Why do you think that? Which land is better owned by the government and which is better owned by private citizens? The reason in this case is "it's sitting around and not being used for much except random public access once every few weeks or months, and we could make some money selling it." What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.
> What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access?
Lots, Every year I drive 24 hours from Wisconsin to Utah to spend a week hiking, camping, and exploring canyons on BLM land. It's incredibly enjoyable and a very relaxing getaway, due in no small part to the fact that it is not one of the beautiful parks that are filled with people. If I so desire I can spend a week out there and not see another person, and I'll be devastated when that gets taken away. For those of us who are ok with some risk in our activities like canyoneering, BLM lands are crucial. Most parks are afraid of being sued when someone gets themselves in trouble and don't allow fun stuff like that.
It is not all nondescript and empty. There is plenty of random public land, including BLM, that is gorgeous despite not being a National Park or a Wilderness Area, or which provides access into otherwise inaccessible public land areas. Something doesn't have to be a National Park to be worthy of visiting. National Parks are beautiful—and crowded. There are many people who like to go to more remote areas where they can be alone in peace.
What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access?
Ask yourself this: what benefit do you personally get from my having access? Let me answer that question for you: when you're hoping to snag a camp spot in Mount Rainier National Park, you can because I'm camping on BLM land. You want to go see Mount Rainier, I just want a place in the middle of nowhere to drop the VW camper for a weekend. But the BLM land went away, so even though I don't give a shit about viewing a big volcano, I'm taking your camp spot because there's nowhere else left.
...and we could make some money selling it.
"A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres 'would be unlikely to generate revenue'."
IOW, we can sell it to our campaign contributors for pennies on the dollar, and it's all perfectly legal (thanks to a recent change to House rules by Republicans).
There are better reason for government stewardship beside the land's visual attractiveness. Protecting watersheds, for example, is of supreme importance, which the article alludes to in its mention of the Everglades in Florida.
> What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.
I think both NP and BLM options are great, but there's certainly something special about the freedom and isolation of that sort of place you've linked. I'm really surprised it doesn't appeal equally to both sides of politics.
I tried to gain perspective of this size compared to the whole.
According to table 1-3 of https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf , there are 643.2 million acres of public lands, making this just over 0.5% of the total. Alternatively, they want to sell off one Connecticut, out an area of over 6 Californias.
Yet the job of the government isn't to sell the land for cheap; it's for public enjoyment or economic investment that benefits the public, such as roads, railroads, the power grid, etc. It should not be sold so a wealthy few can get it for cheap, then reap the economic reward with little return for the public.
A lot of National Forest land ends up being land that no one thought was worth homesteading. Compare the small, quite new national forest in warm, fertile Ohio to the vast national forests in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
Which doesn't mean I think the government is beholden to past policy, I think maintaining large tracts of land is a valuable role for the Federal Government to take up, it's just that casting it as 'the job' is a bit of an overstatement.
Who says they're not going to sell at transparent and fair prices? Land is sold in public markets, it's not hard to tell if there's any cronyism. The public owns land with a certain value, a lot of that land is not being used for much in particular, the public will benefit more by having the cash in hand than some claim to random acres out in North Dakota.
The public is absolutely getting a return, nobody's "getting it for cheap."
The BLM owns a third of the land west of the Mississippi. Being public land that is leased for both public and commercial uses, it's exceptionally poorly managed, with overgrazing, soil destruction, and erosion being common problems. This is one of those private property things that many on HN will resist, but private property (especially farmland) is generally better managed.
The BLM is a relic of 19th century expansion. All of that land should be sold to private buyers or designated with a function, such as being transferred to the National Parks Service.
Edit: As others pointed out, it should also be noted that this is less than 1% of BLM land... they should be transferring more. The story itself is liberal sensationalism.
I'm not from the US, but I love the landscapes there and visit fairly frequently to hike and camp.
Aren't there differences between public use of national parks and BLM land? e.g., most national parks have quite strict rules for camping, while the BLM areas are much more flexible and relaxed? Personally, I think it's great that the two options exist and are distinct. I don't want to discount your general point, but more so wonder if ALL of that land should be set aside for purely private or NP use.
(Arches NP has put backcountry camping on hold. In the best areas of Zion NP, there are fixed camp sites that are quickly reserved in advance, or camping is not permitted. Tourist attractions are getting busier and busier with each year, so BLM options for backcountry overflow make sense to me.)
I'd be worried that it's easier/cheaper to privatise these lands than the reverse.
There are differences, for example flying ultralight aircraft (hang-gliders, paragliders) is prohibited in the national parks.
Private land in the US is barb wired, often with no access at all. (This is different from private land in Europe, where the norm is that a forest, in private hands would not be barb wired, and there are sometimes easements for recreational use.)
There is a great 99PI podcast about barbed wire, in case you haven't heard it. Talks about the freedom to roam and the limitations that arose after the American West was settled. I find those desert and grazing lands pretty magical, so I can sympathise with the romantic ideals of travelling, camping carefully, moving on, etc.
National Forest and BLM are very permissive for backcountry camping, while National Parks generally restrict you to permitted and designated campsites, if it's allowed at all.
I think that's awesome. The idea that someone can "go bush" and camp out for a week or two without cost or human contact is something we should absolutely preserve.
I love national parks, but the restrictions (while necessary for something that popular/unique) remove a bit of the joy from a natural experience.
Even a more permissive national park (Joshua Tree, for example) feels like a relief after something stricter like Zion or Arches. That said, I can understand why they are very careful with those latter two because they are seriously special places.
There is very much a place for both. National Parks have that designation for a reason, and they attract huge numbers of people. Management of areas with high visitation has to be much more strict to protect those areas. But we're fortunate to have vast amounts of public land we can disperse across, so those who want more freedom to explore and recreate without permits or requirements to camp in very specific places can do so.
Sounds like we need a new designation for "general recreation land" or "wild park" instead of keeping everything under the BLM where land can be arbitrarily used and leased by the government.
I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land, but private ownership, especially farmland, does an objectively terrible job at managing soil. Half the world's topsoil has eroded away due to farming in the last 150 years. https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/soil
To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie.
> To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie.
No one said that, but it doesn't have to be bad. And with the BLM, it is.
Farmers have an inherent interest in keeping their own land profitable, which is an incentive that never applies to leased BLM land. Same with ranchers, which is what BLM land is more commonly used for.
> I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land
That should be your first step. It should be noted that ranchers do NOT want the land to be privatized, because it's less exploitable.
Agricultural land is not going to be perfectly managed anywhere anytime soon, if that's what your standard is, but private property is managed less terribly. It should be obvious that people are better incentivized to care for their own property than the government's -- why is that so hard to believe?
The objective evidence on how well people care for their land shows that your supposition about how incentives should work is not borne out by the facts. I believe that your supposition is false because reality itself disagrees with you.
> I believe that your supposition is false because reality itself disagrees with you.
You have only even attempted to demonstrate that some private farms are mismanaged -- where have you shown that the damage that objectively occurs on BLM land is less bad?
People joke that BLM land is the leftover land that nobody wanted.
But I completely disagree that it should either become a National Park or get privatized. There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. BLM is, in general, less restrictive than all other types of public land (e.g., National Parks & National Forest). Nearly all public land in Colorado (my state) is not a National Park [1]. This includes most of our outdoor recreation opportunities (e.g., ski areas, hiking areas, most 14ers, rivers for rafting, etc).
What's wrong with another class of public land that can be grazed, hunted, and fished (unlike most National Parks)? Dispersed camping is nearly always allowed, without permit, in BLM land. This leads to fun weekend outings along the lines of "this canyon looks cool, let's take the 4WD road to get close and camp by it for a couple nights" without needing a developed camping area. If anything, I could see an argument for moving BLM from the Department of the Interior (NPS land) to the Department Agriculture (USFS land). But western people who enjoy the outdoors would be really pissed of all public land was suddenly a National Park with an entrance fee, the usual restrictions, and vastly more limited recreation opportunities.
And what makes you say BLM land is over grazed compared to similar private land? BLM land is, in general, scrubby & dry. You are given Animal Unit Month allocations on BLM land. The ranch base of operations and perpetual renewal policy do seem unfair to newcomers. But then again, the number of farmers & ranchers has been declining heavily for the last 100 years.
> There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments.
Sure, I agree that there are other designations and functions. We should move toward one of those functions or perhaps a new one -- unrestricted land owned by the federal government for whatever a bureaucracy sees fit is not a good use of the land. It would still be better to be owned by the Forests Service and treated differently/less restrictively than other parks. "Wild Park" or something, where hunting and recreational activities are allowed but farming and commercial activities are not. And then sell the less interesting and more profitable lands to private buyers.
I've spent a lot of time in BLM land, particularly around Steens Mountain in Oregon, which is beautiful. It's a great example of something that should be put in the National Parks category -- pave that damn road and get the grazing cows out of Pronghorn territory.
I'm sure it could function as a political wedge, but I like the idea of a classification like "Wild Park" with the benefits people enjoy from BLM land. Even just a name like that would attract more people. Having huge swathes of land set aside like this would be an amazing preservation for future generations.
No. I think this is the tip of the iceberg for giving publicly own lands to the private sector, at no gain to the people and a large gain to the new landowners for oil and mineral rights.
If you look on the web, you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations.
If the complaint is overgrazing, then make a push to stop leasing it for grazing.
They're not giving it away for free as I understand it. When the government takes money, the people get better stuff, according to at least one political party. However the current cheap lease rates are doing no good to the taxpayer: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
> you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations
So? See my previous comments -- some of this land is very profitable, and some of the land is great for recreational purposes. Why not try to find land where these least intersect and drive land designations in that way?
The land is still degraded, making it less suitable for many kinds of recreation. If they sell land that they would otherwise lease, they are still making money (more than the current lease rates in fact) just on property tax... plus the land is less poorly managed and other land gets a more exclusive designation for recreation!
Montana resident here - I'd much rather the BLM own the land than private entities. Private entities shut down access for not only motorized vehicles and hunting, but bicyclists, hikers, and horse riders. Even grandfathered trails which are supposed to remain open and accessible are illegally shut down, sometimes with nasty traps (like wires strung across the trail and chest or neck height).
Not to mention, the BLM maintains those trails and the surrounding land. The forest service does not (it will close trails instead of making changes which make them safe for the riders and the land), and the private entities certainly do not.
Some of the public land being sold (which also occurred under the Bush administration, as an aside) is right next to public parks, where lots of wild animals and other fragile ecosystems are in place. It would suck to watch the land around Yellowstone national park strip-mined for a few ounces of gold.
You have it completely backwards, I'm afraid. Private land in the southwest tends to be overgrazed and abused, while BLM land is very well managed, with enforcement of herd rotation through pastures. Many of the ranchers strongly resist the practices they are required to do to prevent overgrazing, until they see how much healthier it makes the landscape and their cattle.
> You have it completely backwards, I'm afraid. Private land in the southwest tends to be overgrazed and abused, while BLM land is very well managed, with enforcement of herd rotation through pastures.
It's a hotly contested subject, but evidence (and logic) shows the balance favors private land, where owners actually have an incentive to maintain it -- crazy concept, right? Here's a broad survey that evaluates the frequency and magnitude of overgrazing on federal land:
That's if we're allowed to continue protesting. The GOP just introduced bills across many states to make it more difficult, including such things as a felony and 5 years jail plus $7500 fine for blocking roads during protests (impossible to have a large one without doing this). Land of the free.
We're definitely starting to get into that sort of area, yes. Given how utterly unresponsive the government now is to the majority of Americans (rather than to the small minority who constitute the voting "majority" in their own, gerrymandered districts), yes.
I don't think that's actually true. As a native to the Northeast, I was quite surprised by just how many guns I saw everywhere when staying in Mountain View and working in Redwood City for a short while.
Also, many Republicans aren't big fans of this new administration.
There are liberals with guns. I'm one of them and mostly pro 2A but not a single issue voter like many 2A people.
Also there is an irony in the switch between all the talk on the right about armed resistance to the BLM and Hillary and now the left talking about armed resistance to Trump.
Yes, there are liberals with guns out there, just like there's people out there with their internal organs reversed (heart on the right, etc.). But by and large, there aren't very many; the vast majority of the gun owners are Republican voters. And they aren't going to offer any armed resistance to Trump or anyone else because they're generally pro-authoritarian.
I haven't heard of anyone on the left seriously discussing armed resistance to Trump. If they are, they sound rather delusional, just because of numbers. There simply aren't many politically active people on the left in this country who are also armed, or even believe in being armed. This sounds like a tiny number of radicals at best. This isn't like Central American nations in the past, or other parts of the world, where the leftists were actually violent and believed in using violent means to achieve social change. Gun control has been one of the big tenets of the "left" here for a very long time.
Note that I'm not supporting the right-wingers here (personally I was a fan of Bernie for the most part), I'm just pointing out the reality in this country. It's the right-wingers who make up the vast bulk of the gun-lovers and owners.
Put down your stereotypes and you'll realize that with more guns than people in the U. S. simple math would likely dictate much more diversity in gun ownership than you apparently think. Hard to do a join on gun owners and voting records, but given the numbers on the popular vote and the number of guns in the U. S., it's entirely possible that your statement is flat-out wrong.
Additionally, going with the idea that you're right for the moment, you think gun owners are happy about hunting land being taken away?
>Additionally, going with the idea that you're right for the moment, you think gun owners are happy about hunting land being taken away?
Yes. They vote this way, and they've always voted this way. They continually vote for people who push the whole "privatization!!!" religion. So they're getting what they voted for.
Is that the minimum or maximum penalty? If that's the minimum, it is excessive. If that's merely the maximum, then for reference if you steal mail (also a federal offense), the maximum penalty is 5 years in prison and $250,000 which seems much worse to me. There has to be some deterrent to prevent unruly protesters from forcibly preventing people from getting to work and potentially being fired as a result.
> To outdoorsmen like Amaro, selling off individual parcels of national land creates a “multiplier problem”, where a small parcel of land turned private can cut off access for many. That’s what happened in Coronado national forest, he said. Ten acres that led on to hundreds of thousands of acres of public property were turned into state trust land.
> “Access has been eliminated for much of the forest. The private landowners now effectively have their own private hunting preserves by not allowing public hunters a way into the national forest,” Amaro said.
Sounds pretty bad - given the precedent they should at least amend the bill to ensure public access to public parts.
Part of me says "It's bad to block access to public land". but the other part says: "if they want an access, so they can hunt, then I wish the block to continue existing."
In many places where we have removed apex predators, hunting is necessary to keep ecosystems healthy.
I'm mostly vegan, so this is near and dear to my heart. It makes me sad how many vegans don't realize that without predators animal populations fluctuate wildly causing animal suffering and permanent ecological damage. You can either A) do the killing yourself, B) support apex predator populations, or C) wipe out all animal habitat altogether.
Sadly, C) is the option most vegans support, which makes no sense. Till the land every year, kill any animals that would interfere with the growing of plants, and then sell those plants to humans. But because vegans are so sensitive about being attacked (again, as a longtime vegan I get it, I really really do) the conversation never gets started. It's sad to me.
This is a common cliché that would merit some discussion. 'Healthy' is a problematic concept to apply to a machine and ecosystems are like machines in many senses. A 'healthy ecosystem' in this context is often a synonym of 'convenient for hunters'.
Ecosystems without apex predators are more unstable but not necesarily in danger. A breed colony of emperor penguins or a small lake in winter after the resident couple of loons migrate is not an ecosystem about to collapsing or that must be fixed. Many desertic, arctic and pelagic areas are free of apex predators 340 days/year. Apex predators quit and recolonize areas constantly. Is a natural process.
If preys can fly/run away and are free to quit the area the ecosystem will be fine.
If not, a smaller predator will be quickly 'hired' for the job. Could be a desert fox, a parasite or a bacteria, but the ecosystem is constantly fixing itself and will be quickly rebuild with the remaining items.
Hunting can be a temporary solution, but is neither the only answer to this problem nor the best necessarily (and is an obstacle to the recolonization of the area for apex predators in the future, that should be the real goal here). You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals, creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...
At the moment, US is having a massive problem with deer. And the major reason why that is, is that we've eliminated most of their natural predators, and lobbied very aggressively against hunting. So now you have millions of deer destroying crops in US, but of course any time anyone mentions culling, people immediately get aggressive about cruelty of hunting. I mean, I get that, and I wish there was a better way, but deer are literally worse than pests at this point.
On top of them just being pests, when the deer populations are out of control like they are currently, diseases become dramatically more widespread and fatal.
In farming areas like Missouri, without hunting, the deer populations will get out of control and dramatically affect the farmland. Most don't realize this, but the common reproductive result is always twins. Deer populations ramp up much quicker than other animals.
Guess what kind of places don't have problems with deer overpopulation? Places with strong hunting cultures.
Besides, venison is delicious, lean meat. I know hundreds of people that hunt deer religiously every November, and they are not jackass trophy hunters, they are primarily hunting to fill their freezers.
Michigan tends to manage the deer herd in a way that keeps the population high, to make hunting better.
A couple of aggressive seasons could dramatically lower the population without impacting viability of the herd, but the state DNR won't do it because it would impact license revenue and tourism.
I don't foresee people supporting the re-introduction wolf populations throughout the entire continental US. It's a nice idea, but wolves will kill and eat pets, livestock, and, if they are hungry or mad enough, even people. [1] There is a reason why we exterminated apex predators.
In this situation, the only permanent solution to maintain something resembling a normal ecology is hunting, because hunters replace the role of apex predators. That said, we'd need to modify our hunting behavior to better replicate what actual predators do - the sick, weak and slow, rather than the biggest buck.
Desert and arctic ecosystems are completely different from what we have east of the Mississippi. Where would you relocate the 'surplus' deer, and how? Virtually the entire eastern US has a surplus of deer! I hear deer being shot every day - it's hunting season right now - and I still see a half-dozen deer every day driving to work, jumping in the road, I can't step into the woods without deer running away in every direction - they're everywhere. If it weren't for hunters barely keeping the population in check, they'd be heading for a major population crash. But worse, this surplus of deer is doing major ecological damage all on its own - it isn't only deer that are affected, it's the forests, the brush, smaller animals, etc.
[1] I had previously been under the belief that wolves almost never attacked humans, but there are a few documented modern cases, and it seems to have been relatively common pre-Contact and in Europe.
> There is a reason why we exterminated apex predators
Ignorance of the massive economic value provided by the role of superpredators, greed and also tradition.
The effect of wolves on pets is not so simple as "but wolves will eat our pets". The real pet killers currently, apart of cars of course, are Leishmaniosis, Lyme disease, Ticks, etc... Wolves could help to keep under control some of those, and of course will kill lots of coyotes, saving the life of thousands of pets each year... Cats for example could be much safer living in wolf territory than living among coyotes.
Cedar barely regenerates in Michigan because of the Whitetail Deer population. When you drive along major highways in the Upper Peninsula, areas with cedar look like they have been pruned, with no branches below about 5-6 feet (there's lots of areas with cedar, it's swamp country).
There has been some work to reestablish wolves. There are already lots of people eager to kill them (estimated population in the UP is 600-700; estimated deer population is north of 200,000).
Good luck relocating thousands of whitetail deer, they are a problem roughly everywhere they exist.
Yes, this is very true. "We need apex predators" doesn't mean "the more predation the better".
> You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals, creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...
Yes, very important interventions. But these solutions don't get humans fed. I need to eat.
We need to put ecological corridors alongside hunting programs alongside different farming techniques, from "vegan" farming to advanced integrated crop/livestock rotation, and then really look at what the animal costs are to support a given nutritional profile for humans.
We all know many meat eaters ignore this accounting. But vegans seem to think you can escape it. You can't. Some of the most passionate advocates of careful accounting of animal costs are hunters. They are people who count every animal life as sacred, and accept their responsibility for removing food from an ecosystem as such. See: vegans lambasting Native Americans, although realize some of your quintessential redneck hunters are just as careful and just as respectful.
I am an advocate for a plant-based diet, but only some plants. And I am an advocate for hunting, but only some hunting. And I see both as part of the same program of advocating against animal cruelty.
> But these solutions don't get humans fed. I need to eat.
1) This is an spurious reasoning. First because (deer) hunting is a particularly unefficient way to feed a lot of people. Moreover, big cities were created around rivers because water and alluvial soils were here, and agriculture needs lots of water and rich deep soils. The best 'number one' areas for producing human food are today under concrete, replaced by skyscrapers, empty streets, weekend houses, parking lots and underused roads. If your goal is to feed people you are free to promote the idea of cleaning and returning this valuable land to agriculture again.
2) The reasons for managing a natural area or a national park aren't making food for people. There are lots, and lots, and lots of places saved for cattle and agriculture.
3) I'm not talking about animal cruelty. This is not the point here.
Is ok to hunt, is a regulated activity, but, please do not say that people do it for altruism. Or because this is "what ill ecosystems need". Is not true. People hunt for the money.
Maybe a little hunt will do not harm?. Maybe. The problem is that when you give up and cross this line economic interests are created, and is over. You aren't free to manage this natural area under scientific premises anymore. Now the main goal has changed to "how we can have more game in this place and make more hunters happy?" and there is not an easy point of return from here. Each stolen public acre is an acre lost.
> (deer) hunting is a particularly unefficient way to feed a lot of people.
That's an empirical claim. What's your evidence?
I suspect hunted venison has lower animal cruelty impact than the equivalent amount of this stuff: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=vegan... I wouldn't advocate serving pounds of it to a person every week, but in small doses I would be surprised if "no venison" is the level of venison which creates the lowest level of animal cruelty.
That's just a suspicion though. I would love to see the studies done. Vegans will never do them because they don't want to consider the possibility that their "plant-based" food has non-negligible animal cruelty costs.
> please do not say that people do it for altruism. Or because this is "what ill ecosystems need". Is not true. People hunt for the money.
We sort of agree. People hunt for the food, at a certain price, the same reason vegans buy Field Roast patties. My assertion is: we must kill to survive. Vegan food is the result of killing animals. Vegans refuse to count those animals.
> Now the main goal has changed to "how we can have more deers in this place and make hunters happy?"
I think this is where I realize we're having slightly different conversations. I think maybe you're saying that not all hunting is good. Agreed. And perhaps you are saying any hunting allowed is a slippery slope that leads to overhunting. That's an interesting argument, I would be happy to follow.
My argument is just that some hunting is virtuous. You say:
> There are lots, and lots, and lots of places saved for cattle and agriculture.
"Saved" in this sentence is a euphemism for "cleared by killing or destroying the habitat of all the animals who might interfere." Regardless of whether it's cattle or corn, animals die to make your food. Vegan food often involves less killing, but it's not no killing, and sometimes venison or an egg involves less than plant-based equivalents. Especially "typical" equivalents in your average Whole Foods basket. Although of course there is an ultimate level of low-impact eating which is vegan, seen practices by buddhist monks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_temple_cuisine
Most vegans don't eat that way. Yet they'll disparage conscientious hunters who are closer to that ideal than they are.
Saved in this sencence means reserved (yet). Not more, not less.
> animals die to make your food.
I'm perfectly aware of that
> Vegan food often involves...
Again, I'm not talking about animal cruelty or veganism. This is not about "we or them". Is not about moral decisions. I'm talking about ecosystem management for conservation purposes, that is a theme in a totally different galaxy than food personal choices
Hunting is one use. Managed properly, it has its place, as others have discussed. But this land is also used by campers, hikers, birders, amateur astronomers, scientists doing research, and others.
73 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 250 ms ] threadLots, Every year I drive 24 hours from Wisconsin to Utah to spend a week hiking, camping, and exploring canyons on BLM land. It's incredibly enjoyable and a very relaxing getaway, due in no small part to the fact that it is not one of the beautiful parks that are filled with people. If I so desire I can spend a week out there and not see another person, and I'll be devastated when that gets taken away. For those of us who are ok with some risk in our activities like canyoneering, BLM lands are crucial. Most parks are afraid of being sued when someone gets themselves in trouble and don't allow fun stuff like that.
Ask yourself this: what benefit do you personally get from my having access? Let me answer that question for you: when you're hoping to snag a camp spot in Mount Rainier National Park, you can because I'm camping on BLM land. You want to go see Mount Rainier, I just want a place in the middle of nowhere to drop the VW camper for a weekend. But the BLM land went away, so even though I don't give a shit about viewing a big volcano, I'm taking your camp spot because there's nowhere else left.
...and we could make some money selling it.
"A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres 'would be unlikely to generate revenue'."
IOW, we can sell it to our campaign contributors for pennies on the dollar, and it's all perfectly legal (thanks to a recent change to House rules by Republicans).
I'd rather camp here: http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG
It's a different experience from the parks.
According to table 1-3 of https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf , there are 643.2 million acres of public lands, making this just over 0.5% of the total. Alternatively, they want to sell off one Connecticut, out an area of over 6 Californias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts
A lot of National Forest land ends up being land that no one thought was worth homesteading. Compare the small, quite new national forest in warm, fertile Ohio to the vast national forests in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota.
Which doesn't mean I think the government is beholden to past policy, I think maintaining large tracts of land is a valuable role for the Federal Government to take up, it's just that casting it as 'the job' is a bit of an overstatement.
The public is absolutely getting a return, nobody's "getting it for cheap."
The BLM is a relic of 19th century expansion. All of that land should be sold to private buyers or designated with a function, such as being transferred to the National Parks Service.
Edit: As others pointed out, it should also be noted that this is less than 1% of BLM land... they should be transferring more. The story itself is liberal sensationalism.
Aren't there differences between public use of national parks and BLM land? e.g., most national parks have quite strict rules for camping, while the BLM areas are much more flexible and relaxed? Personally, I think it's great that the two options exist and are distinct. I don't want to discount your general point, but more so wonder if ALL of that land should be set aside for purely private or NP use.
(Arches NP has put backcountry camping on hold. In the best areas of Zion NP, there are fixed camp sites that are quickly reserved in advance, or camping is not permitted. Tourist attractions are getting busier and busier with each year, so BLM options for backcountry overflow make sense to me.)
I'd be worried that it's easier/cheaper to privatise these lands than the reverse.
Private land in the US is barb wired, often with no access at all. (This is different from private land in Europe, where the norm is that a forest, in private hands would not be barb wired, and there are sometimes easements for recreational use.)
Devil's Rope: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/
The freedom of BLM land makes it great.
Once these spaces are privatized, there's no going back.
I love national parks, but the restrictions (while necessary for something that popular/unique) remove a bit of the joy from a natural experience.
Even a more permissive national park (Joshua Tree, for example) feels like a relief after something stricter like Zion or Arches. That said, I can understand why they are very careful with those latter two because they are seriously special places.
To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie.
No one said that, but it doesn't have to be bad. And with the BLM, it is.
Farmers have an inherent interest in keeping their own land profitable, which is an incentive that never applies to leased BLM land. Same with ranchers, which is what BLM land is more commonly used for.
> I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land
That should be your first step. It should be noted that ranchers do NOT want the land to be privatized, because it's less exploitable.
http://wildhorsepreservation.org/media/ranchers-want-our-pub...
Agricultural land is not going to be perfectly managed anywhere anytime soon, if that's what your standard is, but private property is managed less terribly. It should be obvious that people are better incentivized to care for their own property than the government's -- why is that so hard to believe?
You have only even attempted to demonstrate that some private farms are mismanaged -- where have you shown that the damage that objectively occurs on BLM land is less bad?
But I completely disagree that it should either become a National Park or get privatized. There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. BLM is, in general, less restrictive than all other types of public land (e.g., National Parks & National Forest). Nearly all public land in Colorado (my state) is not a National Park [1]. This includes most of our outdoor recreation opportunities (e.g., ski areas, hiking areas, most 14ers, rivers for rafting, etc).
What's wrong with another class of public land that can be grazed, hunted, and fished (unlike most National Parks)? Dispersed camping is nearly always allowed, without permit, in BLM land. This leads to fun weekend outings along the lines of "this canyon looks cool, let's take the 4WD road to get close and camp by it for a couple nights" without needing a developed camping area. If anything, I could see an argument for moving BLM from the Department of the Interior (NPS land) to the Department Agriculture (USFS land). But western people who enjoy the outdoors would be really pissed of all public land was suddenly a National Park with an entrance fee, the usual restrictions, and vastly more limited recreation opportunities.
And what makes you say BLM land is over grazed compared to similar private land? BLM land is, in general, scrubby & dry. You are given Animal Unit Month allocations on BLM land. The ranch base of operations and perpetual renewal policy do seem unfair to newcomers. But then again, the number of farmers & ranchers has been declining heavily for the last 100 years.
[1] http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-own...
Sure, I agree that there are other designations and functions. We should move toward one of those functions or perhaps a new one -- unrestricted land owned by the federal government for whatever a bureaucracy sees fit is not a good use of the land. It would still be better to be owned by the Forests Service and treated differently/less restrictively than other parks. "Wild Park" or something, where hunting and recreational activities are allowed but farming and commercial activities are not. And then sell the less interesting and more profitable lands to private buyers.
I've spent a lot of time in BLM land, particularly around Steens Mountain in Oregon, which is beautiful. It's a great example of something that should be put in the National Parks category -- pave that damn road and get the grazing cows out of Pronghorn territory.
No. I think this is the tip of the iceberg for giving publicly own lands to the private sector, at no gain to the people and a large gain to the new landowners for oil and mineral rights.
If you look on the web, you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations.
If the complaint is overgrazing, then make a push to stop leasing it for grazing.
They're not giving it away for free as I understand it. When the government takes money, the people get better stuff, according to at least one political party. However the current cheap lease rates are doing no good to the taxpayer: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
> you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations
So? See my previous comments -- some of this land is very profitable, and some of the land is great for recreational purposes. Why not try to find land where these least intersect and drive land designations in that way?
Not to mention, the BLM maintains those trails and the surrounding land. The forest service does not (it will close trails instead of making changes which make them safe for the riders and the land), and the private entities certainly do not.
Some of the public land being sold (which also occurred under the Bush administration, as an aside) is right next to public parks, where lots of wild animals and other fragile ecosystems are in place. It would suck to watch the land around Yellowstone national park strip-mined for a few ounces of gold.
It's a hotly contested subject, but evidence (and logic) shows the balance favors private land, where owners actually have an incentive to maintain it -- crazy concept, right? Here's a broad survey that evaluates the frequency and magnitude of overgrazing on federal land:
http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm
Some restrictions apply.
Also, many Republicans aren't big fans of this new administration.
Also there is an irony in the switch between all the talk on the right about armed resistance to the BLM and Hillary and now the left talking about armed resistance to Trump.
I haven't heard of anyone on the left seriously discussing armed resistance to Trump. If they are, they sound rather delusional, just because of numbers. There simply aren't many politically active people on the left in this country who are also armed, or even believe in being armed. This sounds like a tiny number of radicals at best. This isn't like Central American nations in the past, or other parts of the world, where the leftists were actually violent and believed in using violent means to achieve social change. Gun control has been one of the big tenets of the "left" here for a very long time.
Note that I'm not supporting the right-wingers here (personally I was a fan of Bernie for the most part), I'm just pointing out the reality in this country. It's the right-wingers who make up the vast bulk of the gun-lovers and owners.
Additionally, going with the idea that you're right for the moment, you think gun owners are happy about hunting land being taken away?
Yes. They vote this way, and they've always voted this way. They continually vote for people who push the whole "privatization!!!" religion. So they're getting what they voted for.
> “Access has been eliminated for much of the forest. The private landowners now effectively have their own private hunting preserves by not allowing public hunters a way into the national forest,” Amaro said.
Sounds pretty bad - given the precedent they should at least amend the bill to ensure public access to public parts.
I'm mostly vegan, so this is near and dear to my heart. It makes me sad how many vegans don't realize that without predators animal populations fluctuate wildly causing animal suffering and permanent ecological damage. You can either A) do the killing yourself, B) support apex predator populations, or C) wipe out all animal habitat altogether.
Sadly, C) is the option most vegans support, which makes no sense. Till the land every year, kill any animals that would interfere with the growing of plants, and then sell those plants to humans. But because vegans are so sensitive about being attacked (again, as a longtime vegan I get it, I really really do) the conversation never gets started. It's sad to me.
This is a common cliché that would merit some discussion. 'Healthy' is a problematic concept to apply to a machine and ecosystems are like machines in many senses. A 'healthy ecosystem' in this context is often a synonym of 'convenient for hunters'.
Ecosystems without apex predators are more unstable but not necesarily in danger. A breed colony of emperor penguins or a small lake in winter after the resident couple of loons migrate is not an ecosystem about to collapsing or that must be fixed. Many desertic, arctic and pelagic areas are free of apex predators 340 days/year. Apex predators quit and recolonize areas constantly. Is a natural process.
If preys can fly/run away and are free to quit the area the ecosystem will be fine.
If not, a smaller predator will be quickly 'hired' for the job. Could be a desert fox, a parasite or a bacteria, but the ecosystem is constantly fixing itself and will be quickly rebuild with the remaining items.
Hunting can be a temporary solution, but is neither the only answer to this problem nor the best necessarily (and is an obstacle to the recolonization of the area for apex predators in the future, that should be the real goal here). You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals, creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...
http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/article/20110629/NEWS/3062...
In farming areas like Missouri, without hunting, the deer populations will get out of control and dramatically affect the farmland. Most don't realize this, but the common reproductive result is always twins. Deer populations ramp up much quicker than other animals.
Besides, venison is delicious, lean meat. I know hundreds of people that hunt deer religiously every November, and they are not jackass trophy hunters, they are primarily hunting to fill their freezers.
A couple of aggressive seasons could dramatically lower the population without impacting viability of the herd, but the state DNR won't do it because it would impact license revenue and tourism.
In this situation, the only permanent solution to maintain something resembling a normal ecology is hunting, because hunters replace the role of apex predators. That said, we'd need to modify our hunting behavior to better replicate what actual predators do - the sick, weak and slow, rather than the biggest buck.
Desert and arctic ecosystems are completely different from what we have east of the Mississippi. Where would you relocate the 'surplus' deer, and how? Virtually the entire eastern US has a surplus of deer! I hear deer being shot every day - it's hunting season right now - and I still see a half-dozen deer every day driving to work, jumping in the road, I can't step into the woods without deer running away in every direction - they're everywhere. If it weren't for hunters barely keeping the population in check, they'd be heading for a major population crash. But worse, this surplus of deer is doing major ecological damage all on its own - it isn't only deer that are affected, it's the forests, the brush, smaller animals, etc.
[1] I had previously been under the belief that wolves almost never attacked humans, but there are a few documented modern cases, and it seems to have been relatively common pre-Contact and in Europe.
Ignorance of the massive economic value provided by the role of superpredators, greed and also tradition.
The effect of wolves on pets is not so simple as "but wolves will eat our pets". The real pet killers currently, apart of cars of course, are Leishmaniosis, Lyme disease, Ticks, etc... Wolves could help to keep under control some of those, and of course will kill lots of coyotes, saving the life of thousands of pets each year... Cats for example could be much safer living in wolf territory than living among coyotes.
There has been some work to reestablish wolves. There are already lots of people eager to kill them (estimated population in the UP is 600-700; estimated deer population is north of 200,000).
Good luck relocating thousands of whitetail deer, they are a problem roughly everywhere they exist.
> You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals, creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...
Yes, very important interventions. But these solutions don't get humans fed. I need to eat.
We need to put ecological corridors alongside hunting programs alongside different farming techniques, from "vegan" farming to advanced integrated crop/livestock rotation, and then really look at what the animal costs are to support a given nutritional profile for humans.
We all know many meat eaters ignore this accounting. But vegans seem to think you can escape it. You can't. Some of the most passionate advocates of careful accounting of animal costs are hunters. They are people who count every animal life as sacred, and accept their responsibility for removing food from an ecosystem as such. See: vegans lambasting Native Americans, although realize some of your quintessential redneck hunters are just as careful and just as respectful.
I am an advocate for a plant-based diet, but only some plants. And I am an advocate for hunting, but only some hunting. And I see both as part of the same program of advocating against animal cruelty.
1) This is an spurious reasoning. First because (deer) hunting is a particularly unefficient way to feed a lot of people. Moreover, big cities were created around rivers because water and alluvial soils were here, and agriculture needs lots of water and rich deep soils. The best 'number one' areas for producing human food are today under concrete, replaced by skyscrapers, empty streets, weekend houses, parking lots and underused roads. If your goal is to feed people you are free to promote the idea of cleaning and returning this valuable land to agriculture again.
2) The reasons for managing a natural area or a national park aren't making food for people. There are lots, and lots, and lots of places saved for cattle and agriculture.
3) I'm not talking about animal cruelty. This is not the point here.
Is ok to hunt, is a regulated activity, but, please do not say that people do it for altruism. Or because this is "what ill ecosystems need". Is not true. People hunt for the money.
Maybe a little hunt will do not harm?. Maybe. The problem is that when you give up and cross this line economic interests are created, and is over. You aren't free to manage this natural area under scientific premises anymore. Now the main goal has changed to "how we can have more game in this place and make more hunters happy?" and there is not an easy point of return from here. Each stolen public acre is an acre lost.
That's an empirical claim. What's your evidence?
I suspect hunted venison has lower animal cruelty impact than the equivalent amount of this stuff: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?field-keywords=vegan... I wouldn't advocate serving pounds of it to a person every week, but in small doses I would be surprised if "no venison" is the level of venison which creates the lowest level of animal cruelty.
That's just a suspicion though. I would love to see the studies done. Vegans will never do them because they don't want to consider the possibility that their "plant-based" food has non-negligible animal cruelty costs.
> please do not say that people do it for altruism. Or because this is "what ill ecosystems need". Is not true. People hunt for the money.
We sort of agree. People hunt for the food, at a certain price, the same reason vegans buy Field Roast patties. My assertion is: we must kill to survive. Vegan food is the result of killing animals. Vegans refuse to count those animals.
> Now the main goal has changed to "how we can have more deers in this place and make hunters happy?"
I think this is where I realize we're having slightly different conversations. I think maybe you're saying that not all hunting is good. Agreed. And perhaps you are saying any hunting allowed is a slippery slope that leads to overhunting. That's an interesting argument, I would be happy to follow.
My argument is just that some hunting is virtuous. You say:
> There are lots, and lots, and lots of places saved for cattle and agriculture.
"Saved" in this sentence is a euphemism for "cleared by killing or destroying the habitat of all the animals who might interfere." Regardless of whether it's cattle or corn, animals die to make your food. Vegan food often involves less killing, but it's not no killing, and sometimes venison or an egg involves less than plant-based equivalents. Especially "typical" equivalents in your average Whole Foods basket. Although of course there is an ultimate level of low-impact eating which is vegan, seen practices by buddhist monks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_temple_cuisine
Most vegans don't eat that way. Yet they'll disparage conscientious hunters who are closer to that ideal than they are.
Saved in this sencence means reserved (yet). Not more, not less.
> animals die to make your food.
I'm perfectly aware of that
> Vegan food often involves...
Again, I'm not talking about animal cruelty or veganism. This is not about "we or them". Is not about moral decisions. I'm talking about ecosystem management for conservation purposes, that is a theme in a totally different galaxy than food personal choices