USFS and BLM lands available for sale in the Senate Reconciliation Bill

[Hulk]

For now, the sale of public lands is out of the Big Bill:

E&E News: Senate referee rules out public land sales in megabill

The parliamentarian's determination comes as online conservative critics have attacked the proposal. Its chief sponsor has promised a new plan.

subscriber.politicopro.com

Sounds like Sen. Lee has gotten an earful from hunter groups.

 

[pmccumber]

I fall in the middle of "no human should set foot in wilderness areas and all roads should be eliminated" and "let's log and mine the shit out of every square inch of public land." Apparently that means no one in congress represents me, because you must be either a radical environmentalist or an oil company CEO to have a voice.

My position:

• Not all roads are bad.
• Not every forest needs to be clear cut.

It dawned on my once driving from Ridgway to West Cimarron (btw, bucket list if you haven't been) how nearly impossible wildfire mitigation would be in Colorado. This is the only road accessing the Cimarrons at all from the west. Let me hammer that home, in a 40 mile stretch north to south, there is one point of accessing the Cimarrons by road from the west. And that thing must have been a nightmare to build.

This road is 10mph for a long stretch (~6 miles) and I stopped with my friend from Massachusetts who is part of the "y'all don't maintain forest" coalition. I had him look at the hillside several times and virtually the entire span of the climb, you couldn't step 10' off that road. That is, there is absolutely no way you could do any mitigation whatsoever. No undergrowth, no thinning, nothing.

That road from Durango to Ouray is a marvel of civil engineering as are many of the roads in to our wooded areas. In Colorado, where there are trees, it's on a hillside. And our hillsides are STEEP. Where it's flat, there are "parks" with no trees. This isn't Wisconsin or Massachusetts with flat forests easily managed.

So unless we want roads every 1/8 mile in our forests so we can "rake the forests", there is very very little forest mitigation to be had in this state.

 

[nakman]

Another response that hasn't been posted yet... I wish everything didn't have to be so polarized, but that's just our world these days. Anyway here is John Hickenlooper's response...

June 24, 2025​

Dear Mr. Nakari,

Thank you for taking the time to contact us regarding selling public lands. We always appreciate hearing from Coloradans, as it helps us better represent our great state in the United States Senate.

Congressional Republicans have included language in their budget reconciliation bill that allows for the sell-off of more than 3,000,000 acres of public lands. They see this as a way to help pay for their massive tax breaks for the ultra-wealthy. I see it differently.

In Colorado, public lands power a $17 billion dollar outdoor recreation economy which employs more than 132,000 Coloradans. Coloradans know our forests, national parks, and public lands are our pride and joy. These treasures are not—and should not be—for sale. That is why I introduced an amendment to the Senate’s budget resolution to prevent it. I will continue to fight against legislation that would allow public lands to be sold off to the highest bidder.

We always value hearing directly from Coloradans and hope you will continue to share your thoughts as we work together for Colorado and our country. For more information about our priorities, please visit our website at www.hickenlooper.senate.gov. Again, thank you for reaching out.

Sincerely,

 

[Yarn Cruiser]

Mike Lee has now revised the land sale so keep calling your representatives. It’s now BLM land within 5 miles of a populated city.

 

[Inukshuk]

University of Colorado Law School, Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment White Paper issued yesterday.

Rapid Assessment of the Senate’s Proposal to Sell Off Public Lands

www.colorado.edu

The title "rapid assessment" belies the urgency around action opposing this bill.
Do not assume its "liberal" coming from CU Law.

"In this urgent moment, it is critical to acknowledge that the reconciliation package would change long-standing federal policy regarding the retention and management of federal public lands. Public lands provide many irreplaceable benefits to the American public, including clean drinking water, recreational opportunities, scenic and cultural values, and habitat for fish and wildlife. Public lands also support vibrant rural economies and small businesses that depend on visitation and tourism."

"If passed by Congress, the Senate reconciliation proposal would be the most significant change in public land law and policy since FLPMA was passed, one that has no parallel in the history of public land management in the United States. Whereas FLPMA resulted from a thoughtful and deliberate legislative process, the current changes are being considered on an expedited basis through a budget reconciliation process with little to no meaningful public or stakeholder engagement."

"While these risks are significant, the Senate proposal also threatens to fundamentally undermine and alter the very foundation of the laws and policies that govern the management of federal public lands in the United States. By giving the Bureau of Land Management a mandate to complete widespread sell-off of federal public lands with few if any meaningful criteria or guardrails, this proposal reflects a historic change in the nation’s policies for retaining public lands and managing them according to multiple use, sustained yield principles. It would set a dangerous precedent that would undermine the rule of law."

"III. Conclusion
For the last 50 years, the management of the public lands has been governed by laws and policies that were carefully crafted by Congress to ensure that they were retained in federal ownership, managed according to multiple use and sustained yield principles, and sold off only in limited and carefully circumscribed situations that further the public interest in federal public lands. Those long-standing policies have benefitted the American public and contributed to the vitality of rural communities and the health and well-being of people across the country. Over those last 50 years, BLM has sold public lands in limited circumstances, and the proceeds of those sales have typically been reinvested into projects that benefit the American public by purchasing inholdings or improving recreational access. Public lands are wildly popular with the American public, and the existing laws and policies provide sufficient direction and discretion for land management agencies to make targeted adjustments to the federal estate where necessary.
In contrast, the current proposal in the Senate reconciliation package represents are a troubling break from existing laws and policies. The most recent version of Senator Lee’s proposal, while somewhat scaled back in size, would still mandate an unprecedented sell-off of up to 1.2 million acres of federal public lands. And those 1.2 million acres could be developed into luxury homes, vacation homes, or resort-style subdivisions, with no meaningful benefits for the affordability of housing in western communities.
If it passes, this would be the first time since FLPMA was enacted in 1976 that Congress would have mandated the sale of public lands simply to offset tax cuts and fund the federal government. Five years from now, many of our most cherished places may be sold to private interests, and current and future generations of Americans may lose forever the opportunity to benefit from and experience those special places. Congress enacted FLPMA 50 years ago to avoid this outcome and protect these places for the benefit of the public. The Senate reconciliation package places this legacy at risk."

 

[Inukshuk]

Mike Lee has now revised the land sale so keep calling your representatives. It’s now BLM land within 5 miles of a populated city.

And why definitions matter. From Page 4 of the CU Law, Getches-Wilkinson Center for Natural Resources, Energy, and the Environment White Paper (Bold added by me):

"This language includes a new section stating that land is not eligible if it is “not within 5 miles of the border of a population center.” This third version of the proposal does not define “population center,” which creates significant uncertainty and ambiguity as to which public lands are excluded from sale under this language. It is likely that the Secretary of Interior would attempt to clarify this term through individual land sales and would have significant discretion in doing so. The third version of the proposal does not explain why 5 miles is used as the line of demarcation."

 

[Inukshuk]

This is a hot item!
Mountain Gazette Story
The Push to Sell Off Our Public Lands

When the 2025 budget reconciliation bill, known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” narrowly passed the U.S. House in May, a provision to sell off 500,000 acres of public lands was removed largely due to the outcry of public lands advocates. But when it hit the Senate, Utah Sen. Mike Lee added a new, farther reaching provision mandating the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service to sell up to 3.3 million acres of land over the next five years. Supporters framed the move as common sense to raise revenues and build housing. Critics (74% of Americans oppose public land sales) called it a land grab.

Still, two things can be true at once:
• The current proposal is deeply flawed. If you oppose it, Outdoor Alliance has a tool to contact your lawmaker here.
• Eventually, we may need to consider limited land sales to address challenges like housing shortages.

A (Very) Flawed Proposal

Let’s start with a bit of clarity around what Sen. Lee proposed. About 250 million acres are technically “available” to be sold across 11 Western states. Those maps you’ve been seeing around social media illustrate the eligible land. Agencies would be instructed to sell between 0.5 and 0.75 percent of their combined holdings (about 3.3 million acres), and the preferred criteria for those sales are “inefficient to manage parcels” near already existing development, among other criteria.

The bill targets parcels near roads or towns and aims to reduce “checkerboard ownership”, the patchwork of public and private lands that complicates land management in the West. Any land sold must be used for housing or infrastructure for ten years. Ninety percent of proceeds would go to the U.S. Treasury to reduce the deficit, with 5% allocated to local counties and another 5% to the managing agencies. States have the first right of refusal to purchase lands put up for sale, and the process will be extremely rapid, mandating the nomination of tracts within 30 days, and then every 60 days.

But despite the appearances of guardrails, the bill is structured less like thoughtful land-use reform and more like something designed for speed and minimal oversight. Nowhere is this clearer than in the exemption granted to Montana. The exemption was not based on geography or land type. It has the appearance of a political concession, not a meaningful exemption. Montana gets a pass not because Montana does not have housing or land-use issues, but because votes are needed.

This exemption is just one issue of many. Despite the appearance of “requirements”, what actually qualifies for sale is broad and dangerously vague. What exactly does “preference for land near development” mean? Who defines “near”? How much leeway is there in that definition? The language invites broad interpretation, and in practice, decisions will be up to the discretion of the Secretary of Agriculture or Secretary of the Interior, whose tenures have been problematic at best, thus far.

While it claims to promote affordable housing and infrastructure, there is no language ensuring either. There are no limits on the type of housing that can be built, no affordability requirements, no density expectations. Would a single luxury home on five (or 5,000) acres count as “housing”? What’s to prevent a buyer from holding onto the land for ten years and then flipping it for profit or using it for resource extraction once the time limit expires? As written, nothing.



The bill includes no meaningful requirements to assess environmental significance, cultural heritage, or local use before selling public land. Local input is not prioritized. No public comment periods, environmental reviews, or tribal consultations are guaranteed.



The bill also mandates land be sold at fair market value, a requirement that runs counter to the goal of affordable housing. Selling public land at full price for housing simply pushes costs onto developers, who will then in turn pass them on to buyers or renters. It’s a direct contradiction to the stated goals.

What We Risk Losing

Public land isn’t “unused” just because it’s not part of a National Park or doesn’t have a popular trail. These lands might serve as winter range for deer, or a space for the local community to escape after work. There’s danger in defining land’s value solely by buildings, infrastructure, or scenic appeal.

When land leaves the public trust, it becomes a private asset. There’s no going back from that. Development on formerly public land brings cascading effects: increased wildfire risk, habitat fragmentation, noise, and water runoff. Roads invite invasive species. Fences block migration corridors. Adjacent public lands can suffer in the long run.

The Housing Reality

Here’s the part we can’t ignore: some towns are in crisis.

Mountain towns have become emblems of the outdoor dream. But they’re also places where service workers commute over an hour each way, teachers and medical workers can’t afford to live, and cities can’t even fill $167,000/year jobs. The housing challenges in towns like Vail, Ouray, Telluride, or Jackson are well documented. How exactly do we expect these problems to be solved? Yes, there are strategies like vacancy taxes and limits on short term rentals, but ultimately there’s a strong argument that more housing stock is needed.

My natural reaction is to oppose land sales outright. But, I have to wonder if my gut reaction to these land sales comes from a form of NIMBYism. I value open space. I’m less than excited about new buildings and sprawl. But can opposing change to protect my hobbies be viewed as a selfish stance?

I think many would shut this conversation down entirely. But eventually we may have to consider federal land sales (more considered, targeted, and researched) as one possible way to address some of these housing issues in rural communities. The idea is not just a Republican one, nor is it universally supported or panned on either side of the aisle. Notably, as part of her focus on housing, the Harris campaign previously noted that they would explore “making certain federal lands eligible to be repurposed for new housing developments that families can afford.” However, the motives must be called into question when Republican policies typically tend to eschew the concerns of affordable housing but suddenly put them at the forefront…at the cost of public land sales.

It’s not simple, even with a more well-thought-out approach. Headwaters Economics studied not just the possibility, but the feasibility of housing on federal lands. They found that “Less than 2% of the 181 million acres of Forest Service operational and Department of Interior land included in this analysis are close enough to towns with housing needs to be practical for development”. They also warn that more than half of the available land is in wildfire-prone zones, which would affect not only the viability but the logistical and safety issue with selling these parcels.

If federal land must ever be repurposed for housing, that process should be rooted in transparency, guided by ecological review, and require permanent affordability. Land could be leased rather than sold, held in trust by local housing authorities, or reserved for affordable housing.

Where We’re At

Let’s be clear. The proposal as Sen. Lee wrote it was not just controversial, it was fundamentally flawed in a way that won’t address the stated needs. It provided too much discretion, too few protections, and invited exploitation. We don’t need quick “fixes” that treat public lands like surplus inventory to be disposed of by any means necessary. We can reject this proposal and still create space for a better conversation about land use.

On June 21, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that the public land sale provision violates budget reconciliation rules and cannot be included in the final legislative package, pausing the land‑sales mandate for now. Lee publicly stated on X that he plans to make changes, including removing Forest Service lands entirely, borrowing BLM parcels to those within 5 miles of population centers, and establishing “Freedom Zones” to ensure that lands benefit American families (although it’s unclear what that means). Too be clear, I'm not sure this changes anything about my conclusions from above, it's just phrased differently.

If we oppose development near towns, on federal land or otherwise, we also need to seriously utilize other tools: infill, zoning reform, limited term leases of public land with clear guardrails, more funding for local housing authorities, and stronger rules on speculative real estate. Too often, these approaches are blocked by local authorities and residents who prioritize preserving a particular snapshot in time over building a livable community.

 

[AlpineAccess]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVcsyudlNEI&ab_channel=ShawnRyanShow


Should be an interesting discussion.

I should add that Shawn Ryan and Braxton McCoy are not exactly...left leaning.

 

[DanInDenver]

Oooph that promo.
Another interview he did on the same subject last week.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9aDVS9Yzao

 

[DanInDenver]

Latest version of the bill

Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) is proposing a new version of his public lands sell-off bill that would require the sale of up to 1.2 million acres of BLM lands, specifically targeting parcels near communities across the West.

• Fast-tracks inappropriate forms of oil and gas exploration, mineral extraction, and logging, including near national parks and recreation areas.
• Allows developers to bypass environmental review and public input by simply paying a fee.
• Rescinds billions of dollars in conservation funding that supports trail restoration, sustainable access, and climate resilience efforts.

 

[Cruisertrash]

Allows developers to bypass environmental review and public input by simply paying a fee.

Well that’s not new haha. Pretty much how things unofficially work in this country anyway. How nice of them to finally codify it.

 

[KC Masterpiece]

Vast undeveloped public lands are one of the huge benefits the US has over Europe. We should not let that go. They took the V8. Don't let them take the land too.....

 

[KC Masterpiece]

Am I reading correctly this morning that this got pulled from the bill?

 

[Hulk]

Am I reading correctly this morning that this got pulled from the bill?

I think so. Shannon Welch from Blue Ribbon Coalition posted this on Facebook:

Update: Mike Lee just withdrew the bill. I knew there was a chance he might today. I was advised that I should wait and see to avoid backlash. Honestly, truth matters more to me than backlash, and the lies that were shared as truth by anti access groups about this bill shocked me. And the off road community resharing those lies shocked me even more.

The purpose of my post mattered whether the bill was in play or not.

---Original post still follows and stands as a warning —
This Land Sale Bill Isn’t Our Fight

But the narrative being used to divide us is.

I honestly almost wish I didn’t know better.

It would be easier to repost a viral map, yell about selling public lands, and feel like I’m standing on the right side of something. But I do know better—because I’ve spent over 20 years in the trenches of land use fights. I’ve sat across from the people making these decisions. I’ve shown up. I’ve testified. I’ve fought.

This isn’t a post I want to write. In fact, I wish this bill would just die quietly and spare me the backlash. But if you’re following me, then you probably know: I don’t stay quiet when it matters. I fight for motorized recreation. I fight for access. I fight for public land to remain usable—not just symbolic.

And that’s why I need to say this.

We went to D.C. with BlueRibbon Coalition and met with 22 congressional offices. Almost all were staffers—which is normal. But two Senators took time to meet with us directly: Senator Jim Risch and Senator Mike Lee. Risch used to be the Governor of Idaho, where BRC is based, and he gave us historical context and ideas for improvement.

Lee was different. He already knew who we were. He’s been in the trenches with us in Utah, especially in Moab. He didn’t just check a box. He asked smart questions and wanted to know how he could help the motorized off-road community.

He asked how I got involved with BRC. I mentioned King of The Hammers. Without skipping a beat, he brought up how off-road racing technology has influenced our military vehicles. We talked about rural Utah towns boxed in by checkerboarded BLM land—unable to build schools, fire stations, or homes.

And he listened. Not performatively—actually listened. Over the past two weeks, he and his staff have taken our calls and made real changes in response to concerns:
• They removed Forest Service land
• Cut the acreage by more than half
• Required land sales be within five miles of existing communities
• Added language that 10% of proceeds must go toward BLM back logs including trail maintenance and road improvements

That’s direct feedback from us, incorporated into the bill. I’ve never seen that level of engagement from a Senate office. And this isn’t just any Senator—he chairs the Senate Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the Department of the Interior, including BLM and National Park lands. He could chair it through 2031. That matters.

So when people ask, “Why this bill?”—it’s because this is exactly what rural Utah has been asking for. Lee is doing what his voters have asked him to do for years. If you read Utah Public Lands Alliance statement, you’ll see they don’t condemn the bill for the same reason: it’s rooted in their community’s needs.

Trump publicly backed the bill this morning, saying it contains all of his campaign initiatives— including Lee’s Land Use Bill. I’m not a partisan person. I rarely agree with either administration. But Trump’s support matters to Lee, and Lee’s influence matters to us.

Here’s what the off-road community is missing:
From Day One, this bill has explicitly protected existing rights-of-way.
And every single trail we drive is a right-of-way.
So all this fear-mongering about Moab Rim, Steel Bender, and Johnson Valley (which is congressionally designated OHV land) is just that—noise.

And don’t forget what just happened: the Roadless Rule, after 24 years, was finally rescinded by this same administration. That didn’t happen by chance—we asked for it when we were in D.C., and they listened. That’s not unrelated. That’s part of a broader effort to make public lands usable again—for all Americans.

Is this bill perfect? No.
Has it been communicated well? Absolutely not.
Is Mike Lee a villain? Not even close.

That’s what makes this so hard.

Because yeah—I’m tired.
Most of the time, we’re alone in this fight. And for the first time in a long time, someone in power saw us.
Our community. Our values. Our access.

And now I’m watching that same person get dragged by people who’ve never met him, never spoken to his staff, and never once tried to get our issues heard in a system built to ignore us.

Meanwhile, the organizations driving the outrage—Outdoor Alliance, The Wilderness Society, and others—have never supported motorized recreation. Not once.
• They’ve backed every national monument that closed thousands of miles of trails
• They fought to keep the Roadless Rule
• They stayed silent while 700,000+ acres were privatized for solar
• Now they’re spinning panic with fear, polished maps, and slick messaging

Ask yourself: Have we ever been on the same side as these groups?
Never.

And yet here we are—amplifying their narrative because it’s louder, better funded, and easier to digest.

BRC doesn’t have that kind of budget. And to be fair, Republicans—Lee included—aren’t doing a great job communicating what’s in this bill.

But what breaks my heart is watching our community—people I’ve stood beside in this fight—turn on the first real ally we’ve had in years. Someone I’ve worked with directly. Someone who wants to help us.

So who should you believe?

It’s hard right now. We are being manipulated from all sides.
But if you’ve ever trusted me to speak truth in this space, here’s where to start:

I advise on messaging. I’ve donated 30+ hours of my time to this bill alone over the last two weeks. We didn’t endorse it—but we didn’t condemn it either, because it’s complicated. And the second we said that, anti-access groups twisted our words and turned some of our own supporters against us. I've had friends ask me why I'm a traitor. I'm not.

I’m nonpartisan. My fight is for motorized recreation on public land.
This isn’t a trail bill, but it’s also not a threat.
The right-of-way protections have been completely lost in the noise.

This bill may not survive. It’s been butchered by spin and fear.
But if it dies, don’t let our alliance with someone who genuinely wants to help go down with it.

So if you’ve ever trusted me to speak truth in this space, I’m asking you:

Don’t get swept up.
You don’t have to love the bill.
You should ask hard questions.
But at least pause before joining the pile-on.

Look at the bigger picture.
Look at who’s trying to help us—and who never has.

I’m not doing this because it’s easy.
I’m doing it because it’s the truth.
And because access is worth fighting for.

 

[Cruisertrash]

Thanks for posting that @Hulk

One of the most amazing things about this piece of the bill was how it united people across almost every conceivable division in our country, and that was beautiful to see. Black, white, brown, republican and democrat, wilderness backpackers and offroaders, hunters and ecologists. It wasn’t masses of people falling for propaganda as BRC is implying. I haven’t seen such unity since 9/11/2001. Saying we were “falling for it” is the same scare tactics used by other people to constantly divide us.

Using the phrase “anti-access” - wording that Ben from BRC uses a lot too - tells me everything I need to know about how BRC thinks about things. Driving your truck or SxS in trails isn’t the only thing that exists in the world. There are hikers, MTBers, backpackers, anglers, hunters, and many others who want to use our public lands in their own cool ways. The land belongs to all of us and we have to share because it’s the right thing to do. It’s not a zero sum game. A new Wilderness Area or National Monument isn’t a threat to motorized users as long as there is balance for all parties involved. I’m glad backpackers have wilderness areas and I hope they’re glad that I like driving on Forest Service trails.

That’s the balance we should fight for, not motorized users at the expense of everything else. I think that’s what people saw with this proposed piece of the bill - we appreciated that our angler friends, backpacker friends, and all the rest would be hurt by it as much as we would be. Let that be a lesson that not all hope is lost in this country.

 

[DanS]

It wasn’t masses of people falling for propaganda as BRC is implying. I haven’t seen such unity since 9/11/2001. Saying we were “falling for it” is the same scare tactics used by other people to constantly divide us.

Using the phrase “anti-access” - wording that Ben from BRC uses a lot too - tells me everything I need to know about how BRC thinks about things. Driving your truck or SxS in trails isn’t the only thing that exists in the world. There are hikers, MTBers, backpackers, anglers, hunters, and many others who want to use our public lands in their own cool ways. The land belongs to all of us and we have to share because it’s the right thing to do. It’s not a zero sum game. A new Wilderness Area or National Monument isn’t a threat to motorized users as long as there is balance for all parties involved. I’m glad backpackers have wilderness areas and I hope they’re glad that I like driving on Forest Service trails.

And compare these communications with the BRC's statements/lawsuits about Bears Ears. The Bears Ears designation specifically protected OHV use, hunting, and firewood gathering. I found the BRC position there to be pretty disingenuous, and those words ring even more hollow today with their support of Sen. Lee's bills to sell off public lands.

That’s the balance we should fight for, not motorized users at the expense of everything else. I think that’s what people saw with this proposed piece of the bill - we appreciated that our angler friends, backpacker friends, and all the rest would be hurt by it as much as we would be. Let that be a lesson that not all hope is lost in this country.

Bingo. I've worked as a wilderness backpack guide. I like backpacking without wheels around (let alone motors) every bit as much as I do driving a cruiser to someplace beautiful. There should be use by EVERYONE. That means some wheelchair accessible trails, some dirt roads, some rocky trails, some MTB trails, some foot trails, and some places without trails at all. The one "use" of the land that threatens all of that is big business. The surest way to have no access to public lands is to have an oil well or open pit mine there. We ALL need to support ALL forms of public access, IMHO.

Dan

 

[AlpineAccess]

Lets do land locking, and corner crossing purchases, and other forms of public land access denial next.

 

[Inukshuk]

Woody (of ih8mud.com) posted this on 6/28 saying "Please Read"

Brian 'woody' Swearingen

Read. Please.

www.facebook.com

"Update: Mike Lee just withdrew the bill. I knew there was a chance he might today. I was advised that I should wait and see to avoid backlash. Honestly, truth matters more to me than backlash, and the lies that were shared as truth by anti access groups about this bill shocked me. And the off road community resharing those lies shocked me even more.
The purpose of my post mattered whether the bill was in play or not.
---Original post still follows and stands as a warning —
This Land Sale Bill Isn’t Our Fight
But the narrative being used to divide us is.
I honestly almost wish I didn’t know better.
It would be easier to repost a viral map, yell about selling public lands, and feel like I’m standing on the right side of something. But I do know better—because I’ve spent over 20 years in the trenches of land use fights. I’ve sat across from the people making these decisions. I’ve shown up. I’ve testified. I’ve fought.
This isn’t a post I want to write. In fact, I wish this bill would just die quietly and spare me the backlash. But if you’re following me, then you probably know: I don’t stay quiet when it matters. I fight for motorized recreation. I fight for access. I fight for public land to remain usable—not just symbolic.
And that’s why I need to say this.
We went to D.C. with BlueRibbon Coalition and met with 22 congressional offices. Almost all were staffers—which is normal. But two Senators took time to meet with us directly: Senator Jim Risch and Senator Mike Lee. Risch used to be the Governor of Idaho, where BRC is based, and he gave us historical context and ideas for improvement.
Lee was different. He already knew who we were. He’s been in the trenches with us in Utah, especially in Moab. He didn’t just check a box. He asked smart questions and wanted to know how he could help the motorized off-road community.
He asked how I got involved with BRC. I mentioned King of The Hammers. Without skipping a beat, he brought up how off-road racing technology has influenced our military vehicles. We talked about rural Utah towns boxed in by checkerboarded BLM land—unable to build schools, fire stations, or homes.
And he listened. Not performatively—actually listened. Over the past two weeks, he and his staff have taken our calls and made real changes in response to concerns:
• They removed Forest Service land
• Cut the acreage by more than half
• Required land sales be within five miles of existing communities
• Added language that 10% of proceeds must go toward BLM back logs including trail maintenance and road improvements
That’s direct feedback from us, incorporated into the bill. I’ve never seen that level of engagement from a Senate office. And this isn’t just any Senator—he chairs the Senate Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the Department of the Interior, including BLM and National Park lands. He could chair it through 2031. That matters.
So when people ask, “Why this bill?”—it’s because this is exactly what rural Utah has been asking for. Lee is doing what his voters have asked him to do for years. If you read Utah Public Lands Alliance statement, you’ll see they don’t condemn the bill for the same reason: it’s rooted in their community’s needs.
Trump publicly backed the bill this morning, saying it contains all of his campaign initiatives— including Lee’s Land Use Bill. I’m not a partisan person. I rarely agree with either administration. But Trump’s support matters to Lee, and Lee’s influence matters to us.
Here’s what the off-road community is missing:
From Day One, this bill has explicitly protected existing rights-of-way.
And every single trail we drive is a right-of-way.
So all this fear-mongering about Moab Rim, Steel Bender, and Johnson Valley (which is congressionally designated OHV land) is just that—noise.
And don’t forget what just happened: the Roadless Rule, after 24 years, was finally rescinded by this same administration. That didn’t happen by chance—we asked for it when we were in D.C., and they listened. That’s not unrelated. That’s part of a broader effort to make public lands usable again—for all Americans.
Is this bill perfect? No.
Has it been communicated well? Absolutely not.
Is Mike Lee a villain? Not even close.
That’s what makes this so hard.
Because yeah—I’m tired.
Most of the time, we’re alone in this fight. And for the first time in a long time, someone in power saw us.
Our community. Our values. Our access.
And now I’m watching that same person get dragged by people who’ve never met him, never spoken to his staff, and never once tried to get our issues heard in a system built to ignore us.
Meanwhile, the organizations driving the outrage—Outdoor Alliance, The Wilderness Society, and others—have never supported motorized recreation. Not once.
• They’ve backed every national monument that closed thousands of miles of trails
• They fought to keep the Roadless Rule
• They stayed silent while 700,000+ acres were privatized for solar
• Now they’re spinning panic with fear, polished maps, and slick messaging
Ask yourself: Have we ever been on the same side as these groups?
Never.
And yet here we are—amplifying their narrative because it’s louder, better funded, and easier to digest.
BRC doesn’t have that kind of budget. And to be fair, Republicans—Lee included—aren’t doing a great job communicating what’s in this bill.
But what breaks my heart is watching our community—people I’ve stood beside in this fight—turn on the first real ally we’ve had in years. Someone I’ve worked with directly. Someone who wants to help us.
So who should you believe?
It’s hard right now. We are being manipulated from all sides.
But if you’ve ever trusted me to speak truth in this space, here’s where to start:
I advise BlueRibbon Coalition on messaging. I’ve donated 30+ hours of my time to this bill alone over the last two weeks. We didn’t endorse it—but we didn’t condemn it either, because it’s complicated. And the second we said that, anti-access groups twisted our words and turned some of our own supporters against us. I've had friends ask me why I'm a traitor. I'm not.
I’m nonpartisan. My fight is for motorized recreation on public land.
This isn’t a trail bill, but it’s also not a threat.
The right-of-way protections have been completely lost in the noise.
This bill may not survive. It’s been butchered by spin and fear.
But if it dies, don’t let our alliance with someone who genuinely wants to help go down with it.
So if you’ve ever trusted me to speak truth in this space, I’m asking you:
Don’t get swept up.
You don’t have to love the bill.
You should ask hard questions.
But at least pause before joining the pile-on.
Look at the bigger picture.
Look at who’s trying to help us—and who never has.
I’m not doing this because it’s easy.
I’m doing it because it’s the truth.
And because access is worth fighting for."

 

[Crash]

My main takeaway from this is the statement that the letter writer says he is not a traitor. It reminds me of George Costanza giving himself the nickname “T-Bone”. You don’t get to choose your nickname, it is given to you by those who know you. You don’t get to say you’re not a traitor, either, for the same reason. At least in my book, anyway.

 

[NotyourmomsWife]

Woody (of ih8mud.com) posted this on 6/28 saying "Please Read"

Brian 'woody' Swearingen

Read. Please.

www.facebook.com

"Update: Mike Lee just withdrew the bill. I knew there was a chance he might today. I was advised that I should wait and see to avoid backlash. Honestly, truth matters more to me than backlash, and the lies that were shared as truth by anti access groups about this bill shocked me. And the off road community resharing those lies shocked me even more.
The purpose of my post mattered whether the bill was in play or not.
---Original post still follows and stands as a warning —
This Land Sale Bill Isn’t Our Fight
But the narrative being used to divide us is.
I honestly almost wish I didn’t know better.
It would be easier to repost a viral map, yell about selling public lands, and feel like I’m standing on the right side of something. But I do know better—because I’ve spent over 20 years in the trenches of land use fights. I’ve sat across from the people making these decisions. I’ve shown up. I’ve testified. I’ve fought.
This isn’t a post I want to write. In fact, I wish this bill would just die quietly and spare me the backlash. But if you’re following me, then you probably know: I don’t stay quiet when it matters. I fight for motorized recreation. I fight for access. I fight for public land to remain usable—not just symbolic.
And that’s why I need to say this.
We went to D.C. with BlueRibbon Coalition and met with 22 congressional offices. Almost all were staffers—which is normal. But two Senators took time to meet with us directly: Senator Jim Risch and Senator Mike Lee. Risch used to be the Governor of Idaho, where BRC is based, and he gave us historical context and ideas for improvement.
Lee was different. He already knew who we were. He’s been in the trenches with us in Utah, especially in Moab. He didn’t just check a box. He asked smart questions and wanted to know how he could help the motorized off-road community.
He asked how I got involved with BRC. I mentioned King of The Hammers. Without skipping a beat, he brought up how off-road racing technology has influenced our military vehicles. We talked about rural Utah towns boxed in by checkerboarded BLM land—unable to build schools, fire stations, or homes.
And he listened. Not performatively—actually listened. Over the past two weeks, he and his staff have taken our calls and made real changes in response to concerns:
• They removed Forest Service land
• Cut the acreage by more than half
• Required land sales be within five miles of existing communities
• Added language that 10% of proceeds must go toward BLM back logs including trail maintenance and road improvements
That’s direct feedback from us, incorporated into the bill. I’ve never seen that level of engagement from a Senate office. And this isn’t just any Senator—he chairs the Senate Natural Resources Committee, which oversees the Department of the Interior, including BLM and National Park lands. He could chair it through 2031. That matters.
So when people ask, “Why this bill?”—it’s because this is exactly what rural Utah has been asking for. Lee is doing what his voters have asked him to do for years. If you read Utah Public Lands Alliance statement, you’ll see they don’t condemn the bill for the same reason: it’s rooted in their community’s needs.
Trump publicly backed the bill this morning, saying it contains all of his campaign initiatives— including Lee’s Land Use Bill. I’m not a partisan person. I rarely agree with either administration. But Trump’s support matters to Lee, and Lee’s influence matters to us.
Here’s what the off-road community is missing:
From Day One, this bill has explicitly protected existing rights-of-way.
And every single trail we drive is a right-of-way.
So all this fear-mongering about Moab Rim, Steel Bender, and Johnson Valley (which is congressionally designated OHV land) is just that—noise.
And don’t forget what just happened: the Roadless Rule, after 24 years, was finally rescinded by this same administration. That didn’t happen by chance—we asked for it when we were in D.C., and they listened. That’s not unrelated. That’s part of a broader effort to make public lands usable again—for all Americans.
Is this bill perfect? No.
Has it been communicated well? Absolutely not.
Is Mike Lee a villain? Not even close.
That’s what makes this so hard.
Because yeah—I’m tired.
Most of the time, we’re alone in this fight. And for the first time in a long time, someone in power saw us.
Our community. Our values. Our access.
And now I’m watching that same person get dragged by people who’ve never met him, never spoken to his staff, and never once tried to get our issues heard in a system built to ignore us.
Meanwhile, the organizations driving the outrage—Outdoor Alliance, The Wilderness Society, and others—have never supported motorized recreation. Not once.
• They’ve backed every national monument that closed thousands of miles of trails
• They fought to keep the Roadless Rule
• They stayed silent while 700,000+ acres were privatized for solar
• Now they’re spinning panic with fear, polished maps, and slick messaging
Ask yourself: Have we ever been on the same side as these groups?
Never.
And yet here we are—amplifying their narrative because it’s louder, better funded, and easier to digest.
BRC doesn’t have that kind of budget. And to be fair, Republicans—Lee included—aren’t doing a great job communicating what’s in this bill.
But what breaks my heart is watching our community—people I’ve stood beside in this fight—turn on the first real ally we’ve had in years. Someone I’ve worked with directly. Someone who wants to help us.
So who should you believe?
It’s hard right now. We are being manipulated from all sides.
But if you’ve ever trusted me to speak truth in this space, here’s where to start:
I advise BlueRibbon Coalition on messaging. I’ve donated 30+ hours of my time to this bill alone over the last two weeks. We didn’t endorse it—but we didn’t condemn it either, because it’s complicated. And the second we said that, anti-access groups twisted our words and turned some of our own supporters against us. I've had friends ask me why I'm a traitor. I'm not.
I’m nonpartisan. My fight is for motorized recreation on public land.
This isn’t a trail bill, but it’s also not a threat.
The right-of-way protections have been completely lost in the noise.
This bill may not survive. It’s been butchered by spin and fear.
But if it dies, don’t let our alliance with someone who genuinely wants to help go down with it.
So if you’ve ever trusted me to speak truth in this space, I’m asking you:
Don’t get swept up.
You don’t have to love the bill.
You should ask hard questions.
But at least pause before joining the pile-on.
Look at the bigger picture.
Look at who’s trying to help us—and who never has.
I’m not doing this because it’s easy.
I’m doing it because it’s the truth.
And because access is worth fighting for."

Matt posted the same thing above as well…