Post by: MMCCAULEY on June 11, 2025, 06:36:03 PM
https://www.outdoorlife.com/conservation/senate-proposes-selling-public-land/
Post by: GeoSwan on June 16, 2025, 04:12:47 PM
If you enjoy hunting and/or the freedom to roam, you need to get involved to stop this unprecedented land grab. They'll take it from right under your feet. WRITE YOUR SENATOR, AND WRITE THE SENATORS OF IDAHO AND WYOMING. THIS CAN BE STOPPED BY PUBLIC LAND ADVOCATES. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS NOW.
Besides republican senators presiding over Western states like Idaho and Wyoming, who would have massive swaths of their state affected by this bill, there are a number of republican senators who take issue with Trump's Big Beautiful Bill, and should be written. Those senators are:
Josh Hawley (R-MO)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
In addition to the senators listed above who are not sold on the Big Beautiful Bill which contains this land grab, please email the senators of ID, MT, UT (including the psycho Senator Mike Lee, who crafted this land grab), WY, telling them that unfettered access to public land is a high priority.
an example of what you could say is:
“
The Senate Reconciliation Bill land grab effectively ends the envy of the world; U.S. public land access. As a conservative, conservationist, and avid outdoorsman, I am asking you to do everything in your power to kill this provision and to keep the West accessible. This is truly terrifying, and I can't imagine the most wild parts of this great country being held privately, with very little to no public opportunity. I am in utter disbelief on this assault on our public access. From recreation access to habitat fragmentation, this bill is BAD NEWS. Please, amend this bill to exclude the mandatory sale of our public land. I am not part of your constituency, but this bill would have unprecedented consequences for myself, and millions of people like me living in the West.
Thank you!! "
I'm not trying to create a political debate here. You're here because you value hunting and access. This bill is an attempt to strip that away from you and fragment key habitat in the process. This will change Western access as we know it. This is a BIG *censored*ING DEAL.
Post by: elkboy on June 18, 2025, 04:04:45 AM
3.8 million acres of public land in Washington alone. 6.2 million in Oregon. 7.6 million in Idaho. (Interestingly, amendment co-author Steve Daines of Montana exempted his own state's federal lands from the sale.)
I've hunted, hiked, climbed and otherwise recreated on federal lands, and I cannot imagine my experience of the Pacific Northwest without access to public lands. I've written my senators, and will be writing some others as well, to oppose this.
Once these lands are sold, including to foreign buyers, we are not getting them back, or getting access without paying for it.
Post by: mburrows on June 18, 2025, 07:53:12 AM
Post by: hunter399 on June 18, 2025, 08:21:55 AM
You would think all the dot.org people,would be all over it .
They are selling off a lot of habitat,why didn't our senators get our state off the list .
Stupid.
Post by: blusc21 on June 18, 2025, 08:24:40 AM
Selling off public land for a short term budget bump is crazy. The bill MANDATES these lands are sold, so the could just be bought up by rish *censored*s from out of state that want their own hunting mountain.
Im emailing my representatives, and ones that may listen in other states.
Post by: pickardjw on June 18, 2025, 08:44:08 AM
Im heart broken. Every spot I hunt annualy would be sold.
How do you know that?
Post by: Feathernfurr on June 18, 2025, 09:10:58 AM
Where are all the anti-hunting folks at on issues like this.
You would think all the dot.org people,would be all over it .
They are selling off a lot of habitat,why didn't our senators get our state off the list .
Stupid.
I mean you say that, but honestly when I google the issue to find the latest information, most of the websites I find info on are hiking and environmental websites and forums, not hunting/fishing pages. I’d argue the environmental community does a lot more than our hunting community does to protect public lands. We hunters are notoriously quiet when it comes to speaking up.
Post by: James on June 18, 2025, 11:14:26 AM
I hope this map is wrong, because this would be catastrophic.
The BLM land is bad enough, lots of big game winter range and bird hunting, but the forest service land in nuts.
Good by Methow and Chelan mule deer herds.
Post by: Skillet on June 18, 2025, 11:27:13 AM
The Outdoor Alliance maps show the total of 300 million acres that could be eligible for sale - but the bill only requires up to 3.3 million acres to be sold. About 1.1% of the total land that is eligible.
If your favorite place is in that 1.1% that ends up being sold, of course it's a devastating loss. Nearly all of my favorite places up here are on the chopping block, and we don't have nearly the user base to protect it that lower 48 states do. I'm very concerned.
But I think it's important to keep things in perspective. A lot of the conversation I'm hearing/seeing on this shows the map images, and assumes it will all be sold.
Post by: Rainier10 on June 18, 2025, 12:07:34 PM
https://www.rmef.org/take-action/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&_kx=6BZrRjDJpNjhV6RH25OjnzQp-oIGsgiW74uVYpCoQjILclTerDFjwcOoT22I3iei.TRqyjT#/78
Post by: trophyhunt on June 18, 2025, 12:10:11 PM
While I'm 100% against this land sale provision in the spending bill, full stop, I think we need to keep things in perspective.Totally agree!!
The Outdoor Alliance maps show the total of 300 million acres that could be eligible for sale - but the bill only requires up to 3.3 million acres to be sold. About 1.1% of the total land that is eligible.
If your favorite place is in that 1.1% that ends up being sold, of course it's a devastating loss. Nearly all of my favorite places up here are on the chopping block, and we don't have nearly the user base to protect it that lower 48 states do. I'm very concerned.
But I think it's important to keep things in perspective. A lot of the conversation I'm hearing/seeing on this shows the map images, and assumes it will all be sold.
Post by: MADMAX on June 18, 2025, 12:34:40 PM
Quick easy link to send emails to your senators and legislators
https://www.rmef.org/take-action/?utm_source=Klaviyo&utm_medium=campaign&_kx=6BZrRjDJpNjhV6RH25OjnzQp-oIGsgiW74uVYpCoQjILclTerDFjwcOoT22I3iei.TRqyjT#/78
Thanks
Sent 👍👍👍
Post by: Tinmaniac on June 18, 2025, 01:16:28 PM
Post by: pickardjw on June 18, 2025, 01:26:57 PM
So the same senators that are ruining our state we now expect to save our lands for hunting and access?They are not going to advocate for gun carrying hunters.
No need to mention hunting or guns. Plenty of other user groups are contacting Senators on this.
I'd go as far as to say contacting Senators from other State's is more important. Gotta let the (R)'s hear it on this one.
Post by: MADMAX on June 18, 2025, 02:38:48 PM
So the same senators that are ruining our state we now expect to save our lands for hunting and access?They are not going to advocate for gun carrying hunters.
That’s what they’re counting on is people just saying “oh well”.
Don’t go down without a fight
Post by: nwmein199 on June 18, 2025, 02:48:02 PM
Call/email your representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
https://www.hcn.org/articles/senate-republicans-want-to-sell-3-million-acres-of-public-land/
Post by: Ric0 on June 18, 2025, 05:55:31 PM
Post by: bigtex on June 18, 2025, 06:54:31 PM
Thanks for the info on this. I emailed my local representative, it was super quick and easy.This is in the hands of Murray and Cantwell. Not your local rep.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: Ric0 on June 18, 2025, 08:02:00 PM
Thanks for the info on this. I emailed my local representative, it was super quick and easy.This is in the hands of Murray and Cantwell. Not your local rep.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Thanks bigtex, email sent to Cantwell and Murray.
Post by: baldopepper on June 18, 2025, 08:22:52 PM
Post by: actionshooter on June 18, 2025, 08:27:07 PM
While I'm 100% against this land sale provision in the spending bill, full stop, I think we need to keep things in perspective.
The Outdoor Alliance maps show the total of 300 million acres that could be eligible for sale - but the bill only requires up to 3.3 million acres to be sold. About 1.1% of the total land that is eligible.
If your favorite place is in that 1.1% that ends up being sold, of course it's a devastating loss. Nearly all of my favorite places up here are on the chopping block, and we don't have nearly the user base to protect it that lower 48 states do. I'm very concerned.
But I think it's important to keep things in perspective. A lot of the conversation I'm hearing/seeing on this shows the map images, and assumes it will all be sold.
I agree that 1.1% doesn't sound like a bunch, but I think the real problem is that this sets a precedence and if they can do it once, they will do it a dozen times.
This public land is one of the things that seperates us from the majority of the countries and none of it should be sold.
Post by: MADMAX on June 18, 2025, 08:39:14 PM
While I'm 100% against this land sale provision in the spending bill, full stop, I think we need to keep things in perspective.
The Outdoor Alliance maps show the total of 300 million acres that could be eligible for sale - but the bill only requires up to 3.3 million acres to be sold. About 1.1% of the total land that is eligible.
If your favorite place is in that 1.1% that ends up being sold, of course it's a devastating loss. Nearly all of my favorite places up here are on the chopping block, and we don't have nearly the user base to protect it that lower 48 states do. I'm very concerned.
But I think it's important to keep things in perspective. A lot of the conversation I'm hearing/seeing on this shows the map images, and assumes it will all be sold.
I agree that 1.1% doesn't sound like a bunch, but I think the real problem is that this sets a precedence and if they can do it once, they will do it a dozen times.
This public land is one of the things that seperates us from the majority of the countries and none of it should be sold.
I’m glad the hiking community also gets involved like the Sierra club
https://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2025/06/don-t-buy-administration-s-plans-public-lands
Post by: baldopepper on June 18, 2025, 08:45:30 PM
Post by: SWHUNTER on June 18, 2025, 08:57:54 PM
Josh Hawley (R-MO)
Susan Collins (R-ME)
Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Jerry Moran (R-KS)
Rand Paul (R-KY)
Thom Tillis (R-N.C.)
Joni Ernst (R-Iowa)
Ron Johnson (R-WI)
[/quote]
Post by: Skillet on June 18, 2025, 09:22:08 PM
While I'm 100% against this land sale provision in the spending bill, full stop, I think we need to keep things in perspective.
The Outdoor Alliance maps show the total of 300 million acres that could be eligible for sale - but the bill only requires up to 3.3 million acres to be sold. About 1.1% of the total land that is eligible.
If your favorite place is in that 1.1% that ends up being sold, of course it's a devastating loss. Nearly all of my favorite places up here are on the chopping block, and we don't have nearly the user base to protect it that lower 48 states do. I'm very concerned.
But I think it's important to keep things in perspective. A lot of the conversation I'm hearing/seeing on this shows the map images, and assumes it will all be sold.
I agree that 1.1% doesn't sound like a bunch, but I think the real problem is that this sets a precedence and if they can do it once, they will do it a dozen times.
This public land is one of the things that seperates us from the majority of the countries and none of it should be sold.
Definitely a valid concern, and I agree. If that motivates you to action, great. My point in posting was to point out the actual issue at hand was being overshadowed by the hyperbole. The land sale is unjustified and improper at only the 3.3 million acres, there is no need to exaggerate the issue to justify sporrsmen's opposition.
Post by: hunter399 on June 19, 2025, 05:31:59 AM
Thanks for the info on this. I emailed my local representative, it was super quick and easy.This is in the hands of Murray and Cantwell. Not your local rep.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Thanks bigtex, email sent to Cantwell and Murray.
Can Murray and cantwell put a bill to the Senate to make all federal lands in Washington "wilderness areas". Give each parcel cool names .
On another note .....
When it comes to colville national Forest ,I hope the tribes do purchase it. We may not be able to hunt it. But it would stay prime habitat that would still be adjacent to public . If the tribe has ever wanted it,that chance might be realistic.
I hate to say ,trump has been a huge let down.
Mike Lee from Utah is a joke.
Post by: elkboy on June 19, 2025, 06:59:19 AM
I agree that our public lands can be better managed. But the solution isn't to sell it off to developers, mining interests, or wealthy adjacent landowners (do these Senators really think they're going to build affordable housing?!), the solution is to put better management in place. There is a lot we can do to improve the habitat value, resilience, and recreation potential of our public lands. And that doesn't exclude economic use like timber harvest or grazing.
Post by: MR5x5 on June 19, 2025, 09:11:14 AM
Post by: nwmein199 on June 19, 2025, 09:20:56 AM
Washington will have 5,027,438 acres of USFS eligible for sale under this bill. I do not want to lose a single acre of public land in Washington.
They state the sale of these lands is for affordable housing - what I dont understand is how they are going to build affordable housing in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Seems the "affordable housing" is just a ruse to sell off our public lands to the highest bidder
Post by: baldopepper on June 19, 2025, 09:57:49 AM
Post by: high_hunter on June 19, 2025, 11:03:52 AM
Post by: actionshooter on June 19, 2025, 02:23:29 PM
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_condemns_senate_proposal_to_sell_off_up_to_3_million_acres_of_public_lands
Go to the Action Center
Post by: cjjcb on June 19, 2025, 03:02:07 PM
Thanks for the info on this. I emailed my local representative, it was super quick and easy.This is in the hands of Murray and Cantwell. Not your local rep.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
After a quick Google search, looks like Murry and Cantwell have both come out in opposition to selling off public lands.
Post by: MR5x5 on June 19, 2025, 03:17:31 PM
https://grok.com/chat/570a1af6-bcc9-472d-99f3-e8367eddc828
Post by: OltHunter on June 19, 2025, 05:52:17 PM
Thanks for the info on this. I emailed my local representative, it was super quick and easy.This is in the hands of Murray and Cantwell. Not your local rep.
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
After a quick Google search, looks like Murry and Cantwell have both come out in opposition to selling off public lands.
That's the first good thing I've heard from them.
Post by: Buckjunkie on June 19, 2025, 06:41:36 PM
Post by: jackelope on June 19, 2025, 09:09:07 PM
While I'm 100% against this land sale provision in the spending bill, full stop, I think we need to keep things in perspective.
The Outdoor Alliance maps show the total of 300 million acres that could be eligible for sale - but the bill only requires up to 3.3 million acres to be sold. About 1.1% of the total land that is eligible.
If your favorite place is in that 1.1% that ends up being sold, of course it's a devastating loss. Nearly all of my favorite places up here are on the chopping block, and we don't have nearly the user base to protect it that lower 48 states do. I'm very concerned.
But I think it's important to keep things in perspective. A lot of the conversation I'm hearing/seeing on this shows the map images, and assumes it will all be sold.
I like you, sir. Don’t take this the wrong way at all please, but who cares. Give an in hunch, they’ll take a mile.
Post by: jackelope on June 19, 2025, 09:10:58 PM
So the same senators that are ruining our state we now expect to save our lands for hunting and access?They are not going to advocate for gun carrying hunters.
Have you spent actual time in the woods and seen the user base that’s out there? The majority of them are not hunters. REI is pushing against this hard. Probably harder than most org’s are. They’re anti hunting. You’ve got everything from hikers to bird watchers to campers to rock climbers. You name it. This affects everyone.
Post by: Skillet on June 19, 2025, 09:21:24 PM
While I'm 100% against this land sale provision in the spending bill, full stop, I think we need to keep things in perspective.
The Outdoor Alliance maps show the total of 300 million acres that could be eligible for sale - but the bill only requires up to 3.3 million acres to be sold. About 1.1% of the total land that is eligible.
If your favorite place is in that 1.1% that ends up being sold, of course it's a devastating loss. Nearly all of my favorite places up here are on the chopping block, and we don't have nearly the user base to protect it that lower 48 states do. I'm very concerned.
But I think it's important to keep things in perspective. A lot of the conversation I'm hearing/seeing on this shows the map images, and assumes it will all be sold.
I like you, sir. Don’t take this the wrong way at all please, but who cares. Give an in hunch, they’ll take a mile.
:chuckle: All good, no worries. I'm not advocating for giving them the inch by any means, by the way.
Post by: cjjcb on June 20, 2025, 08:05:13 AM
Here is BHA's easy button...
https://www.backcountryhunters.org/bha_condemns_senate_proposal_to_sell_off_up_to_3_million_acres_of_public_lands
Go to the Action Center
And the neat thing is you can reach out more than once. A person could call/email their Senators every day if they are so inclined. The more they hear from us the better.
Once public land is privatized, we'll never get it back.
Post by: gramps on June 20, 2025, 08:25:10 AM
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/06/18/by-the-way-montana-is-exempt-from-public-land-sales-in-budget-bill/
Post by: Sunbkpk on June 20, 2025, 09:35:56 AM
Randy Newburg does a good summary about this on Fresh Tracks. Lots of political maneuvering to try to get this through. Example, excluding Montana a political maneuver to discredit Montana's representatives and senators vocal opposition to the sale of federal lands.
Post by: jackelope on June 22, 2025, 08:01:15 PM
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250623/833811a5b1f9f6829cafa58f94ec521a.jpg)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: actionshooter on June 22, 2025, 08:26:18 PM
Post by: baldopepper on June 22, 2025, 09:04:30 PM
Post by: TriggerMike on June 24, 2025, 11:27:20 AM
Post by: dwils233 on June 24, 2025, 11:36:36 AM
Senate parliamentarian killed the public land sale. Apparently it can't be included in a reconciliation bill, which is massive and makes it much harder to ever pass a bill allowing the sales.
Mike Lee isn't taking the hint. He's just going to try and revise it to pass muster but still establish precedent to sidestep the existing process to divest public lands.
Post by: jackelope on June 28, 2025, 08:51:34 AM
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLX0T7YJcxF/?igsh=OGE5c3RnZjVxZWNi
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: lastmk8 on June 28, 2025, 10:42:08 AM
Senate parliamentarian killed the public land sale. Apparently it can't be included in a reconciliation bill, which is massive and makes it much harder to ever pass a bill allowing the sales.
Senator Lee gave us lip service, he's working the midnight oil to sneak some back in.....
BLM land within 5 miles of a "population center", not defined what this constitutes. Does a town like Tonasket Washington, population 1200 qualify as a population center?
“WASHINGTON — Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, submitted a new version with updated restrictions of his public lands proposal.
Lee is set to present to the Senate parliamentarian on Wednesday after she ruled earlier this week that the Utah senator’s proposal to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of federally owned land would be stripped from President Donald Trump’s massive tax package because it does not comply with the strict rules laid out in the reconciliation process.
Draft text of the provision was available before Lee’s team went to the parliamentarian on Wednesday, and it included several changes previously reported by the Deseret News.
The biggest change was the removal of U.S. Forest Service lands from being eligible for sale, significantly reducing how much land could be sold under his proposal.
The original proposal would have required 11 Western states to sell anywhere between 0.5% and 0.75% of all Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service lands in the next five years. The updated language would now only apply that requirement to lands operated by the BLM.
The legislation specifically applies to Utah as well as Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington and Wyoming.
Lee began adjusting his proposal over the weekend based on feedback from the public, his office told the Deseret News, and was nearly finalized before the parliamentarian issued the ruling. A final decision on the latest proposal is expected sometime this week.
The latest proposal would also reduce how much BLM land can be sold, requiring any sales to be within 5 miles of a population center. Lee noted he would also include language to protect lands utilized by farmers, ranchers and recreational users, although details on how he would do that are not yet clear.
Lee will also establish what he is calling “Freedom Zones” that would ensure any lands sold are used for housing projects rather than going toward massive investment groups or corporations. That was a major concern among constituents, prompting an online social media campaign against the proposal.
However, the proposal also received pushback from some of Lee’s Republican colleagues, particularly those who have long opposed selling public lands for commercial use.
Idaho Sens. Mike Crapo and Jim Risch came out against the potential sales over the weekend, telling the Deseret News separately they disagree with the original provision. It’s not clear if the updates will sway their opinion.
Both Republican Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy of Montana similarly told the Deseret News they oppose the sale of public lands. However, they both noted they were pleased to see Montana exempted from Lee’s proposal, which the Utah senator did after consulting with the pair.
However, Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., has gone even further to say he would outright oppose any reconciliation package that includes the sale of public lands, possibly putting the bill at risk in the House.”
https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/06/24/mike-lee-changes-public-lands-proposal/
Post by: Bob33 on June 28, 2025, 02:20:11 PM
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/06/27/5-house-republicans-say-theyll-sink-big-beautiful-bill-if-land-selloff-is-in-it/
Post by: jackelope on June 28, 2025, 02:23:57 PM
Five House Republicans say in a terse letter Thursday they will sink the entire One Big Beautiful Bill Act if it includes a provision to sell public lands. “We cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. (Mike) Lee seeks,” they wrote.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/06/27/5-house-republicans-say-theyll-sink-big-beautiful-bill-if-land-selloff-is-in-it/
Hopefully they stick to what they said they’d do.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: jackelope on June 28, 2025, 05:48:02 PM
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/06/28/us/trump-news
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on June 28, 2025, 06:51:34 PM
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Post by: MADMAX on June 28, 2025, 07:03:10 PM
https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/sen-mike-lee-withdraws-proposal-to-put-federal-land-up-for-sale
Post by: baldopepper on June 28, 2025, 07:25:44 PM
Post by: MADMAX on June 28, 2025, 08:00:38 PM
A proposal to sell off millions of acres of public lands, primarily in 11 Western states, is facing resistance and has been stripped from a Senate bill. The initial proposal, spearheaded by Senator Mike Lee, aimed to mandate the sale of 2 to 3 million acres of Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands to help offset tax cuts. However, the proposal faced challenges due to Senate rules and strong public opposition.
Here's a breakdown of the situation:
Key Players and Proposals:
Senator Mike Lee: Initially proposed selling off public lands as part of a larger Republican reconciliation package.
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee: Released a draft bill including the public land sale provision.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service: Federal agencies that manage the lands targeted for sale.
"One Big Beautiful Bill Act": The larger Senate bill that the public land sale provision was initially attached to.
Initial Proposal:
Target: 250+ million acres of BLM and Forest Service lands in 11 Western states were potentially eligible for sale.
Mandated Sales: The proposal would have required the sale of between 2.2 and 3.3 million acres within five years.
Justification: The sale was intended to help fund tax cuts.
Revisions and Resistance:
Removal of Forest Service Land:
Following concerns about the impact on recreational access and other values, the proposal was revised to remove Forest Service lands from the sale mandate.
Focus on BLM Lands Near Population Centers:
The revised proposal focused on BLM lands within five miles of population centers.
Public Outcry:
Strong opposition from environmental groups and the public, who expressed concerns about losing access to recreational areas and the potential impact on wildlife and other resources.
Senate Parliamentarian's Ruling:
The Senate parliamentarian ruled that the public land sale provision did not comply with rules for fast-tracking the bill.
Current Status and Future Outlook:
Stripped from the Reconciliation Bill:
The public land sale provision was ultimately removed from the Senate's reconciliation bill.
Senator Lee's Intention to Reintroduce:
Senator Lee has indicated he plans to reintroduce a modified version of the proposal.
Ongoing Debate:
The debate over public land sales is likely to continue, with environmental groups vowing to continue their opposition.
Key Concerns:
Loss of Recreational Access: Concerns about the potential loss of access to popular hiking, biking, fishing, and hunting areas.
Impact on Wildlife: Concerns about the impact on wildlife habitats and migration corridors.
Erosion of Public Trust: Concerns about the transfer of public lands to private ownership.
Lack of Transparency: Concerns about the lack of transparency and public input in the proposed land disposal process.
Post by: JDArms1240 on June 28, 2025, 08:45:13 PM
Post by: dreamingbig on June 30, 2025, 01:04:15 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Wingin it on June 30, 2025, 10:14:30 AM
Post by: baldopepper on June 30, 2025, 11:05:21 AM
Post by: dreamingbig on June 30, 2025, 03:30:44 PM
The only way to slow that snake down would be to organize a boycott of tourism in Utah. Between sking and the national parks, Utah makes a ton of money on outdoor oriented tourists. You'd have to hit his constituents in the wallet before they'd put any pressure on him. A nation wide call to boycott the state would maybe wake up some of those sheep who vote for him.Exactly why you should all stop going to the western hunting expo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: baldopepper on June 30, 2025, 03:34:45 PM
The only way to slow that snake down would be to organize a boycott of tourism in Utah. Between sking and the national parks, Utah makes a ton of money on outdoor oriented tourists. You'd have to hit his constituents in the wallet before they'd put any pressure on him. A nation wide call to boycott the state would maybe wake up some of those sheep who vote for him.Exactly why you should all stop going to the western hunting expo.
Never been, never will go.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Tbar on June 30, 2025, 03:47:14 PM
:yeah:The only way to slow that snake down would be to organize a boycott of tourism in Utah. Between sking and the national parks, Utah makes a ton of money on outdoor oriented tourists. You'd have to hit his constituents in the wallet before they'd put any pressure on him. A nation wide call to boycott the state would maybe wake up some of those sheep who vote for him.Exactly why you should all stop going to the western hunting expo.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Something we totally agree on! I see crazy support for the worst wildlife management in the country, Utah loves to sell it's wildlife in a similar manner to the kings model. Not the NAM! However they grow and sell inches for 100s of thousands of dollars. Meateater has a great article on how bad Utah is.
https://www.themeateater.com/conservation/wildlife-management/annals-of-wildlife-management-the-problem-with-auction-tags
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 01, 2025, 03:29:32 PM
Hopefully Mike Lee finds the exit when election time arrives. That would put everyone else on notice. Mess with our public lands, lose your job!
The sales were taken out of the bill.
Post by: jackelope on July 01, 2025, 05:15:14 PM
Hopefully Mike Lee finds the exit when election time arrives. That would put everyone else on notice. Mess with our public lands, lose your job!
The sales were taken out of the bill.
Not his preference. He’s a threat to our public lands and always will be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: bigtex on July 01, 2025, 05:52:18 PM
:yeah:Hopefully Mike Lee finds the exit when election time arrives. That would put everyone else on notice. Mess with our public lands, lose your job!
The sales were taken out of the bill.
Not his preference. He’s a threat to our public lands and always will be.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk