Let’s Stand Up and Play Offense in 2025

[Ben Lamb]

What if they are able to purchase that land themselves at a very low price?

Furthermore, your point might resonate with a small amount of ranchers- but if true it also illustrates to the rest of the country that they are subsidizing said ranchers.

Land would go for appraised value or above. You're looking at more amenity buyers & larger conglomerates with the purchasing power.

Opeds & let's don't do much on their own. Start contacting your elected officials and politely start a dialog with them about why it's a bad idea to divest the public estate from public hands.

 

[nontyp]

Hello All,

I am willing to team up with a group of eloquent informed writers to pull this off. I will leave out my usual borderline irreverent humor. I will gladly take Washington.

However, I think we need to formulate a strategic plan to most efficiently and effectively use our time and efforts. If we could create a “cable of letters” that each tell a strong “wire” of a story it could be very powerful.

To be successful we must sell that this land is for all, it’s multi-use, and has long term financial benefits. Possibly including a story from a piece of BLM land? We need data, but humans are feelings first no matter what anyone says. Psychological research shows that humans make emotional decisions that they rationalize with data most of the time. Think of your last rifle purchase.

How do we start?

Nick

Really great idea! Everyone keep in mind that Op-Ed pieces are generally around 600 words, so your word use has to be efficient. Working together to highlight several perspectives that tie back to this subject could work well.

 

[Nick87]

What if they are able to purchase that land themselves at a very low price?

Just a hunch but I'm sure there'll be plenty of political cronies getting the best deal come sale day. I don't have anything to back that up, other than that's how it always works.

 

[Irrelevant]

Really great idea! Everyone keep in mind that Op-Ed pieces are generally around 600 words, so your word use has to be efficient. Working together to highlight several perspectives that tie back to this subject could work well.

#chatgpt

 

[Irrelevant]

Our AI overlords:

Keeping Public Land Public: Why It's a Good Idea and Selling It Is a Bad One
The debate surrounding public land in the United States is one that strikes at the heart of what it means to be an American. Public lands, which account for roughly 28% of the country’s total land area, are not just parcels of land; they are part of our collective identity, history, and responsibility. Proposals to sell or transfer federal public lands to state control might sound appealing on the surface, but they would ultimately harm the environment, limit access, and undermine the democratic values that these lands represent. For the sake of our future, keeping public lands in public hands is not just the right decision—it's the only sensible one.
Public Lands Are a Shared Resource
At their core, public lands belong to all Americans. These lands provide essential ecological services—like clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and opportunities for recreation—that benefit everyone, not just those living near them. The idea that public lands should be sold or handed over to individual states treats them as private commodities to be bought and sold, disregarding the reality that they are shared by millions. They are held in trust for the benefit of all Americans, now and in the future. By keeping them public, we ensure that they remain accessible to everyone, regardless of where they live or how much money they have.
The Risk of Privatization
Selling or transferring public lands to states risks the destruction of these irreplaceable resources. Once in private hands, lands are often developed for short-term profit, whether that’s through mining, logging, or commercial real estate projects. Many of the environmental protections that federal lands currently enjoy could be weakened or eliminated by state governments with conflicting economic priorities. The history of state-managed lands is far from reassuring. States like Utah and Wyoming have shown time and again that they prioritize resource extraction over long-term conservation, often favoring industries that have little regard for the environment.
Furthermore, states may lack the resources necessary to properly manage large tracts of public land. While the federal government has decades of experience managing these lands through agencies like the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, many states simply don't have the financial or administrative capacity to maintain such vast landscapes. The result could be widespread mismanagement, neglect, and destruction of fragile ecosystems that cannot be easily restored.
Public Lands Are Critical to the Economy
The economic argument for keeping public lands public is just as compelling. Public lands contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, particularly through tourism and outdoor recreation. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation in the U.S. generates over $800 billion annually, supporting millions of jobs in tourism, hospitality, retail, and more. Hiking, camping, fishing, and other outdoor activities depend on access to public lands, and the loss of that access would devastate local economies, especially in rural areas. This is not just about preserving pretty views—it’s about sustaining livelihoods.
In addition, federal lands contribute to agricultural economies through sustainable farming and grazing programs that preserve open space and promote conservation. When public lands are well-managed, they offer the best of both worlds—economic activity that doesn’t destroy the environment, but rather helps protect it for future generations.
A Moral and Ethical Responsibility
There’s also a moral and ethical argument at play. Public lands are part of our nation’s promise to future generations. These lands were preserved for a reason—they are the lungs of the nation, the great wilderness that connects us to our roots and to each other. When we talk about public lands, we’re not just discussing resources or property; we’re talking about something far more valuable: our shared heritage. Selling or transferring these lands is a violation of the collective trust we place in our government to safeguard these spaces for the benefit of all people.
The Precedent of Failure
Finally, the track record of states taking on federal responsibilities is a cautionary tale. State management has often failed to protect the interests of the broader public. The history of state control over resources like water, oil, and timber shows that local interests can easily overpower the needs of the country as a whole. It’s no coincidence that federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service were created in response to the poor management practices of the states. The national interest is best served when we maintain a unified, federal approach to managing our most treasured lands.
Conclusion
Public lands belong to all Americans, and they should remain public. The idea of selling or transferring these lands to state control is short-sighted, driven by a profit motive that ignores the long-term benefits of conservation and public access. From the perspective of fairness, the environment, the economy, and our moral obligation to future generations, keeping public lands public is not just a good idea—it’s essential. Let us continue to honor our commitment to preserving these irreplaceable landscapes for everyone, forever.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Our AI overlords:

Keeping Public Land Public: Why It's a Good Idea and Selling It Is a Bad One
The debate surrounding public land in the United States is one that strikes at the heart of what it means to be an American. Public lands, which account for roughly 28% of the country’s total land area, are not just parcels of land; they are part of our collective identity, history, and responsibility. Proposals to sell or transfer federal public lands to state control might sound appealing on the surface, but they would ultimately harm the environment, limit access, and undermine the democratic values that these lands represent. For the sake of our future, keeping public lands in public hands is not just the right decision—it's the only sensible one.
Public Lands Are a Shared Resource
At their core, public lands belong to all Americans. These lands provide essential ecological services—like clean air and water, wildlife habitat, and opportunities for recreation—that benefit everyone, not just those living near them. The idea that public lands should be sold or handed over to individual states treats them as private commodities to be bought and sold, disregarding the reality that they are shared by millions. They are held in trust for the benefit of all Americans, now and in the future. By keeping them public, we ensure that they remain accessible to everyone, regardless of where they live or how much money they have.
The Risk of Privatization
Selling or transferring public lands to states risks the destruction of these irreplaceable resources. Once in private hands, lands are often developed for short-term profit, whether that’s through mining, logging, or commercial real estate projects. Many of the environmental protections that federal lands currently enjoy could be weakened or eliminated by state governments with conflicting economic priorities. The history of state-managed lands is far from reassuring. States like Utah and Wyoming have shown time and again that they prioritize resource extraction over long-term conservation, often favoring industries that have little regard for the environment.
Furthermore, states may lack the resources necessary to properly manage large tracts of public land. While the federal government has decades of experience managing these lands through agencies like the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management, many states simply don't have the financial or administrative capacity to maintain such vast landscapes. The result could be widespread mismanagement, neglect, and destruction of fragile ecosystems that cannot be easily restored.
Public Lands Are Critical to the Economy
The economic argument for keeping public lands public is just as compelling. Public lands contribute significantly to the U.S. economy, particularly through tourism and outdoor recreation. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, outdoor recreation in the U.S. generates over $800 billion annually, supporting millions of jobs in tourism, hospitality, retail, and more. Hiking, camping, fishing, and other outdoor activities depend on access to public lands, and the loss of that access would devastate local economies, especially in rural areas. This is not just about preserving pretty views—it’s about sustaining livelihoods.
In addition, federal lands contribute to agricultural economies through sustainable farming and grazing programs that preserve open space and promote conservation. When public lands are well-managed, they offer the best of both worlds—economic activity that doesn’t destroy the environment, but rather helps protect it for future generations.
A Moral and Ethical Responsibility
There’s also a moral and ethical argument at play. Public lands are part of our nation’s promise to future generations. These lands were preserved for a reason—they are the lungs of the nation, the great wilderness that connects us to our roots and to each other. When we talk about public lands, we’re not just discussing resources or property; we’re talking about something far more valuable: our shared heritage. Selling or transferring these lands is a violation of the collective trust we place in our government to safeguard these spaces for the benefit of all people.
The Precedent of Failure
Finally, the track record of states taking on federal responsibilities is a cautionary tale. State management has often failed to protect the interests of the broader public. The history of state control over resources like water, oil, and timber shows that local interests can easily overpower the needs of the country as a whole. It’s no coincidence that federal agencies like the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service were created in response to the poor management practices of the states. The national interest is best served when we maintain a unified, federal approach to managing our most treasured lands.
Conclusion
Public lands belong to all Americans, and they should remain public. The idea of selling or transferring these lands to state control is short-sighted, driven by a profit motive that ignores the long-term benefits of conservation and public access. From the perspective of fairness, the environment, the economy, and our moral obligation to future generations, keeping public lands public is not just a good idea—it’s essential. Let us continue to honor our commitment to preserving these irreplaceable landscapes for everyone, forever.

The best advice about writing that I ever got was very simply "write what you know about."

AI doesn't know about elk camp with your grandfather, or the beaver pond where your dad taught you cast a fly to a rising trout. AI doesn't have the capacity to speak at a human level with other humans who are making decisions about your quality of life.

It also doesn't get the complexity of human emotion that goes into a coal miner in the Powder River Basin having to find new work because the liberals shut down the mine. It doesn't help the logger who can't make the mortgage anymore because the mill is shut down from litigation and it doesn't help the local politicians understand that the issue is far deeper than just a buck to be made here or there.

 

[Irrelevant]

The best advice about writing that I ever got was very simply "write what you know about."

AI doesn't know about elk camp with your grandfather, or the beaver pond where your dad taught you cast a fly to a rising trout. AI doesn't have the capacity to speak at a human level with other humans who are making decisions about your quality of life.

It also doesn't get the complexity of human emotion that goes into a coal miner in the Powder River Basin having to find new work because the liberals shut down the mine. It doesn't help the logger who can't make the mortgage anymore because the mill is shut down from litigation and it doesn't help the local politicians understand that the issue is far deeper than just a buck to be made here or there.

You're smoking crack if you think that the typical LTTE or comment on a controversial topic articulates any of that.

 

[Treeshark]

You're smoking crack if you think that the typical LTTE or comment on a controversial topic articulates any of that.

Or that a Congressman or Justice from a place like New York would/should care about any of it.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Or that a Congressman or Justice from a place like New York would/should care about any of it.

Why are westerners reaching out to those people?

The UT approach got people to sign on out of a misguided sense of loyalty to party over people. Wyoming signed on after defeating transfer in 2015-2017. Why did they do that? Why isn't the advocacy in Wyoming pushing back on those folks and working to educate and enlighten?

You're smoking crack if you think that the typical LTTE or comment on a controversial topic articulates any of that.

It's easier to convey the personal than the esoteric. It has legitimacy to it versus crapping out LTE's with pre-constructed talking points. One will get you noticed. The other gets you ignored.

And again - lte's & op-eds are ineffective as a major tool in a campaign if there is no actual work being done to try and move people off of a bad position by establishing trust and credibility. If you want to make a lasting difference, ask your elected officials to sit down with a group of people who think like you do and start that relationship off on a good foot.

 

[Treeshark]

Why are westerners reaching out to those people?

My point was that those are the people who will be actually making the decision. But you’re right, reaching out to them would probably be futile.

 

[Treeshark]

Wyoming signed on after defeating transfer in 2015-2017. Why did they do that?

The most likely explanation is a combination of political and financial motivation- the usual suspects.

Taking a view that is as objective as possible from my perspective: from both a federal and state stance, the transfer/sale of some BLM holdings is probably for the best- certain suburban tracts would probably make sense. Landlocked/ checkerboard parcels without public access would definitely make sense.

My suspicion and hope is that the DOI would focus on these strategic areas rather than go all-in in a transfer or sale.

That said, I am not convinced this is ever going to amount to anything.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

The most likely explanation is a combination of political and financial motivation- the usual suspects.

Taking a view that is as objective as possible from my perspective: from both a federal and state stance, the transfer/sale of some BLM holdings is probably for the best- certain suburban tracts would probably make sense. Landlocked/ checkerboard parcels without public access would definitely make sense.

My suspicion and hope is that the DOI would focus on these strategic areas rather than go all-in in a transfer or sale.

That said, I am not convinced this is ever going to amount to anything.

That’s all right here in that 40 year old article I found. Washington charged the DOI to compile a list of disposable property. It was already written about that the “[BLM] subsidizes activities that would otherwise be uneconomic”. This could be interpreted as reason to divest or alternatively refocus Federal conservation where it makes the greatest impact. Excluding all but the bullshit land, the salable land was tallied at 4.4M acres. This was not enough to make a difference in revenue or ownership patterns to matter. It was reported to the public to be 35M acres at risk of sale with the reassurance of National Parks, monuments off limits. Everyone was then questioning Washington’s motives and the subsidized “otherwise uneconomic” industries like cattle ranching came out against any change. The end result was that maybe some land could be partially sold (mineral, grazing rights) with public access for previous activities continued.

The Subsidized Sagebrush: Why the Privatization Movement Failed

The movement to sell federal lands into private ownership arose somewhat later than the Sagebrush Revolt. Both movements posed a major challenge to federal land ownership, but from very different directions. The Sagebrush rebels stirred up considerable enthusiasm among a wide range of...

www.aei.org

 

[hank4elk]

Locals think they will be buying out their cheep cattle leases. LOL
They will not own it.

Billions are at stake. And few will benefit.
Real threat in my opine.

 

[Treeshark]

Great post @Benfromalbuquerque- interesting article.

It’s crazy how much has NOT changed in the past 40 years, specifically BLM and USFS management and efficiency issues. “Unsophisticated” was a pretty saucy burn!

Everyone was then questioning Washington’s motives

I would say this is one critical difference now vs then. Now, everyone is keenly aware of Washington’s motives and are largely supportive of their cost-cutting objectives (60%+ in some polls).

*60%+ support general governmental efficiency initiatives, not specifically BLM sale/transfer.

 

[Hunting Wife]

That said, I am not convinced this is ever going to amount to anything.

In case you missed the other thread, it’s already started:

OPPOSE BLM land Transfer in ND!

***Folks outside of ND feel free to oppose as well! OPPOSE The ND Trust Lands Completion Act (H.R. 2045/S.1088) Our objection to this bill summarized: 1. Once transferred to state trust department, tens of thousands of acres of land that have always been open for public hunting can be closed...

www.hunttalk.com

Based on the rough math I’ve seen on this, this amounts to a divestiture of virtually all the surface owned BLM in North Dakota. No more camping, no more target shooting, no more trapping. Hunting only allowed if the leasee allows it. Passed the U.S. Senate, waiting on the House.

Yet still, people think it can’t happen and make excuses about why this isn’t a big deal.

 

[Treeshark]

In case you missed the other thread

I did not miss it.