House committee takes up legislation that overtly attempts to undermine public lands
On Thursday, the House Natural Resources Committee’s subcommittee on Federal Lands will discuss a handful of bills that promote the idea of transferring America’s public lands to individual states.
Two of these bills, in particular—Rep. Don Young’s H.R. 3650 and Rep. Raul Labrador’s H.R. 2316—are overt attempts to undermine public land ownership. Young’s bill is sweeping in its impact, allowing states to select and acquire millions of acres of national forests to be completely owned and operated by states and managed primarily for timber production. The Labrador bill would transfer management authority for large segments of our national forests to “advisory committees” and exempt these lands from bedrock conservation laws like the Clean Water Act, all while expecting the American taxpayer to continue to fund costs associated with wildfires on these once-public lands.
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) has sent subcommittee members a letter signed by 115 national and state-based hunting and fishing organizations urging lawmakers to reject attempts to seize America’s public lands. The group has also collected nearly 25,000 signatures on a petition opposing the seizure of America’s public lands and loss of sportsmen’s access.
“Even preliminary discussion of this legislation undermines the businesses that rely on public lands to keep their doors open, ignores the very real economic contribution that hunters and anglers make in this country, and panders to private interests at the expense of the public benefit,” says Whit Fosburgh, president and CEO of the TRCP. The group and its partners have been calling for decision-makers to end this conversation since January 2015.
“We’ve seen this movement flare up and get stamped out this month at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge occupation. In the last year, we’ve seen 37 bills at the state level, 31 of which were defeated. Now, this is the most overt discussion of seizing or selling off public lands to take place on Capitol Hill. At what point will lawmakers see that this is a non-starter with hunters, anglers, and American families who enjoy public access to outdoor recreation?” asks Fosburgh.
The TRCP is urging sportsmen across the country to contact members of the committee. Here’s the easiest way.
To learn more about efforts to transfer, sell off, or privatize public lands, click here.
Dear TRCP,
As a concerned Sportsman, and someone who makes their living as a purveyor of the sporting lifestyle, I am curious to know the TRCP stance on federal land leases. Specifically as they relate to leases that restrict public use such as USFS leases to Ski Resorts, BLM Leases to oil & gas companies etc… I understand the incentive to “keep public lands public” but these programs seem to contradict that mind set. In fact, all I have heard from TRCP in the wake of the recent protests in Oregon are very pro BLM and Federal agency statements. This is troubling to one who lives in the West and sees the overstep of these particular organizations along with the USFS virtual abandonment of “multi-use management” in favor of a strategy more akin to the preservation strategy of the National Park Service. I want to support your cause, but please help me connect the dots as it is becoming more difficult for Western Sportsmen to see TRCP as an advocate for us.
Todd,
I would have to argue those things you mention (leases to ski resorts, BLM leases to oil/gas companies) are exactly the multi-use management of the land that the Federal Government is supposed to abide by. Fortunately, like you say, they are leases and not permanent. It may suck sometimes, but it’s probably much better than the alternative of private ownership…which could last forever. The reality is, in order for the states to pay for and manage these large chunks of land, if given control, they would have to sell the resources and rights to the highest bidders. I guarantee that won’t be the western sportsman. It would be logging, mineral, and oil and gas interests. Look at any situation in our country or in the rest of the world where land is privatized and I bet you won’t like what you see. Would you want to pay daily use fees to fish a 1/2 mile stretch of any river in the west? That’s what they have in England. Do you want to pay a land owner or a club membership fee to hunt on private property every time you go out hunting? That’s basically all you’ve got in Texas. That’s why TCRP is so pro public lands. It’s in MOST peoples best interest.
Todd
Obviously, I don’t speak for TRCP, but I have a hunch that many of my fellow members would more or less agree with some of my objections to delivering over management of public lands to the states. And I’m sure there are plenty of other good reasons I’ve missed.
1. Instead of diving into what is certain to be a complicated, long-drawn-out political process with no way of knowing how it will turn out (handing over public lands to the states), why not fix what’s broken? You’re right: the Feds overstep bounds all the time, but we’re their bosses. Surely we haven’t gotten so cowed by the Federal Government that we can’t demand that our employees toe the line. And we can draw that line clearly, making sure that well-balanced multi-use is prominent in rule-making. (By the way, I think “well-balanced” use is vitally important here.)
2. Federal land of all types inevitably crosses state borders. State legislatures being what they are, they are certain to come up with different sets of laws regulating use of these lands. Some states will be friendly to industry, some will be hostile, some will simply not be paying attention. For instance, what happens if one state doesn’t want the responsibility of overseeing formerly federal land, while its neighbor is adamant about having full control? Wildfires don’t care who’s best at fighting fires. They are going to burn over the line from a state that has excellent fire-fighting assets to one that has insufficient resources. Both states will suffer.
3. I’m don’t know why folks who are opposed to federal interference seem to imply that “local” control (i.e., the legislature) will be more responsive, more efficient, less likely to enact pointless laws and taxes. I’m sure there are state legislatures filled with fine men and women who have their constituents’ interests at heart, whose best friends aren’t oil company execs, who care deeply about not wasting the people’s time with silly stunts and uninformed tirades. We forget, except for a noisy few, most state politicans are not professionals. Say what you will about professional politicians, but at least they desperately want to hang on to their jobs and they don’t want to ruin it by strip-mining Yosemite. On the other hand, if the non-professional state representative’s political career is over, so who cares, and anyway the strip-mining president will remember the politican’s brother-in-law when the CEO hears about an executive slot opening up in the strip-mining industry.
4. Our natural resources are in big trouble. We don’t have to engage in argument over climate change to know, for example, that we’re running out of water. We’re doing pretty well now with our energy supplies, but it’s not hard to imagine the time in my grandchildren’s future when we’ll be in the same crisis that we’re now in with water, scrabbling over the last small parcel of oil sands. Just as I believe we can fix the out-of-control behavior of some feds, I think we can do the same with oil and timber executives. I know this connects with a lot of other very complicated things—like the role of money in politics—but demanding that federal bureaucrats draw up sane extraction regulations and other land use provisions, and at the same time demanding that oil, timber, and cattle companies obey the law can be done IF Americans stop acting like other Americans are their enemies, and instead act like true patriots by behaving rationally, trying hard always to keep in mind our children’s future, and demonstrating true respect, bordering on reverence, for our natural heritage. Gone are the days when it was the rare family who had the wherewithal and the opportunity to go on a camping trip to the West. Nowadays, for better or worse, America has shrunk. For many Americans, travelling to the public lands of the West to camp, to fish, to hunt, and to gaze in wonder is a kind of national ritual. . What happens when that cherished campground at Jackson Hole, the one you went to as a kid, is needed by the strip-miners, or oil prospectors, or timber interests? Remember when the Dallas Cowboys were “America’s team”? Well, the Tetons are “America’s wilderness” and not the possession of the 584,000 people who live in Wyoming (which is just about the population of Albuquerque). Wyomingites are good people and would probably make good, knowledgeable stewards of Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, and Jackson Hole (their legislature’s another matter). People from Albuquerque are nice, too, but do you want a bunch of people that size selling off the national crown jewels to Marriott’s Resort and Leisure Division? I’m sure the good people of Wyoming could use, and deserve, the money, but still….
I don’t mean to sound flippant about one of the true crises of modern America life. I did, however, want to respond to your question calmly, non-ideologically, and in the gentlemanly tone in which your comment was written. Thank you for your refreshing sanity..
Steve Childs
Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen of the Constitution. READ IT. The government only controls a 10 mile square (Washington D.C.). The rest of America is owned by the States. The EPA has gotten out of hand and is unconstitutionally trying to close up land that belongs to “We the People.” The environmental movement is pressuring them to do that. The Federal Government needs to stay out of States Rights.
Hi Ted,
I understand that you’re worried about losing your rights to access and enjoy land. But if you’re really concerned about that and that alone, you should be much more worried about what would happen to these lands if they became state owned or private. Just look at Texas. It’s a huge state that is mostly privately owned (~4% public land). You can’t set foot on most of the land in that state without getting a shotgun shoved in your face. That has nothing to do with the EPA and everything to do with land privatization. You go to Arizona on the other hand and you can go almost anywhere in the state, and it’s awesome. The Federal Government may not always get it right, but as long as they have the land they are supposed to manage it to provide for the maximum use possible. Sometimes the sportsman gets shorted, but most of the time we come out much better than we would with private ownership. Also, the Federal Government absolutely does have rights to ownership of the land. It’s the “property clause”, Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. Grants congress the power to dispose of and make all necessary rules and regulations respecting the territory of the United States.