Locked Away, Lit on Fire, and Lavishly Mismanged—But So Very Virtuous. By any sane measure, the federal government owns way too much land. Nearly 640 million acres—almost 28% of the country—is under Washington D.C.'s boot. Out West, it’s even worse—federal bureaucrats control nearly half the land.
Before one considers to agree, or disagree, with the proposal to “dispose” of a very minimal acreage of our “public lands,” review the historical context of the “management” of these lands. Having worked and “managed” some of these lands for over 33 years, I would like to share my experience beginning in 1970, for the US Forest Service (FS) in ID and UT, the Corps of Engineers water projects, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, previously the General Land Office and Grazing Service), and finally the US Fish and Wildlife Service until 2006. Additionally, as a WA Skamania County Commissioner from 2013-2016, where only 10% of the County is in private hands paying yearly property taxes based on homes, buildings and actual value.
In 1976, Congress passed and signed into law by President Ford the Federal Policy and Land Management Act (FLPMA). It was very comprehensive, specific direction to the BLM and the FS on management of their public lands. The law erased future disposal of public lands, other than providing for expanding communities. (Departed NV Senator Harry Reid was a master of acquiring BLM land for community development.) FLPMA allows transfer of managing public lands, for specific national policy for static energy projects, such as massive acreage solar projects. History also shows massive acreage for military war testing transferred by the then GLO. Native American archeological sites and wildlife habitat have been decimated on these test facilities for many decades and continue to this day in the name of national defense.
Other federal laws, lawsuits, and court decisions have directly impacted the management of our public lands. The past several decades has had numerous continual lawsuits by the Center For Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club, among other “non-profit” organizations. Using the National Environmental and Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for federal lawsuits, and recouping their attorney costs thru the Equal Access to Justice Act, these non-profit organizations have completely hindered the BLM and FS in the management of public lands. I have had past and current public land managers tell me they dread an expected lawsuits for a management project, including timber logging proposals and removing a minimal amount of so-called “wild” horse and burros.
We all have our “feelings” about public land management. The facts, once you see it on the ground, provide a better understanding of our impact on our public lands. Talk with a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a forester, a Park Ranger, a BLM or FS law enforcement officer, a private logger, a water management official, a rural County Sheriff, a rural school administrator. See OR Hood River County which has a active multiple use managed County Community Forest. I firmly believe Congress needs to amend and revise a new FLPMA that provides for active management of our public lands, including a routine collaboration and shared management with tribes, states, and Counties. We are here and growing. A very minimal disposal of community adjacent public lands in a specific process is a good start. The usual hyperbole primarily from these large so-called environmental organizations is appalling to one who has seen and heard the voices of those whose responsibility is to manage public lands, water resources, and those routinely active on the land.
"However, with restrictions on what the land can be used for and which parcels can be sold, people in the state's real estate business doubt there’ll be many buyers for the land if the bill passes.
"Earlier versions of the bill looked to include U.S. Forest Service land in sales. But after objections from conservation groups, outdoor recreationists and legislators, the proposal by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, removed Forest Service land and required only BLM to sell off land, between 612,500 and 1.2 million acres. The bill also requires the land to be sold be within 5 miles of a population center, and used solely for housing development or housing-related infrastructure and amenities."
I disagree. The process for the land to be sold isn’t open for bidding, the billionaires will get the land. Also, zoned for housing, but there are no structures in place to support building a community. This is not for the betterment of our lands, it’s a land grab.
You're misunderstanding the bill. Not a land grab. Not going to billionaires. Only for parcels ADJACENT TO existing infrastructures. Finally, the BLM and USFS are mismanaging it!
I disagree. I’m a hunter and a wildlife conservationist. Most of the land I hunt is either national forest or BLM. The same is true of most hunters. Without these public lands, hunting would only be possible for the wealthy, as it is in most of the world.
I also care about the preservation of wildlife. If these lands are sold, they will be developed, destroying the habitat. And loss of habitat is the greatest threat to wildlife.
Finally, many ranchers depend on BLM land to make ranching economically viable. They lease grazing rights. This gives them access to more land than they could ever afford to buy but it doesn’t allow them to develop it or to restrict access. And the leases generate income for the government.
This bill is NOT about the land you hunt on Ed! I support hunting, and there's a lot of hunters that visit Ferry County! Public lands are important. No one is trying to get rid of public lands and parks.
AND I support grazing and ranching. I quoted a rancher in the article... BLM is locking ranchers off of the land for bogus reasons! WHY?
FINALLY... should the feds own 30% of all land in the country?
Are they managing it well? Is all the land suitable for hunting?
The parcels being called out are typically vacent parcels in or near towns that cannot be safely hunted. Parcels must be adjacent to existing infrastructure (like sewer and water,etc).
We're talking about less that 1% of the total lands. This is NOT a catastrophe!
Related from Senator Mike Lee: Americans Deserve the Chance to Be Able to Buy a Home, Senator Mike Lee, June 25, 2025, https://x.com/UngaTheGreat/status/1937961106582257717
The U.S. gov owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 1/3 of the country. Most of it is just vacant dirt.
I want selective logging. Trees have a lifespan, and we need to use them, or they will get eaten by insects or burned.
YES!! These USFS lands need to be better managed with logging, grazing and prescribed burns.
Before one considers to agree, or disagree, with the proposal to “dispose” of a very minimal acreage of our “public lands,” review the historical context of the “management” of these lands. Having worked and “managed” some of these lands for over 33 years, I would like to share my experience beginning in 1970, for the US Forest Service (FS) in ID and UT, the Corps of Engineers water projects, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM, previously the General Land Office and Grazing Service), and finally the US Fish and Wildlife Service until 2006. Additionally, as a WA Skamania County Commissioner from 2013-2016, where only 10% of the County is in private hands paying yearly property taxes based on homes, buildings and actual value.
In 1976, Congress passed and signed into law by President Ford the Federal Policy and Land Management Act (FLPMA). It was very comprehensive, specific direction to the BLM and the FS on management of their public lands. The law erased future disposal of public lands, other than providing for expanding communities. (Departed NV Senator Harry Reid was a master of acquiring BLM land for community development.) FLPMA allows transfer of managing public lands, for specific national policy for static energy projects, such as massive acreage solar projects. History also shows massive acreage for military war testing transferred by the then GLO. Native American archeological sites and wildlife habitat have been decimated on these test facilities for many decades and continue to this day in the name of national defense.
Other federal laws, lawsuits, and court decisions have directly impacted the management of our public lands. The past several decades has had numerous continual lawsuits by the Center For Biological Diversity, The Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club, among other “non-profit” organizations. Using the National Environmental and Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for federal lawsuits, and recouping their attorney costs thru the Equal Access to Justice Act, these non-profit organizations have completely hindered the BLM and FS in the management of public lands. I have had past and current public land managers tell me they dread an expected lawsuits for a management project, including timber logging proposals and removing a minimal amount of so-called “wild” horse and burros.
We all have our “feelings” about public land management. The facts, once you see it on the ground, provide a better understanding of our impact on our public lands. Talk with a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a forester, a Park Ranger, a BLM or FS law enforcement officer, a private logger, a water management official, a rural County Sheriff, a rural school administrator. See OR Hood River County which has a active multiple use managed County Community Forest. I firmly believe Congress needs to amend and revise a new FLPMA that provides for active management of our public lands, including a routine collaboration and shared management with tribes, states, and Counties. We are here and growing. A very minimal disposal of community adjacent public lands in a specific process is a good start. The usual hyperbole primarily from these large so-called environmental organizations is appalling to one who has seen and heard the voices of those whose responsibility is to manage public lands, water resources, and those routinely active on the land.
Christopher Brong, June 25, 2025.
Thank you so much for your well informed addition to the conversation! So gratful you took the time to share with us.
A great example of the legislative process working the way it is supposed to.
A proposal gets made, feedback is received, proposal gets revised, more feedback is received.
If Congress Tries to Sell Washington Federal Lands, Buyers May Be Hard to Come By, Mitchell Roland, June 28, 2025, https://www.chronline.com/stories/if-congress-tries-to-sell-washington-federal-lands-buyers-may-hard-to-come-by,383206
QUOTE:
"However, with restrictions on what the land can be used for and which parcels can be sold, people in the state's real estate business doubt there’ll be many buyers for the land if the bill passes.
"Earlier versions of the bill looked to include U.S. Forest Service land in sales. But after objections from conservation groups, outdoor recreationists and legislators, the proposal by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, removed Forest Service land and required only BLM to sell off land, between 612,500 and 1.2 million acres. The bill also requires the land to be sold be within 5 miles of a population center, and used solely for housing development or housing-related infrastructure and amenities."
I disagree. The process for the land to be sold isn’t open for bidding, the billionaires will get the land. Also, zoned for housing, but there are no structures in place to support building a community. This is not for the betterment of our lands, it’s a land grab.
You're misunderstanding the bill. Not a land grab. Not going to billionaires. Only for parcels ADJACENT TO existing infrastructures. Finally, the BLM and USFS are mismanaging it!
**Americans Deserve the Chance to Be Able to Buy a Home**, Senator Mike Lee, June 25, 2025, [https://x.com/UngaTheGreat/status/1937961106582257717](https://x.com/UngaTheGreat/status/1937961106582257717)
> The U.S. gov owns 640 million acres of land — nearly 1/3 of the country. Most of it is just vacant dirt.
I disagree. I’m a hunter and a wildlife conservationist. Most of the land I hunt is either national forest or BLM. The same is true of most hunters. Without these public lands, hunting would only be possible for the wealthy, as it is in most of the world.
I also care about the preservation of wildlife. If these lands are sold, they will be developed, destroying the habitat. And loss of habitat is the greatest threat to wildlife.
Finally, many ranchers depend on BLM land to make ranching economically viable. They lease grazing rights. This gives them access to more land than they could ever afford to buy but it doesn’t allow them to develop it or to restrict access. And the leases generate income for the government.
This bill is NOT about the land you hunt on Ed! I support hunting, and there's a lot of hunters that visit Ferry County! Public lands are important. No one is trying to get rid of public lands and parks.
AND I support grazing and ranching. I quoted a rancher in the article... BLM is locking ranchers off of the land for bogus reasons! WHY?
FINALLY... should the feds own 30% of all land in the country?
Are they managing it well? Is all the land suitable for hunting?
The parcels being called out are typically vacent parcels in or near towns that cannot be safely hunted. Parcels must be adjacent to existing infrastructure (like sewer and water,etc).
We're talking about less that 1% of the total lands. This is NOT a catastrophe!