I would like to emend my original comment; - the crooks are going to sell the land to other crooks to develop the land; it will look like a fire sale, and the return will be a substantial contribution to various money- making things like a congressman's new book, home security systems, insider information for lucrative stock trades, and/or high dollar no-show jobs in some hack and crooked law firm....
18
"...American people prize these lands..." : Yes, we do.
Unfortunately, there are those who prefer to pave paradise and put up a parking lot, stealthily including clauses in legislation to trade away our treasures. As usual, it seems about money.
Perhaps there are some acres, somewhere, better suited to be owned by local authority, or even private business. It could be.
That said, I am happy for my tax dollars to be used to pay for maintenance, and for employing people who take care of the fabulous National Parks and smaller refuges. These lands are one of the major things that make America special.
Unfortunately, there are those who prefer to pave paradise and put up a parking lot, stealthily including clauses in legislation to trade away our treasures. As usual, it seems about money.
Perhaps there are some acres, somewhere, better suited to be owned by local authority, or even private business. It could be.
That said, I am happy for my tax dollars to be used to pay for maintenance, and for employing people who take care of the fabulous National Parks and smaller refuges. These lands are one of the major things that make America special.
16
Why is a leading proponent of an agenda to dispose of America’s public lands the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee? And how can that be good for America? It doesn't even make sense.
48
It aint...
8
Because the majority party in congress controls committee chairmanships, the Republicans are the majority, and they are the party of privatization of everything. Simple.
Now I hope you brush up on your civics and assess who really stands for what before you vote this November.
Now I hope you brush up on your civics and assess who really stands for what before you vote this November.
21
Representing your fellow citizens is a sacred trust which has been perverted by the greed over people party. Trying to give away or transfer public lands to private ownership is nothing more than theft.
You rarely see Democrats giving away or otherwise transferring public lands to private ownership. Republicans care only for profits - your children and grandchildren be damned. How many more bills will we see with hidden public land transfers?
You rarely see Democrats giving away or otherwise transferring public lands to private ownership. Republicans care only for profits - your children and grandchildren be damned. How many more bills will we see with hidden public land transfers?
39
If you can think of something evil that the government could do, then Republicans will find a way to do it.
44
Where does one begin? Of course the republicans hid the fact they were selling off Puerto Rico's national lands. I'm sure there's loads of the uber rich that would kill for a hunk of tropical getaway.
When are we going to get a congress that passes laws that you can't stick anything in a bill that isn't directly tied to the issue the bill seeks to address? A rhetorical question to be sure in this day and age of politicians greased by greed.
Next time dems get control they should pass a law requiring any Sale or transfer of federal lands deemed a park or refuge or of significant resource or recreation value anywhere to be approved by 2/3 states people votes (not legislature votes).
When are we going to get a congress that passes laws that you can't stick anything in a bill that isn't directly tied to the issue the bill seeks to address? A rhetorical question to be sure in this day and age of politicians greased by greed.
Next time dems get control they should pass a law requiring any Sale or transfer of federal lands deemed a park or refuge or of significant resource or recreation value anywhere to be approved by 2/3 states people votes (not legislature votes).
25
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot. With fracking wells on it. if the GOP has its way, we won't have nature much longer. It will be sold off to some gazillionaire in Saudi Arabia. These people should be prevented from having children, since they have no interest in leaving some kind of intact world for them anyway.
Vote Democratic this November up and down the ticket. Let's take back the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Then let's enact laws that cannot be undone protecting our world, our health, and our well being.
Vote Democratic this November up and down the ticket. Let's take back the House, the Senate and the Presidency. Then let's enact laws that cannot be undone protecting our world, our health, and our well being.
42
That the Republican Party has such little regard for wildlife and our natural heritage is heartbreaking.
29
It would help me to know the names of the congressional members that are trying to take away the American people's protected land. It is such a greedy and shortsighted thing to do.
21
The push to turn over federal lands in Nevada also includes such activity of ridding the area of all wild horses - through slaughter or inoculation to prevent reproduction. The same group that occupied the Oregon Federal buildings (the Bundy family) is one behind the drive to privatize public lands along with a state representative (Fiore). The Bundy family owes the federal government over $1M for grazing their cattle on federal land and not paying to do so. They are refusing to pay. Three times the Bundy family went to court to over turn the legal grazing fees. They lost each time.
19
I don't understand why Cliven Bundy isn't in jail for tax evasion. Is there even a Federal indictment in this matter? What are they waiting for?
22
These traitors that call themselves Republicans are working to sell off our heritage, our country and our freedom of movement. If they get their way, and they may, it will all go to the highest bidders. Those they call friends, the ones who pay them for their votes and their words, will own everything, even our National Parks.
They are no countrymen of ours. They have no country, they only have their money and their cronies who buy them power. They view us as their enemy, their servants, their collective cash cows.
They are a rot that must be scrubbed from the Halls of Congress. We are The People, they are like an alien disease that is infecting it's host. The only way to remove them is to vote them out, but gerrymandering will make that practically impossible.
They are a stain on our democracy and will be remember in much the same way as nation destroyers are always remembered.
They are no countrymen of ours. They have no country, they only have their money and their cronies who buy them power. They view us as their enemy, their servants, their collective cash cows.
They are a rot that must be scrubbed from the Halls of Congress. We are The People, they are like an alien disease that is infecting it's host. The only way to remove them is to vote them out, but gerrymandering will make that practically impossible.
They are a stain on our democracy and will be remember in much the same way as nation destroyers are always remembered.
28
Any idea that Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) proposes needs to be scrutinized very closely. If you are at all concerned about preserving America's public lands, you can pretty much assume that it is poisonous. He is no friend of our shared heritage and would love to see it all turned over to the states, who would, in turn, hand it over to their developer friends for real estate or energy use.
Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Bishop is the epitome of the fox guarding the henhouse.
Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Bishop is the epitome of the fox guarding the henhouse.
25
Trace the money. The Congressmen that push for privatization of public lands are taking money from the resource industries: oil, gas, mining, timber. Even still today mining companies can go onto public lands, strip out all the precious metals and pay NO royalties to the US government!!
Koch Brothers pay out millions to congressional candidates, mostly Republican but some Democrats (Harry Reid) to ensure that their agenda is continually pushed.
When the mining, timber and oil companies leave after extracting anything of value, they leave a toxic mess that US tax payers must clean up. This has been going on since the 1840s and persists to today. When will we have a Congress that will represent the people instead of the corporations?
Koch Brothers pay out millions to congressional candidates, mostly Republican but some Democrats (Harry Reid) to ensure that their agenda is continually pushed.
When the mining, timber and oil companies leave after extracting anything of value, they leave a toxic mess that US tax payers must clean up. This has been going on since the 1840s and persists to today. When will we have a Congress that will represent the people instead of the corporations?
21
An odd situation in Florida: the Arthur Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge is part of the Everglades, owned by the state of Florida and managed, under lease, by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The South Florida Water Management District, which has just suffered a 30% cut in revenue and is firing staff, has demanded termination of the leaf on grounds that the Service is not controlling an invasive climbing fern. Now to see what happens.
4
These public lands belong to all of us. Each and everyone of us is free to walk on these lands; they are are part of the space we can move in, in addition to our own private property. And now these 'characters' wish to take that away from us so they and their cronies can profit, and the land will end up owned by a few and off limits to us. We must all fight this attempted theft of our space.
38
Republicans seem incapable of thinking beyond the timespan of their own terms in office, if that, in their quest to grab a few bucks here and there. For all their yakking about family values, you'd think they'd consider the future of these lands in terms of their children and grandchildren. The "God will provide" philosophy doesn't go too far in a world teeming with billions.
31
The gop is just morally bankrupt
They've sold out to corporate interests and it's very obvious
There's no good economic reason to do this
The world is awash in commodities and growth is slow
It's not like America is desperate for timber or oil
These guys are just evil corporate stooges
They'd sell the Statue of Liberty for scrap metal
They've sold out to corporate interests and it's very obvious
There's no good economic reason to do this
The world is awash in commodities and growth is slow
It's not like America is desperate for timber or oil
These guys are just evil corporate stooges
They'd sell the Statue of Liberty for scrap metal
38
I have an idea: lets now call Congress the "13%" (for their overall approval rating). What do they do well? Federal land is already extensively used by the public, why sell it off?
9
This is one of the reasons to vote and to encourage your friends, neighbors and strangers on the bus to vote for Democrats this year. We need to put an end to this nonsense.
28
Why does not this article scream out that it is Republicans in our Congress that are espousing these attempts? And tell us who these Republicans are? There is nothing good these days about the Republican Party and these people need to be voted out of office!
27
Actually, they need a trip to the woodshed, and real time in a real prison...
6
Trees on public lands counter global warming by capturing greenhouse gases. This benefits everyone in the country (and the world), regardless of where you live. Private owners can't be expected to preserve trees for that purpose; only public ownership can preserve them.
16
Careful, land managers in Florida have been industriously removing trees that have encroached on dry prairies at places like Kissimmee Prairie Preserve State Park and Three Lakes Wildlife Management Area. Both are stellar, and reasonably close to Orlando. The latter has well-groomed roads suitable for cars.
2
Yes, give to people whose only long term plan is a short term lining of their pockets. Its really hard to find a Republican who is not beholden to a mineral extraction special interest out West.
18
As others have noted, as soon as these lands were transferred to the states, they would be sold at bargain basement prices to the political cronies of the Republican governors. This is exactly how the oligarchs were made in the Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. It is sad and disheartening that the party of Lincoln has stooped to this kind of effort to defraud us of our birth right, the land.
Perhaps my only consolation at this moment is that the criminals who took over the federal refuge in Oregon this winter were not embraced by the public but, to the contrary, were seen as fools, idiots, and thugs. I believe that the vast, majority of the American public wants to preserve the refuges and national wild life preserves. But it will be a fight.
Perhaps my only consolation at this moment is that the criminals who took over the federal refuge in Oregon this winter were not embraced by the public but, to the contrary, were seen as fools, idiots, and thugs. I believe that the vast, majority of the American public wants to preserve the refuges and national wild life preserves. But it will be a fight.
29
Another part in the story of Puerto Rico's financial woes: Reading about their energy costs I noticed that 100% of their electricity is produced by diesel generators and all this fuel is imported, I assume by tanker. Probably the most expensive way. Puerto Rico is a semi tropical island. So over the last 40 or 50 years not one person either in the US or PR government had the idea to try using solar, wind, even hydro? Sad, hard to believe, and, as usual oil industry money spoke really loud. I would call it criminal negligence and it dovetails so perfectly with this story. These are components of the republican agenda that ignores knowledge and avoids any investment in the future.
15
All public lands must become permanently protected from development. Too much has already been lost. The planet's climate and our own wellbeing depend upon saving what's left, and restoring much of the rest.
15
I have visited a number of national parks, Yosemite, Smokey Mts, Acadia, and Yellowstone. I can't imagine the damage that would be done to turn those parks over to private corporations. As it is, there already are private companies in Yellowstone. They run the cabins and restaurants there. I don't think we need any more interference from corporations.
The ranchers that want to graze cattle on federal land need to buy their own land to graze their cattle or else sell the cattle. It is really infuriating when ranchers show up on TV with guns to protect their "rights" to allow their cows to graze on public lands. Those lands belong to all of us, not just to the few that live near those lands.
The ranchers that want to graze cattle on federal land need to buy their own land to graze their cattle or else sell the cattle. It is really infuriating when ranchers show up on TV with guns to protect their "rights" to allow their cows to graze on public lands. Those lands belong to all of us, not just to the few that live near those lands.
19
We don't need local control over our wilderness sites. We only need a sign, "Do not disturb". I think God and mother nature can handle the rest.
10
It has even been thus. TR had to fight the trusts and monopolies, land grabbers, and robber barons to save what we have today. Believe it or not, it was RMN who signed the EPA into law and put in charge Bill Ruckelhaus, still one of the most respected administrators to date.
8
No mention of who is lobbying the Senate and House members to insert these bills. Could it be the Kochs? Very, very likely.
9
Thank you for this much needed article in defense of our national wildlife refuges, an underpublicized national treasure. How ironic and infuriating that the purportedly conservative party is conservation's greatest enemy ! I now very much regret having been a loyal Republican for decades. It'll be a straight Democratic ticket for this octogenarian !
14
Any discussion or even disclosure as to why Congress stuck this in the bill to help bail out PR?
6
Yes, Mary....Republican Derangement Syndrome.
22
Why don't we live up to our ideals (No taxation without representation) and give Puerto Rico their independence and let them settle their own problems?
4
Instead of writing provocative comments that have nothing to do with the article you are commenting on, why not search for the answers to your questions yourself. You might be enlightened to find that a status referendum in 2012 showed that only 5.5% of the population of Puerto Rico even cared for independence, and even less in 1998, 1993 and 1967. Is that representative enough for you?
4
Give it back to Spain...
Remember, folks, these are the same people who wanted to dam the Colorado and turn the Grand Canyon into a reservoir. They are same folks who wanted to turn large parts of Zion into grazing land. And the same folks who want to do away with wolves and mountain lions so they can run more cattle. Shortsightedness is the affliction of conservatives. Conservative? Doesn't that mean conserving? Guess not.
34
Here's the dirty little secret. It's not "government land" or "federal land." It's public land, owned by ALL Americans. Extremists want to diminish our collective national heritage by giving away these lands. Thanks to The Wilderness Society, National Parks Conservation Association, and other groups who work on public lands issues. Without their help and watchful eye in DC, we would all be impoverished by those in Congress who would accede to the extremists who want public lands sold and or given away. Don't let it happen!
46
Ask the opinion of a visitor from outside North America about their impressions of the wild spaces in our public lands.
The rapacious appetites of those who would extract, cut, drill, burn, pave, or "develop" on these regions of sacred trust will never, ever be satsfied. We can hope for the coming election to bring enough sensible conservationists into our legislatures to stem the tide for now, though we must be relentless in preservation. Our opponents profess to be conservatives. Let's remind them that conservatives are supposed to conserve.
The rapacious appetites of those who would extract, cut, drill, burn, pave, or "develop" on these regions of sacred trust will never, ever be satsfied. We can hope for the coming election to bring enough sensible conservationists into our legislatures to stem the tide for now, though we must be relentless in preservation. Our opponents profess to be conservatives. Let's remind them that conservatives are supposed to conserve.
20
Can we please vote these people out? There is nothing conservative about them.
21
Articles like this one ought to appear more often, to denounce the potential pillage that republican troglodytes, unable to see beyond their noses, and conflicted ethically, are trying to sneak by via needed bills presented in Congress. Can't the federal government make the parks permanent treasures, immune to the assault of hungry hyenas (with pardon of such animals), in search of selfish aims?
19
"Conservative" (i.e., radical right) congressmen do not want to "give away" federal land. They're getting well compensated for their positions by lobbyists and corporations.
18
I would like to ask the Democratic Party to PLEASE READ the bills you vote on! Stop helping to pass bills with unrelated, anonymous garbage attached! Do your job, and represent your constituency!
19
Public land is redistributed to private parties....sounds a lot like redistribution of wealth. So Representative Rob Bishop is on record as in support of wealth redistribution ?
12
Certainly, as are all good Republicans, for whom the redistribution of wealth goes from the working class and the middle class to the upper classes.
6
As it is with education, the strategy is to cut funding so the enterprise, whatever enterprise it may be, fails. Then the private sector can swoop in to purportedly "save" that failing enterprise and, more important to those pushing the agenda, make a killing. This is really the worst of America.
19
I'm thankful for the activists who keep a close eye on legislation, particularly from this retrograde Congress.
But I continue to be discouraged by congressional rules that allow such amendments and riders to be literally sneaked into bills that have nothing to do with those additions. The bigger the bill, the easier it is to hide something that doesn't even see the light of day, much less get debated, until it's too late.
Congress needs a new rule: every amendment and rider and whatever must be directly pertinent to a given bill or it will be excluded as a matter of course. Congress is bad enough with its pay-to-play campaign finances, laws written by lobbyists, revolving doors between public and private. Subterfuge in legislation should be prohibited in no uncertain terms.
But I continue to be discouraged by congressional rules that allow such amendments and riders to be literally sneaked into bills that have nothing to do with those additions. The bigger the bill, the easier it is to hide something that doesn't even see the light of day, much less get debated, until it's too late.
Congress needs a new rule: every amendment and rider and whatever must be directly pertinent to a given bill or it will be excluded as a matter of course. Congress is bad enough with its pay-to-play campaign finances, laws written by lobbyists, revolving doors between public and private. Subterfuge in legislation should be prohibited in no uncertain terms.
21
Teddy Roosevelt - a republican - was the first United States President to set aside and protect public lands. Franklin D. Roosevelt went a step further to create jobs by having workmen build parks and public land infrastructure for all to enjoy and future administrations understood the necessity to have protected public lands for all to enjoy - and to create reliable, decent-pay/benefits government employment.
But there are greedsters in every society who want all he money, resources and benefits for themselves and will pay greedy politicians to help them get them. Privatization - the takeover of government services for private profit - gained a stranglehold 40+ years ago when ALEC, The American Legislative Exchange Council, convinced politicians that corporations could better manage government than elected officials. They got a stranglehold on America and were joined by Wall Street/greedy billionaires like the Koch brothers/u s chamber of commerce/ radical religious right/ nra/major media to form a Corporate Conglomerate that has taken over half of the wealth of America and the world.
The greediest never have enough so now they want even more - OUR public lands - to exploit for personal gain. The only thing that will stop them is OUR votes and grassroots synergy. NOW is the time. Do not vote for one single republican/libertarian/tea party member or "conservatives" posing as independents/democrats. OUR American depends on it.
But there are greedsters in every society who want all he money, resources and benefits for themselves and will pay greedy politicians to help them get them. Privatization - the takeover of government services for private profit - gained a stranglehold 40+ years ago when ALEC, The American Legislative Exchange Council, convinced politicians that corporations could better manage government than elected officials. They got a stranglehold on America and were joined by Wall Street/greedy billionaires like the Koch brothers/u s chamber of commerce/ radical religious right/ nra/major media to form a Corporate Conglomerate that has taken over half of the wealth of America and the world.
The greediest never have enough so now they want even more - OUR public lands - to exploit for personal gain. The only thing that will stop them is OUR votes and grassroots synergy. NOW is the time. Do not vote for one single republican/libertarian/tea party member or "conservatives" posing as independents/democrats. OUR American depends on it.
20
I generally support federal ownership and oversight of land. I have spent most of my adult life in western states (AK, AZ, CO, TX, UT) and greatly appreciate access to both formal parks and other federal land (note to many readers: a national park holding has very different status compared to NFS and BLM land, both of which manage for potential commercial uses). In fact, one aspect of Texas I find frustrating is the near lack of federal lands and the opportunity to wander and explore.
In that way, however, Texas is like most eastern states. I suspect many residents on the east coast are far removed from earning a living from the land. But even as places for human habitat, imagine if NY had to give up half of all private land to the feds, and what that would do to already outrageous housing costs. BTW, 50% federal ownership would only rank mid-pack in the western states.
I bring this up to remind readers that perspectives can rightly vary depending on where you live, and how you earn a living. Proper land management, including protection, is vital. But the western US is not a giant park.
In that way, however, Texas is like most eastern states. I suspect many residents on the east coast are far removed from earning a living from the land. But even as places for human habitat, imagine if NY had to give up half of all private land to the feds, and what that would do to already outrageous housing costs. BTW, 50% federal ownership would only rank mid-pack in the western states.
I bring this up to remind readers that perspectives can rightly vary depending on where you live, and how you earn a living. Proper land management, including protection, is vital. But the western US is not a giant park.
4
One of the major rationales of federal parks and other federal lands is the lack of "public" lands in the eastern US. TR, and many others, saw the chance to ensure public access to public lands as a remedy...
15
You raise the question what would happen if NY had to give up half of all private land to the feds. That's an irrelevant question--the issue is states wanting to take over land that is public, not private, with the purpose of allowing commercial enterprises the opportunity to exploit that land for their gain. Not for the public good. Not to protect a public resource. To make money. And the western United States is full of land that is made available for timber, mineral extraction, cattle grazing, etc. To say otherwise (i.e. the western US is not a giant park) is again incorrect. It isn't now and hasn't been since the settlement of the west by white settlers.
18
It needs to be pointed out that—unlike the Eastern states, Texas, and California—most of the Western states were territories of the US long before they entered the Union. Many of them did not want to be granted the federal land within in their borders, as it was considered to be wasteland.
The states evolved naturally alongside this land management scheme. To compare the Western situation with New York hypothetically now having to give up half of all private land is a completely ridiculous analogy. Nobody is suggesting that more state land come under federal control, despite the GOP claim that everything the federal government proposes for protection is a "land grab."
The states evolved naturally alongside this land management scheme. To compare the Western situation with New York hypothetically now having to give up half of all private land is a completely ridiculous analogy. Nobody is suggesting that more state land come under federal control, despite the GOP claim that everything the federal government proposes for protection is a "land grab."
6
It should be clear to everyone who's bothered to notice by now that "conservatism," as it is known in the USA today is a character fault that seeks to deny and forestall change, except when change means divestment of natural national treasures that will be auctioned, or sold by no bid, to line the pockets of corporate interests.
One thing the framers of the constitution got wrong was allowing anyone in congress the ability to attach any provision to a bill that has nothing to do with said bill.
One thing the framers of the constitution got wrong was allowing anyone in congress the ability to attach any provision to a bill that has nothing to do with said bill.
21
I live near the border of national forest land in Washington State. Some local people would like to turn the forest over to state, or even county, control with the argument that local people know best how to manage "their" resources, but such a transfer would be a disaster for the local economy in the long term, and devastating for salmon and wildlife. Local governments here are frequently at the mercy of industry representatives who whip up a false debate between (timber) jobs versus so-called radical environmentalists from afar. These same representatives are cloaking the desire for short term gain in the guise of protecting hard-working Americans. But as soon as the trees are cut quickly and exported (usually), they will leave the unemployed timber workers to fend for themselves--scrapping over a few federally-funded jobs to restore the damage to the river systems. Federal ownership is the buffer that ensures natural resources will be considered over the long term for multiple beneficiaries, and the keeper of the trust for future generations.
41
In Massachusetts the battle over Monomoy started because what was considered land managed by the State, the water between low and high tide, was claimed by the Interior Department as federal land. So Massachusetts considered that a "taking." The fight is over rights for locals to gather shelfish, which they have traditionally been allowed to do, and other activities like kiteboarding, a non-motorized sport akin to sailing, which the federal government banned this year when they claimed the extra 4000 acres between tides. Unfortunately, their banning of kiteboarding and several other activities, while allowing motor boats, sail boats, kayaking, etc, was done without a single scientific study showing that these activities were harmful. The town of Chatham and the local people tried over several years to work out a compromise about shellfishing and kiteboarding and the federal government refused to compromise. So now there is nothing left to do but fight them. It's unfortunate, but sometimes the federal government actually does overreach. And when that happens even strong environmentalists like myself find ourselves aligned with government critics on these issues. If the government would stand by its stated commitment to make environmental policy based on strong science, there might be more agreement. In the case of Monomoy that didn't happen.
6
Yes, I was a little dismayed about the inclusion of Monomoy in that list. It's complicated. It is also a place particularly vulnerable to climate change, which means probably nobody can get it quite right. Thanks for bringing it up.
6
Helpful. Thank-you.
2
Public lands are assets of the American people held in trust for us. Any move to divest ourselves of these assets is a betrayal of that trust. Selling right to exploit these assets at bargain basement prices is also betrayal of the American people. I cannot imagine circumstances in which selling off public lands would be necessary or advantageous. Any permission to exploit at less than market value robs the American people.
Transfer of control to states and localities is also abdication of responsibility to us. Evidence indicates that this would result in less responsible management. Case in point: Wisconsin.
The state legislature has decided it may sell off state real estate with almost no oversight. One notorious deal is being hammered out with the wealthy Uhlein family, enthusiastic supporters of Gov. Walker and the GOP, handing them new real estate to advantage them at cut rate price-- a quid pro quo. If control of federal lands here are handed to the state, it too would be subject to such corrupt deals.
Also, the state legislature is now proposing that no state funds will be allocated to support the state park system. User fees will be their sole support. Again, if federal land is handed to the state, it would be treated the same way. User fees will increase. Access will be limited to those who can afford to use, vs. low cost subsidized public access.
We are not well served by such abdication of responsibility and betrayal of the public trust..
Transfer of control to states and localities is also abdication of responsibility to us. Evidence indicates that this would result in less responsible management. Case in point: Wisconsin.
The state legislature has decided it may sell off state real estate with almost no oversight. One notorious deal is being hammered out with the wealthy Uhlein family, enthusiastic supporters of Gov. Walker and the GOP, handing them new real estate to advantage them at cut rate price-- a quid pro quo. If control of federal lands here are handed to the state, it too would be subject to such corrupt deals.
Also, the state legislature is now proposing that no state funds will be allocated to support the state park system. User fees will be their sole support. Again, if federal land is handed to the state, it would be treated the same way. User fees will increase. Access will be limited to those who can afford to use, vs. low cost subsidized public access.
We are not well served by such abdication of responsibility and betrayal of the public trust..
19
The one consoling thing about the recent occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge in Oregon by the Bundy brothers, Ammon and Cliven, was the heartfelt rejection of their takeover by the citizens of nearby Burns and surrounding Malheur County.
The brothers' extreme views--that federal lands should be taken over by militias and "given back" to the people (meaning Bundy followers who live locally)--were heartily rejected by the locals as unwarranted and unwanted.
Now the Bundy Brothers reside in a Portland jail awaiting trial, from which haven they are launching multiple appeals to stall the process and grandstand to the max, claiming to be unjustly imprisoned and calling into question the very legitimacy of the legal system with nitpicking gripes and suits.
They are costing Oregonians one heck of an amount of money playing self-lawyer and loudmouth, while the majority of the other occupiers have stepped off the stage and are pleading out, one by one.
Truth to tell, those in Congress who are working to "free" federal lands, are doing so not to hand them over to the "people," but to the developers in their jurisdictions who lobby hard and offer payola, excuse me, campaign contributions, to leverage legislation to steal away the federal trove that is the public land trust.
The brothers' extreme views--that federal lands should be taken over by militias and "given back" to the people (meaning Bundy followers who live locally)--were heartily rejected by the locals as unwarranted and unwanted.
Now the Bundy Brothers reside in a Portland jail awaiting trial, from which haven they are launching multiple appeals to stall the process and grandstand to the max, claiming to be unjustly imprisoned and calling into question the very legitimacy of the legal system with nitpicking gripes and suits.
They are costing Oregonians one heck of an amount of money playing self-lawyer and loudmouth, while the majority of the other occupiers have stepped off the stage and are pleading out, one by one.
Truth to tell, those in Congress who are working to "free" federal lands, are doing so not to hand them over to the "people," but to the developers in their jurisdictions who lobby hard and offer payola, excuse me, campaign contributions, to leverage legislation to steal away the federal trove that is the public land trust.
27
"The worst thing that will probably happen—in fact is already well underway—is not energy depletion, economic collapse, conventional war, or the expansion of totalitarian governments. As terrible as these catastrophes would be for us, they can be repaired in a few generations. The one process now going on that will take millions of years to correct is loss of genetic and species diversity by the destruction of natural habitats. This is the folly our descendants are least likely to forgive us."
— Edward O. Wilson (1984)
"The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living beings breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again."
- William Beebe (1906)
Apologies for only quoting others, but I cannot say it any better...
— Edward O. Wilson (1984)
"The beauty and genius of a work of art may be reconceived, though its first material expression be destroyed; a vanished harmony may yet again inspire the composer; but when the last individual of a race of living beings breathes no more, another heaven and another earth must pass before such a one can be again."
- William Beebe (1906)
Apologies for only quoting others, but I cannot say it any better...
21
Why is there no "conservative" in "conservation"?
Anti-conservation lawmakers, aka conservatives/Republicans, seem to know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing...
Anti-conservation lawmakers, aka conservatives/Republicans, seem to know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing...
19
Leave it to the citizens of America's vast expanses, the people who actually farm, ranch, and spend time on this land to want to claw some of what's theirs back, and to elect Republican representatives and Senators and Governors to help them do it.
And leave it to a handful of internet surfing, perpetually indoors, urban email shufflers to push back agaisnt them, because of tribal politics and the misguided notion that they have an equivalent claim on the land.
The irony is pretty amazing. But something tells me it's lost on the left. They have a Ken Burns documentary on the national parks to watch, and a picture to post on Instagram from that time they went bird watching. Understanding the point of view of the people who actually live on and work this land isn't something they have time for.
And leave it to a handful of internet surfing, perpetually indoors, urban email shufflers to push back agaisnt them, because of tribal politics and the misguided notion that they have an equivalent claim on the land.
The irony is pretty amazing. But something tells me it's lost on the left. They have a Ken Burns documentary on the national parks to watch, and a picture to post on Instagram from that time they went bird watching. Understanding the point of view of the people who actually live on and work this land isn't something they have time for.
1
Quite a cynical post. You use the word "theirs", when in fact the land is ours, not theirs. Do a little research and learn about the economic importance of outdoor recreation on these public lands vs. mineral extraction and cattle grazing and timber harvest--the dollars and public benefit come down on the side of outdoor recreation. Maybe you're sitting and staring at your computer screen but millions of people avail themselves of the opportunity to spend time outdoors--on these lands and others.
13
I suggest you & Congressman Bishop & Chaffetz take a swim together in the green, very smelly and toxic, algae bloom on Utah Lake & after toweling off tell us again what's wrong with those National Parks Ken Burns filmed a documentary series about. Old Faithful and Bears Ear vs green slime and oil wells? The choice is that hard? You got to be kidding?
4
"You use the word "theirs", when in fact the land is ours, not theirs"
Yep. People really don't get that today they are bound by commitments made on their behalf by their ancestors in the past or the people who let their ancestors into this country. Italian immigrants in the 1920s are bound by Indian treaties signed in the 1850s, same as Mormons migrating from NY to what looked like it was not a state but was still part of the US.
Yep. People really don't get that today they are bound by commitments made on their behalf by their ancestors in the past or the people who let their ancestors into this country. Italian immigrants in the 1920s are bound by Indian treaties signed in the 1850s, same as Mormons migrating from NY to what looked like it was not a state but was still part of the US.
3
After the GOP appropriates all the federal public lands for their clients, then the 'hunter's' will come in and massacre the wildlife, the 'loggers' will chop down the trees, next it will be the coal companies removing the mountaintops, followed by the oil companies fracking all the aquifers. When the destruction is completed the lands will be returned to the American public to clean up the mess.
25
"When the destruction is completed the lands will be returned to the American public to clean up the mess."
No, the land will be sold to developers...
No, the land will be sold to developers...
8
As the American People ALWAYS have to clean up the messes left by the GOP.
6
Are the democrats really much better?
"Of the 67 million acres currently leased to the fossil fuel industry, the Obama administration has approved nearly 15 million acres of public land and 21 million acres of ocean for drilling in the past seven years."
Perhaps they haven't sold the land, just allowed it to be poisoned.
"Of the 67 million acres currently leased to the fossil fuel industry, the Obama administration has approved nearly 15 million acres of public land and 21 million acres of ocean for drilling in the past seven years."
Perhaps they haven't sold the land, just allowed it to be poisoned.
9
And in casual conversation Americans always hear that there is not a dime's bit of difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Anyone paying attention knows that is not the case, but this is a prime example.
It is an absolute shame that the party of Theodore Roosevelt has morphed into a gang determined to destroy nature like a company being liquidated in bankruptcy. I always wonder what planet they intend to reside on when they have reduced our precious Earth to an ash heap.
It is an absolute shame that the party of Theodore Roosevelt has morphed into a gang determined to destroy nature like a company being liquidated in bankruptcy. I always wonder what planet they intend to reside on when they have reduced our precious Earth to an ash heap.
29
TR left the Republican party in 1912 because of the same sort of shenanigans that today's even more "conservative" party is up to. Once he left, they became extreme in their support of "unfettered capitalism," ignoring the more moderate elements in the party. TR formed the Progressive ("Bull Moose") party. Check out this Wikipedia article that outlines the party's 1912 platform; it will look quite familiar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
2
Years ago when backpacking in MT and WY, I saw many people who had land adjacent to wilderness areas were using these areas as their means of making a living. For those not young or ambitious enough they rented horses to cart them into the wilderness area. Where trails were wet, the horses turned them into a quagmire.
Vieques used to be used by the US Navy as a bombing and gunnery practice area. The Marines used to regularly "Invade" the place using their WWII ships and landing craft. I happened to be stationed aboard a new LPH and we happened to have the UDT team aboard when their WWII ship quit working. Wow it was great having those guys aboard - Longisteno - a clawless southern lobster - we had that several times a week in the wardroom.
After seeing how the Marines and UDT had to sit in the sand to eat - got from the ship some plywood and construction lumber - we had carpenters on board ship - they came ashore and built a bunch of tables. They also there would be beer available.
Years later there were protests about Vieques and so the Navy gave it back to the locals. I see there are now hotels and gin mills there. I'll bet there are very few critters left there.
At a large ammunition dump in S IN, there were so many deer in the fenced in area - it was opened to all workers and veterans in the area.
I have no doubt the money grubbing politics will be bought off and sadly we who care about wild areas will loose again.
Vieques used to be used by the US Navy as a bombing and gunnery practice area. The Marines used to regularly "Invade" the place using their WWII ships and landing craft. I happened to be stationed aboard a new LPH and we happened to have the UDT team aboard when their WWII ship quit working. Wow it was great having those guys aboard - Longisteno - a clawless southern lobster - we had that several times a week in the wardroom.
After seeing how the Marines and UDT had to sit in the sand to eat - got from the ship some plywood and construction lumber - we had carpenters on board ship - they came ashore and built a bunch of tables. They also there would be beer available.
Years later there were protests about Vieques and so the Navy gave it back to the locals. I see there are now hotels and gin mills there. I'll bet there are very few critters left there.
At a large ammunition dump in S IN, there were so many deer in the fenced in area - it was opened to all workers and veterans in the area.
I have no doubt the money grubbing politics will be bought off and sadly we who care about wild areas will loose again.
5
Give away? They're planning to sell them to the nearest land developer, and take a 50% Finder's Fee for their own pockets.
15
ONE name. Teddy Roosevelt!
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the republican'ts so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
Just another reason to vote ONLY Democrat 2016 and shove the republican'ts so far down that they will never recover and end up in the trash heap of history where they belong.
15
It's common these days to argue that those who oppose your views have a moral failing. The supposed moral failing of those who want to turn federal lands over to private interests is that they are corrupt or they harbor a paranoid fear of the federal government. But perhaps these lawmakers merely see a better use for the lands than to leave them undeveloped. There are facts to be known about this - how many Americans know where Vieques is, know that there is a wildlife refuge there for them to visit, and will actually visit it in their lifetime? Do we have records of visitation to the various federal lands, and are some hardly being seen at all because they are so remote? Will Americans appreciate the disappearance of a particular subspecies of bighorn sheep or Pacific black brant? These utilitarian arguments make sense when I hear the oft-repeated phrase that mystical federal lands are "national treasures that belong to all Americans." I think instead they're being put aside and forgotten by most Americans, the same way we keep cherished mementos in our closet and then forget we have them. I'm in no way saying that there shouldn't be beautiful national parks, lands reserved for enjoyment of nature, and lands reserved for the benefit of wildlife, but I also don't think revisiting their protected status should be taboo.
1
Unfortunately, "revisiting their protected status" is a bit like "revisiting" the voting rights act in Alabama back when that state was under George Wallace.
6
But perhaps these lawmakers merely see a better use for the lands than to leave them undeveloped.
There is NO better use. They are being used as they were intended; AS THEY ARE. Free of being ruined.
There is NO better use. They are being used as they were intended; AS THEY ARE. Free of being ruined.
7
How many other Caribbean island habitat locations are protected for wildlife?
A wildlife refuge should be just that, managed to preserve key species & to serve as a remnant diverse ecosystem, for study, or as a gene pool for re-introducing species where they have been lost. The question of 'how many visitors go there to look at it' reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of a refuge. It's for the benefit of the natural ecosystem, not to attract as many humans as possible.
A wildlife refuge should be just that, managed to preserve key species & to serve as a remnant diverse ecosystem, for study, or as a gene pool for re-introducing species where they have been lost. The question of 'how many visitors go there to look at it' reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of a refuge. It's for the benefit of the natural ecosystem, not to attract as many humans as possible.
2
Does anyone know a group to whom we should give money to if we want to make sure someone is vetting all of these bills? I don't feel comfortable leaving it up to elected representatives. Sierra Club? NRDC?
5
Center for Biological Diversity.
2
Wild Earth Guardians
3
Federal control is the only method that works in these situations. If the states had been granted control, neither Yellowstone or Grand Teton would exist. There would be no remaining old growth forest, and Olympic National Park would be a clear cut.
20
All true Derrell!!
2
Google "western congressional caucus" that is where you will find all Republican congress members and their agenda and who are unified and chairing every committee that has a say-so about OUR lands. this site is not private - it is paid for with tax dollars as an official 'arm' of Congressional committee 'work'. If only the Bernie people, the Green Party, etal, would put their energy into taking the US Senate away from the R's, they would be doing an even greater service to our nation than looking for a 3rd party Pres. candidate. The Senate is where the power is; the Senate is where the 'etal' can push and have an impact across the board...and believe me, I for one would be beholden to them for their continued activism on behalf of a better America.
28
Hear, hear, Janis. Stated very well. Thank you.
6
I'd like conservatives to consider the fair-market value of protected federal land. How much would the market charge for a day in Yellowstone? How much would private park rangers and security cost? How much would private management cost? The fact is that we taxpayers are getting this land at a great bargain precisely because these lands are owned and operated by the federal government. If these conservatives had their way this land would be available to only the most well-heeled individiuals and to drilling and mining operations and that would be a shame.
22
Yet another reason to vote out all Republicans this November. The party was once a champion of the conservation movement from Teddy Roosevelt through the Rockefellers Only to be replaced by jokes like Rob Bishop and Lisa Murkowski who have never seen an extractive proposal for anything they don't think is just a terrific idea.
Keep public land public! Vote Democratic!!
Keep public land public! Vote Democratic!!
30
And St. Ronnie Reagan.
Congressman Bishop of Utah is a snake in the grass when it comes to public lands. Don't trust Bishop or his pal, Congressman Chaffetz. They want all federal lands to be controlled by the states. But take a look at what their home state's, Utah, actual environmental record is. Utah regularly has the worst air in the U.S. & there is little hope that it's going to get better. Utah Lake south of Salt Lake City just turned green with poisonous algae caused by agricultural pollution. The Great Salt Lake is approaching one of its lowest levels, affecting the great migratory bird wildlife habitats at Bear River Wildlife Refuge, because of upstream water is used to grow hay. There's a bounty on coyotes; that way when a shooter "accidentally" shoots a gray wolf he can claim he thought it was a coyote. The Koch brother's money is regularly used to promote libertarian anti-environmental causes and has seeped into the State Legislature, Utah State University, even the local Mormon chapters of the Boy Scouts of America. Yes, don't be fooled: Bishop & Chaffetz, two right wing zealots, only want to exploit federal lands, use them to make another fast buck. It is odd that these two snakes survive each election cycle for Utah takes in billions every year from outdoor recreation.
27
I wish TR was alive today to wield his big stick over the heads of these "fellow" Republicans. The idea that these same politicians are underfunding as many programs as possible, so they can degrade and then sell off assets at bargain prices to their patrons is an old idea. Consider New York City under the Rent Control Program where landlords simply stopped maintaining buildings until they were condemned and then turned into luxury condominiums for the few. This is all about the Ozymandias syndrome that is part of the baser instincts of man.
11
Our real National Anthem, the anthem of the people written by Woody Guthrie, says it best. And what I imagine Woody might have said to readers of these comments is that, "There aint no free lunch. If you want to preserve America for all Americans, stop complaining on Facebook, stop spending your time commenting online. Get your tail out there and organize, and remember, you'll pay a price for the fight. You might get dirty and bloodied. Aint no free lunch."
"This Land Is Your Land"
This land is your land
This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and Me.
As I was walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway:
I saw below me that golden valley:
This land was made for you and me.
I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding:
This land was made for you and me.
When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,
As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
"This Land Is Your Land"
This land is your land
This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and Me.
As I was walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway:
I saw below me that golden valley:
This land was made for you and me.
I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding:
This land was made for you and me.
When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,
As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.
13
A thing of beauty.
Wish this was our national anthem.
2
As a general proposition, land use and control is best administered as close to the people as possible, which means as local as possible. Local stewards know the lands better, know the capacity of the lands for activity of either a public or commercial purpose and, if preconceived notions are in abeyance, have a better sense of ecology than far-off bureaucrats and their enablers in Congress.
2
Nice try, but you have cited no evidence or references to back up your claim. For those that argue the benefits of States Rights over Federal juristiction, I have just one word - Mississippi.
5
as long as those local people are committed to preservation have no plans to build roads, sell mineral or oil rights, encourage hunting, allow pollution, cut off water to downstream lands and will agree that the land is not owned y the state but by the entire country and they are acting as trustees ,
fine with me
fine with me
3
That's right Wilma, I want my Condo right on the rim of the Grand Canyon, with a big fence so the 'little people' won't steal my view. Local people know the best developers too!
7
The meat industry wants to destroy the whole country while receiving gigantic handouts from taxpayers. We must boycott their cruel and destructive products. Start today. It's essential.
8
Neither God nor Mother Nature can protect our wildlife refuges from the depraved depredations coming from the human "love of money that is the root of all evil" along with corporations who are "people" and the money that is "speech."
13
Republicans should be made to be an "endangered species". Vote them OUT. Every single one!
18
My memories of nature are are some of my earliest. Woods. Trees. Ocean. Rivers. (From a time we lived on Long Island and NJ.) My grandparents' cabin northern Michigan. Rolling hills and forests of upstate NY later. Then Florida beaches in adolescence. (We moved around.)
Once nearly retired we took month-long camping trips to national parks in Canada and the U.S. Wow!
How is it possible that some politicians have failed us, when it comes to protecting our heritage of stunning natural wonders, forests, vistas with only the architecture of geology and biology for grandeur?
It's Political Malpractice to deprive us of the one treasure we can all pass on to future generations!
North America has some of the most stunning and accessible natural wonders. Also some of the largest virgin wilderness areas. They must not be taken from us!
It's not enough that I have wonderful memories of them. For my old age. I want those memories for succeeding generations.
Once they're gone, they're gone forever!
I say: Never! Never let them go. SAVE MORE!
Once nearly retired we took month-long camping trips to national parks in Canada and the U.S. Wow!
How is it possible that some politicians have failed us, when it comes to protecting our heritage of stunning natural wonders, forests, vistas with only the architecture of geology and biology for grandeur?
It's Political Malpractice to deprive us of the one treasure we can all pass on to future generations!
North America has some of the most stunning and accessible natural wonders. Also some of the largest virgin wilderness areas. They must not be taken from us!
It's not enough that I have wonderful memories of them. For my old age. I want those memories for succeeding generations.
Once they're gone, they're gone forever!
I say: Never! Never let them go. SAVE MORE!
15
The loonies in Utah are the worst. They would give away some of the most beautiful parks to the miners and drillers that have contributed to the horrible air quality in Salt Lake City.
18
McCain in Arizona is worse. He want's to give land, which is a Federal Trust, to a Canadian mining company to do open copper mining. The land was given by President Eisenhower to the San Carlos Apache as a Federal Trust, because it is their sacred and burial land, which was not included in the reservation land.
Open mining is the very worst type of mining and destroys land and water. McCain snuck in the giveaway as a rider to a defense appropriations bill. A letter protesting this to our congress representatives and senators would help.
Open mining is the very worst type of mining and destroys land and water. McCain snuck in the giveaway as a rider to a defense appropriations bill. A letter protesting this to our congress representatives and senators would help.
3
This shouldn't be hard. Our country started setting these lands aside more than a century ago, led by a visionary President. Setting the land aside back then was the hard part. The rich wanted to own and devour it all, and fought President Roosevelt all the way.
Now we have the public lands and the conservation tradition. The land is paid for. Millions of us have visited and we cherish the places. All we have to do is keep it going, pay our taxes to support the management of the places for the benefit of the wildlife, and for our children and their children. And keep visiting!
Now we have the public lands and the conservation tradition. The land is paid for. Millions of us have visited and we cherish the places. All we have to do is keep it going, pay our taxes to support the management of the places for the benefit of the wildlife, and for our children and their children. And keep visiting!
12
This argument needs to be turned inside out. It is inconceivable that an individual human being can actually claim "ownership" over any part of this planet including not just the land and seas but the air as well. The planet was here uncountable eons before any biped that could actually chip some stone into a tool was around. How does one become the "owner" of some land. Usually the first ones who did this, said that God gave them the land. These claims were backed up by various charades and costumes, but mostly by force of arms.
There were people living all over the present land we call the U.S. for eons before any European biped showed up and claimed the land for some King or other.
The land, actually all of it, even my home, belongs to the Planet. We the so called "thinking" bipeds who roam around on it and desecrate it are its biggest problem. These Greedy fools who want to steal what small part we have managed to preserve from their insatiable ignorance must not prevail.
Let us start a group of concerned citizens of the World to return all of the land to the Planet. Then nobody "owns" any of it, but anyone can be responsible for taking care of a smallish piece of it to live on for a while and not be molested by anyone in or on it. Then we can take care of it in a proper way, which is probably what our intended role is anyway.
There were people living all over the present land we call the U.S. for eons before any European biped showed up and claimed the land for some King or other.
The land, actually all of it, even my home, belongs to the Planet. We the so called "thinking" bipeds who roam around on it and desecrate it are its biggest problem. These Greedy fools who want to steal what small part we have managed to preserve from their insatiable ignorance must not prevail.
Let us start a group of concerned citizens of the World to return all of the land to the Planet. Then nobody "owns" any of it, but anyone can be responsible for taking care of a smallish piece of it to live on for a while and not be molested by anyone in or on it. Then we can take care of it in a proper way, which is probably what our intended role is anyway.
9
My gut tells me you're not using the land you currently live on as well as it could be used. Do you mind telling me where you live, so I can show up with 15 friends to move in with you?
Don't worry, we're your fellow citizens here on Planet Earth, and we just want to do what's best for Planet Earth, the real owner of your so called "private" property.
Don't worry, we're your fellow citizens here on Planet Earth, and we just want to do what's best for Planet Earth, the real owner of your so called "private" property.
Such efforts to privatize the public domain are as evil as anything Republicans have ever done. It is yet one more reason why no moral being should be voting for any Republican at any level.
17
Selling off the parks would sure cut down on tourism . Gotta keep them foreigners out!
7
When the top of the Republican ticket is THE icon of greed and profit above all else in the United States should we really be surprised that the same level of greed is rampant among those who would select him?
11
"... it would have handed an important victory to extremists in Congress and state legislatures who want to grab national lands and turn them over to the states to be sold or leased."
This statement doesn't go far enough to demonstrate the motives involved. Who wants to sell these lands? Who benefits from the sale, reaps the profit or lands a healthy commission? Who wants to BUY it, for development or re-sale (or free grazing), again for profit? What happens when there are no more such lands available to sell? You really want to know what's going on in each individual case, follow the money.
This statement doesn't go far enough to demonstrate the motives involved. Who wants to sell these lands? Who benefits from the sale, reaps the profit or lands a healthy commission? Who wants to BUY it, for development or re-sale (or free grazing), again for profit? What happens when there are no more such lands available to sell? You really want to know what's going on in each individual case, follow the money.
5
A Call to Action indeed!! We need to mobilize ourselves as Mr. del Rio suggests and barrage our legislative reps (state and national level offices) with our voices for preservation of precious national habitat. Suggestions, please, for how to keep in closer touch on all the efforts to dismantle them.
5
if Trump is elected and Republicans control Congress they will give away all National Forest and BLM lands to states, ranchers, energy companies, or the highest bidder
6
The Federal government owns most of the land in the Western States. It's long past time to return the land to the citizens of those States. Keep the parks but return the rest of the land to the States.
1
If they never had it can it be returned?
4
There's no "return". The states never did own these lands. The taxpayers of the US have always owned them. In fact, whatever land that the states now own, was once owned by the US citizens. How well are the states doing in managing what we've already given them? Maybe they should give those lands back to the rest of us.
7
No, don't. The citizens of the western states never owned the land. If the nation cannot be relied upon to protect these lands, return them to Native Americans who were fine stewards prior to Europeans' arrival in the New World.
3
When I think of the greatest symbols, the proudest achievement, the most enduring testament of what is considered 'American,' it is the Constitution and the establishment of the three branches of government and of public schools, of course, but also the great collective engineering feats, such as the Hoover Dam, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Apollo mission to the moon, and the great natural wonders, such as the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and the Everglades. And yes, it is also represented by such systems and values free markets and capitalism, civil liberties and religious tolerance, and respect for the rule of law. But frankly, the Republican interests trying to undermine so much of what resonates and inspires and uplifts me about being an American just fills me with disbelief, disgust, and shame.
10
They want to turn over control to the States. So how is that "giving away"? The joke is the if there was a republican President, Jamie Williams would write about "liberating" them to the states.
States rights means what the GOP always wanted, takedown of the federal government and alll its protections.
States rights means GOP will privatize everything given over to the state.
Remember, the GOP hated social security since it was instituted. That's why the GOP is always looking to privatize social security.
States rights means GOP will privatize everything given over to the state.
Remember, the GOP hated social security since it was instituted. That's why the GOP is always looking to privatize social security.
3
I'm 80 yrs. young and have seen these efforts to destroy our country's natural heritage for decades. We in the USA have been blessed with abundant wild resources. I know of no other developed country that has protected such resources for the future. To give those resources to political entites who would want to get the highest economic return for such a windfall would be criminal. Future Americans would be robbed the wonderful wild experiences they could have had in our public lands.
17
The 6th extinction is well under way. As with global warming, ironically named "conservatives" seemed determined to accelerate it. Federal land provides relatively small refuges for species to maintain their depleted populations and hopefully eventually to expand to restored habitat.
There is much to criticize in the way much federal land is managed, but an example of what private management can look like can be found in the Nevada Bureau of Land Management land that was grazed illegally and defended from Federal agents at gunpoint by some of the Malheur occupiers. The vegetation and streams were greatly damaged by overgrazing, garbage was strewn everywhere, off-road vehicle tracks were formed everywhere, and archeological sites were desecrated. Attempts by our so-called representatives to sneak legislation into law is one of the many kinds of actions that make Americans feel such disgust at our congress. If they think federal lands should be turned over to states or sold to corporations, they should debate it openly and inform the OWNERS of that land, the American public, of what they want to do.
There is much to criticize in the way much federal land is managed, but an example of what private management can look like can be found in the Nevada Bureau of Land Management land that was grazed illegally and defended from Federal agents at gunpoint by some of the Malheur occupiers. The vegetation and streams were greatly damaged by overgrazing, garbage was strewn everywhere, off-road vehicle tracks were formed everywhere, and archeological sites were desecrated. Attempts by our so-called representatives to sneak legislation into law is one of the many kinds of actions that make Americans feel such disgust at our congress. If they think federal lands should be turned over to states or sold to corporations, they should debate it openly and inform the OWNERS of that land, the American public, of what they want to do.
9
Which will never happen. The GOP goal of oil drilling, selling drilling rights and privatizing the public lands will be done with lies, spins and cover ups. Vote all Republicans out.
4
Whomever is President when such legislation comes before him/her must veto such thievery immediately, and must let the Congress know that giving away our refuges will never happen. C'mon America! This is one thing that must not take place - on this watch or whatever watch in the future!!!!!
8
Land use issues always raise the conflict between conservation and jobs. Obama's handling of Atlantic offshore drilling was a stark reminder of how decisions are made. After authorizing drilling Obama reversed himself, authorizing leases in the Gulf and Alaska instead. Clearly, Obama exercised favoritism based on the influence of East Coast elites. Federal land is heavily concentrated in the West. Westerners are like the residents of the Gulf and Alaska. We bow to the dictates of East Coast elites.
So true. Completely correct and on point.
The use the Bundy family have made in two different cases should be a cautionary tale to anyone who thinks private ownership as designed by these conscienceless invaders would be an improvement over government stewardship on behalf of us all.
I would add to preserving what we have, that those who "rent" public lands should pay fair market value for their property. Cliven senior was paying less than 10% what the maintenance of the land he used was worth, but he thought that was too much. Cliven junior thought nothing of polluting and damaging the property he occupied, even ignoring his resort to extreme threats and violence.
Big fossil should have to at the very least pay market value for the properties they use, and meet standards for cleanup of the pollution they cause.
The uncounted costs of fossil exploitation are shortening the odds of keeping our hospitable earth and our public lands should not be part of their deceptive game plan. Fossil profiteers also have children, and they should wake up.
I would add to preserving what we have, that those who "rent" public lands should pay fair market value for their property. Cliven senior was paying less than 10% what the maintenance of the land he used was worth, but he thought that was too much. Cliven junior thought nothing of polluting and damaging the property he occupied, even ignoring his resort to extreme threats and violence.
Big fossil should have to at the very least pay market value for the properties they use, and meet standards for cleanup of the pollution they cause.
The uncounted costs of fossil exploitation are shortening the odds of keeping our hospitable earth and our public lands should not be part of their deceptive game plan. Fossil profiteers also have children, and they should wake up.
10
These beautiful habitats are on loan to us from the next generation. They should not be given away by a handful of extremist, money-hungry people in congress. If these people feel right about these proposals, why hide them in big bills? Small wonder Americans hold their congress in utter contempt.
42
CALL TO ACTION: if any of these "representatives" are up for re-election, they need to be dealt with at the BALLOT BOX...! And if they are not this round, please voice your disapproval of their idea of representation on the subject of OUR National Parks and Wildlife Preservation...! Buzz them ALL in their home offices and their offices in D.C. with a nice phone call, letter, and on social media. Oh yeah, they're on VACATION until Labor Day, so a full mail box will be waiting for them.
No shame from these two republican congressmen from Utah, along with the other members of the "Federal Land Action Group" [Other members of the Group include Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Diane Black (R-Tenn.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY).]
No shame from these two republican congressmen from Utah, along with the other members of the "Federal Land Action Group" [Other members of the Group include Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Nev.), Diane Black (R-Tenn.), Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), Cresent Hardy (R-Nev.), and Cynthia Lummis (R-WY).]
38
It is not only the politicians who are against what some uof us do to help nature. I have recently been evicted from my apartment for feeding the birds on the front lawn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stupid, uncaring people are everywhere.
Stupid, uncaring people are everywhere.
8
I recently drove from the beautiful Puget Sound of Washington, through the rolling hills of Idaho and Eastern Oregon, by the towering mountains of Utah, the red rock monuments of Zion to the pink, purple and orange hues of sunset in the Mojave. My thoughts were of how wonderful, diverse and unique a landscape we have in this country that no other can claim. I'm proud when I visit a National park and see people from around the world marveling at the beauty. This is part of the exceptionalism of America and we need to protect it for future generations.
25
I'm sorry, but I'll keep giving priority to the people who work and live near and on these lands.
The needs of tourists like you are a distant second to theirs, and so I'll keep voting Republican and advocating for more local control. You can get a Viewfinder and probably still feel proud. The folks who get pushed off their land, and jailed for trying to keep a wildfire from burning up their livelihood, and murdered by FBI agents for having the chutzpah to "occupy" it are far, far more noble, tragic, and worthy of support than tourists who just like to have their pride and wonder stoked when they drive through.
The needs of tourists like you are a distant second to theirs, and so I'll keep voting Republican and advocating for more local control. You can get a Viewfinder and probably still feel proud. The folks who get pushed off their land, and jailed for trying to keep a wildfire from burning up their livelihood, and murdered by FBI agents for having the chutzpah to "occupy" it are far, far more noble, tragic, and worthy of support than tourists who just like to have their pride and wonder stoked when they drive through.
One conservative conservation organization is fighting hard against the push by other conservatives to give away land that rightfully belongs to all of us as Americans.
Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, http://conservativestewards.org/
Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, http://conservativestewards.org/
14
I took a look, thanks for the reference to an excellent organization!
4
Teddy Roosevelt is rolling over in his grave!!! Please, folks, do your homework in November before voting. And contribute even a minimal amount to Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship.
2
Graft Old Politicians looking to scalp the American people of their lands for a quick buck that in the end will still not satiate the greed of their masters.
The oligarch owners of everything get incredibly substantial tax breaks that the rest of us have to pay for and now they want our lands on the cheap! For what? So that they can hire Trump to build a wall around the now "exclusive" lands?
These people are the only ones who benefited and profited obscenely from the recession - and they are still looking for even more! There is not enough America for them. There is not enough planet for them.
The pattern is clear - starve the government of resources it needs to function and serve Americans, and privatize as much of it on the cheap.
If the GOP doesn't become extinct, public and wildlife reserves and refuges will become extinct.
The oligarch owners of everything get incredibly substantial tax breaks that the rest of us have to pay for and now they want our lands on the cheap! For what? So that they can hire Trump to build a wall around the now "exclusive" lands?
These people are the only ones who benefited and profited obscenely from the recession - and they are still looking for even more! There is not enough America for them. There is not enough planet for them.
The pattern is clear - starve the government of resources it needs to function and serve Americans, and privatize as much of it on the cheap.
If the GOP doesn't become extinct, public and wildlife reserves and refuges will become extinct.
22
I sometimes wonder if some confusion results from terms like "federal lands."
The U.S. was initially a federation, but in adopting the Constitution and creating a national government, the people said they were creating a union that was "more perfect" than the federation. The word "federal" doesn't appear in the Constitution, and most of the states that exist now were created by the U.S. Government out of national territory.
The term "federal" does continue to be used a traditional synonym for "national": we have the "Federal Bureau of Investigation" and the "Federal Aviation Administration" as well as the "National Archives" and the "National Park Service." The term "federal" is also used in debates about "states rights" and legal authorities, including about "federal lands," but its role is only rhetorical.
The U.S. was initially a federation, but in adopting the Constitution and creating a national government, the people said they were creating a union that was "more perfect" than the federation. The word "federal" doesn't appear in the Constitution, and most of the states that exist now were created by the U.S. Government out of national territory.
The term "federal" does continue to be used a traditional synonym for "national": we have the "Federal Bureau of Investigation" and the "Federal Aviation Administration" as well as the "National Archives" and the "National Park Service." The term "federal" is also used in debates about "states rights" and legal authorities, including about "federal lands," but its role is only rhetorical.
2
If Rob Bennet is for it, I'm agin it. He sees only $$$ signs, not what is best for ALL Americans
10
The cost of nature is priceless. Preserve it for all including wildlife.
The land grab for public lands has been going on for a while now, think logging, mineral extraction and even tourism. There are federal lands 'loaned' to people of wealth for private purposes quite regularly. More than we know. Also we taxpayers actually pay for the building and maintenance of remote air strips so that the wealthy can get to their wilderness getaways, to do a little hunting, fly fishing or whatever.
The land grab for public lands has been going on for a while now, think logging, mineral extraction and even tourism. There are federal lands 'loaned' to people of wealth for private purposes quite regularly. More than we know. Also we taxpayers actually pay for the building and maintenance of remote air strips so that the wealthy can get to their wilderness getaways, to do a little hunting, fly fishing or whatever.
17
Please know that the residents of Harmey County, Oregon, during the May primary, voted overwhelmingly against supporters of the wildlife refuge occupation. Turnout was very high as well. We of the West appreciate our public lands. It is a zealous minority that wants to privatize the land, and they are not popular in Oregon.
45
Thank you, and yes the reading citizens of the US do know that and appreciate the good citizens of Harvey County (which seem to be the vast majority!). Good on ya!
3
It is absolutely appalling the despicable greed and arrogance on display by Republican Party operatives and their attempts to steal federal lands, wildlife refuges and national parks that belong to ALL of us. It's already horrendous that our political and economic lives are controlled by the oligarchs, rubber stamped by the Roberts court, but if our beautiful lands and wildlife that are enjoyed by all are handed over too, it will surely be the end of America the beautiful. To all who care about this country, it is time for the revolution and our movement against the oligarchs...now.
29
Are our Congress members so greedy that they have lost respect for Life!?
So they disrespect Our Lands and wildlife so much that they wish to destroy such for the benefit of a few?
Do they honestly believe that humans can survive without Wildlife?
The Answer to these question is YES! they have lost touch with this country and the value of our lands only because they cannot make a profit off of them and thus choose to Destroy OUR Lands and Wildlife only for the benefit of a few extra dollars-----for they will kill those Bucks!
So they disrespect Our Lands and wildlife so much that they wish to destroy such for the benefit of a few?
Do they honestly believe that humans can survive without Wildlife?
The Answer to these question is YES! they have lost touch with this country and the value of our lands only because they cannot make a profit off of them and thus choose to Destroy OUR Lands and Wildlife only for the benefit of a few extra dollars-----for they will kill those Bucks!
18
If there's a private dollar to be made and a campaign contribution to follow, the republicans in congress will champion the plan. If this doesn't stop, there will be nothing worth saving in this country. Destroy the commons and the unique fabric of America is destroyed. ISIS can relax. We have plenty of home grown, powerful forces within the country that will tear the country apart better than they could ever dream of doing.
32
It is TIME - no, it is way PAST TIME to take back our country from the money-grubbing GOP, once and for all. Go to the polls in November and remove any Republican from office. NOW!!!!
4
“Here is your country. Cherish these natural wonders, cherish the natural resources, cherish the history and romance as a sacred heritage, for your children and your children's children. Do not let selfish men or greedy interests skin your country of its beauty, its riches or its romance.”
― Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)
“I really wonder what gives us the right to wreck this poor planet of ours.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
“Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife, are in fact plans to protect man.”
― Stewart L. Udall
Environmental stewardship is stewardship of the Earth and all of its life forms.
The fact that the Greed-Over-Planet, Gas-Oil-Pollution, Grand Old Pillager and Gerrymandering Oligarchic Plunderers' caucus demands to constantly rape the planet for profit shows their clinical sociopathy.
Not only can't Republicans stand America,; they can't stand planet Earth either.
Nice people....on an environmental suicide mission.
― Theodore Roosevelt (Republican)
“I really wonder what gives us the right to wreck this poor planet of ours.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's needs, but not every man's greed.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
“Plans to protect air and water, wilderness and wildlife, are in fact plans to protect man.”
― Stewart L. Udall
Environmental stewardship is stewardship of the Earth and all of its life forms.
The fact that the Greed-Over-Planet, Gas-Oil-Pollution, Grand Old Pillager and Gerrymandering Oligarchic Plunderers' caucus demands to constantly rape the planet for profit shows their clinical sociopathy.
Not only can't Republicans stand America,; they can't stand planet Earth either.
Nice people....on an environmental suicide mission.
178
Wonderful quotes.
I've always attributed the destruction of our public lands to the growing encouragement by Republicans of radical born-again Christians who believe that we are in the End Times and He's coming back soon, so whatever we do to the planet doesn't matter. It worked perfectly with the deep pocket extraction industries.
I've always attributed the destruction of our public lands to the growing encouragement by Republicans of radical born-again Christians who believe that we are in the End Times and He's coming back soon, so whatever we do to the planet doesn't matter. It worked perfectly with the deep pocket extraction industries.
11
"Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit."
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
--Edward Abbey
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government."
--Edward Abbey
7
Don't give all the credit to Teddy R. See Douglas Brinkley's book on FDR & conservation. I think conservation wise he was better than Teddy. This from Brinkley's publisher:
"Douglas Brinkley’s The Wilderness Warrior celebrated Theodore Roosevelt’s spirit of outdoor exploration and bold vision to protect 234 million acres of wild America. Now, in Rightful Heritage, Brinkley turns his attention to another indefatigable environmental leader—Theodore’s distant cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt—chronicling his essential yet undersung legacy as the founder of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the premier protector of America’s public lands. FDR built state park systems and scenic roadways from scratch. Through his leadership, pristine landscapes such as the Great Smokies, the Everglades, Joshua Tree, the Olympics, Big Bend, and the Channel Islands were forever saved."
"Douglas Brinkley’s The Wilderness Warrior celebrated Theodore Roosevelt’s spirit of outdoor exploration and bold vision to protect 234 million acres of wild America. Now, in Rightful Heritage, Brinkley turns his attention to another indefatigable environmental leader—Theodore’s distant cousin Franklin Delano Roosevelt—chronicling his essential yet undersung legacy as the founder of the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the premier protector of America’s public lands. FDR built state park systems and scenic roadways from scratch. Through his leadership, pristine landscapes such as the Great Smokies, the Everglades, Joshua Tree, the Olympics, Big Bend, and the Channel Islands were forever saved."
2
The sponsors of this all too serious movement to sell off your public land have a name: Republicans. If you like to visit, hike, bike, camp, fish, hunt, backpack, or photograph your National Wildlife Refuges, National Forests, BLM lands and other public lands managed by the federal government, remember that when you vote in November!
67
In the Denver area two Superfund sites, the former Rocky Mountain Arsenal and the former Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant were cleaned up to fairly lax standards specifically because they would become "Wildlife Refuges." If handed to the State, you can be sure the real estate developers would move in quickly, regardless of the fact that first site is still contaminated with nerve gas and pesticide residues, and the second with plutonium, both at higher levels than would ever be allowed in a residential setting. I wonder how many other wildlife refuges are just semi-clean Superfund sites?
20
All of us who care about preserving these wonderful, mostly wild, landscapes for the future -- our offspring and wildlife -- must constantly be contacting our congressional representatives and insisting they protect these lands. To not act is egregious.
10
Well done Jamie. Millions of Americans visit our National Wildlife Refuges every year and these lands are the only real network of lands set aside for wildlife anywhere in the world on such a scale. The National Wildlife Refuge system needs to be expanded -- not reduced in size. Those who would transfer, sell, or open these lands to development and non-wildlife related uses are ignoring our history, the real leaders who formed this country and shaped it over many generations, and the wishes of the people who support refuges and other national lands that we all own. They should be ashamed.
19
One word for everyone that cares about our share natural heritage and threats Rob Bishop and his Koch Brother Overlords pose to us: VOTE.
23
"the price of everyhing and the value of nothing" Has the GOP no shame?
30
The modern day GOP is utterly despicable in its naked agenda of greed and profit over all else.
Teddy would be ashamed.
Teddy would be ashamed.
40
ALL earlier Republicans are ashamed of today's Greedy Oppressive Poopheads.
4
I'M one of them! Registered Dem, now.
News organizations should report the name of the politician who inserts such obviously anti-democratic and corrupt sections into legislation. Their names and crimes should receive headlines so that the public knows who to vote out of office.
51
RIGHT! Dear NYT: WHO is the congress person who secretly, and nefariously, introduced this horrific addition to a bill, with no relationship to it? WE WANT THE NAME, or tell us where to look for it.
11
Unfortunately the rules of Congress allow for changes and additions to bills to be made anonymously by legislators. They couldn't have it so they would actually be held responsible for their actions, now could they?
1
J Reaves--I'll bet NYT can find out. And, they should find out.
The intricate and widely dispersed inter-relationships of land and animals are barely understood by us, even now. For millennia we had no idea that birds, butterflies, and mammals migrated thousands of miles around the planet, each and every year. They were driven by the weather and access to resources to and from each destination. We are still exploring this intricate web of wondrous life.
But what we did understand was how to exploit the resources in our immediate vicinity, and beyond. This served both useful purposes (food and shelter) and, ultimately, harmful ones (clearcutting and pollution). For example, as we overfished certain species to near-extinction, we defaulted to less desirable ones, and more destructive practices. As we exploited the nearest areas of mountaintop removal, pristine forests, and water re-distribution, we drilled, cut, and continued these activities further and further afield.
This practice has grown to unsustainable levels driven by two issues: too many humans to support and commodification of land and labor. This GOP proposal is primarily driven by not only little to no reverence for the wondrous creations of our planet, and their right to exist, but prioritizing short-term economic gain over every other living thing. Climate change denial serves that economic and political agenda, but is short-sighted and indecent as well.
Changing that destructive model is why I pursue campaign finance reform, www.thefairelectionsfund.com.
But what we did understand was how to exploit the resources in our immediate vicinity, and beyond. This served both useful purposes (food and shelter) and, ultimately, harmful ones (clearcutting and pollution). For example, as we overfished certain species to near-extinction, we defaulted to less desirable ones, and more destructive practices. As we exploited the nearest areas of mountaintop removal, pristine forests, and water re-distribution, we drilled, cut, and continued these activities further and further afield.
This practice has grown to unsustainable levels driven by two issues: too many humans to support and commodification of land and labor. This GOP proposal is primarily driven by not only little to no reverence for the wondrous creations of our planet, and their right to exist, but prioritizing short-term economic gain over every other living thing. Climate change denial serves that economic and political agenda, but is short-sighted and indecent as well.
Changing that destructive model is why I pursue campaign finance reform, www.thefairelectionsfund.com.
27
These lands belong to all of us, all citizens of the US. They must not be transferred or sold to the highest bidder. Furthermore, the government--both houses of Congress and the President--must insist that they remain part of our national heritage.
Do not sell any of the protected lands and species to the highest bidder for resource development or housing or commercial space. Keep them secure for all US citizens for at least the next 300 years.
Do not sell any of the protected lands and species to the highest bidder for resource development or housing or commercial space. Keep them secure for all US citizens for at least the next 300 years.
29
Protecting the spaces is important to our future. The earth, the water, the plants, the insects, the animals, the air above: all are essential for our future.
88
The insanity continues. Greed greed and more greed.
19
Republicans are ALWAYS after public lands. 1% vs 99% says it all.
26
Republicans. As usual. The fact that they buried the Vieques National Wildlife Refuge provision deep into a relief package to aid the people of Puerto Rico marks their loathsome characters even more despicable.
27
Taking federal lands away from citizens and giving them over to state governments is a bad joke, not one state has the $$ to responsibly manage such lands, and they will have to sell them pretty much immediately to whatever resource extraction interests they can find. And they won't be too hard to find.
22
The legislators at all levels of Government, especially the states, have no money to manage the land and resources they NOW have! Imagine what they will do if they get control of what are now known as "federal lands". They must be drinking (for example) the water from Flint, Michigan..........
1
This is OUTRAGEOUS! WHEN will we citizens put our collective foot down and take these Republicans to task! Republicans' goal is to destroy everything in front of them, for money. These lands belong to all of us, not to Congress, to do with as they please. These lands belong to Americans not even born yet. Now, do you see why the down-ticket races are just as important as the one for president? Vote Democratic, all the way down your ballot!
29
Yet another example of the Republican Party intentionally perverting the meaning of Americanism to fit the will of corporations and anti-science extremists. It is becoming ever clearer that this is the underlying philosophy of everything they stand for. Oil, coal, fracking, selling the national parks, bullying NOAA, NSF, and NIH: they all play into the story that to be truly American, you have to be in the throes of greed, deny facts because scientists are in the pockets of the liberal media, and harbor a visceral hatred for anything done by government. Is that the Americanism we want to present to the world and to our children?
Food for thought: If well-educated scientists are all liberal, which way does the causation run?
Food for thought: If well-educated scientists are all liberal, which way does the causation run?
20
One doesn't have to look far to see how well private and corporate access has done with national forests under multiple use to know that federal management of refuges is a far better value.
Refuges are a relatively small and precious allotment of land--must greedy interests have it all? (Of course)
We are not the only important species on this planet, and learning from the multitude of others enriches our understanding, appreciation, and the value of life. It gives our children something to live, love, and work for.
Refuges are a relatively small and precious allotment of land--must greedy interests have it all? (Of course)
We are not the only important species on this planet, and learning from the multitude of others enriches our understanding, appreciation, and the value of life. It gives our children something to live, love, and work for.
110
Theodore Roosevelt oversaw the creation of 5 National parks, 18 national monuments, which included an epic battle with mining interests over the Grand Canyon, 51 bird sanctuaries like Pelican Island and 150 national forests. He fought tooth and nail to preserve public land from "local control", which has been used as a euphemism to disguise the influence of the big corporations or powerful local commercial interests.
20
The mining interests are still fighting over the Grand Canyon. It is a never ending battle.
2
I have flown into McCarran many times. Then drove out of the abomination of "Vegas" as soon as I possibly could. There are several fantastic parks nearby: Death Valley, Bryce, Zion, and others.
Noisy, crowded streets with lots of shiny and neon objects. Versus natural beauty and serenity.
I guess it just depends on what your values are.
Noisy, crowded streets with lots of shiny and neon objects. Versus natural beauty and serenity.
I guess it just depends on what your values are.
9
These lands are the last remnants of nature in a world that humans will destroy. It is in our nature to leave nothing but desert behind. Someone hunted the last Mammoth, shot the last Bison, trapped the last Carrier Pigeon or felled the last tree in the desert. Destruction of our habitat for fun and profit is in our DNA and it is the hard work of intelligent and exceptional humans, that these parks even exists against the barbarous onslaught of greed.
Game theory teaches us that the destroyers will win. The future of earth is the fate of Mars, devoid of an atmosphere and life. Let's just not get there now.
Game theory teaches us that the destroyers will win. The future of earth is the fate of Mars, devoid of an atmosphere and life. Let's just not get there now.
13
I live near the Chesapeake Bay and the vast , vast majority of its shoreline I have no access to. The rich and their political friends won't rest until they gobble up more and more of our local, state and national treasures. Not too long ago the Republican Governor of Maryland, Bob Ehrlich, was outed trying to secretly privatize land in Garrett County. They want to privatize public schools, prisons, public parks, even public roads like in Indiana.
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged all the people
A dollar and a half to see 'em
Joni Mitchell
They took all the trees
And put them in a tree museum
And they charged all the people
A dollar and a half to see 'em
Joni Mitchell
31
We're slowly facing difficult choices as a nation. In the future, costs will be scrutinized as expenditures are curtailed due to rising costs of social services in the U.S. The U.S. park system has a significant budget - in addition to yearly operating costs, deferred maintenance in our national parks is approximately $11.5 billion. Where is the money going to come from. I understand the significance of maintaining a park system in this country, but there must be an analysis completed which can review those parks which might be closed without sacrificing the public good.
Fine. Let's start with both Disneylands.
6
I've had extended conversations with my brother for years about the extent of federal land ownership in the west -- and the maps ARE startling. It's hard to believe that at least some of it couldn't be sold or put under state management -- if there really were eager buyers or states that wanted to take over the costs of managing it. It's often difficult for me to understand exactly what these folks want. How many want to actually buy or manage much of this land? More often it seems they just want someone to take it over, impose no restrictions on use and lease it at bargain prices. What I hear most from my brother is a strong resentment of "big government" overreach that blocks corporate activity like mining and drilling, and desperate struggles to maintain traditional patterns like grazing that are simply no longer economically viable without very heavy subsidy.
3
"It's hard to believe that at least some of it couldn't be sold or put under state management -- if there really were eager buyers or states that wanted to take over the costs of managing it."
Are you so naive? What billionaire do you know who would buy a massive tract of undeveloped land just to "manage" it? What do you think would actually happen?
"How many want to actually buy or manage much of this land?"
Answer: none.
"More often it seems they just want someone to take it over, impose no restrictions on use and lease it at bargain prices."
Bingo. You walked right into an answer.
"What I hear most from my brother is a strong resentment of "big government" overreach that blocks corporate activity like mining and drilling..."
Oh boo-hoo. We have darn near half a continent in this country and he's upset that the oil corporations can't take their drills to every last acre? I guess if the only language you speak is money, it might look that way. Then again, hasn't the allure of the West been a pretty good selling point for tourism all these years?
Are you so naive? What billionaire do you know who would buy a massive tract of undeveloped land just to "manage" it? What do you think would actually happen?
"How many want to actually buy or manage much of this land?"
Answer: none.
"More often it seems they just want someone to take it over, impose no restrictions on use and lease it at bargain prices."
Bingo. You walked right into an answer.
"What I hear most from my brother is a strong resentment of "big government" overreach that blocks corporate activity like mining and drilling..."
Oh boo-hoo. We have darn near half a continent in this country and he's upset that the oil corporations can't take their drills to every last acre? I guess if the only language you speak is money, it might look that way. Then again, hasn't the allure of the West been a pretty good selling point for tourism all these years?
16
Love this insight about the federal land ownership in the west, coming from the east coast. I live in that west - and have traveled, camped, river run, hiked and loved that land that "no one wants". It is true, what the corporate on constitutional people want is no restrictions on federal lands that belongs to all of us. They want to graze it, frack it, mine it, pump water from it (and send it to Las Vegas), dump nuclear waste in it, or otherwise use it to death. Then they abandon the carcass for the tax payers to clean up.
The land has inherent value, just for the sake of being there. The mind set that everything needs an extractive value to be of use is being proven to be short sighted or just plain wrong and damaging repeatedly.
How can we as individual citizens counter every attack like this one? How can we spend time reviewing every important appropriation bill sentence by sentence to find the poison pill? When the intention by an elected official is to undermine the public will in such a sneaky and underhanded manner. Thank God for the small non-profits (often local) that read these bills and find the problems and bring them to light.
The land has inherent value, just for the sake of being there. The mind set that everything needs an extractive value to be of use is being proven to be short sighted or just plain wrong and damaging repeatedly.
How can we as individual citizens counter every attack like this one? How can we spend time reviewing every important appropriation bill sentence by sentence to find the poison pill? When the intention by an elected official is to undermine the public will in such a sneaky and underhanded manner. Thank God for the small non-profits (often local) that read these bills and find the problems and bring them to light.
16
As an Easterner with family members in the West, I have been trying for a long time to understand the intense anger and resentment over Federal control of land in the west (don't even try to get a handle on the water wars). And it is just as intense as your feelings (which, by the way, I generally agree with). The folks in Oregon are not just a few crackpots. They represent an intense hatred of all things that restrict their "freedom" to do what they want and what they have "always done." I think we dismiss this at our peril, just as we dismiss at our peril the anger and resentment in many minority communities.
In the West the argument invariably reduces to either a pitch for "jobs" as out of state (or entirely foreign) interests arrive to extract resources under protection of hopelessly antiquated mining laws, siphoning the profits out of state, and later failing in their reclamation responsibilities - which are then left to the taxpayer, or an expansion of equally antiquated grazing rights and the like at ridiculously under-market rates that ultimately ruin the land and, wait for it, again leave the taxpayers footing the bill on any restoration efforts.
Face it, if the regulatory framework were at all efficient at forcing commercial interests - mineral extraction, ranching, etc. - to actually pay market rates for their use (read misuse) of the land, this whole controversy would end as the commercial demand would dry up overnight. Without taxpayer subsidies, virtually none of that is commercially viable.
That's the real issue.
Face it, if the regulatory framework were at all efficient at forcing commercial interests - mineral extraction, ranching, etc. - to actually pay market rates for their use (read misuse) of the land, this whole controversy would end as the commercial demand would dry up overnight. Without taxpayer subsidies, virtually none of that is commercially viable.
That's the real issue.
160
Future of National Parks, Federal Lands in the U.S.--concept of "Lands Belonging to All of the American People"?
Probably only the core of America is guaranteed, the "All of the American People" of the U.S. military complex, the government of the military, the federal land identical with military, which is to say private ownership of land allowed really only so long as it is in deference to military organization--house in the wilderness allowed to you provided you do not conflict with the military and the forest primarily the playground of the military. I can easily show you a state or national forest not at all far from a shooting range.
Socialism anywhere never seems to wander far from a nationalistic, military type of socialism unless the country socialistic is protected by another military power (such as EU protected by multiple interests), which is to say government is rarely successful when it is large and beyond being identical to military and business interests. To see the core of the U.S. and probably the future of such in our multipolar power and environmentally devastated world see Israel, where socialism, land, people is largely wrapped in military state. No environment there really for anyone not in uniform.
Which is to say we humans are just increasingly sophisticated hunters in vast numbers shrinking the land we stand on and probably National Parks of the future will be No Man's Land simply because, and for various reasons, no one wants to be there...
Probably only the core of America is guaranteed, the "All of the American People" of the U.S. military complex, the government of the military, the federal land identical with military, which is to say private ownership of land allowed really only so long as it is in deference to military organization--house in the wilderness allowed to you provided you do not conflict with the military and the forest primarily the playground of the military. I can easily show you a state or national forest not at all far from a shooting range.
Socialism anywhere never seems to wander far from a nationalistic, military type of socialism unless the country socialistic is protected by another military power (such as EU protected by multiple interests), which is to say government is rarely successful when it is large and beyond being identical to military and business interests. To see the core of the U.S. and probably the future of such in our multipolar power and environmentally devastated world see Israel, where socialism, land, people is largely wrapped in military state. No environment there really for anyone not in uniform.
Which is to say we humans are just increasingly sophisticated hunters in vast numbers shrinking the land we stand on and probably National Parks of the future will be No Man's Land simply because, and for various reasons, no one wants to be there...
1
@ Daniel12. I guess your comment was picked to demonstrate how far out of reality the thinking of some people in this country is. The National Parks are more in danger of being "Loved to death" by users than they are to become spaces no one wants to be in unless more of the Bundy types are occupying them with their arsenals. If that day comes, it means the entire country is doomed and all smart people will have gone elsewhere.
5
Can someone please translate this into English.
Mr.Williams, thank you for this much needed alert on the danger of public lands going to private developers.
You hit the nail on the head: if you "give these public lands to cash-hungry states or territories" away from federal protection, they will "be leased, drilled, logged or sold to the highest bidder." This is American capitalism today and it will, as always, benefit the few, the rich and connected.
Even moving it to the military doesn't protect these lands since the military can later declare it surplus and open it up for private development.
Both democrats and republicans supported the the debt-relief package for Puerto Rico and the defense authorization bill, indicating a willingness of legislators of both sides of the aisle to violate the public trust for campaign contributions in total disregard of the will of the public.
Alarmingly, the appointment of Ken Salazar to head up the transition team for a potential Clinton presidency does not bode well for anyone concerned about this issue. He was one of the worst Secretary of the Interior in the recent history of this country (coal, arctic drilling, fracking, drilling in National Parks, Deepwater Horizon just to name a few of his proclivities). WilmerHale (he is a partner) negotiated the TPP. 4000 presidential appointments are up for grabs and the enormous impact that will have on the environment and the protection of public space cannot be overstated.
Teddy Roosevelt would be outraged and would vote for Jill Stein.
You hit the nail on the head: if you "give these public lands to cash-hungry states or territories" away from federal protection, they will "be leased, drilled, logged or sold to the highest bidder." This is American capitalism today and it will, as always, benefit the few, the rich and connected.
Even moving it to the military doesn't protect these lands since the military can later declare it surplus and open it up for private development.
Both democrats and republicans supported the the debt-relief package for Puerto Rico and the defense authorization bill, indicating a willingness of legislators of both sides of the aisle to violate the public trust for campaign contributions in total disregard of the will of the public.
Alarmingly, the appointment of Ken Salazar to head up the transition team for a potential Clinton presidency does not bode well for anyone concerned about this issue. He was one of the worst Secretary of the Interior in the recent history of this country (coal, arctic drilling, fracking, drilling in National Parks, Deepwater Horizon just to name a few of his proclivities). WilmerHale (he is a partner) negotiated the TPP. 4000 presidential appointments are up for grabs and the enormous impact that will have on the environment and the protection of public space cannot be overstated.
Teddy Roosevelt would be outraged and would vote for Jill Stein.
65
@ Chris. The Kochs and their brethren in greed would love to own all the land that is currently public. Then they could drill, drill drill and dig, dig, dig, because they don't have enough money!
6
I was with you until you got to Jill Stein. People should look her up. She holds some peculiar beliefs and is an opportunist. In a coalition government, I'd love to see a lot more Greens, but she's not the one. Instead, we need to work from inside.
3
I think you need to get out of the US media bubble. Her views are not at all "peculiar", you have felt victim to the Correct the Record smear campaign. She's the only decent choice this election around.
2
A Native American Wisdom/Proverb comes to mind..." We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children." We must preserve and protect our Wildlife Refuges.
22
Once again we see the extreme conservatives in Congress despise the concept of Public: Public Lands, Public Education, Public Health, Public Good. The seem to hat the very concept "we the people".
20
Some things are worth more than money. When our wild places are gone, they don't come back. We have to fight for them, don't let the politicians give them away.
132
When wild places and refuges are gone, no problem. Disney and other corporations will provide "virtual wildlife" parks for you to enjoy for a very modest fee (plus taxes) - never mind the long lines and crowds. What better way to enjoy wildlife than from outside of a cage? And the selfies you take will include Mickey Mouse in the background and not an oil pump in the background as you would see in those industrial parks at Yosemite or Yellow Stone.
1
Just another reason to eject as many Republicans from Congress as possible.
19
Our Federal wildlife refuges and national parks protect our environment and therefore our health, both physical and mental. It was a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt who, despite his enjoyment of hunting, realized that America's most beautiful places were endangered and moved to ensure they would survive.
More recently, states and conservation groups have stepped in to protect small pieces of land and, often, to string them together to protect the health of estuaries and wetlands. One thinks of the Damariscotta River Association in Maine.
One thing we know: If John F. Kennedy hadn't moved to create the Cape Cod National Seashore, much of the Cape would look like parts of Route 6 and other thoroughfares, a series of malls, T-shirt shops, over-large beach houses and streets jam-packed with SUVs. In Provincetown, unchecked development has resulted in a formerly viable town almost deserted from October through April.
I am not sure what Republican lawmakers think they can accomplish by dismantling our park system. I guess large vacation homes for themselves, their cronies, and their corporate backers. Who wouldn't want a summer place on the rim of the Grand Canyon?
More recently, states and conservation groups have stepped in to protect small pieces of land and, often, to string them together to protect the health of estuaries and wetlands. One thinks of the Damariscotta River Association in Maine.
One thing we know: If John F. Kennedy hadn't moved to create the Cape Cod National Seashore, much of the Cape would look like parts of Route 6 and other thoroughfares, a series of malls, T-shirt shops, over-large beach houses and streets jam-packed with SUVs. In Provincetown, unchecked development has resulted in a formerly viable town almost deserted from October through April.
I am not sure what Republican lawmakers think they can accomplish by dismantling our park system. I guess large vacation homes for themselves, their cronies, and their corporate backers. Who wouldn't want a summer place on the rim of the Grand Canyon?
10
History keeps showing greed driving political decisions with such a lasting impact for this country and future generations.
5
As long as the population of the USA continues to grow, there will be increasing pressures to take land out of wildlife refuges and convert them to human economic purposes like timbering, mining, and houses. The only way to protect refuges in the long run is to stop US population growth, and then to reduce the size of the US population.
2
Taxing the rich, who are behind the move to privatize public resources, is the most effective way to protect public land and other public goods from being handed to wealthy investors. Tax rates on the rich need to be raised considerably. We need a president and Congress who will do that.
9
Excellent piece, Jamie Williams, on giving away our wildlife refuges. Unfortunately, widespread contamination has occurred on the beautiful Puerto Rican islands of Vieques and Culebra, due to the US Navy's use of those islands for live bombing practice (using live depleted uranium bullets and other ammunitions for decades from the 1940s).The food chain has become contaminated to the extent of outrageous levels of toxins and cancers in the wildlife and inhabitants of those beautiful islands, and the residents suffer from all manner of diseases brought by Navy materiel in their bombing and gunnery exercises. High crimes and misdemeanors for which the US Navy has not assumed responsibility. Wildlife refuge on Vieques and Culebra, definitely not! They are not healthy and intact, these islands of extraordinary human and wildlife, contaminated for decades by the US Navy. The extremists in Congress and state and territorial legislatures should realize that a land grab for 31,000 acres in Vieques is a supremely poisonous idea! An excellent account of Vieques and Culebra's plight is "Target Culebra", 2008, by Richard D. Copaken, Esq - lawyer who fought US Navy over Vieques and Culebra and won.
9
The low number of reader comments on this article compared to those on the same page's political ones show how far the supposedly hypeerliterate NYT readership has to go to recognize the most pressing issue facing humanity is not Donald Trump's obscenities but the wholescale destruction of nature on this planet and of planetary life itself thru global warming
11
@Bordercollieman. Unfortunately, the panic over Donald Trump possibly becoming President is very distracting. If by some chance, he does get elected we will really have to watch out for our public lands.
4
This is only the latest debacle from the Grand Old Party ..... the party of greed, me-ism and a flabbergasting presidential candidate poised to take us apart in so many ways. Wake up, America!
13
How can Republicans manage to be on the wrong side of every issue. Their consistency is truly amazing. What has happened to true conservatives in the manner of Teddy Roosevelt? Gone forever it seems.
18
Republican lawmakers are no different than the chuckleheads that took over Malheur earlier this year. They both see the federal government as standing in the way of their greed, and their incorrectly perceived right to exploit and ravish every square inch of our country for profit.
If it were up to Republicans, there would be no such thing as a national park or wildlife refuge. Without regulation, and without preservation, capitalism has no self-restraint, and will consume everything in its path for the short-term profit of a very few.
How much poorer would all Americans be, were we unable to have these pristine areas of our natural heritage to explore, learn from, and gain emotional and intellectual nourishment from?
I want our national parks to endure for all generations. I could care less about industrial profits, especially if they come at the expense of these areas. I'm glad there are individuals and organizations keeping a watch on this legislation, as I don't trust Republicans any farther than I can throw them. Hey, speak of throwing them, how about we throw them all out in November?
If it were up to Republicans, there would be no such thing as a national park or wildlife refuge. Without regulation, and without preservation, capitalism has no self-restraint, and will consume everything in its path for the short-term profit of a very few.
How much poorer would all Americans be, were we unable to have these pristine areas of our natural heritage to explore, learn from, and gain emotional and intellectual nourishment from?
I want our national parks to endure for all generations. I could care less about industrial profits, especially if they come at the expense of these areas. I'm glad there are individuals and organizations keeping a watch on this legislation, as I don't trust Republicans any farther than I can throw them. Hey, speak of throwing them, how about we throw them all out in November?
21
I hear all the readers of the Constitution who argue against Federal ownership of state lands. Legally, Constitutionally, they may have very valid points.
They still do not hold the high ground. The Federal government rightly determined, and clearly still maintains, that these state and reserve lands--tens of millions of acres throughout the 50--are priceless at all levels. Biodiversity, wilderness for its own sake, profound evidence of the hand of the Almighty, protection of the defenseless and innocent--pick your most deeply held doctrine. The mere existence of these resources that remain just beyond grasp froths the would-be pillagers into a frenzy. Surely, Foolish Government cannot defy the All-Wise Constitution--and many billions of Almighty Dollars.
The proponents may have a near-ideal in mind. To create jobs. To generate funds for the state's schools. Civic improvement. Sheer principle. But no economy, no demand for resources, no founding documents, and no religion, supersedes the right of Mother Nature herself to own and be in charge of a few small, isolated parcels that remain from pre-civilization. We are a nation of over 3,000,000 square miles--and we set examples for the rest of the 190,000,000 of Earth. We have paved, plowed, drained, diverted, excavated, tainted, commodified and otherwise impacted a great majority of America. Surely, some must be held in formal, perpetual, mutual reserve, beyond rationalized acquisition for irrational exploitation.
They still do not hold the high ground. The Federal government rightly determined, and clearly still maintains, that these state and reserve lands--tens of millions of acres throughout the 50--are priceless at all levels. Biodiversity, wilderness for its own sake, profound evidence of the hand of the Almighty, protection of the defenseless and innocent--pick your most deeply held doctrine. The mere existence of these resources that remain just beyond grasp froths the would-be pillagers into a frenzy. Surely, Foolish Government cannot defy the All-Wise Constitution--and many billions of Almighty Dollars.
The proponents may have a near-ideal in mind. To create jobs. To generate funds for the state's schools. Civic improvement. Sheer principle. But no economy, no demand for resources, no founding documents, and no religion, supersedes the right of Mother Nature herself to own and be in charge of a few small, isolated parcels that remain from pre-civilization. We are a nation of over 3,000,000 square miles--and we set examples for the rest of the 190,000,000 of Earth. We have paved, plowed, drained, diverted, excavated, tainted, commodified and otherwise impacted a great majority of America. Surely, some must be held in formal, perpetual, mutual reserve, beyond rationalized acquisition for irrational exploitation.
12
@ Mark McK. Short term solutions lead to long term problems. In Chicago, they sold off the rights to revenue from parking meters for a one time infusion of cash. Turns out parking is now so expensive, people have to pay through the nose for it and that up front payment will soon be gone.
1
Just because we can't get to the refuges and other national lands doesn't mean they aren't important to us. These are places where wildlife congregates during migrations, during various seasons, under certain weather conditions. The truth is that Congress, under the GOP, has deliberately underfunded for these national treasures the same way it's underfunded for the IRS, OSHA, etc. All they are proving is that they have the power to destroy the country, the environment, and, by extension, our lives by refusing to fund the government in order to allow it to do its job. For a party that declares itself to be filled with people who care about America, who are patriots, who want to save us money, they sure have a funny way of showing it.
66
The last tree will be cut down by a Republican.
1
Rand Paul and Ted Cruz, both of whom will likely be around again in future presidential races, are on record as strongly supporting the selling off of our public lands, natural heritage and wonders of the world. For those who think this might be a good idea, look at parts of the world where forests, wetlands, and preserves are not protected - it's not pretty and you wouldn't want to live there.
133
Speaking of the senator from Texas.. as a visitor to Colorado, I was shocked to see the huge number of Texas license plates. When I asked, the locals told me that texans come here en masse every year to enjoy ...would you believe?...FEDERAL LANDS! There are no national parks, forests, BLM lands at all in Texas, the entire state is private land with a few state parks. So Texans invade (for that is what it feels like) neighboring states to enjoy what is forbidden in their home state.
When the entire country is sold to the wealthy private landholders, where will the people go? While they are unlikely to admit it, Texans do value public lands, just look for their license plates, and let this this serve as a warning to those who would abolish our national parks, BLM, US forests etc.
When the entire country is sold to the wealthy private landholders, where will the people go? While they are unlikely to admit it, Texans do value public lands, just look for their license plates, and let this this serve as a warning to those who would abolish our national parks, BLM, US forests etc.
If these lands were to be given to someone, native tribes would be most deserving.
Imagine a tram to the top of Half Dome. Huge ski area at Paradise or Sunrise on Mt. Rainier. A Trump casino next to Old Faithful. Parks priced out of the reach of the general public. Worst of all, drilling in our parks.
These are OUR lands, just like the song says. Stop GOP greed!
Imagine a tram to the top of Half Dome. Huge ski area at Paradise or Sunrise on Mt. Rainier. A Trump casino next to Old Faithful. Parks priced out of the reach of the general public. Worst of all, drilling in our parks.
These are OUR lands, just like the song says. Stop GOP greed!
168
Actually there is a movement that is demanding that alarge part of southeast Utah be declared a national monument, the Bears Ears. The Native American tribes are begging for that designation as are many others. Rob Bishop and others want most of it so the state of Utah can lease it to the highest bidders, the extraction industries, oil, gas, lumber, etc. The tribes need these lands, as do all fellow Americans. Right your congressional representatives and demand that federal lands remain federal lands for all of us, and wildlife can flourish.
4
This has a bit of religious grandiosity tied in somewhere if it involves the Mormons of Utah. When people believe that they are predestined to a certain life then the future ceases to matter and what happens next is of little consequence to them. Having visited a lot of national parks and refuges, I can say that they need a lot more help instead of being destroyed by private interests who want to drill oil wells and cause earthquakes like we now have here in the hinterlands.
27
Y'all Quedas armed takeover and vandalism of a bird sanctuary was only the beginning of this deceptive and destuctive agenda.
47
The Wildlife Refuges protect the habitat that makes wildlife conservation possible. That habitat is fragile, particularly fragile in the West along the coastlines. Whenever I read comments that call for mixed use development of Wildlife refuges and adjacent federal lands I can't help but wonder whether so called conservatives have ever witnessed, or even considered, the effect of development on habitat.
54
If they have considered such a effect (doubtful), they do not care.
3
Wack-a-mole federal land-grabs benefit the GOP by encouraging those who think the absence of any laws authorizing the federal government to set aside such lands back in the 18th Century meant that undeveloped lands were, ipso-facto, intended always intended to be up for grabs.
Guess who they'll vote for.
Remember what happened to Native Americans?
More importantly: Big Biz wants to be able to jump into the land-grab hog pen. All THEY'D do is ... well ... anything they could to make money...
Big Biz. Another "voter" clique that yearns, for instance, to be able to mine these lands
In other words, these folks want to have unrestricted access to giant "Ditzylands" of their own, including settling these often sacred and environmentally-critical swaths.
Guess who they'll vote for.
Remember what happened to Native Americans?
More importantly: Big Biz wants to be able to jump into the land-grab hog pen. All THEY'D do is ... well ... anything they could to make money...
Big Biz. Another "voter" clique that yearns, for instance, to be able to mine these lands
In other words, these folks want to have unrestricted access to giant "Ditzylands" of their own, including settling these often sacred and environmentally-critical swaths.
29
"the absence of any laws authorizing the federal government to set aside such lands back in the 18th Century"
Our nation's highest law is our contiturion and the absence of an enumerated federal power means the federal government does NOT have the power per the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For those who are fine with ignoring constitutional limits on government, consider the very real possibility of a Trump administration.
Our nation's highest law is our contiturion and the absence of an enumerated federal power means the federal government does NOT have the power per the Tenth Amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution... are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
For those who are fine with ignoring constitutional limits on government, consider the very real possibility of a Trump administration.
1
Those lands were held by the Federal Government before the states were created and continued Federal ownership were in all of the does brokered when western states were created. Your arguments are nonsense.
John "or those who are fine with ignoring constitutional limits on government, consider the very real possibility of a Trump administration."
The sentence is not logical. Being 'fine with' -- anything -- doesn't make Trump's election either more or less possible.
The sentence is not logical. Being 'fine with' -- anything -- doesn't make Trump's election either more or less possible.
The further to the right conservatives move, the less rational they become. The greater good is too complex a concept for them to comprehend. There's a direct inverse correlation between ideological extremism and intelligence, demonstrated regularly by too many Republicans.
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
Eclectic Pragmatist — http://eclectic-pragmatist.tumblr.com/
Eclectic Pragmatist — https://medium.com/eclectic-pragmatism
33
Love the "direct inverse correlation"-- a true statement!
"...extremists in Congress and state legislatures who want to grab national lands...."
Isn't the original understanding that the Federal Government quickly dispose of land inside states? Lets look at the Constitution's restrictions of Federal Land.
Starting with the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States ...." Next look at the delegated land powers.
From Article I, Section 8:"... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
Note the limited allowed land uses for newly purchased land did not include wild life reserves and required the consent of the states. It focused on supporting enumerate powers.
Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"
Refusing to sell lands seems a power grab loop hole to me.
For this who hold the Federal government morally higher over states, remember the SCOTUS supported "Separate but Equal" and the Fugitive Slave Act that effectively forbid states from making people reaching their boundaries free because they were property. Consider DC allowing slavery when there were free states, and the WWII Japanese interment.
Isn't the original understanding that the Federal Government quickly dispose of land inside states? Lets look at the Constitution's restrictions of Federal Land.
Starting with the 10th amendment "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States ...." Next look at the delegated land powers.
From Article I, Section 8:"... and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
Note the limited allowed land uses for newly purchased land did not include wild life reserves and required the consent of the states. It focused on supporting enumerate powers.
Article IV, Section 3: "The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;"
Refusing to sell lands seems a power grab loop hole to me.
For this who hold the Federal government morally higher over states, remember the SCOTUS supported "Separate but Equal" and the Fugitive Slave Act that effectively forbid states from making people reaching their boundaries free because they were property. Consider DC allowing slavery when there were free states, and the WWII Japanese interment.
3
You must have missed "other needful Buildings", which is a necessary catchall phrase intended to cover things that might come up. You also have forgotten that in the late eighteenth century nobody could have dreamed that there'd be 300 million people living in the United States. (Persons who read the Constitution so literally also tend to forget the militia part of the second amendment.)
22
By getting rid of as much federal land as possible we could drastically reduce or even eliminate the Bureau of Land Management and most if not all of the useless, parasitic, self serving government bureaucrats that infest it.
1
""other needful Buildings", which is a necessary catchall phrase intended to cover things that might come up."
What is your source for this interpretation? What purpose would there be in enumerating a set of uses that mapped to other enumerated powers if there was a catch all?
You may want to read Federalist 43 where James Madison writes.
"All objections and scruples are here also obviated,
by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every
such establishment. "
What is your source for this interpretation? What purpose would there be in enumerating a set of uses that mapped to other enumerated powers if there was a catch all?
You may want to read Federalist 43 where James Madison writes.
"All objections and scruples are here also obviated,
by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every
such establishment. "
We often visit federal wildlife refuges. Often they represent islands of wilderness in the sea of development. They are important because they provide stopping places for migrating birds and homes for animals that are incompatible with development.
Some protect sensitive environments. The Bundy's cattle didn't just threaten the habitat of an endangered tortoise, they trampled the sensitive arid lands where plants struggle to survive. It's questionable whether the rent people pay for the use of those lands is commensurate with the value of what their activities destroy.
It may be that some of the federal lands, which do belong to all of us, might be used in different ways, but I think it's wrong to assume that the profit motive would drive good decisions. I believe there are some examples of collaboration between locals and federal representatives to develop compromises for those lands that are appropriate for more development. That is surely the best answer, but how do we get to the point where that kind of compromise is the rule rather than the exception?
Some protect sensitive environments. The Bundy's cattle didn't just threaten the habitat of an endangered tortoise, they trampled the sensitive arid lands where plants struggle to survive. It's questionable whether the rent people pay for the use of those lands is commensurate with the value of what their activities destroy.
It may be that some of the federal lands, which do belong to all of us, might be used in different ways, but I think it's wrong to assume that the profit motive would drive good decisions. I believe there are some examples of collaboration between locals and federal representatives to develop compromises for those lands that are appropriate for more development. That is surely the best answer, but how do we get to the point where that kind of compromise is the rule rather than the exception?
17
Federal wildlife preserves serve an invaluable function in times of excessive rainfall by acting as a huge sponge and filter mechanism. This was discernible during Hurricane Floyd in 1999 at the John Heinz Wildlife Refuge in Tinicum Township, Pennsylvania, which abuts I-95 and the Philadelphia International Airport. And later during Hurricane Sandy that and other urban-situated wildlife refuges mitigated the flooding caused by overdevelopment in our abysmally ugly Northeastern conurbations...
7
seriously?? this America. The profit motive drives all decisions involving corporations and their lapdogs, the GOP. Once given access to wildlife pressrves kiss them goodbye
5
We sure ain't going to get to any kind of compromise, given where Republican Party's trajectory.
2
The Republican Party. The party of give special interests all they what whenever they want. The party of shut down or priovitize Social Security. The party of science denial in the face of facts. The party of tax break for the rich. The party of excessive budget cuts, then criticisim of the agencies cut for not doing the job. The Republican Party, making America small again.
285
The party of low minimum wage and union busting. The party of deregulation of everything. The party of lead in drinking water. The party of drilling and mining and environmental degradation. Greed and hate.
16
And it begins. 7.4 billion humans, especially those very consumptive ones, are not sustainable. Not just in the U.S.--but the pressure is mounting to convert wild places to domestic ones, wherever there are electric can-openers for sale. So from climate change to fewer elephants, pandas or butterflies, my granddaughter wants to know why 7.4 billion is better than 1 billion of us?
42
I understand your point Mr. Luettgen, but local control always has greater chances of extreme points of view. More "open" land use can still occur on a federal level and avoids, in this case, special interest swaying state and local officials. You also assume we all agree that economic development is the top concern. I would challenge that. This federal land is protected for many reasons, including preserving biodiversity on the planet and resources for future generations. Considering what we are looking at regarding climate change, this becomes very important.
45
Public lands belong to ALL U.S. Citizens. This effort, if allowed, effectively permits America's most important natural areas, which belong to ALL of us, to be stolen and given to corporations. Why this is a good idea to Republicans -- who have ascended to posts where they are specifically entrusted to PROTECT our precious areas for ALL U.S. Citizens and not exploit them -- is worthy of our outrage. They are attempting to reallocate everyone's property to the highest bidder. They should be removed from office and not allowed to "serve" the public ever again.
139
Allow me to be the first to disabuse you of your ignorance.
The federal government does not lawfully own that property. It obtained it by extralegal methods.
* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
* If the state agrees, the federal government can acquire an “enclave” within the state under the Enclave Clause (I-8-17). This grants governmental jurisdiction but the land is not owned by the government.
* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.
* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries.
* As for acreage (”other Property”): Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire Land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like.
* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
The federal government does not lawfully own that property. It obtained it by extralegal methods.
* Under the Property Clause (Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2), land titled to the federal government and held outside state boundaries is “Territory.” Federal land held within state boundaries is “other Property.”
* If the state agrees, the federal government can acquire an “enclave” within the state under the Enclave Clause (I-8-17). This grants governmental jurisdiction but the land is not owned by the government.
* The Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and authority to regulate what is already held. It does not mention a power to acquire.
* Under the Treaty Clause (II-2-2; see also Article VI), the federal government may acquire land outside state boundaries.
* As for acreage (”other Property”): Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, the federal government may acquire Land necessary for carrying out its enumerated powers. This military bases, post offices, buildings to house federal employees undertaking enumerated functions, and the like.
* But within state boundaries the Constitution grants no authority to retain acreage for unenumerated purposes, such as land for grazing, mineral development, agriculture, forests, or parks.
* Once a state is created and is thereby no longer a territory, the federal government has a duty to dispose of tracts not used for enumerated purposes.
1
Sigh. If the Property Clause gives Congress unconditional power to dispose of property and to regulate what is already held, doesn't that imply the power to acquire it in the first place? How does it dispose of property it hasn't acquired? The states' righters lost the Constitution, and they can't get it back.
21
So, if you are on your high horse and want to take our national lands, then of course you must want to give it back to those from whom it was taken, the Native Tribes. I trust the tribes to care for the land better than the states. Better than right wing politicians who will sell it cheap to their cronies to do whatever they want with it.
3
I fully agree with your post. Additionally, the the Constitution which created our Federal Government was an agreement among the states. The state ratifiers made them law, and the meaning of our constitution is, as best can be determined, the understanding those ratifiers had as can be gained through documents predating it like the Federalist Papers, the debates, ...
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
From http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-...
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Of great importance is the power sharing / Federalism defined in the constitution which limits Federal power to the enumerate powers which covers land use
The influence of the States role in the Federal government was arguable greatly weekend when Senators were directly elected rather than appointed by the states (17 th Amendment). While the rest of the constitution did not change, the door was opened to a bias in interpretation toward the Federal power. I believe State control of the senate helped assure the intended balance of power because all laws must be passed by the Senate, and SCOTUS judges that rule on State / Federal power issues must be Senate confirmed.
Thomas Jefferson wrote:
From http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/letters-of-thomas-...
"On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Of great importance is the power sharing / Federalism defined in the constitution which limits Federal power to the enumerate powers which covers land use
The influence of the States role in the Federal government was arguable greatly weekend when Senators were directly elected rather than appointed by the states (17 th Amendment). While the rest of the constitution did not change, the door was opened to a bias in interpretation toward the Federal power. I believe State control of the senate helped assure the intended balance of power because all laws must be passed by the Senate, and SCOTUS judges that rule on State / Federal power issues must be Senate confirmed.
1
Thank you for this eye-opening article. When will the Republican tools of the business community realize that paving paradise and putting up parking lots is not in the best interests of people in general and, therefore, not in the best interest of business? This "bad for business logic" has been, and always will be nothing but short-sighted cynicism.
236
When will the Republicans realize that you can't have an economy if you ruin the environment?
If we destroy our air, our water, our food systems, our climate, our planet, what good will money be?
You can't eat the 1s and 0s that are your bank balance?
If we destroy our air, our water, our food systems, our climate, our planet, what good will money be?
You can't eat the 1s and 0s that are your bank balance?
1
Steve, one has to understand that BIG democracy-destroying money masters actually hate society at large and want all the money and power so they can live "away" from the great, unwashed masses of humanity. They get adjustments to overbuild housing so they can own an island and "get away from it all". They do not care what's "good for business" once they have theirs.
Unregulated capitalism is like an angry, hungry beast that never gets enough so it has to destroy everything in it's path to try to feed the monster. WE must demand that the monster be stopped in it's tracks and downsized to once again support democracy and business instead of destroying them.
Unregulated capitalism is like an angry, hungry beast that never gets enough so it has to destroy everything in it's path to try to feed the monster. WE must demand that the monster be stopped in it's tracks and downsized to once again support democracy and business instead of destroying them.
4
The people pushing transfers from Federal to the states know full well the states have even fewer resources to handle these lands and will either sell them or lease them, locking us, the public and the land owner, out. I am not pretending that the federal Government is an ideal manager, the idiotic tactics used during the last federal shutdown proved vindictiveness, or just short term lack of common sense, runs rampant, but they are still better able to keep these lands in public hands. Turning over to the states is nothing more than an attempt to turn a quick dollar at the long term expense of the rest of us. We in the east are not exempt, be it our national forest, or national parks, are on the long term target list of the short sighted pols acting on behalf of those more interested in increasing their already vast wealth. The fact is fed management can be improved. There is no need to completely stop logging for instance, but it does need tight management and oversight. These lands are where we go to hike, bike, fish, hunt, recreate. We will all be losers if the fast buck artists win this give away contest.
Utah, please do us a favor and do not re-elect Rep. Bishop.
Teddy Roosevelt would be ashamed that the GOP has betrayed the American people by putting land transfer into the party platform. Thankfully their Presidential candidate opposes this stupidity.
Utah, please do us a favor and do not re-elect Rep. Bishop.
Teddy Roosevelt would be ashamed that the GOP has betrayed the American people by putting land transfer into the party platform. Thankfully their Presidential candidate opposes this stupidity.
72
In the past, there were islands of humanity surrounded by an ocean of wildlife. Now, we have islands of wildlife surrounded by an ocean of humanity. The most invasive species is humans. For the good of the Earth, I support policies that save as much wildlife as possible.
277
So you think the humans shoud llve in cages while wild things run wild? Me too.
This editorial is misleading. Transferring federal lands to the states doesn't mean they'll be sold off. It merely means that the land will be transferred. 50% of Arizona is federally owned. There is no particular controversy about that, so there is no particular support for transfer. But the City of Phoenix has set aside a huge and ever-growing desert preserve which it administers principally for the recreational needs of residents. The state of Arizona has a wonderful park system that includes destination parks for people all over the state. Federal lands tend to be more remote and less-used except for our national parks that attract people from all over the country, I am pleased with the city, the state, and the country's administration of our open lands. If the feds sold off a few of their holdings I would not worry that the state would immediately sell to uranium mines. We Arizonans like our open lands and our nutty state government seems too understand.
" Transferring federal lands to the states doesn't mean they'll be sold off. "
That's precisely what it does mean. GOP governors would instantly sell the land at bargain basement prices to their largest campaign donors.
That's precisely what it does mean. GOP governors would instantly sell the land at bargain basement prices to their largest campaign donors.
260
In the somewhat less nutty neighboring state of New Mexico, our newly elected (by a few hundred votes) Republican state land commissioner actually said that after transfer of federal land to the state, that land should be developed "for the good of the people". Which people? The 1% of course. This land exchange movement in the country is transparent, but as usual at least 1/2 of the voters are too dumb or self interested to see it.
30
Have you actually looked at the AZ state trust lands the state manages, besides just the state and municipal parks? Much AZ state managed land is overgrazed, filled with trash, and not protected from those who use the land for illegal activities including removing protected plants, illegal shooting, pot-hunting, and wildcat garbage dumping. Our state lands are a mess, with management completely under-funded, and I have no doubt the state GOP would love to sell off as much as they could get away with.
22
Since a nation's resources are, by definition, scarce, the struggle over how to use them will never end. Many of our national parks owe their existence to efforts to shield resources from exploitation by businesses.
The current drive to privatize federal lands stems partly from ideology, but more importantly from the efforts of business groups and their allies in government to open those lands to exploitation that could destroy their ecosystems. Local residents might gain employment from the transfer, but they might also experience a deterioration in the quality of their lives.
Once the government yielded control of the lands, moreover, no second thoughts could reverse the decision. Private exploitation of the resources would change the lands in ways that no future Congress could ever undo. For this reason, the interests of the nation, including future generations, not the desire of businesses for temporary profits, should guide the decision.
The current drive to privatize federal lands stems partly from ideology, but more importantly from the efforts of business groups and their allies in government to open those lands to exploitation that could destroy their ecosystems. Local residents might gain employment from the transfer, but they might also experience a deterioration in the quality of their lives.
Once the government yielded control of the lands, moreover, no second thoughts could reverse the decision. Private exploitation of the resources would change the lands in ways that no future Congress could ever undo. For this reason, the interests of the nation, including future generations, not the desire of businesses for temporary profits, should guide the decision.
68
Here in Utah we are having a battle to save the Bears Ears area in the southeastern part if state. Yes a few more locals would be hired but I fear the area would start to look like North Dakota. That is not something that should happen to any other state.
1
Once these lands are given away, the whole world takes a loss. These Federally owned lands, as well as State and private refuges, offer a buffer - both psychologically and environmentally.
And unlike a utility, which might be changed from public to private to public again, these lands will be forever damaged if they are allowed to be "developed". There's no going back.
Selling these lands gives you a one-time infusion of cash - and then what? A terrible loss for our children and grandchildren.
And unlike a utility, which might be changed from public to private to public again, these lands will be forever damaged if they are allowed to be "developed". There's no going back.
Selling these lands gives you a one-time infusion of cash - and then what? A terrible loss for our children and grandchildren.
113
had yosemite not been made a park, th valley would now be one long line of condos hiding behind a guarded gate, open for residents only
there are millions of acres of spectacular land where that very thing happened
107
The fact that all of these are indeed tucked away in other legislation is the ugliest part. They can't win on the merits of their own case, so they hide them.
I am no cynic, but we have to start holding these elected officials accountable.
I am no cynic, but we have to start holding these elected officials accountable.
239
steve. Great point. And it's not on this issue. The GOP added no federal funding for Planed Parenthood to the bill for Zika science. That's why Obama would not sign. These GOP folks-- they are wily. Or evil.
7
THINGS THAT MAKE YOU GO HUMMM!
1) Curious that a GOP Congressman from Utah is hell bent to give away valuable Federal Lands in Puerto Rico {"Follow da money" Deep-Throat}
2) I don't know why a whole, long paragraph was devoted to the objection over constructing a road, presumably the wild live would have no difficulty crossing it. My guess is that there are larger issues involved than the significant wildlife talked about here. {What happened to having competent editors review stories before they are rushing out to the web?}
3) "The group promotes the flawed idea that local communities would fare better if national lands were given to the states to manage"
REALITY-CHECK: This isn't a "flawed-idea". The idea here is that a small number of VERY RICH people would "fare" unbelievably better if they could get their hands on those properties at sweetheart-deal prices. And the RICH people benefit, then by-definition, the local communities by direct extension will 'fare' better, since they are Job-Creators who just want to *GROW* the economy.
4) Anti-conservation lawmakers devise such distractions to justify their actions because they know that the American people prize these lands"
REALITY-CHECK: The "American People" are barely aware of these prized lands. And if they are essentially given away in the dark-of-night, then, as the old saying goes: What they don't know, won't hurt them {they'll be none-the-wiser}
5) GOP desire to sell off anything of value to the highest bidder
1) Curious that a GOP Congressman from Utah is hell bent to give away valuable Federal Lands in Puerto Rico {"Follow da money" Deep-Throat}
2) I don't know why a whole, long paragraph was devoted to the objection over constructing a road, presumably the wild live would have no difficulty crossing it. My guess is that there are larger issues involved than the significant wildlife talked about here. {What happened to having competent editors review stories before they are rushing out to the web?}
3) "The group promotes the flawed idea that local communities would fare better if national lands were given to the states to manage"
REALITY-CHECK: This isn't a "flawed-idea". The idea here is that a small number of VERY RICH people would "fare" unbelievably better if they could get their hands on those properties at sweetheart-deal prices. And the RICH people benefit, then by-definition, the local communities by direct extension will 'fare' better, since they are Job-Creators who just want to *GROW* the economy.
4) Anti-conservation lawmakers devise such distractions to justify their actions because they know that the American people prize these lands"
REALITY-CHECK: The "American People" are barely aware of these prized lands. And if they are essentially given away in the dark-of-night, then, as the old saying goes: What they don't know, won't hurt them {they'll be none-the-wiser}
5) GOP desire to sell off anything of value to the highest bidder
18
Fortunately the residents of Idaho are smarter than some of you people down in Texas!
1
This is Wilde! They know the price of everything but the value of nothing. How tragic that these politicians would even think of allowing publicly owned wilderness and natural habitat to be degraded.
42
We truly are living in an Orwellian 1984 when conservatives don't want to conserve. The U.S is unique in the world for our large national parks and generate economic activity from visitors from around the globe that bolsters our economy and so-called conservatives want to destroy these beautiful places to make a quick buck. Disgusting.
What ever happened to the party of Teddy Roosevelt?
What ever happened to the party of Teddy Roosevelt?
65
Those who covet the protected Federal lands realize that most Americans are so engrossed in their electronic toy-based trivia, whether social media or other entertainments, that they will never even read this editorial. Let alone anything else of substance in what remains of their lost lives. So they'll go ahead with their corporatist depredations and laugh at all the idiots who let them happen.
27
WILDLIFE REFUGES Are our first line of defense in protecting and maintaining many species in the US There are attempts to give away mineral rights on fedearal lands that include parts of national parks, a practice that must be forbidden. As part of moving toward a sustainable world, nature preserves, such as US national parks, are a great way to complement other sustainable programs with studying how nature works. There is always something new to learn. I read that scientists frequently identify hitherto unknown bacteria in soil samples everywhere.
18
There was a time when conservatives believed in conservation. There was a time when Republicans believed in the Antiquities Act, i.e., the president's ability to declare National Monuments.
There was a time when our national heritage was respected and preserved for the future by Congress.
That no longer seems to be the case. The GOP has morphed into something unrecognizable. Teddy Roosevelt would disown them.
There was a time when our national heritage was respected and preserved for the future by Congress.
That no longer seems to be the case. The GOP has morphed into something unrecognizable. Teddy Roosevelt would disown them.
192
He already did. In 1912, when he ran for President on the Bullmoose ticket.
4
He did. He founded the Bullmoose Party. Time to bring it back.
1
This sounds like these proposals are written by the people who believe that the only good tree is a pice of timber, or the only good fish is a fillet. Such short term thinking.
55
Another example of the short-sighted nature if the right.
The intention here is not to liberate these lands. It is to exploit, and ultimately destroy them. Not only will this reduce the amount if oxygen released into our atmosphere, it will greatly increase the amount of pollutants released.
Pretending not to believe in the scientific evidence of climate change does not make it go away.
The intention here is not to liberate these lands. It is to exploit, and ultimately destroy them. Not only will this reduce the amount if oxygen released into our atmosphere, it will greatly increase the amount of pollutants released.
Pretending not to believe in the scientific evidence of climate change does not make it go away.
116
The more extreme among those who disapprove of excessive federal ownership of state lands wish to "dispose" of them. The more rational, however, recognize that an absurdly high percentage of western land is controlled not by the states to exploit for the economic benefit of their residents but to the federal government, to hold for the enjoyment largely of eastern elites whose states DON'T suffer from this economic anchor; and favor more moderate approaches to address this imbalance. For example, the federal government owns over of 81% Nevada's land and over 66% of Utah's . By contrast, the federal government owns 0.3% of Connecticut's land and 0.7% of New York's. This imbalance is an immense anchor on the ability of our western states to develop economically, to generate jobs, to pay for their needs through taxes and to compete with the East.
The rational approach to this imbalance is to open federal lands up via (very) long-term leases to states that allow those states to create mixed-use enclaves that allow economic development according to standards agreed to jointly by the parties.
It's offensive to see a logging operation in one corner of a national park that replaces trees it cuts down? Tough: deal with it, because our western states need jobs, and tax revenues to maintain their infrastructure and educate their kids -- just as our eastern states do.
The rational approach to this imbalance is to open federal lands up via (very) long-term leases to states that allow those states to create mixed-use enclaves that allow economic development according to standards agreed to jointly by the parties.
It's offensive to see a logging operation in one corner of a national park that replaces trees it cuts down? Tough: deal with it, because our western states need jobs, and tax revenues to maintain their infrastructure and educate their kids -- just as our eastern states do.
How is it possible for one man to be so wrong on so many issues so often?
97
"replaces trees it cuts down...". Its scary when people lie to themselves.
It takes 250 years to replace the trees that are cut down. Stealing wood from Federal land is not economic development.
fwa
It takes 250 years to replace the trees that are cut down. Stealing wood from Federal land is not economic development.
fwa
124
You pretend to be reasonable, then you say if we don't like turning national parks into trre farms, tough luck.
Your disregard for the differences between landscapes reveals you have no background in natural resource management, and don't think it's even important before making land use decisions. People like you are the reason The American public needs to maintain control over public lands.
Your disregard for the differences between landscapes reveals you have no background in natural resource management, and don't think it's even important before making land use decisions. People like you are the reason The American public needs to maintain control over public lands.
92
"This Land Is Your Land"
This land is your land
This land is my land
From California to the New York island;
From the red wood forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and Me.
As I was walking that ribbon of highway,
I saw above me that endless skyway:
I saw below me that golden valley:
This land was made for you and me.
I've roamed and rambled and I followed my footsteps
To the sparkling sands of her diamond deserts;
And all around me a voice was sounding:
This land was made for you and me.
When the sun came shining, and I was strolling,
And the wheat fields waving and the dust clouds rolling,
As the fog was lifting a voice was chanting:
This land was made for you and me.
As I went walking I saw a sign there
And on the sign it said "No Trespassing."
But on the other side it didn't say nothing,
That side was made for you and me.