# Your Public Lands are ALWAYS at risk...



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

I know we'd like to ride our bikes in Wilderness areas, and I know we sometimes complain about trail closures or the occasional ineptitude of the US Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management....I mean, we wanna be free to ride, man.

However, don't forget that as seemingly bad as some rules and regulations seem, they beat the hell out of having NO PLACE TO RIDE AT ALL other than gravel roads and private bike parks.

Our public lands are always at risk of being sold "to the states", which could then dispose of them as they wish, or sold outright to the highest bidder, maybe billionaires wanting a huge ranch or foreign investors looking to get money out of China, or Qatar or Saudi Arabia...any of which would certainly lead to NO TRESPASSING signs and a permanent end to ALL access. There are many in Congress and the White House right now who would LOVE to sell it all and be done with it. Here's the latest on a proposal from Utah Senator Mike Lee to do just that.

https://www.adventure-journal.com/2...s-to-eliminate-public-lands-as-you-know-them/

Not trying to insert politics into this forum--indeed, one of the main reasons I mountain bike is to free my mind from that sort of thing--but if you like to ride your mountain bike on a public trail in the forests or deserts of America then beware.


----------



## mbmb65 (Jan 13, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> What kind of weed were you smoking when you wrote this? Selling land to private industry is a good thing if it's to obtain valuable minerals or energy to run the country.


Kidding, right?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> What kind of weed were you smoking when you wrote this? Selling land to private industry is a good thing if it's to obtain valuable minerals or energy to run the country.


I'd ask the same thing of you.

How many trails are you going to build on a given piece of formerly public land that is now fenced off for surface mining?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> What kind of weed were you smoking when you wrote this? Selling land to private industry is a good thing if it's to obtain valuable minerals or energy to run the country.


I gave up weed a few years back...and you can obtain valuable minerals and energy on public lands without SELLING THEM and privatizing them and making them off limits to everyone except the owner. Surely you've spent time in our National Forests or Bureau of Land Management lands. Shared use: mineral extraction, camping, logging, mountain biking, camping, Jeeping, fishing, cattle grazing, spelunking, hunting, bird watching and much much more all happening on a given chunk of land. Sell that land to a Chinese or Canadian mining company and all you get is mineral extraction and eternal no trespassing signs. Hope that clears things up for you.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Schooled.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> Can you provide some area you are riding that has oil, natural gas, copper, uranium, gold, silver, iron ore, etc.


Moab.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Can you provide some area you are riding that has oil, natural gas, copper, uranium, gold, silver, iron ore, etc.


Have you heard of a town called Moab, UT?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> I think so. I built part of the green dot, all of the blue dot, comfotably dumb, MPS, LPS, part of the UPS, part of hazard, and one other trail.
> 
> Since then Trail Mix has built over two hundred miles of new trail on USFS and BLM land that has oil and mineral (?) extraction going on. Not sure if you are concerned about the oil and mineral extraction or so many new trails.


Great. So you're also aware that the trails you named are on federal land. Which, if federal lands are "returned" (misnomer, really) to the states in which they exist, those trails could cease to exist as well.

This is a pretty simple concept. Say that the above happened. And then, a resource was discovered on or under UPS. That trail would no longer exist once the state saw fit to sell off the land in question.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> I think so. I built part of the green dot, all of the blue dot, comfotably dumb, MPS, LPS, part of the UPS, part of hazard, and one other trail.
> 
> Since then Trail Mix has built over two hundred miles of new trail on USFS and BLM land that has oil and mineral (?) extraction going on. Not sure if you are concerned about the oil and mineral extraction or so many new trails.


Well, one entity is tasked to make land open to recreation if at all possible. The other, well they can do whatever makes their life easier. Not sure you understand the difference in public vs private property.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Someone is missing the concept of split estate. 

Basically, the minerals under a piece of property are sold separately from the surface rights. 

Someone with mineral rights can destroy five acres of surface out of every 40 acres, and can destroy even more for access roads. Look on Google Maps at a satellite map of the area around Rifle, CO or south of Durango down into New Mexico. See all of those lines running between round spots? Those round spots are well pads and the lines are the roads and pipelines that connect them. Does those look like areas where you could ride on anything other than a dirt road? 

I guarantee any politician who is a Utah Republican wants to take over Federal Lands for one reason - to sell to some entity that has given him a shitload of money. 

Don't believe? Look at what is happening to land that Utah Republicans control already. They want to sell almost 5000 acres of state land south of Moab for development so that the population of the area can triple. Never mind that there is not enough water to serve that many people, once they get their kickbacks, it is someone else's problem. Bucks to be made. That is the only worth to a Utah Republican. 

In the opinion of a Utah Republican, a piece of "public" land is nothing more than an opportunity for them to get richer. If the land is controlled by the Federal Government, it is a lot tougher for them to get their cut - although not impossible.


----------



## leaguerider (Sep 6, 2010)

The giveaway of our public lands is being proposed so that the Utah Repulicans can line their own pockets with money. Its just a sell out so they can get their campaign controbutions now and lobying jobs after they are voted out. 

Its just a money and power grab taking it from all of us.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> I don't really get if anything you said is illegal. Are we mountain bikers going to loose some popular place we currently ride? If so are the trails on Trailforks? Is the land being sold someplace you want to live? Do you hate Utah Republican politicians?


Why does it being legal make it something we should want to happen? What does that have to do with anything?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## honkinunit (Aug 6, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> I don't really get if anything you said is illegal. Are we mountain bikers going to loose some popular place we currently ride? If so are the trails on Trailforks? Is the land being sold someplace you want to live? Do you hate Utah Republican politicians?


So your moral compass is that is something is legal, it is OK?

Actually yes, my wife and I had planned on retiring to Moab. The "New Moab" they are getting ready to build in San Juan County, three miles south of the Moab city limits, was the last straw. Grand County refused to extend water and sewer down there, because there simply isn't enough water for Moab to grow much more. So the f*&ktards in the state legislature decided *they* would just go ahead and drill a bunch of wells into the same acquifer, build a water and sewer system, and assist San Juan in transforming an area that now has 300 rural houses into an area with 12,000 people and all of the associated infrastructure, restaurants, stores, hotels, condos, a Wal Mart. Never mind that a new water study *just* completed by the state itself said there is nowhere near enough water to support that many people. Moab currently has 6000 people. "New Moab" will *triple* the number of people drawing on the water supply.

And yes, I hate every single Utah Republican politician. They are all complete idiots. Every. Single. One. They are all for sale to whatever special interest wants to buy them, as long as that special interest is approved by their handlers at the Temple.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

FWIW, regardless of their political affiliation, I’d be very much against any elected official that was a proponent of the sale of public lands. 




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Vespasianus (Apr 9, 2008)

Switchblade2 said:


> What kind of weed were you smoking when you wrote this? Selling land to private industry is a good thing if it's to obtain valuable minerals or energy to run the country.


And what kind of crack* were use smoking when you wrote this? "Private industry" and "run the country" are two different things.

*I mean Oxycodone.


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

honkinunit said:


> So your moral compass is that is something is legal, it is OK?
> 
> Actually yes, my wife and I had planned on retiring to Moab. The "New Moab" they are getting ready to build in San Juan County, three miles south of the Moab city limits, was the last straw. Grand County refused to extend water and sewer down there, because there simply isn't enough water for Moab to grow much more. So the f*&ktards in the state legislature decided *they* would just go ahead and drill a bunch of wells into the same acquifer, build a water and sewer system, and assist San Juan in transforming an area that now has 300 rural houses into an area with 12,000 people and all of the associated infrastructure, restaurants, stores, hotels, condos, a Wal Mart. Never mind that a new water study *just* completed by the state itself said there is nowhere near enough water to support that many people. Moab currently has 6000 people. "New Moab" will *triple* the number of people drawing on the water supply.
> 
> And yes, I hate every single Utah Republican politician. They are all complete idiots. Every. Single. One. They are all for sale to whatever special interest wants to buy them, as long as that special interest is approved by their handlers at the Temple.


So, let me get this straight. You want to move to Utah to retire, but you're complaining about 2 things. 1) A large percentage of the population of Utah and 2) anyone else who wants to move there.

Apparently you weren't planning on using any water when you retire there?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> First of all I don't smoke crack. Secondly if natural resource extraction is going to benefit the US citizenry I am for it. I would much rather see that energy is used from our country than purchasing it from a foreign country.
> 
> Have you thought about Germany buying 70% of there natural gas from Russia? Do you think that's a good idea for stimulating revenues for Russian interests?
> 
> ...


I thought you were leaving the country to build e-motorbike trails? Could you please expedite the process?


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> It will certainly be nice when the USFS and BLM allow Ebikes on current system trails. It is coming in the future and if I am still alive by then, I will be on an Ebike trying to keep up with my younger friends.
> 
> What a Country!


Such a change in regulations won't help much if those BLM and USFS lands have been sold off to mining companies and developers by then.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

_First of all I don't smoke crack. Secondly if natural resource extraction is going to benefit the US citizenry I am for it. I would much rather see that energy is used from our country than purchasing it from a foreign country._

Resources are already being extracted from our public lands, so there is no need to sell those lands off in the name of energy independence. The current leasing system isn't perfect but at least the land remains open to all.

_Have you thought about Germany buying 70% of there natural gas from Russia? Do you think that's a good idea for stimulating revenues for Russian interests? _

What does this have to do with selling our lands? Foreign companies could buy those lands just as easily as American companies. Again, we can access our oil, gas and minerals without selling the lands outright.

_I seriously doubt that there will be a huge amount of existing popular MTB trails lost due to the extraction of energy and other natural resources. Please let me know where it's currently happening._

Again, you are confusing energy extraction with the selling of public lands. You are missing the point of my post entirely. I'm not saying that mineral extraction is causing the loss of trails, although a strip mine or spider web of natural gas roads and well pads does make it hard, and often impossible, to have any sort of. trail system for bikes or hikers.

_Lastly, do only Republicans benefit when public lands are sold for natural resource extraction, and is it illegal to sell public land?_

It is not illegal to sell public land right now, but it is not typical (due to current laws that keep public land generally public) and usually the Feds swap land with private owners rather than sell outright. What Utah's Senator is calling for is a massive transfer of our lands to private ownership.

As far as Republicans benefiting....yes, it is their constituencies that would benefit most from the wholesale sale/transfer of public lands, and the rest of us would just watch as it was mined, logged, paved, or simply fenced off forever. If are pissed now because you can't ride your bike in a Wilderness area, just wait until you can't ride anywhere at all.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> I know we'd like to ride our bikes in Wilderness areas, and I know we sometimes complain about trail closures or the occasional ineptitude of the US Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management....I mean, we wanna be free to ride, man.
> 
> However, don't forget that as seemingly bad as some rules and regulations seem, they beat the hell out of having NO PLACE TO RIDE AT ALL other than gravel roads and private bike parks.
> 
> ...


Earlier this year, Utah Rep. Jason Chafettz was forced to kill HB 621, a bill intended to do essentially the same thing, after an outcry from hunters, fishers and other outdoorsman across the West. Hopefully Hall's proposal will suffer the same fate. Many of the people expressing outrage were conservatives, who unlike Switch appreciate public access to public lands.


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Please bump this if there is any sign of this bill moving forward.
These things usually get attached to some must-pass legislation in conference committee in the middle of the night, so we may have to react fast. 

Give a heads-up if Senator Mike Lee is on a conference committee for ANY legislation on any topic whatsoever, as he might try to sneak this in.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Your distain for Republicans is pretty biased IMHO. What about all the Democrat employees of the extraction companies having a job or the Democrats who are benefiting from cheap energy cost because the energy is extracted from a US site.
> 
> What happens when an energy or natural resource site is depleted don't the companies need to move to a new location to obtain a continuous flow of energy or copper, iron ore, etc used by US consumers?


I don't recall any elected congressional Democrats advocating for selling or transferring public lands. If and when they do, MY reaction will be the same as it was to Chaffetz and Co.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## andytiedye (Jul 26, 2014)

Methinks Mr. Switchblade is trying to get this thread shut down.


Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> So your making the point that Utah congressional Democrats are willing to let the majority of US citizens down by not allowing for the future extraction of energy and natural resources? Why would those Democrats be so irresponsible?


Apparently you are unaware that Utah has no Democrats in either the House or Senate.

But, please carry on with your crazed rants.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> So your making the point that Utah congressional Democrats are willing to let the majority of US citizens down by not allowing for the future extraction of energy and natural resources? Why would those Democrats be so irresponsible?


Sedona's most famous troll is back from his European ebike vacation, I see.

Hi Switch, do you see the irony of an expat-Californian living off his fat government pension while plotting with POTUS to dismantle the administrative state? I do. First gut the EPA, then sell off public land to the highest bidder to cut, drill, and mine. What's left would make a perfect ebike park. They'll probably give you a free season pass if you clean the PIT TOILETS.

In your own inimitable style, a question: How do you justify spending your vacation dollars in some NATO-stiffing, fake ally, two-bit socialist country when you could be spending your money to MAKE AMERICA GREAT? I hear those commies, er... socialists over there love their ebikes. True? Hannity know about this?


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Your distain for Republicans is pretty biased IMHO. What about all the Democrat employees of the extraction companies having a job or the Democrats who are benefiting from cheap energy cost because the energy is extracted from a US site.
> 
> What happens when an energy or natural resource site is depleted don't the companies need to move to a new location to obtain a continuous flow of energy or copper, iron ore, etc used by US consumers?


You are completely missing the point. 
Energy and timber can be extracted without the land being sold and lost to mountain biking forever. 
Such shared use is currently happening on public lands across America, including places you may have heard of like Moab, Pisgah, Durango and even Sedona.
If you don't grasp that then I'm not sure how else to say it.
Public lands benefit all of us, while private land only benefits the few.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

chuck80442 said:


> You are completely missing the point.
> Energy and timber can be extracted without the land being sold and lost to mountain biking forever.
> Such shared use is currently happening on public lands across America, including places you may have heard of like Moab, Pisgah, Durango and even Sedona.
> If you don't grasp that then I'm not sure how else to say it.
> Public lands benefit all of us, while private land only benefits the few.


Allow me to interpret. Switch will always miss your point in order to make his point. He asks questions but never answers them, at least not the one you asked. You'll see.


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

"Utah's Congressional Democrats..."

SMH, what?!? That's hilarious!

I'm perfectly happy with leasing land to companies, under supervision, to do things like extract resources, cut timber, or graze cattle. I see no reason to *sell* any of that land, though, because even if there's not a popular trail or rock climbing crag or whatever there now, there could be in the future. I *like* wide open spaces, and private land tends (in the west) not to stay that way long.

-Walt


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Walt said:


> "Utah's Congressional Democrats..."
> 
> SMH, what?!? That's hilarious!
> 
> ...


Right you are! That's more or less what were doing now, of course. A reasonable, balanced, commonsense approach to public land management and resource development, though not perfect in practice as we all know. Sadly, these are not reasonable times.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> So your making the point that Utah congressional Democrats are willing to let the majority of US citizens down by not allowing for the future extraction of energy and natural resources? Why would those Democrats be so irresponsible?


You are

VERY OBVIOUSLY

A) trolling
B) not informed enough to participate in the discussion to the extent you are

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Seems to me that the OP bright up a situation that doesn't even exist. Blaming Republicans for doing something that isn't illegal to provide for future economic viability seems like a good thing to me.
> 
> What am I not informed about? I am being told that Sedona is experiencing some kind of problem. I ride here about 200 days a year and don't see any problem the OP has mentioned. Seems like more Fake News.
> 
> Like I said previously the National Monument folks were run out of town here.


See miksees comment, then explain why you prefer we sell the land to private interests instead of just defining usage rights.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> Seems to me that the OP bright up a situation that doesn't even exist. Blaming Republicans for doing something that isn't illegal to provide for future economic viability seems like a good thing to me.
> 
> What am I not informed about? I am being told that Sedona is experiencing some kind of problem. I ride here about 200 days a year and don't see any problem the OP has mentioned. Seems like more Fake News.
> 
> Like I said previously the National Monument folks were run out of town here.


In your ignorance you cite a singular local solution to an issue of nationwide scope. Please go back to trolling the AZ. forum.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

life behind bars said:


> In your ignorance you cite a singular local solution to an issue of nationwide scope. Please go back to trolling the AZ. forum.


In his defense he's not the only one on this site that does that. Not in his defense is the fact he is increasingly becoming more and more intentionally obtuse rather than face reality. He's also trying to force this into a political discussion to get the thread locked since it is not going his way.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> "Obtuse rather than face reality" What is the reality I am not facing? The OP was the one who brought up Republicans as being bad actors in his previous post. As a Republican I thought it was important to defend the actions of those Republican officials actions.


To answer your question, the marked difference in public vs private lands and the differences in access rights of the public at large based on that distinction.

So you either fell for and engaged a blatant red herring or decided to go with it and co-opt it to your own purposes. Either way...

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> "Obtuse rather than face reality" What is the reality I am not facing? The OP was the one who brought up Republicans as being bad actors in his previous post. As a Republican I thought it was important to defend the actions of those Republican officials actions.


Why?

There are plenty of other Republicans capable of thinking for themselves. And plenty of Republicans (a majority of them) who support Federal lands. This is not an R vs. D issue, generally speaking.

You don't have to jump to someone's defense based on tribalism.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> So your saying the original post was Fake News and I got sucked into it? Well it was an interesting discussion and I enjoyed it emensily.


No, the original post contained a link to an article about something that actually happened. Several members of the Utah congressional delegation have proposed dismantling federal lands over the years.

These things are easily verifiable and not "fake" by any stretch of the imagination.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> LeDuke, ok I read the article and it seems to be stretching the reality of the selling off of large amounts of public lands. Would this group be willing to sell off some public land next to Hwy 50 near Elco to have a low cost housing project or a new hospital?


it doesn't matter what they are selling it for you twit, the simple fact that someone floated the idea of selling off "public" land seems to be lost on you or,,,,, you are a simple troll. I elect that you are trolling just like your predecessors Traildoc, 50 cents, ins guy et al. Do us all a favor and go pound sand or play with yourself while inciting the flagpole crew in the AZ. forum.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> When the enviro group tried to turn Sedona into a National Mounument the same fear mongering was thrown out to the city citizens. Fortunately the majority of the citizens could see that the selling off of public land wasn't just a scare tactic.
> 
> Can someone tell what public land is going to be sold off first? There must be some kind of list.


Perhaps you could write to the Utah congressional delegation and ask them which lands in their state they'd prioritize selling once owned by the state.

Also, you know that citizens have no vote on whether an area becomes a National Monument, right? So I'm not sure what the majority of citizens could or could not see has to do with anything. If anything, it just makes it sound like you're making something up.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> When the enviro group tried to turn Sedona into a National Mounument the same fear mongering was thrown out to the city citizens. Fortunately the majority of the citizens could see that the selling off of public land wasn't just a scare tactic.
> 
> Can someone tell what public land is going to be sold off first? There must be some kind of list.


Turning public land into a National Monument is not selling it, deflect much?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> The whole push to change the National Forest and Wilderness circling Sedona to a National Monument was to eliminate the potential sale of that public land to private individuals or corporations.
> 
> Months of public meetings were done on a regular basis. In the end the public and Sedona City Council voted against a Monument status. The City and public felt the chance of public land being sold and causing a negative result was minimal.
> 
> Since no list of future public land sites has been provided I can only assume there really isn't one.


Bullshit. There was no move afoot to sell any of the National Forest land to any interests. You keep torturing this beyond anything resembling reasonable. just admit that you have no idea what you are discussing here and that you are just reacting out of ignorance. Then go away.


----------



## tfinator (Apr 30, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Seems to me that the OP bright up a situation that doesn't even exist. Blaming Republicans for doing something that isn't illegal to provide for future economic viability seems like a good thing to me.
> 
> What am I not informed about? I am being told that Sedona is experiencing some kind of problem. I ride here about 200 days a year and don't see any problem the OP has mentioned. Seems like more Fake News.
> 
> Like I said previously the National Monument folks were run out of town here.


Do you favor selling public land to private interests for resource extraction over giving usage rights but maintaining public ownership of the land?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Great question. I favor giving usage rights but maintaining public ownership of the land by extraction companies, but I am also fine with the selling of public land for projects that benefit the public like a new fire station, hospital, school, forestry station, etc.


All of those with the exception of the hospital (in most cases anyway) are public facilities, so there would be no need to sell any public land to build, say, a fire station. Do you think that schools and fire stations are private entities? I'm just curious, I've never encountered anyone who didn't know how those things worked before.

-Walt


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> Walt how about a charter school????


There are certainly charter and private schools out there, though most schools in the US are public. Private and charter schools are built on private land purchased from other private landowners, in general. I guess I have no general problem with selling public land to a charter school, but that's not really the issue at hand here. The issue is selling millions of acres of NFS or BLM land to private industry.

-Walt


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Walt how realistic is your concern? Is it just a concern or reality that is going to occur in the near future? I assume if it happens it will be real close to a populated area not out in the boonies. I have asked previously for a list of areas that will sold first with no answer.


There have been multiple bills in committee in the last year or two to turn over all federal land to the states.

No one has a specific list because publishing it would help the (pro-public land) opposition.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Switchblade2 said:


> How much traction are the bills getting?


Enough that it has gotten down to swing votes to keep it off the floor.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Le Duke said:


> There have been multiple bills in committee in the last year or two to turn over all federal land to the states.
> 
> No one has a specific list because publishing it would help the (pro-public land) opposition.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I think you are right, Le Duke. I spent some time yesterday trying to find a list of federal land on the "disposal" list and came up with nothing.

Chaffetz's bill, HR 621, now dead because of stiff opposition from sportsmans groups, would have started with 3.4 million acres across the West that were inventoried as "worthless" in 1996.

Mike Lee's proposal, not a bill yet AFAIK (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) was outlined in a speech he made in June. Lee essentially wants to dispose of all federal land and spark a new Homestead Act, of sorts.

The first link is the closest thing I could find to a list. The second is a copy of Lee's speech.

https://www.mensjournal.com/adventu...illion-acres-being-eyed-for-disposal-w463372/

https://www.lee.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/speeches?ID=2B16034F-BF02-422A-BECE-89AFD5EA773E


----------



## Walt (Jan 23, 2004)

Yes, I think something might have passed by now if not for the hunters and fishermen (who have actual political clout, as compared to mountain bikers who have basically none). 

-Walt


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Mike Lee gave a pretty informative speech. It implied that only land that wasn't a popular mountain bike destination would be considered to be sold to interests like: affordable housing, hospitals, schools, research facilities.


I knew you would like it. But... umm, he didn't say that. I don't ride in National Parks or National Monuments. AFAIK, singletrack is off limits in most of them.

He could be your Senator, you know. Utah is not that far of a move.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Holy crap. Mike Lee has said many times that he wants to transfer ALL public to states. 

Not just tiny parcels to be used for schools or post offices. 

All of it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chuck80442 (Oct 4, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Mike Lee gave a pretty informative speech. It implied that only land that wasn't a popular mountain bike destination would be considered to be sold to interests like: affordable housing, hospitals, schools, research facilities.


NO, it doesn't imply that at all...it directly states that anything NOT a National Park or Monument, which is bascially all the "unused" public land that we know and love and ride, could be sold.


----------



## faceplant72 (Oct 25, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> What kind of weed were you smoking when you wrote this? Selling land to private industry is a good thing if it's to obtain valuable minerals or energy to run the country.


Sorry to go back to the beginning here but I have been riding, but feel like bitching about the mineral extration being more about a few corporations making money off our valuable resources. The most egregious is the Jordan Cove Pipeline that is being forced on the Rogue and Umqua valleys of Oregon through near criminal us of eminent domain to allow for the export of natural gas to Asian markets.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Le Duke where does he say ALL public lands he wants taken away from the USFS and BLM?


"With this in mind, if we are to address the underlying problem, our long-term goal must be the transfer of federal lands to the states. And that is the aim of the third bill that I intend to introduce."

About two-thirds of the way down. There, found the link for you, read it for you, and here to answer all of your questions.


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Once again he doesn't say ALL federal lands given to the state. Secondly a state like Utah is one of the most recreation friendly states in the country. There is no way the citizens of Utah will let that recreation opportunity taken away from them. They may allow some land that provides little recreational opportunity to the masses to be used for a better public use.
> 
> You can fear monger until the cows come home, but it's not going to happen.


Lee doesn't qualify his statement.

There is no "some", "a portion of", or anything else. Just "public lands".

That means "all". Given his statements about transferring these lands "to the people", why would you think he'd only go half way?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Just because Lee wants some public lands changed to the state doesn't mean it's going to happen. It does make for an interesting discussion though. What are you doing to make sure it doesn't happen? I assume you think posting on MTBR will stop Lee.
> 
> I am curious how you are involved with the building or maintainence of mountain bike trails. Can you show pictures of trails you have worked on? I personally am for more trails and the maintenance of existing trails.


How will you maintain or build trails if that land is no longer accessible to you?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> Just because the State takes over the land doesn't mean it's not going to be accessible. Look at the Gold Canyon State Land Trust. There are new very popular mountain bike user created trails going in every year.
> 
> You know you need to go to the Utah forum and post your concerns. That is one of the most uninvolved group of MTBR posters in MTBR. Good Luck!


This is not a Utah-specific problem.

So, not sure why I'd post in a Utah- specific forum.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

I think John Finch of Sedona (Switchblade2) should get together with Mike Vandeman 
of Berkeley (infamous MTB hater). Similar personalities with opposite viewpoints. What would happen? Sorry, if I am off topic, but that has been a fantasy of mine.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

bpressnall said:


> I think John Finch of Sedona (Switchblade2) should get together with Mike Vandeman
> of Berkeley (infamous MTB hater). Similar personalities with opposite viewpoints. What would happen? Sorry, if I am off topic, but that has been a fantasy of mine.


Sounds like a choice "If They Fought" segment. Canes and walkers only, no guns or knives.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> I am curious if anyone monitoring this thread knows why it has 85 posts and is the most popular thread in the Trail Advocacy Forum?


Assholes always draw more posts.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> lb if personal attacks are the only way you can provide reasons for the long thread that's says a lot about your mindset. I would suggest going for a long ride to help you formulate a better answer.


This post says more about you and your mindset since for all you know I was referring to myself. Sorry to ruin your attempt at taking credit for it but nice try, please make sure to pick up your parting gift.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

Switchblade2 said:


> lb if personal attacks are the only way you can provide reasons for the long thread that's says a lot about your mindset. I would suggest going for a long ride to help you formulate a better answer.


I thought he was talking about me.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

veloborealis said:


> I thought he was talking about me.


I knew he was talking about me 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## twd953 (Aug 21, 2008)

Switchblade2 said:


> I have also dreamed about having a discussion with Mike.


Just make sure he isn't packing his handsaw first.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Switchblade2 said:


> I have also dreamed about having a discussion with Mike. His passion about destroying mountain biking is pretty amazing. My passion of mountain biking is 180 degrees of what he is trying to accomplish.


So do it. He's not hard to find. I'm trying to remember if I've talked to him or not (certainly nothing substantive). I've certainly been in the same room as him while he was bending some land manager's ear, they all know who he is.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think he lives near Bezerkley and I live in Sedona. Wher does he hang out on the Internet?


Just post his name, he'll find it when he searches Google for it. But, we don't really want him here, he like you has been permabanned a multitude of times.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> It's too bad that traildoc guy was banned.


Traildoc was an asshole. So was ins. guy, 50 cents and a handful of other pseudonyms of the same asshole.

Here's a smiley for all the people that are going to be butthurt.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Switchblade2 said:


> It's much harder to explain why you deeply believe someone is an axxhole.


No it's not.


----------



## bpressnall (Aug 25, 2006)

Sounds like Switchblade2 really loved Traildoc. I think Mike has similar feelings.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

bpressnall said:


> Sounds like Switchblade2 really loved Traildoc.


It's an incestuous relationship.


----------



## veloborealis (Oct 25, 2009)

*Switchback Mountain?*

I wish I knew how to quit me, Doc.


----------

