Feed on
Posts
Comments
Is one of your favorite places in jeopardy? Perhaps.

Is one of your favorite places in jeopardy? Perhaps.

If you care about the outdoors, this is a big deal. For generations now, massive tracts of the United States — especially in the west — have been wide open to you and me. This tradition of public access has guaranteed all of us a way to enjoy the wonders and of our great country.

Unfortunately, certain politicians are trying to sell us out by betraying this tradition and putting our access to millions of acres in jeopardy.

Unless you’re a corporate fat cat or billionaire with the dough to buy up huge chunks of ground, you could be cut out of what many  of us consider to be a birthright. All it takes is some opportunistic politicians — and there are plenty of those around — and electorate that’s not paying attention.

To read more about what’s happening, check out the links and stories below.

Discussion on UplandJournal.com about this.

This is our land: From the blog Red Legged Devils.

Hunters and Anglers Organize Against Land Transfers byAlex Carr Johnson. From the Jan. 30, 2015 edition of the High Country News.

Just a few years ago, bills to transfer federal lands to state and private ownership seemed like little more than symbolic protests from restless right-wing lawmakers. But as proponents of land transfers in Utah, Arizona, Montana, Idaho and other Western states gained political momentum and public support, hunting and fishing groups that oppose transfers began to take the proposals more seriously. And now, they are launching a remarkably unified PR-counterattack…

Read all of Hunters and Anglers Organize Against Land Transfers now.

Our Land, Up for Grabs, By

San FRANCISCO — A BATTLE is looming over America’s public lands.

It’s difficult to understand why, given decades of consistent, strong support from voters of both parties for protecting land, water and the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic benefits these resources make possible.

Last week, the United States Senate voted 51 to 49 to support an amendment to a nonbinding budget resolution to sell or give away all federal lands other than the national parks and monuments.

If the measure is ever implemented, hundreds of millions of acres of national forests, rangelands, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas and historic sites will revert to the states or local governments or be auctioned off. These lands constitute much of what’s left of the nation’s natural and historical heritage.

This was bad enough. But it followed a 228-to-119 vote in the House of Representatives approving another nonbinding resolution that said “the federal estate is far too large” and voiced support for reducing it and “giving states and localities more control over the resources within their boundaries.” Doing so, the resolution added, “will lead to increased resource production and allow states and localities to take advantage of the benefits of increased economic activity.”

The measures, supported only by the Republicans who control both houses, were symbolic. But they laid down a marker that America’s public lands, long held in trust by the government for its people, may soon be up for grabs.

We’ll get a better sense of Congress’s commitment to conservation this year when it decides whether to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund, created in 1965 and financed by fees paid by oil companies for offshore drilling. The program underwrites state and local park and recreation projects, conservation easements for ranches and farms, plus national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.

Nearly $17 billion has gone to those purposes over the years, including 41,000 state and local park and recreation projects, some of which my organization has helped put together. (Another $19 billion was diverted by Congress to other purposes.) The program expires Sept. 30 unless Congress keeps it alive.

Land protection has long been an issue for which voters of both parties have found common cause. Since 1988, some $71.7 billion has been authorized to conserve land in more than 1,800 state and local elections in 43 states. Last year, $13.2 billion was approved by voters in 35 initiatives around the country — the most in a single year in the 27 years my organization has tracked these initiatives and, in some cases, led them.

But this consensus is being ignored, and not just in the nation’s capital.

In November, for instance, 4.2 million Florida voters approved a state constitutional amendment to provide $22 billion over the next 20 years for land and water protection. But some legislative leaders want to use the money mostly for programs other than the land protections voters expected.

New Jersey voters also approved a constitutional amendment in November to dedicate corporate business tax revenue to preserve open space, farmland and historic places in the nation’s most densely populated state. Again, support was lopsided, with 65 percent of voters in favor. But Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, is now proposing to divert a quarter of the funds to purposes other than land acquisition and preservation.

And in Maine, money approved by voters for a popular state program called Land for Maine’s Future is now caught up in a political tussle. The program was founded in 1987 to conserve land and has protected 560,000 acres. It has enjoyed wide support; in 2012, new bond financing was approved by 60 percent of voters casting a ballot. But Gov. Paul R. LePage, a Republican, is refusing to spend about $11 million unless his plan to increase timber harvesting on state-owned lands is approved.

What’s often lost in these debates is that these public lands provide enormous economic benefits.

In 2013, the country’s national parks, wildlife refuges, monuments and other public lands had an estimated 407 million visits, which contributed $41 billion to the economy and helped to support 355,000 jobs, according to a report by the Department of the Interior last year.

It is difficult to understand the hostility of some elected officials these days to public lands, given the historical, bipartisan commitment to protecting our land and heritage. This summer, millions of Americans will get outdoors and enjoy these wise investments.

The writer Wallace Stegner saw “geographies of hope” in our remaining wild places, and wrote that visiting them is “good for us when we are young, because of the incomparable sanity it can bring, as vacation, and rest, into our insane lives.” And, he added, “it is important to us when we are old because it is there — important, that is, simply as an idea.”

Rather than selling off the lands we all own, or looking for other uses for the money approved at the ballot box for conservation, our leaders should listen to voters and find ways to protect more of the places that make America special.

Will Rogers is the president of the Trust for Public Land.

8 Responses to “This land is your land. And politicians want to sell it off ….”

  1. Lawrence Latane says:

    Gregg,
    As much as I like your offerings about fine shotguns, this is by far the best (and most important) post I’ve read at dogsanddoubles. The attempt to divest the federal government of public land is the natural result of politicians who’ve gotten where they are by demonizing government. Ironically, most of their ilk won election with the support of the hunting community. It’s time that we insist that our representatives support conservation and environmental protection and drop their BS about over-regulation that is actually a sop to big business and narrow private interests.

  2. Gregg says:

    Hi Lawrence-

    Thanks for your comment. I agree with you 100%. IF we loose our public land, the guns won’t matter. Most of us will not be able to use them. We’ll turn into the UK & Europs — a place where game shooting is reserved for the well born, wealthy, and fortunate few who can afford it.

    I hope that doesn’t happen. But some politicians will do and say anything to curry favor from the wealthy & powerful.

    Gregg

  3. I agree with you both 100%.
    I’ve been surprised by the amount of support this proposal
    has received, by some, on other outdoor oriented internet
    forums.
    Lawrence, you really nailed the politics of it.
    The WSJ just had an editorial, basically, saying what a good idea
    this proposal was.
    It’s going to be a tough fight.

  4. Gregg says:

    Nick-

    Thanks for the comment. Do you have a link to the WSJ piece? I would like to see what it says, but I just checked the site and I can’t find it.

    BTW: I have a subscription, so I can read it even if it is behind the paywall.

    I appreciate it.

    Gregg

  5. Gregg,

    The article appeared under the title:” The U.S. of Land Hogging “.
    It was published on Friday, 4-3-15, page A-9.
    I had to go through the recycling to find it.
    I have no link to a digital version.

  6. Gregg says:

    Ok. Thanks. I’ll check it out.

    I appreciate it.

    Gregg

  7. Larry M. says:

    Thanks for spreading the word.
    Was in DC last week fighting for LWCF, and the land grab is a big underlying issue.
    Keep the torches lit!
    Larry

  8. Gregg says:

    Thanks for fighting. Keep up the good work.

    Gregg

%d bloggers like this: