5 ms·

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 manage

by 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
    There is a great 99PI podcast about barbed wire, in case you haven't heard it. Talks about the freedom to roam and the limitations that arose after the American West was settled. I find those desert and grazing lands pretty magical, so I can sympathise with the romantic ideals of travelling, camping carefully, moving on, etc. Devil's Rope: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/
- TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
  Yes, there are differences. The freedom of BLM land makes it great. Once these spaces are privatized, there's no going back.
- waterphone 10y ago
  National Forest and BLM are very permissive for backcountry camping, while National Parks generally restrict you to permitted and designated campsites, if it's allowed at all.
  - prawn 10y ago
    I think that's awesome. The idea that someone can "go bush" and camp out for a week or two without cost or human contact is something we should absolutely preserve. I love national parks, but the restrictions (while necessary for something that popular/unique) remove a bit of the joy from a natural experience. Even a more permissive national park (Joshua Tree, for example) feels like a relief after something stricter like Zion or Arches. That said, I can understand why they are very careful with those latter two because they are seriously special places.
    - waterphone 10y ago
      There is very much a place for both. National Parks have that designation for a reason, and they attract huge numbers of people. Management of areas with high visitation has to be much more strict to protect those areas. But we're fortunate to have vast amounts of public land we can disperse across, so those who want more freedom to explore and recreate without permits or requirements to camp in very specific places can do so.
- lend000 10y ago
  Sounds like we need a new designation for "general recreation land" or "wild park" instead of keeping everything under the BLM where land can be arbitrarily used and leased by the government.
zasz 10y ago
I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land, but private ownership, especially farmland, does an objectively terrible job at managing soil. Half the world's topsoil has eroded away due to farming in the last 150 years. https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/soil https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/soil To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie.
- lend000 10y ago
  > To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie. No one said that, but it doesn't have to be bad. And with the BLM, it is. Farmers have an inherent interest in keeping their own land profitable, which is an incentive that never applies to leased BLM land. Same with ranchers, which is what BLM land is more commonly used for. > I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land That should be your first step. It should be noted that ranchers do NOT want the land to be privatized, because it's less exploitable. http://wildhorsepreservation.org/media/ranchers-want-our-public-lands-their-livestock-and-want-govt-stick-it-wild-horses-and http://wildhorsepreservation.org/media/ranchers-want-our-pub... Agricultural land is not going to be perfectly managed anywhere anytime soon, if that's what your standard is, but private property is managed less terribly. It should be obvious that people are better incentivized to care for their own property than the government's -- why is that so hard to believe?
  - zasz 10y ago
    The objective evidence on how well people care for their land shows that your supposition about how incentives should work is not borne out by the facts. I believe that your supposition is false because reality itself disagrees with you.
    - lend000 10y ago
      > I believe that your supposition is false because reality itself disagrees with you. You have only even attempted to demonstrate that some private farms are mismanaged -- where have you shown that the damage that objectively occurs on BLM land is less bad?
dchichkov 10y ago
Currently public lands are accessible and the following, for example, doesn't look like bad management: https://www.blm.gov/visit https://www.blm.gov/visit
planteen 10y ago
People joke that BLM land is the leftover land that nobody wanted. But I completely disagree that it should either become a National Park or get privatized. There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. BLM is, in general, less restrictive than all other types of public land (e.g., National Parks & National Forest). Nearly all public land in Colorado (my state) is not a National Park [1]. This includes most of our outdoor recreation opportunities (e.g., ski areas, hiking areas, most 14ers, rivers for rafting, etc). What's wrong with another class of public land that can be grazed, hunted, and fished (unlike most National Parks)? Dispersed camping is nearly always allowed, without permit, in BLM land. This leads to fun weekend outings along the lines of "this canyon looks cool, let's take the 4WD road to get close and camp by it for a couple nights" without needing a developed camping area. If anything, I could see an argument for moving BLM from the Department of the Interior (NPS land) to the Department Agriculture (USFS land). But western people who enjoy the outdoors would be really pissed of all public land was suddenly a National Park with an entrance fee, the usual restrictions, and vastly more limited recreation opportunities. And what makes you say BLM land is over grazed compared to similar private land? BLM land is, in general, scrubby & dry. You are given Animal Unit Month allocations on BLM land. The ranch base of operations and perpetual renewal policy do seem unfair to newcomers. But then again, the number of farmers & ranchers has been declining heavily for the last 100 years. [1] http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-ownership/ http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-own...
- lend000 10y ago
  > There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. Sure, I agree that there are other designations and functions. We should move toward one of those functions or perhaps a new one -- unrestricted land owned by the federal government for whatever a bureaucracy sees fit is not a good use of the land. It would still be better to be owned by the Forests Service and treated differently/less restrictively than other parks. "Wild Park" or something, where hunting and recreational activities are allowed but farming and commercial activities are not. And then sell the less interesting and more profitable lands to private buyers. I've spent a lot of time in BLM land, particularly around Steens Mountain in Oregon, which is beautiful. It's a great example of something that should be put in the National Parks category -- pave that damn road and get the grazing cows out of Pronghorn territory.
TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
> The story itself is liberal sensationalism. No. I think this is the tip of the iceberg for giving publicly own lands to the private sector, at no gain to the people and a large gain to the new landowners for oil and mineral rights. If you look on the web, you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations. If the complaint is overgrazing, then make a push to stop leasing it for grazing.
- lend000 10y ago
  > no gain to the people They're not giving it away for free as I understand it. When the government takes money, the people get better stuff, according to at least one political party. However the current cheap lease rates are doing no good to the taxpayer: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm > you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations So? See my previous comments -- some of this land is very profitable, and some of the land is great for recreational purposes. Why not try to find land where these least intersect and drive land designations in that way?
  - TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
    So really what we should do is raise the lease rates for grazing. The government gets more money, and we can still use the land. Win win!
    - lend000 10y ago
      The land is still degraded, making it less suitable for many kinds of recreation. If they sell land that they would otherwise lease, they are still making money (more than the current lease rates in fact) just on property tax... plus the land is less poorly managed and other land gets a more exclusive designation for recreation!
falcolas 10y ago
Montana resident here - I'd much rather the BLM own the land than private entities. Private entities shut down access for not only motorized vehicles and hunting, but bicyclists, hikers, and horse riders. Even grandfathered trails which are supposed to remain open and accessible are illegally shut down, sometimes with nasty traps (like wires strung across the trail and chest or neck height). Not to mention, the BLM maintains those trails and the surrounding land. The forest service does not (it will close trails instead of making changes which make them safe for the riders and the land), and the private entities certainly do not. Some of the public land being sold (which also occurred under the Bush administration, as an aside) is right next to public parks, where lots of wild animals and other fragile ecosystems are in place. It would suck to watch the land around Yellowstone national park strip-mined for a few ounces of gold.
MK999 10y ago
You can get it visually here. "Federal Land as a Percentage of Total State Land Area" http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us
waterphone 10y ago
You have it completely backwards, I'm afraid. Private land in the southwest tends to be overgrazed and abused, while BLM land is very well managed, with enforcement of herd rotation through pastures. Many of the ranchers strongly resist the practices they are required to do to prevent overgrazing, until they see how much healthier it makes the landscape and their cattle.
- lend000 10y ago
  > You have it completely backwards, I'm afraid. Private land in the southwest tends to be overgrazed and abused, while BLM land is very well managed, with enforcement of herd rotation through pastures. It's a hotly contested subject, but evidence (and logic) shows the balance favors private land, where owners actually have an incentive to maintain it -- crazy concept, right? Here's a broad survey that evaluates the frequency and magnitude of overgrazing on federal land: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm

by lend000 10y ago

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
  There is a great 99PI podcast about barbed wire, in case you haven't heard it. Talks about the freedom to roam and the limitations that arose after the American West was settled. I find those desert and grazing lands pretty magical, so I can sympathise with the romantic ideals of travelling, camping carefully, moving on, etc. Devil's Rope: http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/ http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/
TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
Yes, there are differences. The freedom of BLM land makes it great. Once these spaces are privatized, there's no going back.
waterphone 10y ago
National Forest and BLM are very permissive for backcountry camping, while National Parks generally restrict you to permitted and designated campsites, if it's allowed at all.
- prawn 10y ago
  I think that's awesome. The idea that someone can "go bush" and camp out for a week or two without cost or human contact is something we should absolutely preserve. I love national parks, but the restrictions (while necessary for something that popular/unique) remove a bit of the joy from a natural experience. Even a more permissive national park (Joshua Tree, for example) feels like a relief after something stricter like Zion or Arches. That said, I can understand why they are very careful with those latter two because they are seriously special places.
  - waterphone 10y ago
    There is very much a place for both. National Parks have that designation for a reason, and they attract huge numbers of people. Management of areas with high visitation has to be much more strict to protect those areas. But we're fortunate to have vast amounts of public land we can disperse across, so those who want more freedom to explore and recreate without permits or requirements to camp in very specific places can do so.
lend000 10y ago
Sounds like we need a new designation for "general recreation land" or "wild park" instead of keeping everything under the BLM where land can be arbitrarily used and leased by the government.

zasz 10y ago

I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land, but private ownership, especially farmland, does an objectively terrible job at managing soil. Half the world's topsoil has eroded away due to farming in the last 150 years. https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/soil https://www.farmland.org/our-work/areas-of-focus/soil To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie.

lend000 10y ago
> To say that agriculture is good for the land on average is just an outright lie. No one said that, but it doesn't have to be bad. And with the BLM, it is. Farmers have an inherent interest in keeping their own land profitable, which is an incentive that never applies to leased BLM land. Same with ranchers, which is what BLM land is more commonly used for. > I cannot comment on how poorly the BLM manages land That should be your first step. It should be noted that ranchers do NOT want the land to be privatized, because it's less exploitable. http://wildhorsepreservation.org/media/ranchers-want-our-public-lands-their-livestock-and-want-govt-stick-it-wild-horses-and http://wildhorsepreservation.org/media/ranchers-want-our-pub... Agricultural land is not going to be perfectly managed anywhere anytime soon, if that's what your standard is, but private property is managed less terribly. It should be obvious that people are better incentivized to care for their own property than the government's -- why is that so hard to believe?
- zasz 10y ago
  The objective evidence on how well people care for their land shows that your supposition about how incentives should work is not borne out by the facts. I believe that your supposition is false because reality itself disagrees with you.
  - lend000 10y ago
    > I believe that your supposition is false because reality itself disagrees with you. You have only even attempted to demonstrate that some private farms are mismanaged -- where have you shown that the damage that objectively occurs on BLM land is less bad?

dchichkov 10y ago

Currently public lands are accessible and the following, for example, doesn't look like bad management: https://www.blm.gov/visit https://www.blm.gov/visit

planteen 10y ago

People joke that BLM land is the leftover land that nobody wanted. But I completely disagree that it should either become a National Park or get privatized. There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. BLM is, in general, less restrictive than all other types of public land (e.g., National Parks & National Forest). Nearly all public land in Colorado (my state) is not a National Park [1]. This includes most of our outdoor recreation opportunities (e.g., ski areas, hiking areas, most 14ers, rivers for rafting, etc). What's wrong with another class of public land that can be grazed, hunted, and fished (unlike most National Parks)? Dispersed camping is nearly always allowed, without permit, in BLM land. This leads to fun weekend outings along the lines of "this canyon looks cool, let's take the 4WD road to get close and camp by it for a couple nights" without needing a developed camping area. If anything, I could see an argument for moving BLM from the Department of the Interior (NPS land) to the Department Agriculture (USFS land). But western people who enjoy the outdoors would be really pissed of all public land was suddenly a National Park with an entrance fee, the usual restrictions, and vastly more limited recreation opportunities. And what makes you say BLM land is over grazed compared to similar private land? BLM land is, in general, scrubby & dry. You are given Animal Unit Month allocations on BLM land. The ranch base of operations and perpetual renewal policy do seem unfair to newcomers. But then again, the number of farmers & ranchers has been declining heavily for the last 100 years. [1] http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-ownership/ http://csfs.colostate.edu/colorado-forests/colorado-land-own...

lend000 10y ago
> There are other classes of public land you are leaving out and that is National Forest, National Grassland, and National Monuments. Sure, I agree that there are other designations and functions. We should move toward one of those functions or perhaps a new one -- unrestricted land owned by the federal government for whatever a bureaucracy sees fit is not a good use of the land. It would still be better to be owned by the Forests Service and treated differently/less restrictively than other parks. "Wild Park" or something, where hunting and recreational activities are allowed but farming and commercial activities are not. And then sell the less interesting and more profitable lands to private buyers. I've spent a lot of time in BLM land, particularly around Steens Mountain in Oregon, which is beautiful. It's a great example of something that should be put in the National Parks category -- pave that damn road and get the grazing cows out of Pronghorn territory.

TYPE_FASTER 10y ago

> The story itself is liberal sensationalism. No. I think this is the tip of the iceberg for giving publicly own lands to the private sector, at no gain to the people and a large gain to the new landowners for oil and mineral rights. If you look on the web, you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations. If the complaint is overgrazing, then make a push to stop leasing it for grazing.

lend000 10y ago
> no gain to the people They're not giving it away for free as I understand it. When the government takes money, the people get better stuff, according to at least one political party. However the current cheap lease rates are doing no good to the taxpayer: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm > you can find that some of these pushes to transfer public land are driven by campaign donations So? See my previous comments -- some of this land is very profitable, and some of the land is great for recreational purposes. Why not try to find land where these least intersect and drive land designations in that way?
- TYPE_FASTER 10y ago
  So really what we should do is raise the lease rates for grazing. The government gets more money, and we can still use the land. Win win!
  - lend000 10y ago
    The land is still degraded, making it less suitable for many kinds of recreation. If they sell land that they would otherwise lease, they are still making money (more than the current lease rates in fact) just on property tax... plus the land is less poorly managed and other land gets a more exclusive designation for recreation!

falcolas 10y ago

Montana resident here - I'd much rather the BLM own the land than private entities. Private entities shut down access for not only motorized vehicles and hunting, but bicyclists, hikers, and horse riders. Even grandfathered trails which are supposed to remain open and accessible are illegally shut down, sometimes with nasty traps (like wires strung across the trail and chest or neck height). Not to mention, the BLM maintains those trails and the surrounding land. The forest service does not (it will close trails instead of making changes which make them safe for the riders and the land), and the private entities certainly do not. Some of the public land being sold (which also occurred under the Bush administration, as an aside) is right next to public parks, where lots of wild animals and other fragile ecosystems are in place. It would suck to watch the land around Yellowstone national park strip-mined for a few ounces of gold.

MK999 10y ago

You can get it visually here. "Federal Land as a Percentage of Total State Land Area" http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/291-federal-lands-in-the-us

waterphone 10y ago

You have it completely backwards, I'm afraid. Private land in the southwest tends to be overgrazed and abused, while BLM land is very well managed, with enforcement of herd rotation through pastures. Many of the ranchers strongly resist the practices they are required to do to prevent overgrazing, until they see how much healthier it makes the landscape and their cattle.

lend000 10y ago
> You have it completely backwards, I'm afraid. Private land in the southwest tends to be overgrazed and abused, while BLM land is very well managed, with enforcement of herd rotation through pastures. It's a hotly contested subject, but evidence (and logic) shows the balance favors private land, where owners actually have an incentive to maintain it -- crazy concept, right? Here's a broad survey that evaluates the frequency and magnitude of overgrazing on federal land: http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/wpubland.htm