10 ms·

Republicans move to sell off 3.3m acres of national land, sparking rallies

103 points by tim_sw 10y ago

ENTP 10y ago
I'm upset and I'm not even American!
- mickronome 10y ago
  Agreed, selling of public land without an actual reason is almost always a bad idea, even economically.
  - chrisbennet 10y ago
    I'm sure they have a reason, it just isn't one that benefits U.S. citizens...
  - pzone 10y ago
    Why do you think that? Which land is better owned by the government and which is better owned by private citizens? The reason in this case is "it's sitting around and not being used for much except random public access once every few weeks or months, and we could make some money selling it." What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.
    - schnottus 10y ago
      > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Lots, Every year I drive 24 hours from Wisconsin to Utah to spend a week hiking, camping, and exploring canyons on BLM land. It's incredibly enjoyable and a very relaxing getaway, due in no small part to the fact that it is not one of the beautiful parks that are filled with people. If I so desire I can spend a week out there and not see another person, and I'll be devastated when that gets taken away. For those of us who are ok with some risk in our activities like canyoneering, BLM lands are crucial. Most parks are afraid of being sued when someone gets themselves in trouble and don't allow fun stuff like that.
    - waterphone 10y ago
      It is not all nondescript and empty. There is plenty of random public land, including BLM, that is gorgeous despite not being a National Park or a Wilderness Area, or which provides access into otherwise inaccessible public land areas. Something doesn't have to be a National Park to be worthy of visiting. National Parks are beautiful—and crowded. There are many people who like to go to more remote areas where they can be alone in peace.
    - mikestew 10y ago
      What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Ask yourself this: what benefit do you personally get from my having access? Let me answer that question for you: when you're hoping to snag a camp spot in Mount Rainier National Park, you can because I'm camping on BLM land. You want to go see Mount Rainier, I just want a place in the middle of nowhere to drop the VW camper for a weekend. But the BLM land went away, so even though I don't give a shit about viewing a big volcano, I'm taking your camp spot because there's nowhere else left. ...and we could make some money selling it. "A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres 'would be unlikely to generate revenue'." IOW, we can sell it to our campaign contributors for pennies on the dollar, and it's all perfectly legal (thanks to a recent change to House rules by Republicans).
    - nate_meurer 10y ago
      There are better reason for government stewardship beside the land's visual attractiveness. Protecting watersheds, for example, is of supreme importance, which the article alludes to in its mention of the Everglades in Florida.
    - TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
      > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty. I'd rather camp here: http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG It's a different experience from the parks.
      - prawn 10y ago
        I think both NP and BLM options are great, but there's certainly something special about the freedom and isolation of that sort of place you've linked. I'm really surprised it doesn't appeal equally to both sides of politics.
trothamel 10y ago
I tried to gain perspective of this size compared to the whole. According to table 1-3 of https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf , there are 643.2 million acres of public lands, making this just over 0.5% of the total. Alternatively, they want to sell off one Connecticut, out an area of over 6 Californias.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- turndown 10y ago
  Yet the job of the government isn't to sell the land for cheap; it's for public enjoyment or economic investment that benefits the public, such as roads, railroads, the power grid, etc. It should not be sold so a wealthy few can get it for cheap, then reap the economic reward with little return for the public.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    The government spent more than 100 years giving away land to those willing to work it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts A lot of National Forest land ends up being land that no one thought was worth homesteading. Compare the small, quite new national forest in warm, fertile Ohio to the vast national forests in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Which doesn't mean I think the government is beholden to past policy, I think maintaining large tracts of land is a valuable role for the Federal Government to take up, it's just that casting it as 'the job' is a bit of an overstatement.
  - pzone 10y ago
    Who says they're not going to sell at transparent and fair prices? Land is sold in public markets, it's not hard to tell if there's any cronyism. The public owns land with a certain value, a lot of that land is not being used for much in particular, the public will benefit more by having the cash in hand than some claim to random acres out in North Dakota. The public is absolutely getting a return, nobody's "getting it for cheap."
lend000 10y ago
The BLM owns a third of the land west of the Mississippi. Being public land that is leased for both public and commercial uses, it's exceptionally poorly managed, with overgrazing, soil destruction, and erosion being common problems. This is one of those private property things that many on HN will resist, but private property (especially farmland) is generally better managed. The BLM is a relic of 19th century expansion. All of that land should be sold to private buyers or designated with a function, such as being transferred to the National Parks Service. Edit: As others pointed out, it should also be noted that this is less than 1% of BLM land... they should be transferring more. The story itself is liberal sensationalism.
- prawn 10y ago
  I'm not from the US, but I love the landscapes there and visit fairly frequently to hike and camp. Aren't there differences between public use of national parks and BLM land? e.g., most national parks have quite strict rules for camping, while the BLM areas are much more flexible and relaxed? Personally, I think it's great that the two options exist and are distinct. I don't want to discount your general point, but more so wonder if ALL of that land should be set aside for purely private or NP use. (Arches NP has put backcountry camping on hold. In the best areas of Zion NP, there are fixed camp sites that are quickly reserved in advance, or camping is not permitted. Tourist attractions are getting busier and busier with each year, so BLM options for backcountry overflow make sense to me.) I'd be worried that it's easier/cheaper to privatise these lands than the reverse.
  - dchichkov 10y ago
    There are differences, for example flying ultralight aircraft (hang-gliders, paragliders) is prohibited in the national parks. Private land in the US is barb wired, often with no access at all. (This is different from private land in Europe, where the norm is that a forest, in private hands would not be barb wired, and there are sometimes easements for recreational use.)
    - prawn 10y ago
dragonbonheur 10y ago
When this year is over, US citizens will hold the world record for protests against their own government.
- shostack 10y ago
  That's if we're allowed to continue protesting. The GOP just introduced bills across many states to make it more difficult, including such things as a felony and 5 years jail plus $7500 fine for blocking roads during protests (impossible to have a large one without doing this). Land of the free. Some restrictions apply.
  - dragonbonheur 10y ago
    That's why you like your guns, right? To protect your "liberties" ? The 2nd amendment protects the 1st and all that jazz?
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      We're definitely starting to get into that sort of area, yes. Given how utterly unresponsive the government now is to the majority of Americans (rather than to the small minority who constitute the voting "majority" in their own, gerrymandered districts), yes.
      - Arizhel 10y ago
        The people with all the guns are the ones who are big fans of this new administration.
        eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        I don't think that's actually true. As a native to the Northeast, I was quite surprised by just how many guns I saw everywhere when staying in Mountain View and working in Redwood City for a short while. Also, many Republicans aren't big fans of this new administration.
blinkingled 10y ago
> To outdoorsmen like Amaro, selling off individual parcels of national land creates a “multiplier problem”, where a small parcel of land turned private can cut off access for many. That’s what happened in Coronado national forest, he said. Ten acres that led on to hundreds of thousands of acres of public property were turned into state trust land. > “Access has been eliminated for much of the forest. The private landowners now effectively have their own private hunting preserves by not allowing public hunters a way into the national forest,” Amaro said. Sounds pretty bad - given the precedent they should at least amend the bill to ensure public access to public parts.
- molmalo 10y ago
  Part of me says "It's bad to block access to public land". but the other part says: "if they want an access, so they can hunt, then I wish the block to continue existing."
  - blinkingled 10y ago
    Lol, yes - I don't know why I stopped short of saying exactly that. Definitely not a hunting fan myself.
    - erikpukinskis 10y ago
      In many places where we have removed apex predators, hunting is necessary to keep ecosystems healthy. I'm mostly vegan, so this is near and dear to my heart. It makes me sad how many vegans don't realize that without predators animal populations fluctuate wildly causing animal suffering and permanent ecological damage. You can either A) do the killing yourself, B) support apex predator populations, or C) wipe out all animal habitat altogether. Sadly, C) is the option most vegans support, which makes no sense. Till the land every year, kill any animals that would interfere with the growing of plants, and then sell those plants to humans. But because vegans are so sensitive about being attacked (again, as a longtime vegan I get it, I really really do) the conversation never gets started. It's sad to me.

103 points by tim_sw 10y ago

ENTP 10y ago

I'm upset and I'm not even American!

mickronome 10y ago
Agreed, selling of public land without an actual reason is almost always a bad idea, even economically.
- chrisbennet 10y ago
  I'm sure they have a reason, it just isn't one that benefits U.S. citizens...
- pzone 10y ago
  Why do you think that? Which land is better owned by the government and which is better owned by private citizens? The reason in this case is "it's sitting around and not being used for much except random public access once every few weeks or months, and we could make some money selling it." What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.
  - schnottus 10y ago
    > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Lots, Every year I drive 24 hours from Wisconsin to Utah to spend a week hiking, camping, and exploring canyons on BLM land. It's incredibly enjoyable and a very relaxing getaway, due in no small part to the fact that it is not one of the beautiful parks that are filled with people. If I so desire I can spend a week out there and not see another person, and I'll be devastated when that gets taken away. For those of us who are ok with some risk in our activities like canyoneering, BLM lands are crucial. Most parks are afraid of being sued when someone gets themselves in trouble and don't allow fun stuff like that.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    It is not all nondescript and empty. There is plenty of random public land, including BLM, that is gorgeous despite not being a National Park or a Wilderness Area, or which provides access into otherwise inaccessible public land areas. Something doesn't have to be a National Park to be worthy of visiting. National Parks are beautiful—and crowded. There are many people who like to go to more remote areas where they can be alone in peace.
  - mikestew 10y ago
    What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Ask yourself this: what benefit do you personally get from my having access? Let me answer that question for you: when you're hoping to snag a camp spot in Mount Rainier National Park, you can because I'm camping on BLM land. You want to go see Mount Rainier, I just want a place in the middle of nowhere to drop the VW camper for a weekend. But the BLM land went away, so even though I don't give a shit about viewing a big volcano, I'm taking your camp spot because there's nowhere else left. ...and we could make some money selling it. "A representative for the interior department, Mike Pool, who weighed in on a version of the bill in 2011, said selling those 3.3m acres 'would be unlikely to generate revenue'." IOW, we can sell it to our campaign contributors for pennies on the dollar, and it's all perfectly legal (thanks to a recent change to House rules by Republicans).
  - nate_meurer 10y ago
    There are better reason for government stewardship beside the land's visual attractiveness. Protecting watersheds, for example, is of supreme importance, which the article alludes to in its mention of the Everglades in Florida.
  - TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
    > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty. I'd rather camp here: http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG It's a different experience from the parks.
    - prawn 10y ago
      I think both NP and BLM options are great, but there's certainly something special about the freedom and isolation of that sort of place you've linked. I'm really surprised it doesn't appeal equally to both sides of politics.

trothamel 10y ago

I tried to gain perspective of this size compared to the whole. According to table 1-3 of https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf , there are 643.2 million acres of public lands, making this just over 0.5% of the total. Alternatively, they want to sell off one Connecticut, out an area of over 6 Californias.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
turndown 10y ago
Yet the job of the government isn't to sell the land for cheap; it's for public enjoyment or economic investment that benefits the public, such as roads, railroads, the power grid, etc. It should not be sold so a wealthy few can get it for cheap, then reap the economic reward with little return for the public.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  The government spent more than 100 years giving away land to those willing to work it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts A lot of National Forest land ends up being land that no one thought was worth homesteading. Compare the small, quite new national forest in warm, fertile Ohio to the vast national forests in Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Which doesn't mean I think the government is beholden to past policy, I think maintaining large tracts of land is a valuable role for the Federal Government to take up, it's just that casting it as 'the job' is a bit of an overstatement.
- pzone 10y ago
  Who says they're not going to sell at transparent and fair prices? Land is sold in public markets, it's not hard to tell if there's any cronyism. The public owns land with a certain value, a lot of that land is not being used for much in particular, the public will benefit more by having the cash in hand than some claim to random acres out in North Dakota. The public is absolutely getting a return, nobody's "getting it for cheap."

lend000 10y ago

The BLM owns a third of the land west of the Mississippi. Being public land that is leased for both public and commercial uses, it's exceptionally poorly managed, with overgrazing, soil destruction, and erosion being common problems. This is one of those private property things that many on HN will resist, but private property (especially farmland) is generally better managed. The BLM is a relic of 19th century expansion. All of that land should be sold to private buyers or designated with a function, such as being transferred to the National Parks Service. Edit: As others pointed out, it should also be noted that this is less than 1% of BLM land... they should be transferring more. The story itself is liberal sensationalism.

prawn 10y ago
I'm not from the US, but I love the landscapes there and visit fairly frequently to hike and camp. Aren't there differences between public use of national parks and BLM land? e.g., most national parks have quite strict rules for camping, while the BLM areas are much more flexible and relaxed? Personally, I think it's great that the two options exist and are distinct. I don't want to discount your general point, but more so wonder if ALL of that land should be set aside for purely private or NP use. (Arches NP has put backcountry camping on hold. In the best areas of Zion NP, there are fixed camp sites that are quickly reserved in advance, or camping is not permitted. Tourist attractions are getting busier and busier with each year, so BLM options for backcountry overflow make sense to me.) I'd be worried that it's easier/cheaper to privatise these lands than the reverse.
- dchichkov 10y ago
  There are differences, for example flying ultralight aircraft (hang-gliders, paragliders) is prohibited in the national parks. Private land in the US is barb wired, often with no access at all. (This is different from private land in Europe, where the norm is that a forest, in private hands would not be barb wired, and there are sometimes easements for recreational use.)
  - prawn 10y ago

dragonbonheur 10y ago

When this year is over, US citizens will hold the world record for protests against their own government.

shostack 10y ago
That's if we're allowed to continue protesting. The GOP just introduced bills across many states to make it more difficult, including such things as a felony and 5 years jail plus $7500 fine for blocking roads during protests (impossible to have a large one without doing this). Land of the free. Some restrictions apply.
- dragonbonheur 10y ago
  That's why you like your guns, right? To protect your "liberties" ? The 2nd amendment protects the 1st and all that jazz?
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    We're definitely starting to get into that sort of area, yes. Given how utterly unresponsive the government now is to the majority of Americans (rather than to the small minority who constitute the voting "majority" in their own, gerrymandered districts), yes.
    - Arizhel 10y ago
      The people with all the guns are the ones who are big fans of this new administration.
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        I don't think that's actually true. As a native to the Northeast, I was quite surprised by just how many guns I saw everywhere when staying in Mountain View and working in Redwood City for a short while. Also, many Republicans aren't big fans of this new administration.

blinkingled 10y ago

> To outdoorsmen like Amaro, selling off individual parcels of national land creates a “multiplier problem”, where a small parcel of land turned private can cut off access for many. That’s what happened in Coronado national forest, he said. Ten acres that led on to hundreds of thousands of acres of public property were turned into state trust land. > “Access has been eliminated for much of the forest. The private landowners now effectively have their own private hunting preserves by not allowing public hunters a way into the national forest,” Amaro said. Sounds pretty bad - given the precedent they should at least amend the bill to ensure public access to public parts.

molmalo 10y ago
Part of me says "It's bad to block access to public land". but the other part says: "if they want an access, so they can hunt, then I wish the block to continue existing."
- blinkingled 10y ago
  Lol, yes - I don't know why I stopped short of saying exactly that. Definitely not a hunting fan myself.
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    In many places where we have removed apex predators, hunting is necessary to keep ecosystems healthy. I'm mostly vegan, so this is near and dear to my heart. It makes me sad how many vegans don't realize that without predators animal populations fluctuate wildly causing animal suffering and permanent ecological damage. You can either A) do the killing yourself, B) support apex predator populations, or C) wipe out all animal habitat altogether. Sadly, C) is the option most vegans support, which makes no sense. Till the land every year, kill any animals that would interfere with the growing of plants, and then sell those plants to humans. But because vegans are so sensitive about being attacked (again, as a longtime vegan I get it, I really really do) the conversation never gets started. It's sad to me.