Say Goodbye To Your BLM Spot

[boltstop]

This land will be bought by corporations and billionaires for THEIR use. Either way, you won’t be allowed access.

 

[USMC06RET]

This land will be bought by corporations and billionaires for THEIR use. Either way, you won’t be allowed access.

Trump Desert Resort and Spa........

 

[Robdog1]

Given an average year, how many acres of land does CA wildfires burn? (I found it. Average 1.4 million acres of land burns from CA Wildfires, if you find conflicting data, please share.)

Trump proposed to sell 3 million acres of land from the available 250 million of BLM Land. (Also, if you find conflicting data, please share.)

(Based on what I thought I read) I think I read that most of these fires occurs on BLM land. Would selling these land (not sure the "buyer's map" offers the usually high chance of wildfire areas) that are prone to wildfires to private sectors reduce the wildfires occuring in CA? We can't use the land that are prone to CA Wildfires anyways.

I think in Trump's 1st Term, he said he knows how to end or fix CA Wildfires or something like that, that people blew away, laughed and/or mocked him. (I can't be the only one to remember this, maybe I'm tripping.)

But based on my above statements, doesn't it kind of make sense? (Yes? No? Maybe I should sleep.)

In a way, yes it makes sense. If the land is owned by private owners, then chances are it will be maintained better, thus equaling fewer fires. On the other hand, most of the BLM land in CA is desert, and there’s already a lot of privately owned land out there that’s completely unmaintained. The fires tend to happen more in mountain areas, not so much desert as the scrub/manzanita bushes are relatively far apart and don’t burn all that well compared to closely packed trees that go up like tiki torches. The one area I was surprised at was the Santa Ana Mountains. That’s essentially my backyard, and I have a feeling the devil known as the Irvine company will come barreling in, buy it, and start trying to develop it in already massively overpopulated OC, despite the fact it’ll burn down 57 times because the Santa Ana mountains are known for having fires every couple years. Oh well, you play with fire, you get burned.

 

[Sydwaiz]

I'm sure Chinese corporations will buy much of it.

 

[campmud]

Look at private landowner names along the West Coast…Saudis could potentially buy more land.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

In a way, yes it makes sense. If the land is owned by private owners, then chances are it will be maintained better, thus equaling fewer fires. On the other hand, most of the BLM land in CA is desert, and there’s already a lot of privately owned land out there that’s completely unmaintained. The fires tend to happen more in mountain areas, not so much desert as the scrub/manzanita bushes are relatively far apart and don’t burn all that well compared to closely packed trees that go up like tiki torches. The one area I was surprised at was the Santa Ana Mountains. That’s essentially my backyard, and I have a feeling the devil known as the Irvine company will come barreling in, buy it, and start trying to develop it in already massively overpopulated OC, despite the fact it’ll burn down 57 times because the Santa Ana mountains are known for having fires every couple years. Oh well, you play with fire, you get burned.

I'm sure if Irvine Company could, they'd buy the whole Mojave desert. Irvine company has land and properties in other states, and has investments in other countries such as Abu Dhabi.

 

[NapalmCheese]

Given an average year, how many acres of land does CA wildfires burn? (I found it. Average 1.4 million acres of land burns from CA Wildfires, if you find conflicting data, please share.)

Trump proposed to sell 3 million acres of land from the available 250 million of BLM Land. (Also, if you find conflicting data, please share.)

(Based on what I thought I read) I think I read that most of these fires occurs on BLM land. Would selling these land (not sure the "buyer's map" offers the usually high chance of wildfire areas) that are prone to wildfires to private sectors reduce the wildfires occuring in CA? We can't use the land that are prone to CA Wildfires anyways.

I think in Trump's 1st Term, he said he knows how to end or fix CA Wildfires or something like that, that people blew away, laughed and/or mocked him. (I can't be the only one to remember this, maybe I'm tripping.)

But based on my above statements, doesn't it kind of make sense? (Yes? No? Maybe I should sleep.)

The USFS and BLM run their own logging operations (really they lease areas to be logged). They don't clear cut those areas and don't allow taking of anything that would be detrimental to the forest from an holistic ecological view (i.e. anything that would detrimentally affect the huntable animals, the support animals, etc.).

USFS and BLM lands were mismanaged in the past in so much as the science at the time (many decades ago) said "put all the fires out immediately" so they grew an abundance of fuel and undergrowth. The fire science has changed in the last 50 years and fires have been managed differently. However, with that abundant fuel and undergrowth large fires get very hot, very destructive, and grow very fast. The best methods for combating such are to thin out the forest and use prescribed burns, two things the USFS and BLM have been doing for decades now.

Up near me, where a lot of National Forest is going to be sold (probably to a logging company) a number of the places I hunt will be sold. I hunt National Forest and (when allowed, which is not always) the logging company land. The logging land has obvious swaths of clear cut in various states of being replanted. It is neither scenic nor conducive to hunting. Tree nesting birds don't flock there because the trees are too short. Ground birds don't roam there because there isn't any forage for them. Deer transit the area but don't stick around because there isn't enough cover and no food. Squirrels don't stick around for the same reason the birds and deer don't.

Selling these lands to private developers only further serves to ensure people with fewer discretionary funds have fewer places to recreate, and people with more discretionary funds have to pay to recreate, if recreation is allowed at all.

Look at the map. a TON of the land is lakeside, in lovely areas of mountains near existing resorts, or in areas already next to private timber operations.

The "private sector will save us from wildfires because they'll lower the fuel load" rhetoric is disingenuous at best; it should read "the private sector will 'save' us from wildfires because they'll lower the fuel load by replacing forests with mansions and cutting down all the timber just to replant with pine saplings and keeping people from recreating there so the rare instance of a hiker actually causing a fire can't happen since they won't be allowed there". CA is not unique in having large wildfires, other western states have gigantic wildfires. CA has more people in more places causing more conflict between people and wildfire. The idea that Trump is having this land sold off because the USFS and BLM (both federal government organizations) can't manage it and so he is saving CA from wildfires is folly.

Few to no private sector buyers will buy up large swaths of forest and then 'manage' it in a wild state, and fewer still will 'manage' it effectively. The lands being sold are lands that will be forever lost to us. They won't be 'managed' to reduce wildfires; they'll be developed.

CA gun owners like to piss and moan about the BLM restricting their ability to target shoot because of 'fire restrictions'. Well that won't be a problem once all that land is privatized and littered with 'no trespassing' signs.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

CA gun owners like to piss and moan about the BLM restricting their ability to target shoot because of 'fire restrictions'. Well that won't be a problem once all that land is privatized and littered with 'no trespassing' signs.

I can't seem to find any article that states all of CA BLM would be sold.

I keep seeing articles that state approximate 2.2 to 3.3 million acres out of 250 million available is being proposed for sell.

CA has 15 million acres of BLM land.
Which article shows Trump proposing 15 million acres to be sold?

"We'll have no BLM land to shoot" seems like a doomer speak.

 

[couragewolf]

California democrats were once all about increasing public land. Look at all the monuments and wilderness areas they have created.

States buying BLM land for sale to maintain public land access could be good but here I would expect a ban on shooting.
That's the California way.

Wasn't there a song about this where the hell did Woody Guthrie go

 

[couragewolf]

, it's time to cash out my retirement fund and buy one of these plots.

My man if you have the funds to compete with Blackrock and China I'm all ears

 

[couragewolf]

I can't seem to find any article that states all of CA BLM would be sold.

I keep seeing articles that state approximate 2.2 to 3.3 million acres out of 250 million available is being proposed for sell.

CA has 15 million acres of BLM land.
Which article shows Trump proposing 15 million acres to be sold?

"We'll have no BLM land to shoot" seems like a doomer speak.

Is the presumption here that once we've normalized selling something the public owns and is free to use at will will stop at the current proposal after it generates money to fund another war and soften the currency slide a little bit?

If we allow this to happen, it will all be gone in no time. To think otherwise is hilariously naivete

 

[boltstop]

I can't seem to find any article that states all of CA BLM would be sold.

I keep seeing articles that state approximate 2.2 to 3.3 million acres out of 250 million available is being proposed for sell.

CA has 15 million acres of BLM land.
Which article shows Trump proposing 15 million acres to be sold?

"We'll have no BLM land to shoot" seems like a doomer speak.

Selling ALL the land at once might be too big a pill to force the public to swallow.

But, you can bet that once this sale is completed, another and then another will follow until all BLM and Forest Service land has been transferred to private hands at, no doubt, knock down price sweetheart deals.

This is not being done for the benefit of the public.

 

[NapalmCheese]

I can't seem to find any article that states all of CA BLM would be sold.

I keep seeing articles that state approximate 2.2 to 3.3 million acres out of 250 million available is being proposed for sell.

CA has 15 million acres of BLM land.
Which article shows Trump proposing 15 million acres to be sold?

"We'll have no BLM land to shoot" seems like a doomer speak.

I never said all BLM was being sold. For the land that IS sold, good luck being allowed to shoot on it.

 

[boltstop]

I never said all BLM was being sold. For the land that IS sold, good luck being allowed to shoot on it.

Indeed, good luck being allowed to set foot on it.

 

[NapalmCheese]

Wasn't there a song about this where the hell did Woody Guthrie go

Most people remember the "This land is made for you and me" part, without remembering this part:

There was a big high wall there that tried to stop me
Sign was painted, said, "Private Property"
But on the back side, it didn't say nothing
This land was made for you and me

But then Woody Guthrie's anti- and 'close to, but not exactly, t' views of the world would be unpopular in most gun forums these days.

I don't agree with trespass; I also don't agree with privatizing our public lands. I think Teddy Roosevelt and Woody Guthrie would have seen eye-to-eye on many things, but not everything.

 

[Yoteassasin]

This affects BLM AND National Forest. There's a lot of National Forest that's about to be privatized.

Not only will all this stuff be sold, but BLM and the USFS will have to increase timber production by at least 25% compared to last years numbers.

I fully suspect all of the (available for sale) NF will be sold to lumber producers, and with the mandated increase for timber the USFS will have to lease off more area. Sure, some logging companies will let you hunt their land, but have you ever hunted an area that was clear cut and then replanted with pine saplings just a year or two ago?

Yes the hunting is great . There is a reason good hunters chase burns .. 3-5 year post burn to be exact .
It’s a sad day when you realize our foresters manage the NF so bad that no management ends up being a better option

 

[NapalmCheese]

Yes the hunting is great . There is a reason good hunters chase burns .. 3-5 year post burn to be exact .
It’s a sad day when you realize our foresters manage the NF so bad that no management ends up being a better option

You think the hunting is great 3-5 years after a clear cut has been replanted with saplings? Your experience differs from mine. IMO the hunting is great 3-5 years after a well managed prescribed burn has thinned out the undergrowth and smaller trees leaving the larger timber for habitat. Which is what I'm seeing in NF around me (thinning and sometimes burning). That thinning out is not what I'm seeing from logging companies around here, at least not on their private lands.

 

[Plenty_Pack_556]

Selling ALL the land at once might be too big a pill to force the public to swallow.

But, you can bet that once this sale is completed, another and then another will follow until all BLM and Forest Service land has been transferred to private hands at, no doubt, knock down price sweetheart deals.

This is not being done for the benefit of the public.

But, would that require another bill?

 

[boltstop]

But, would that require another bill?

Perhaps. I'd rather not take that risk. Right now, this is all public land. I'd like to keep it that way.

 

[Robdog1]

I'm sure if Irvine Company could, they'd buy the whole Mojave desert. Irvine company has land and properties in other states, and has investments in other countries such as Abu Dhabi.

I hate the Irvine Company and Don Bren, it’s the devil incarnate. Between IC and Lennar, it’s a wonder there’s ANY open space left in OC. I’m sure they’d build on Crystal Cove, Bolsa Chica, and any other area they could find if they could. I remember a few years ago the Irvine Company was royally ticked that they couldn’t get Banning Ranch in west Newport, the citizens fought and won the battle to make it protected land.