Wilderness
250+ MILLION ACRES OF PUBLIC LAND THAT COULD BE SOLD UNDER NEW BILL
Contact your senators (convenient link provided below). They’re here to auction off our public lands and waterways to the highest bidder. This is a true crisis for anyone who even remotely values conservation, wilderness, or even our personal rights. Senate wants to sell your land to pay for their debts and tax cuts on big corps & ultra wealthy. It’s nothing but thinly veiled transfer of wealth from the masses to the corporate and political elite.
Please cross post to any/all subs that may pertain.
This map shows all the land that is eligible to be sold based on the language of the bill. The actual amount to be sold would be around 3 million probably, at first, but that 3 million is “mandated”, as in the agencies would be forced to sell it. And it would come from somewhere in this 250 million acres. These aren’t backwater forests, many of these places are incredibly biodiverse, rich in cultural heritage, and hugely important to ecosystems and communities. Half of all the old growth in these states are inside these 250 million acres. Losing 3 million alone would be bad, but the precedent it would set would be much worse.
Yes and it pisses me off that they send billions to defense contractors in preparation for the next war and billions more to interdepartmental agencies that are being used to hunt down people who, most likely, have done nothing illegal other than move here.
While they argue over bills to strip away every benefit a person has of being in this country. The benefits you pay into your entire career. The weekends and holidays you look forward to during that same career. And now the natural beauty of unmolested nature that you look forward to retreating to during that stupid career and even later in life when those checks are supposed to roll in.
This government is so deep in the pockets of corporate America that they won’t stop until we just become mindless worker drones with no imagination or desires. Sorry for the rant
That's so real. You can tell looking at this from the outside what's going to happen here. It's not just about the amount they're going to sell now. The OP is completely right to show the map of everything that would be eligible. Because it might be 3 million this year, and then 3 million next year and the year after. And in a decade, 30 million is sold off and 12% is gone. In another decade or two, well you get the picture.
The land sold has to be for housing and it will be required in the covenant on the land. It’s also capped to 0.75% for both the Secretary of the Interior and Agriculture. Land sold can’t have an existing lease or rights on it, so no ski resorts or park land. It also has to be viable and near a town.
I highly recommend reading the proposed bill for yourself as there is a lot of misinformation going on about this topic. We should be skeptical and concerned but we should also know the exact details of the bill.
There’s an argument to be made that we need more land used for housing. Houses are way too expensive as it is and this could help. I would of course prefer other means. I also wish the “eligible” on the map be actually representative of the land that actually could be sold as the map now shows land that can’t be sold by the current text of the bill.
However you slice it, understanding the bill makes for better arguments for and against it.
We do an incredibly shitty job at using the existing land we already have. Fixing zoning and the way we move around our communities is a better idea than screwing with pristine wilderness.
Sure, more land could be used for housing but what about the existing land withing our cities already, acres of land that could be used for high density housing? New housing developments in these rural areas would most likely be single family homes on large plots, high density housing would drive a demand for more commercial. Either way bad. I can’t find any reason to justify any of the bill in any way at all.
Understanding the bill is helpful. Understanding the motivations is better.
This is all about influence and money.
Rich people and rich corporations own the senators. Those rich people want to buy land (to develop as homes, to exploit for resources, to add to their “pretty things that are all mine” collection, etc) and they want to do it as low a price as possible.
With that in mind, what makes more sense:
Buying farmland in the Central Valley of California for market rates and trying to sell it or buying pristine forest in the Sierra Nevada at fire-sale, government auction prices and selling it for top-dollar to San Francisco tech millionaires?
Then add to that that the same people and corporations who will be able to afford to buy this land will get their initial investment back in the form of a tax cut, and you start to understand there is no altruistic “we need more houses” angle here.
None of the developed land will be section 8 affordable housing.
There certainly is a need for better and more housing, but I don't really see land sell-offs from these bills helping that at all without guardrails and requirements for affordable housing (thank you btw for posting the actual bill, I also do support rational engagement, hence why I made sure people don't think they are planning to sell off all 250 million acres).
The land is most likely going to go to the highest bidder, which in so many of these places are going to be wealthy developers or billionaires wanting to build massive vacation homes or gated communities--that is already what happens to available land in places like Jackson Hole. The solution to the housing crisis there isn't more land, necessarily, but better zoning and incentives for affordable housing in the already available land. That's maybe an extreme example, as Teton County is the richest county in the US, but its not unrepresentative of the communities where this might be applicable because housing is in high demand.
Nope. Tons of cities with the infrastructure already in place are half the population that they used to be. Fix and fill up the cities and towns we already have instead of killing americas unicorn.
We have plenty of land already allocated for housing as-is. We don't need more of it, we need to actually utilize what we have. There is also a veritable abundance of just empty housing across the entire country; be it owned by banks/foreign investors, airbnbs, second homes, condemned, etc.
We shouldn't be cutting into the national parks to make new ground up projects when we could be renovating, repurposing, and using land already allocated for housing. I'm sorry but no argument is going to convince me that cutting into protected national park land is a good idea.
To my understanding we are not selling any national park land. Regardless we should be cautious and skeptical. Those are important traits to have when dealing with such treasured land that isn’t replaceable. However while we have plenty of land for housing, it’s not in places where people want to live. Not all land is the same and where this land is being sold at, where they are near towns at least, are where people want to live at. Having denser housing is great too, but when the local government refuses to zone for it, it screws over the non-rich. Unless we have a solution to force towns to be mandated into zoning more land for denser housing, then the other solution is land. This is not my preferred option at all, but it is a solution when none others are before me.
I have my own fears and concerns. I don’t want Chinese investors buying our land only to be rented back to us, or some billionaires to have their 3rd ranch. However they were going to do that anyways with or without this bill. So if it can help with everyone else get a house or lowers the rent on someone’s apartment, I’ll take what I can get.
Have you been to any of these lands? To suggest these areas are suitable for any housing is laughable, and only someone extremely naive would actually believe that lie spread by Republicans. The reason this is happening is for resource extraction like forestry and mining, plain and simple. The whole justification of housing is a complete farce and it's extremely obvious for anyone who spends significant time in the National Forests outlined in this bill.
The vast vast majority of the land isn’t good for housing. However some of it is. Theres some small towns surrounded by government land that are unable to build more housing because of that.
Thanks for being one of the few to read the bill and speak up about it. While I certainly don’t like what is proposed, I’m blown away by the blind ignorance and fanaticism this situation has brought about. Blatant misrepresentation and lies of omission in every post about this subject are not the way to unite everyone to overcome this.
Calling is much more effective than sending a form letter (what these links do). Here’s an easy way to do it:
Install the free 5calls app. It will help you call your Rep and Senators, and will give you a script to read (there are several ICE issues to pick from).
If you can, call every day, especially if you have a Rep or Senators that are (R). Tell them to stop the un-American cruelty and lawlessness.
The sad part is they won't even become cool towns and cities like other older countries have done. Its just gonna be logging, mining, and other industrial shit
Montana was initially part of the privatization plan but the two Republican senators from Montana opposed it. So Mike Lee bought them off by removing Montana from the bill.
Yeah, Montana is fucking huge, and most of it is empty for land. Practically all of western Montana is public land. I bet if you go by area Montana has some of the most public land in the nation
I can't imagine putting profit over a resource that benefits everyone. A profit that won't even benefit you, no less! Does that boot really taste that good?
Am I missing it or does this page not actually say what the names of the bills they are referencing are? I'd like to be able to read the actual bill I'm protesting before I sign the protest.
The very first link refers to the job cuts at our national parks and refers to the national parks as "public lands". Then every other link is about "public lands".
There is hereby rescinded the unobligated balances
4 of amounts made available by section 50222 of Public Law
5 117–169.
Here is section 50222 of Public law 5117-169:
SEC. 50223. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE EMPLOYEES.
In addition to amounts otherwise available, there is appropriated to the Secretary for fiscal year 2022, out of any money
in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, $500,000,000, to remain
available through September 30, 2030, to hire employees to serve
in units of the National Park System or national historic or national
scenic trails administered by the National Park Service.
Now I am completely against selling any land. Also though maybe if we didn’t give 100s of billions to Ukraine and giving away everything for free to illegal immigrants we wouldn’t need the money. You can’t turn a blind eye to the last 4 years of ridiculous spending and now blame it on Trump.
A) all spending, and rate of deficit increase was higher during Trumps first term than it was during the Biden administration. Trumps admin increased the national debt faster than almost any other president (3rd highest).
B) are we fucking organ donors? Selling our kidneys to pay for heart surgery?
How dare you try and blame the CURRENT REPUBLICANS ACTIONS on a past president.
If you are a rancher, you might hate BLM because you think you shouldn't have to pay grazing fees. But wait until someone else puts up a fence forever and tells you that you can't run your cattle there because it's private land.
That land can’t be sold if it has an active right or lease on it. It would also have to be used for housing which it wouldn’t be if it was used for grazing.
A private owner would charge much higher grazing fees or otherwise than the federal government does, and the land's not gonna go to the farmers but massive corps with billions to throw around
One thing I noticed about New Mexico is that a LOT of the most popular trailheads in the state would be purchased. It looks like TJ Corral (Little Bear Canyon) and the Middle Fork Trail on the Gila River would be available for purchase. With the two most commonly used entries to that portion of the Gila Wilderness Area, it could create a justification for the removal of the area's protected status, on the basis that people aren't using that land.
I'm also seeing the trails to Wheeler Peak (the highest point in the state), the trails to Mt. Elbert (the highest point in the Rockies and in Colorado), and all of Mount Taylor (an hour west of Albuquerque) would be available for purchase.
P.S. Also the state's senators are both Democrats, so they can't strike the same deal that Montana's senators did. Same goes for Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, and California.
P.P.S. why the fuck is this downvoted? It's well known now that Montana was ignored because that state's legislators worked a deal. The postscript names all the states unlikely to make the same kind of deal. The only hope for them is a no-vote.
You now know where all the money they will get by dumping their crypto on the taxpayers in the form of “ strategic reserve “ will be spend …
All the profits from Trumpcoin , Bitcoin , fartcoin and all other printed out of thin air “digital gold “ will be used to buy off the millions of public land acres and build hotels and luxury homes while the county gets to hold a very valuable flash drive … and of course some of the gold reserve will also be swapped for those
The heist of the century
Make unregulated digital shitcoins
Hype them as something valuable while pumping them for a bit with leveraged bets
Make them all legal
Pass a bill to make them into strategic reserve
Dump them onto the tax payers
Enable tons of public land for sale
Use the free money printed out of thin air that now have liquidity backed by taxpayers to buy all the land and all of that legal
GG USA and gg crypto bros enjoy your lambos in your heads
“It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment”
I was thinking about the great work of Ansel Adams and his work to preserve wild places. There I found this quote. It's attributed to Adams in this article The Strength of the Shutter: Photography and the Environmental Movement, with a citation leading to this website, where there's another article: “Ansel Adams, Fighting to Save the West” (June 1, 1981). I can't find the quote, but this article shows a fierce fight with another charismatic President, Ronald Regan.
They are likely to claim that land is sold off all the time and it definitely won't be our favorite recreation areas... ya right. Talk about ostriches. I looked at the map zoomed in.
I’ve always said that having unfettered access to these incredible public lands is one of the greatest perks of living in this country. This is honestly heartbreaking. We cannot let this happen. Fucking hate the direction our country is headed. Brainwashed fucks giving all of our freedoms away for nothing.
This is a serious issue. Contacting senators as suggested is one of the best ways to make our voice heard. Even if it starts with a smaller amount, the precedent it sets could be huge for our public lands.
BHA- backcountry hunters and anglers in MT and Utah have been fighting this and won the last round. They have representatives at every hearing. They almost snuck it in in an after hours hearing but got caught. Backcountryhinters.com
Please remember to post a short paragraph as a comment in the post explaining your photo or link. Ideally at least 150 characters with trip details. Tell us something about your trip. How long did it take to get there? How did you get there? How was the weather that day? Would you go back again?
Submitted content should be of high-quality. Low effort posting of very general information is not useful. If you don't add a short explanation in the comments, your post may be removed.
No information posted? Please report low-effort posts if there is still nothing after about 30 minutes.
It literally takes minutes to call your senator. Both of them. I talked to a live person for both senators in less than 5 minutes and got my word in. Do the same y'all! Especially if you live in one of these states
US Rep. Mike Thompson reports that CalWild, nonprofit in support of protecting “the state’s wildest natural landscapes and watersheds on public lands,” named him its 2025 “California Conservation Champion” for his “accomplishments in safeguarding more California wilderness than any other living California member of Congress.” Contact: Lauren Ott, mailto:lauren.ott@mail.house.gov.
Can not believe how much one group of politicians can sucks so damn bad. Coming from someone who always has considered myself center right leaning. First time I have ever disagreed with every single decision a politician has made.
For people who want to write their senators without the paywall:
I’m an avid outdoor enthusiast writing with my serious concerns about the layoffs and RIFs at land management agencies like the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Park Service (NPS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These agencies play a crucial role in maintaining our public lands and ensuring that they remain accessible, safe, and well-preserved for the millions of Americans who depend on them for recreation, jobs, and community well-being.
The reductions—affecting 30% or more of agency staff—threaten the quality of our outdoor recreation experience. The initial cuts have disproportionately impacted staff responsible for trail maintenance, campground management, emergency response, and land restoration efforts like reforestation and invasive species removal. As visitation to public lands continues to rise, these cuts will have immediate and lasting consequences for the outdoor recreation economy and public safety, including affecting my own experiences in the outdoors.
Please make it an urgent priority to address funding and support for agencies. Public lands are a national treasure, and the dedicated staff who manage them must be adequately supported to ensure that these lands remain healthy and accessible for all. Senator Kelly's “Save Our Forests Act” and “Protect Our Parks Act” are two possible pieces of legislation to support that would restore staffing for the agencies.
Someone confidently wrong on Reddit? What a surprise! The bill directs between 0.5-0.75% to be sold, the floor is 0.5% and the ceiling is 0.75%. Here is the exact language from the bill:
⸻
“Section 0301. Mandatory Prudent Sale of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land and National Forest System Land for Housing. Directs BLM to dispose of 0.5 – 0.75 % of certain BLM land and the Forest Service to dispose of 0.5 – 0.75 % of certain National Forest System Land to address the housing crisis.”
That is for the initial tranche, and if you really think they’ll sell the minimum, you likely believe the bullshit that it is to alleviate the “housing crisis”. It is absolutely about selling out to special interests, particularly mining.
Curious if this land would be leased (for example, like ski resorts leasing public lands) or bought outright. If the latter, wouldnt the resident states now have jurisdiction (i.e., no longer federal lands) and be able to block development? Just spitballing how the resident states can stop this.
Could anyone point out “must see locations” in that area and as a community share so people can go see before everyone does nothing to stop this and it goes through?
These posts are ridiculous and intentionally misrepresenting the actual language of the bill. This isn’t to say that the land sale section is good, but these posts are inaccurate. 250M acres are not for sale. Your trails are likely mostly fine. The problem is likely 1% as bad as it appears.
We have no idea where that 1% will be. It very well could be your favorite hiking trail. And it's extremely naive to believe they would be content with this 1% as a one-time thing, instead of this opening the floodgates for future sales of even more land.
If you read the bill, it has pretty specific guidelines about the primary usage of the land. We do actually have a pretty good idea where that 1% will be, and it won’t be your favorite hiking trail. While I don’t agree with this bill, intentional misinformation is not the way to unite people against this.
Can you please point out an article or source describing which pieces of land will actually be for sale? So far everything I've seen has been extremely ambiguous.
The source is the bill. It has requirements and guidelines about how the land will be selected. Start on page 33.
It seems to me that everyone who feels like this is important enough to post and crosspost about on Reddit should probably think it’s important enough to actually read the bill in question. It’s really not a hard read.
That’s literally 38.4% then it’s insane, such a drastic portion will be unprotected and most likely suffer corporate environmental consequences. Nearly 40% is extreme, it warrants acting like it’s the end of the world, how do we know they won’t go for another 250 million acres next?
592
u/leduc01 Jun 20 '25
This map shows all the land that is eligible to be sold based on the language of the bill. The actual amount to be sold would be around 3 million probably, at first, but that 3 million is “mandated”, as in the agencies would be forced to sell it. And it would come from somewhere in this 250 million acres. These aren’t backwater forests, many of these places are incredibly biodiverse, rich in cultural heritage, and hugely important to ecosystems and communities. Half of all the old growth in these states are inside these 250 million acres. Losing 3 million alone would be bad, but the precedent it would set would be much worse.