you feel

https://www.accessfund.org/action-alerts/action-alert-stop-the-senates-extreme-public-land-sell-off-bill

[edited MK] …it’s a one time thing and not sustainable…

As someone watching from outside the US and who doesn’t really have a dog in the fight, America seems stuck in a fairly bad place just now. [edited MK]

as someone watching from the inside, I agree totally : )

Kevin M–Totally agree!

Let’s keep the conversation on track please. This discussion is about the sale of public BLM and NFS land.

Looks like there is widespread opposition across the spectrum.

https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5358034-proposed-sale-of-millions-of-acres-of-public-land-under-gop-budget-bill-prompts-backlash

Many outdoor sports associations are definitely opposed.

Kevin M.  I expected your accurate post to be removed!  How can you separate the sale of public lands from the politics that are creating it?

Politics may be misdirecting us. Of the thousands that I saw on flag day, I believe I only saw one lonely T-shirt reading “hands off our public lands” or something to that effect. It’s just not a priority in the mix of all the other atrocities. Its not getting the attention that it dictates.

Sill trying to get to the facts. If true, the eligible land must be very close to populated areas (2.5 – 5 miles). And must be developed for housing. Here’s the article: https://www.ksl.com/article/51333074/mike-lee-defends-public-lands-sale-proposal-says-falsehoods-have-driven-opposition

Whoever said to contact their representatives was the most right. Rehashing confirmation bias among ourselves does nothing.

Again, to be clear, I’m against this legislation, but need the facts!

Yeah, facts

The only way we’ll know is when they start selling land, if that’s what they do.

And what housing?  Affordable housing for normal people?

Facts are good, but if the only facts that will satisfy you is retroactive sale data, that’s not very strategic thinking, IMO. That’s what the people selling the land want, and they will try to distract and misdirect us until it’s too late. Housing sounds nice, but I suspect that most sales will be to companies interested in extraction, and there’s nothing in the legislation that requires sale be for residential housing purposes. That’s just a vaguely stated objective.