16 ms·

Why public lands must remain in public hands

237 points by diebir 9y ago

vacri 9y ago
> What could hunting and fishing look like should our public lands fall under state control? Turn to Europe ... where plenty of nations have Right to Roam over private lands for their citizens? Can't see that ever happening in the US. Hunting isn't widespread in Europe, sure, but hunting isn't the only thing that you can do on the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
- gumby 9y ago
  Why do you think hunting is not widespread in Europe? IMHO it's quite common and the delicious meals that result are common too!
  - prawn 9y ago
    Agree. Hunting is not uncommon in Europe. I spent time in Southern France recently and on weekend mornings frequently heard guns going off as hunters went after birds, saw their cars and dogs, etc.
  - arethuza 9y ago
    Large parts of Scotland are privately owned and run purely for hunting - grouse moors and deer forests (although not many trees in a Scottish deer forest). Mind you, we do have the "Right to Roam" so we can wander about all of that land and camp where we want (main exclusion being that you have no right to use powered vehicles).
  - vacri 9y ago
    Admittedly not European myself, and I know that there is some hunting in Europe (and used to work with a Polish guy whose family hunted pigs), but it doesn't seem anywhere near as pervasive as hunting in the US.
    - gumby 9y ago
      I think you would be surprised, and if you are into hunting, pleasantly so by the level of shooting that goes on in Europe. Outside the US the stereotype about America goes the other way: that all the shooting is of people. In case it's not obvious: I know this belief is incorrect.
- mikkom 9y ago
  FYI, in Finnish we have a very comprehensive "right to roam" legislation called "everymans right" but hunting is one of the exclusions in addition to camping to that right and I think correctly so. http://www.nationalparks.fi/hikinginfinland/rightsandregulations http://www.nationalparks.fi/hikinginfinland/rightsandregulat...
  - Mediterraneo10 9y ago
    Camping is allowed under Finnish everyman’s right (as your own link indicates), but a camper is supposed to stay at any one site for no more than one night.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  Right to roam would be a nice thing for the US. There are so many wide open areas that are completely closed off by fences for no good reason. At least there should be a rule that you have provided a certain number of paths through the area.
- flyingfences 9y ago
  I don't know about all of the USA, but here in Maine we have something similar. Most of the land in New England is privately held (because people settled here so long ago compared to the west), but people are still more or less free to roam about it. So long as you're actually out in the woods and not chilling in somebody's back yard, you're in the clear. Landowners can prohibit certain uses - hunting, foraging, etc., or even any trespassing - but the default is for land to be open, any restrictions must be clearly posted, and I believe that there are tax incentives for keeping the land open.
easilyBored 9y ago
I don't get his outrage, one side will always complain. Depending on the state they could lose or gain rights if the feds transferred it. But the feds and states are quite separate when it comes to taxes, budgets etc so why shouldn't both own land too?
- theparanoid 9y ago
  By law federal public lands are multi-use, e.g. hunting, fishing, camping. States have no such proviso.
bsder 9y ago
It's hard to feel sorry for people who want public lands to be accessible but who, as a bloc, keep voting for politicians who want to privatize everything.
- blowski 9y ago
  You can vote for a party and still disagree with some of their policies.
  - cryptarch 9y ago
    You can vote for one of two near-identical parties but the vote will be decided by Facebook.
    - tradersam 9y ago
      Sad but true for most Americans.
    - nosuchthing 9y ago
      You can exert some effort to solve the two party system by getting your state to implement ranked choice voting. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/maine-ranked-choice-voting.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/maine-ranked-choice-vo...
      - sirlatrom 9y ago
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo... "Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship."
        wtallis 9y ago
        That theorem says that no voting system is perfect, for a certain definition of perfect. It does not say that all voting systems are equally bad.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
bpodgursky 9y ago
Without making this too political, there would be far less pushing by the states to get this land back if the federal government hadn't gone on a (ahem) roughly 8 year spree of turning it into enormous national monuments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument#Designation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument#D... Turning federal land into national monuments greatly limits the traditional uses of these publicly held lands -- restrictions on livestock grazing, hunting, camping, etc. Obviously there needs to be responsible land stewardship, but abusing the antiquities act to carve out enormous not-parks-but-not-free chunks of land isn't the best way to get everyone working together there.
- vkou 9y ago
  Designating an area a national monument ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. On the other hand, every other way of losing public land also ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. Suppose that you sell it for a song to your friends, or allow resource extraction in an environmentally sensitive area... A decade down the road, you can't wave a magic wand, and undo that damage. The fact of the matter is that once public lands are lost, they are gone - forever. Every election year, we must fight to keep public lands public - we only need to lose once, and then its over. Can you really blame someone for seeking a more permanent solution to this problem?
  - bpodgursky 9y ago
    Yeah, but allowing cattle to graze on land they've been grazing on for 100 years keeps states from starting campaigns to take it back. I'm not suggesting that selling to the states is a good idea. I am suggesting that taking _away_ traditional land rights is causing states to push to take ownership of the land. The BLM has not traditionally been enemies of the people using the land. The antagonism is a very new phenomenon.
    - Chathamization 9y ago
      I looked for information on the national park you linked to. This says that grazing, hunting, fishing, recreation, etc., would all still be allowed[1]: >The monument designations maintain currently authorized uses of the land that do not harm the resources protected by the monument, including tribal access and traditional collection of plants and firewood, off-highway vehicle recreation, hunting and fishing and authorized grazing. It's apparently also an important deal for tribal sovereignty[2]: > Under the Bears Ears Monument designation, an intertribal coalition will partner with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to manage the area — which is slightly bigger than the state of Delaware — ensuring that tribes have access to food supplies and firewood. This[3] says that existing grazing is usually grandfathered in, but that new grazing is limited. I get the impression that there's a lot of disinformation out there. [1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack-applaud-presidents-designation-new-national-monuments-utah https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bears-ears-monument-is-a-win-for-tribal-food-sovereignty-will-trump-undo-it http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bea... [3] http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-wants-bears-ears-gone-and-he-wants-trump-to-do-it http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-...
closeparen 9y ago
I wonder how long this will matter. When we're all living in shared studio apartments in car-free megacities, will there still be interest in going places whose whole appeal is being out of mass transit range? Will we still own camping and hunting gear? Maybe the support will be there to maintain public lands and National Parks, but what about the roads and necessary roadside businesses (gas, motels, restaurants, etc) leading up to them? Will rental cars be economical when leisure is the only remaining use of the automobile?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- eagletusk 9y ago
  Human's that acquire more leisure time are going to want to stay in the city more and more? I feel the opposite trend will happen. I live in a outdoor industry bubble in Boulder Colorado so I have blinders on perhaps.
- matt4077 9y ago
  I live in an apartment, in a Megacity[0], and none of my friends have cars[1]. I see no reason to suspect that city life diminishes interest in nature. If anything, it's more of an experience because it's different. Come summer, my Facebook feed is filled with nature, and I've personally crossed the Alps on bicycle, usually camping the forests at night. Upkeep of a few roads isn't actually that expensive, and to some degree costs are proportional to use. Take a look at a map of Australia to see many roads that may only see a few cars per week. Even if a National Park were only accessible by gravel road, I'd argue it'd enhance the experience. With regards to cars, I get the sense that the most realistic future is no longer mass-transit only, but includes self-driving electric car-sharing. That allows people to continue enjoying the benefits of individual cars (privacy, carrying stuff, direct point-to-point, use of existing infrastructure worth billions) while still enabling the kind of transformation previously attributed to mass transit. For example, autonomous driving and car-sharing reduces the need for parking spaces and allows parking spaces to move to less-desirable areas, freeing up 1/3 of your typical city street. [0]: Using a rather technical definition of ≥1 Million inhabitants [1]: Yes, I have friends.
Brendinooo 9y ago
When you get into hunting/sportsman's issues, you might find yourself surprised at how politically...moderate it can be. I was. My wife's extended family is really into hunting so I ended up taking a gun safety course to get my hunting license. A LOT of gun safety is preached there. Don't brandish your weapons or your prey publicly; keep them to yourself. Always assume a gun is loaded. When carrying a loaded gun, hold it a certain way. When walking with a loaded gun, don't point more than 15-20 degrees in either direction if someone is standing next to you. Lock your guns separately from your ammo. And so on. There are a lot of environmentalists (preservationists?) working for the state in this field as well. Managing deer population levels, preventing forest fires, not littering, that kind of thing. So while I was a bit surprised to see a 'red state' kind of company advocating for federal control of these lands, I suppose I shouldn't have been. There's a lot of room for nuance in this country.
- ethbro 9y ago
  If you want to see where this comes from, I'd recommend reading a Teddy Roosevelt biography (e.g. Morris). He became one of the first powerful conservationists because he saw, in just a few decades, the impact that development was having on the West. Inside almost every hunter or fisherman, there's a desire to see someone else enjoy it as much as you. And that can't happen if one leaves the land poorer after they use it.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  > When you get into hunting/sportsman's issues, you might find yourself surprised at how politically...moderate it can be. I was. > My wife's extended family is really into hunting so I ended up taking a gun safety course to get my hunting license. A LOT of gun safety is preached there. [examples] The gun safety doesn't surprise me at all. But it's a bit unclear to me, are you saying that's to do with it being politically moderate?
  - Brendinooo 9y ago
    I guess the picture painted of the pro-gun folks is often the extreme end - open carry, walk around college campuses with assault rifles to protest their rights - so it was perception-altering to see instruction along the lines of "don't display your gun in the car window" or whatever, and then to look around and realize that most people act that way. I'll see plenty of stories about gun deaths via carelessness (Dad leaves a gun cabinet unlocked, six-year-old shoots his sister by mistake, that kind of thing), and the commentary/agenda around that tends to be "and this is why we need more gun control", and then you get arguments against that from the other side. So perhaps in my mind advocacy for safety was conflated with advocacy against guns, so it was mildly surprising to see that not only is rigorous safety taught, but it's also practiced by owners of firearms. In other words, perhaps I read too many comment sections on partisan platforms! Pretty much every time I get out into the real world I see that people are never as extreme as their online counterparts.
ethbro 9y ago
Curious question. About half of states have voted a constitutional amendment specifically calling out a right to hunt and fish. F.ex., Georgia's reads "The tradition of fishing and hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good." Could a state resident sue their government for transferring state land to private ownership under the clause?
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  I would bet if they could prove that that sale materially harmed the preservation and management they could possibly sue successfully. That said, there are states where the public grounds that allow hunting and fishing suck due to mismanagement, and people go to private bodies of water and fields instead. Just because it's public doesn't mean taxpayers actually get what they're owed.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    True. Which harkens back to the active or effective management vs passive or ineffective. I was just struck that it would seem logically difficult to make a case that sale of public land (able to be hunted or fished) to a private party is "for the public good" in the sense of "preserving the traditions."
fiatjaf 9y ago
Public is different (or should be) from State-owned. A land is not public anymore if the State owns it. Even though the State claims to be a "public" institution, owned by everyone, it is not, it is a separate organization that works with certain bizarre democratic rules, but still a separate organization, much like a "public" company.
- im2nguyen 9y ago
  Then what's your definition of "public"?
  - fiatjaf 9y ago
    Land not owned by anyone.
    - Qwertious 9y ago
      Land not owned by anyone is land that can be claimed by anyone. Which means that anyone can build a hut there and then legally claim the land as their own private property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
      - fiatjaf 9y ago
        Maybe in your crazy legal system.
    - s73ver 9y ago
      Then what's to stop me from plopping an oil well on it?
    - jpttsn 9y ago
      Let us know if you find it.
- ajmurmann 9y ago
  What do you suggest how we organize ourselves as the people other than through a government?
garby 9y ago
As someone who loves to spend weekends in the outdoors hiking, hunting, and fishing, moving to Texas really highlighted the importance of keeping these lands public. As the article mentions, Texas sold nearly all of the federal land it was granted and as a result is currently about 95% privately-owned. For most hunters, this means that you either have to lease private land, which is becoming increasingly more difficult and expensive (think thousands of dollars annually), or hire an outfitter for exorbitant fees. This has priced many people out of hunting and will continue to do so as populations and land development continue to rise. I, personally, have been looking for a hunting lease within a couple hours drive of Austin for the past three years and have not been able to find one - and that's with a budget of over $3k/year. Without transfer protections that mandate keeping the land public and accessible perpetually, I don't know how any outdoorsman could be for this "transfer".
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  I agree with how sad it is that Texas doesn't have more public land for hunting and shooting. Imagine if we had 100,000+ acres out past Fredericksburg for outdoor activities. Honestly, I didn't know how people hunted or shot weapons outside Texas. I assumed it was all private business and expensive deer leases. I still don't get it! You're telling me, in Utah/Colorado and other places, that I can just go to federal/state land with a gun and a license, and get food?
  - jdblair 9y ago
    Yes, if you have a license, follow the limit rules and hunt in-season.
  - buffportion 9y ago
    In some states, like NH, the default is that you can even hunt on other people's (privately-owned) land, unless it is posted. As a landowner, you are encouraged to allow free, recreational use of your land by others.
  - rsync 9y ago
    "I still don't get it! You're telling me, in Utah/Colorado and other places, that I can just go to federal/state land with a gun and a license, and get food?" Yes. Setting aside seasonal limitations and quantity limits, you may do just that. Further, at any time of any day of the year, you can enter a national forest in Colorado, set up a target, and start shooting.[1][2][3] In fact, I am fairly certain that you can just go live in the national forest provided that your encampment/structures are completely mobile and temporary. It's the "Land of Many Uses". [1] I recommend a lot of sanity checks, however. In addition to scouting the entire area for any other people and ensuring proper backstop, I would also give a courtesy call to the local forest service office and the local sheriff and give them a heads up. About half the time they would respond by telling me that I was not able to do that and I would politely inform them that they were wrong and to have a great day. [2] Also note that just because you are legally able to do this and are "in the right" doesn't mean local LE can't come arrest you and seize your firearms and sort it out in court anyway. If you're remote enough and nobody is there to complain it's not really an issue. [3] Do not do this in popular areas with hikers and kids and where there is little or no tradition of shooting in that place, etc. Don't be a dick.
fittingin 9y ago
For many, the question is which public hands should hold the public land. Why should the federal government bring staffers from Arizona to manage the Everglades? Why is the Grand Canyon "governed" by Vermont? Why can't Bears Ears be managed by the state of Utah, or perhaps better yet, San Juan County? Is a hot spring in Arkansas really so remarkable that it should belong to the people of California?
- timmaah 9y ago
  huh? Are we all not citizens of the United States?
DelTaco 9y ago
Huh, I didn't even know they started selling public land. Last I had heard, the federal government tried to give back land to the states, but the states didn't accept. The reason being that the federal government was paying the states to preserve the land as if the states were making money off of it. So the states didn't want their free income gone.
- mason240 9y ago
  They haven't started selling. This is in response to the failed attempt you mentioned for federal government to give control of the land to the states. However, that was a bill in Congress that withdrawn after a very bipartisan outcry. This issue has brought together hunters, sportsmen, and snowmobilers on the right with environmentalists on the left. The concern is that once the states have control, they will simply sell off most of it (as the article show precedent for).
thaddeusmt 9y ago
In Utah, my understanding is that the primary purpose of state owned lands is to generate revenue for the state. Utah uses them to make money, not to protect them. This includes mineral leasing for oil, gas, coal, etc, and grazing, but in some cases, like the "SITLA" School Trust lands, the state will literally auction off land into private hands. This is ostensibly to raise money for public schools. I strongly support public education, but this way of removing beautiful tracts of Utah desert from the public is very final. You can hike around an oil well, and eventually sort of clean them up, but outright selling off limited resources like lands is frustrating. Compared to normal revenue sources, like taxes, these land auctions raise such a small amount for money for the school system it's even more tragic. The outdoor recreation industry in Utah is growing rapidly, largely part due to the National Parks, Monuments, and other amazing public lands we have to recreate on. Our 5 national parks (Arches, Canyonlands, Zion, Bryce and Capitol Reef) are some of the most visited in the country. This isn't hunting recreation, like the Field & Stream article is about. Most of this is mountain biking, climbing, hiking, rafting, etc. (Think family vacations and young web developers in Vanagons, not gun toting hunters in big trucks.) On top of the burgeoning hospitality industry supporting this tourism, outdoor companies like Backcountry.com, Petzl, Goal Zero, Black Diamond, Altra, Kuhl, Scott, etc have large presences in Utah now. By some counts, outdoor recreation is one of the largest economic drivers in Utah. And between the aspirational outdoor photos people in the city like on Instagram and generally affordable travel, this visitation trend will only continue upward. In response to Utah's politicians passing resolutions and endlessly promoting "taking back" Federal land into State hands, the outdoor industry that relies on public land access has started to fight back. To make a stand against these anti-federal politics Patagonia, Black Diamond and some other large retailers threatened to boycott the "Outdoor Retailer" trade show, held in Utah. In response, there was a call with the Governor and he basically gave the outdoor industry the finger. They are moving the trade show to another state now - more symbolic than actually hurtful to Utah's economy, but an interesting development nonetheless. After the ceaseless "jobs" and "pro-business" rhetoric from red states like Utah this antagonism towards one of it's largest and fastest growing industries is frustrating and puzzling. I can't tell if my politicians really see using public lands for finite oil and gas extraction as a better plan than protecting them for generations of future vacationers - or if they just get better campaign contributions from those extraction industries. Either way, as someone who likes mountain biking and who has high hopes for solar energy and electric cars, there is nothing positive to me about these state attempts to control my Federal lands. (I do vote, but I will probably not be able to affect Utah's red state politics for a long time.)
Clubber 9y ago
The federal government owns quite a bit of state land. I would like to be able to purchase some on the cheap like they did when they were trying to develop new territories in the 1800s. This will probably come out like crap: State, FederalOwned, TotalAcreage, Percent Nevada 59,681,502 70,264,320 84.9% Utah 34,202,920 52,696,960 64.9% Idaho 32,621,631 52,933,120 61.6% Alaska 223,803,098 365,481,600 61.2% Oregon 32,614,185 61,598,720 52.9% https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state
- gnarbarian 9y ago
  Alaska has less than 1% private land ownership. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/65/bf/4365bf0b3b2890b8c966c60443239e32.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/65/bf/4365bf0b3...
zeveb 9y ago
I'm a huntsman, but I disagree: those federal lands are essentially a subsidy paid for by everyone but which I get to enjoy. I have no problem with them being given to the states and/or sold to private owners. Indeed, I think that the expiration of the Homestead Act was a very sad thing for our republic: the idea that someone could move to public lands and set up his own home is very freeing.
- molsongolden 9y ago
  But the idea that any individual can wander out into publicly-owned wilderness and enjoy endless acres of public land is less freeing?
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
On the other side of the coin, states are generally much more favorable to OHV enthusiasts than the BLM is.
- mason240 9y ago
  Bikes too. Mountain bikes are currently banned from Federal lands. There's an uphill battle right now to open it, and I fear that e-bikes are going to kill it.
  - TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
    Bikes are banned in federal wilderness areas, not all Federal lands.
- seattle_spring 9y ago
  Because OHV vehicles absolutely terrorize the landscape when they're taken off the designated roads, which it seems like 75% of all OHV drivers insist on doing. There is also nothing worse than camping somewhere peaceful, and then having some townie roll in at 11pm, leave their generator on all night, and then ride around on dirt bikes at 5:30am. I've never met an OHV enthusiast that is a good human being. Please feel free to prove my experiences to be in the minority.
gojiberry 9y ago
Then how will Trump make America Great Again?
zanethomas 9y ago
The more interesting question is whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to set aside and control state land: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-owne...
DamnYuppie 9y ago
If you are interested in supporting an organization that is dedicated to defending public land I strongly encourage you to join or donate to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) www.backcountryhunters.org. I know having "hunters" in the name may scare many here but they are core conservationists out west and are fighting hard to maintain our open spaces that we are so blessed to have.
disposition2 9y ago
For anyone interested, I did some review in to somewhat related information (the review of national monuments since 1996) last week: https://justinhorner.github.io/national_monuments.html https://justinhorner.github.io/national_monuments.html

237 points by diebir 9y ago

> What could hunting and fishing look like should our public lands fall under state control? Turn to Europe ... where plenty of nations have Right to Roam over private lands for their citizens? Can't see that ever happening in the US. Hunting isn't widespread in Europe, sure, but hunting isn't the only thing that you can do on the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

gumby 9y ago
Why do you think hunting is not widespread in Europe? IMHO it's quite common and the delicious meals that result are common too!
- prawn 9y ago
  Agree. Hunting is not uncommon in Europe. I spent time in Southern France recently and on weekend mornings frequently heard guns going off as hunters went after birds, saw their cars and dogs, etc.
- arethuza 9y ago
  Large parts of Scotland are privately owned and run purely for hunting - grouse moors and deer forests (although not many trees in a Scottish deer forest). Mind you, we do have the "Right to Roam" so we can wander about all of that land and camp where we want (main exclusion being that you have no right to use powered vehicles).
- vacri 9y ago
  Admittedly not European myself, and I know that there is some hunting in Europe (and used to work with a Polish guy whose family hunted pigs), but it doesn't seem anywhere near as pervasive as hunting in the US.
  - gumby 9y ago
    I think you would be surprised, and if you are into hunting, pleasantly so by the level of shooting that goes on in Europe. Outside the US the stereotype about America goes the other way: that all the shooting is of people. In case it's not obvious: I know this belief is incorrect.
mikkom 9y ago
FYI, in Finnish we have a very comprehensive "right to roam" legislation called "everymans right" but hunting is one of the exclusions in addition to camping to that right and I think correctly so. http://www.nationalparks.fi/hikinginfinland/rightsandregulations http://www.nationalparks.fi/hikinginfinland/rightsandregulat...
- Mediterraneo10 9y ago
  Camping is allowed under Finnish everyman’s right (as your own link indicates), but a camper is supposed to stay at any one site for no more than one night.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Right to roam would be a nice thing for the US. There are so many wide open areas that are completely closed off by fences for no good reason. At least there should be a rule that you have provided a certain number of paths through the area.
flyingfences 9y ago
I don't know about all of the USA, but here in Maine we have something similar. Most of the land in New England is privately held (because people settled here so long ago compared to the west), but people are still more or less free to roam about it. So long as you're actually out in the woods and not chilling in somebody's back yard, you're in the clear. Landowners can prohibit certain uses - hunting, foraging, etc., or even any trespassing - but the default is for land to be open, any restrictions must be clearly posted, and I believe that there are tax incentives for keeping the land open.

easilyBored 9y ago

I don't get his outrage, one side will always complain. Depending on the state they could lose or gain rights if the feds transferred it. But the feds and states are quite separate when it comes to taxes, budgets etc so why shouldn't both own land too?

theparanoid 9y ago
By law federal public lands are multi-use, e.g. hunting, fishing, camping. States have no such proviso.

bsder 9y ago

It's hard to feel sorry for people who want public lands to be accessible but who, as a bloc, keep voting for politicians who want to privatize everything.

blowski 9y ago
You can vote for a party and still disagree with some of their policies.
- cryptarch 9y ago
  You can vote for one of two near-identical parties but the vote will be decided by Facebook.
  - tradersam 9y ago
    Sad but true for most Americans.
  - nosuchthing 9y ago
    You can exert some effort to solve the two party system by getting your state to implement ranked choice voting. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/maine-ranked-choice-voting.html?_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/us/maine-ranked-choice-vo...
    - sirlatrom 9y ago
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theo... "Although Arrow's theorem is a mathematical result, it is often expressed in a non-mathematical way with a statement such as no voting method is fair, every ranked voting method is flawed, or the only voting method that isn't flawed is a dictatorship."
      - wtallis 9y ago
        That theorem says that no voting system is perfect, for a certain definition of perfect. It does not say that all voting systems are equally bad.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

bpodgursky 9y ago

Without making this too political, there would be far less pushing by the states to get this land back if the federal government hadn't gone on a (ahem) roughly 8 year spree of turning it into enormous national monuments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument#Designation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument#D... Turning federal land into national monuments greatly limits the traditional uses of these publicly held lands -- restrictions on livestock grazing, hunting, camping, etc. Obviously there needs to be responsible land stewardship, but abusing the antiquities act to carve out enormous not-parks-but-not-free chunks of land isn't the best way to get everyone working together there.

vkou 9y ago
Designating an area a national monument ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. On the other hand, every other way of losing public land also ties the hands of subsequent governments to do with it as they please. Suppose that you sell it for a song to your friends, or allow resource extraction in an environmentally sensitive area... A decade down the road, you can't wave a magic wand, and undo that damage. The fact of the matter is that once public lands are lost, they are gone - forever. Every election year, we must fight to keep public lands public - we only need to lose once, and then its over. Can you really blame someone for seeking a more permanent solution to this problem?
- bpodgursky 9y ago
  Yeah, but allowing cattle to graze on land they've been grazing on for 100 years keeps states from starting campaigns to take it back. I'm not suggesting that selling to the states is a good idea. I am suggesting that taking _away_ traditional land rights is causing states to push to take ownership of the land. The BLM has not traditionally been enemies of the people using the land. The antagonism is a very new phenomenon.
  - Chathamization 9y ago
    I looked for information on the national park you linked to. This says that grazing, hunting, fishing, recreation, etc., would all still be allowed[1]: >The monument designations maintain currently authorized uses of the land that do not harm the resources protected by the monument, including tribal access and traditional collection of plants and firewood, off-highway vehicle recreation, hunting and fishing and authorized grazing. It's apparently also an important deal for tribal sovereignty[2]: > Under the Bears Ears Monument designation, an intertribal coalition will partner with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to manage the area — which is slightly bigger than the state of Delaware — ensuring that tribes have access to food supplies and firewood. This[3] says that existing grazing is usually grandfathered in, but that new grazing is limited. I get the impression that there's a lot of disinformation out there. [1] https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack-applaud-presidents-designation-new-national-monuments-utah https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/secretaries-jewell-vilsack... [2] http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bears-ears-monument-is-a-win-for-tribal-food-sovereignty-will-trump-undo-it http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/01/09/508586040/bea... [3] http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-wants-bears-ears-gone-and-he-wants-trump-to-do-it http://www.npr.org/2017/02/05/513492389/utah-representative-...

closeparen 9y ago

I wonder how long this will matter. When we're all living in shared studio apartments in car-free megacities, will there still be interest in going places whose whole appeal is being out of mass transit range? Will we still own camping and hunting gear? Maybe the support will be there to maintain public lands and National Parks, but what about the roads and necessary roadside businesses (gas, motels, restaurants, etc) leading up to them? Will rental cars be economical when leisure is the only remaining use of the automobile?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eagletusk 9y ago
Human's that acquire more leisure time are going to want to stay in the city more and more? I feel the opposite trend will happen. I live in a outdoor industry bubble in Boulder Colorado so I have blinders on perhaps.
matt4077 9y ago
I live in an apartment, in a Megacity[0], and none of my friends have cars[1]. I see no reason to suspect that city life diminishes interest in nature. If anything, it's more of an experience because it's different. Come summer, my Facebook feed is filled with nature, and I've personally crossed the Alps on bicycle, usually camping the forests at night. Upkeep of a few roads isn't actually that expensive, and to some degree costs are proportional to use. Take a look at a map of Australia to see many roads that may only see a few cars per week. Even if a National Park were only accessible by gravel road, I'd argue it'd enhance the experience. With regards to cars, I get the sense that the most realistic future is no longer mass-transit only, but includes self-driving electric car-sharing. That allows people to continue enjoying the benefits of individual cars (privacy, carrying stuff, direct point-to-point, use of existing infrastructure worth billions) while still enabling the kind of transformation previously attributed to mass transit. For example, autonomous driving and car-sharing reduces the need for parking spaces and allows parking spaces to move to less-desirable areas, freeing up 1/3 of your typical city street. [0]: Using a rather technical definition of ≥1 Million inhabitants [1]: Yes, I have friends.

Brendinooo 9y ago

When you get into hunting/sportsman's issues, you might find yourself surprised at how politically...moderate it can be. I was. My wife's extended family is really into hunting so I ended up taking a gun safety course to get my hunting license. A LOT of gun safety is preached there. Don't brandish your weapons or your prey publicly; keep them to yourself. Always assume a gun is loaded. When carrying a loaded gun, hold it a certain way. When walking with a loaded gun, don't point more than 15-20 degrees in either direction if someone is standing next to you. Lock your guns separately from your ammo. And so on. There are a lot of environmentalists (preservationists?) working for the state in this field as well. Managing deer population levels, preventing forest fires, not littering, that kind of thing. So while I was a bit surprised to see a 'red state' kind of company advocating for federal control of these lands, I suppose I shouldn't have been. There's a lot of room for nuance in this country.

ethbro 9y ago
If you want to see where this comes from, I'd recommend reading a Teddy Roosevelt biography (e.g. Morris). He became one of the first powerful conservationists because he saw, in just a few decades, the impact that development was having on the West. Inside almost every hunter or fisherman, there's a desire to see someone else enjoy it as much as you. And that can't happen if one leaves the land poorer after they use it.
jamesrcole 9y ago
> When you get into hunting/sportsman's issues, you might find yourself surprised at how politically...moderate it can be. I was. > My wife's extended family is really into hunting so I ended up taking a gun safety course to get my hunting license. A LOT of gun safety is preached there. [examples] The gun safety doesn't surprise me at all. But it's a bit unclear to me, are you saying that's to do with it being politically moderate?
- Brendinooo 9y ago
  I guess the picture painted of the pro-gun folks is often the extreme end - open carry, walk around college campuses with assault rifles to protest their rights - so it was perception-altering to see instruction along the lines of "don't display your gun in the car window" or whatever, and then to look around and realize that most people act that way. I'll see plenty of stories about gun deaths via carelessness (Dad leaves a gun cabinet unlocked, six-year-old shoots his sister by mistake, that kind of thing), and the commentary/agenda around that tends to be "and this is why we need more gun control", and then you get arguments against that from the other side. So perhaps in my mind advocacy for safety was conflated with advocacy against guns, so it was mildly surprising to see that not only is rigorous safety taught, but it's also practiced by owners of firearms. In other words, perhaps I read too many comment sections on partisan platforms! Pretty much every time I get out into the real world I see that people are never as extreme as their online counterparts.

ethbro 9y ago

Curious question. About half of states have voted a constitutional amendment specifically calling out a right to hunt and fish. F.ex., Georgia's reads "The tradition of fishing and hunting and the taking of fish and wildlife shall be preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good." Could a state resident sue their government for transferring state land to private ownership under the clause?

TallGuyShort 9y ago
I would bet if they could prove that that sale materially harmed the preservation and management they could possibly sue successfully. That said, there are states where the public grounds that allow hunting and fishing suck due to mismanagement, and people go to private bodies of water and fields instead. Just because it's public doesn't mean taxpayers actually get what they're owed.
- ethbro 9y ago
  True. Which harkens back to the active or effective management vs passive or ineffective. I was just struck that it would seem logically difficult to make a case that sale of public land (able to be hunted or fished) to a private party is "for the public good" in the sense of "preserving the traditions."

fiatjaf 9y ago

Public is different (or should be) from State-owned. A land is not public anymore if the State owns it. Even though the State claims to be a "public" institution, owned by everyone, it is not, it is a separate organization that works with certain bizarre democratic rules, but still a separate organization, much like a "public" company.

im2nguyen 9y ago
Then what's your definition of "public"?
- fiatjaf 9y ago
  Land not owned by anyone.
  - Qwertious 9y ago
    Land not owned by anyone is land that can be claimed by anyone. Which means that anyone can build a hut there and then legally claim the land as their own private property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
    - fiatjaf 9y ago
      Maybe in your crazy legal system.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    Then what's to stop me from plopping an oil well on it?
  - jpttsn 9y ago
    Let us know if you find it.
ajmurmann 9y ago
What do you suggest how we organize ourselves as the people other than through a government?

garby 9y ago

As someone who loves to spend weekends in the outdoors hiking, hunting, and fishing, moving to Texas really highlighted the importance of keeping these lands public. As the article mentions, Texas sold nearly all of the federal land it was granted and as a result is currently about 95% privately-owned. For most hunters, this means that you either have to lease private land, which is becoming increasingly more difficult and expensive (think thousands of dollars annually), or hire an outfitter for exorbitant fees. This has priced many people out of hunting and will continue to do so as populations and land development continue to rise. I, personally, have been looking for a hunting lease within a couple hours drive of Austin for the past three years and have not been able to find one - and that's with a budget of over $3k/year. Without transfer protections that mandate keeping the land public and accessible perpetually, I don't know how any outdoorsman could be for this "transfer".

unethical_ban 9y ago
I agree with how sad it is that Texas doesn't have more public land for hunting and shooting. Imagine if we had 100,000+ acres out past Fredericksburg for outdoor activities. Honestly, I didn't know how people hunted or shot weapons outside Texas. I assumed it was all private business and expensive deer leases. I still don't get it! You're telling me, in Utah/Colorado and other places, that I can just go to federal/state land with a gun and a license, and get food?
- jdblair 9y ago
  Yes, if you have a license, follow the limit rules and hunt in-season.
- buffportion 9y ago
  In some states, like NH, the default is that you can even hunt on other people's (privately-owned) land, unless it is posted. As a landowner, you are encouraged to allow free, recreational use of your land by others.
- rsync 9y ago
  "I still don't get it! You're telling me, in Utah/Colorado and other places, that I can just go to federal/state land with a gun and a license, and get food?" Yes. Setting aside seasonal limitations and quantity limits, you may do just that. Further, at any time of any day of the year, you can enter a national forest in Colorado, set up a target, and start shooting.[1][2][3] In fact, I am fairly certain that you can just go live in the national forest provided that your encampment/structures are completely mobile and temporary. It's the "Land of Many Uses". [1] I recommend a lot of sanity checks, however. In addition to scouting the entire area for any other people and ensuring proper backstop, I would also give a courtesy call to the local forest service office and the local sheriff and give them a heads up. About half the time they would respond by telling me that I was not able to do that and I would politely inform them that they were wrong and to have a great day. [2] Also note that just because you are legally able to do this and are "in the right" doesn't mean local LE can't come arrest you and seize your firearms and sort it out in court anyway. If you're remote enough and nobody is there to complain it's not really an issue. [3] Do not do this in popular areas with hikers and kids and where there is little or no tradition of shooting in that place, etc. Don't be a dick.

fittingin 9y ago

For many, the question is which public hands should hold the public land. Why should the federal government bring staffers from Arizona to manage the Everglades? Why is the Grand Canyon "governed" by Vermont? Why can't Bears Ears be managed by the state of Utah, or perhaps better yet, San Juan County? Is a hot spring in Arkansas really so remarkable that it should belong to the people of California?

timmaah 9y ago
huh? Are we all not citizens of the United States?

DelTaco 9y ago

Huh, I didn't even know they started selling public land. Last I had heard, the federal government tried to give back land to the states, but the states didn't accept. The reason being that the federal government was paying the states to preserve the land as if the states were making money off of it. So the states didn't want their free income gone.

mason240 9y ago
They haven't started selling. This is in response to the failed attempt you mentioned for federal government to give control of the land to the states. However, that was a bill in Congress that withdrawn after a very bipartisan outcry. This issue has brought together hunters, sportsmen, and snowmobilers on the right with environmentalists on the left. The concern is that once the states have control, they will simply sell off most of it (as the article show precedent for).

thaddeusmt 9y ago

In Utah, my understanding is that the primary purpose of state owned lands is to generate revenue for the state. Utah uses them to make money, not to protect them. This includes mineral leasing for oil, gas, coal, etc, and grazing, but in some cases, like the "SITLA" School Trust lands, the state will literally auction off land into private hands. This is ostensibly to raise money for public schools. I strongly support public education, but this way of removing beautiful tracts of Utah desert from the public is very final. You can hike around an oil well, and eventually sort of clean them up, but outright selling off limited resources like lands is frustrating. Compared to normal revenue sources, like taxes, these land auctions raise such a small amount for money for the school system it's even more tragic. The outdoor recreation industry in Utah is growing rapidly, largely part due to the National Parks, Monuments, and other amazing public lands we have to recreate on. Our 5 national parks (Arches, Canyonlands, Zion, Bryce and Capitol Reef) are some of the most visited in the country. This isn't hunting recreation, like the Field & Stream article is about. Most of this is mountain biking, climbing, hiking, rafting, etc. (Think family vacations and young web developers in Vanagons, not gun toting hunters in big trucks.) On top of the burgeoning hospitality industry supporting this tourism, outdoor companies like Backcountry.com, Petzl, Goal Zero, Black Diamond, Altra, Kuhl, Scott, etc have large presences in Utah now. By some counts, outdoor recreation is one of the largest economic drivers in Utah. And between the aspirational outdoor photos people in the city like on Instagram and generally affordable travel, this visitation trend will only continue upward. In response to Utah's politicians passing resolutions and endlessly promoting "taking back" Federal land into State hands, the outdoor industry that relies on public land access has started to fight back. To make a stand against these anti-federal politics Patagonia, Black Diamond and some other large retailers threatened to boycott the "Outdoor Retailer" trade show, held in Utah. In response, there was a call with the Governor and he basically gave the outdoor industry the finger. They are moving the trade show to another state now - more symbolic than actually hurtful to Utah's economy, but an interesting development nonetheless. After the ceaseless "jobs" and "pro-business" rhetoric from red states like Utah this antagonism towards one of it's largest and fastest growing industries is frustrating and puzzling. I can't tell if my politicians really see using public lands for finite oil and gas extraction as a better plan than protecting them for generations of future vacationers - or if they just get better campaign contributions from those extraction industries. Either way, as someone who likes mountain biking and who has high hopes for solar energy and electric cars, there is nothing positive to me about these state attempts to control my Federal lands. (I do vote, but I will probably not be able to affect Utah's red state politics for a long time.)

Clubber 9y ago

The federal government owns quite a bit of state land. I would like to be able to purchase some on the cheap like they did when they were trying to develop new territories in the 1800s. This will probably come out like crap: State, FederalOwned, TotalAcreage, Percent Nevada 59,681,502 70,264,320 84.9% Utah 34,202,920 52,696,960 64.9% Idaho 32,621,631 52,933,120 61.6% Alaska 223,803,098 365,481,600 61.2% Oregon 32,614,185 61,598,720 52.9% https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

gnarbarian 9y ago
Alaska has less than 1% private land ownership. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/65/bf/4365bf0b3b2890b8c966c60443239e32.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/43/65/bf/4365bf0b3...

zeveb 9y ago

I'm a huntsman, but I disagree: those federal lands are essentially a subsidy paid for by everyone but which I get to enjoy. I have no problem with them being given to the states and/or sold to private owners. Indeed, I think that the expiration of the Homestead Act was a very sad thing for our republic: the idea that someone could move to public lands and set up his own home is very freeing.

molsongolden 9y ago
But the idea that any individual can wander out into publicly-owned wilderness and enjoy endless acres of public land is less freeing?

dsfyu404ed 9y ago

On the other side of the coin, states are generally much more favorable to OHV enthusiasts than the BLM is.

mason240 9y ago
Bikes too. Mountain bikes are currently banned from Federal lands. There's an uphill battle right now to open it, and I fear that e-bikes are going to kill it.
- TYPE_FASTER 9y ago
  Bikes are banned in federal wilderness areas, not all Federal lands.
seattle_spring 9y ago
Because OHV vehicles absolutely terrorize the landscape when they're taken off the designated roads, which it seems like 75% of all OHV drivers insist on doing. There is also nothing worse than camping somewhere peaceful, and then having some townie roll in at 11pm, leave their generator on all night, and then ride around on dirt bikes at 5:30am. I've never met an OHV enthusiast that is a good human being. Please feel free to prove my experiences to be in the minority.

gojiberry 9y ago

Then how will Trump make America Great Again?

zanethomas 9y ago

The more interesting question is whether the federal government has the constitutional authority to set aside and control state land: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-ownership-is-it-constitutional/ http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/05/07/federal-land-owne...

DamnYuppie 9y ago

If you are interested in supporting an organization that is dedicated to defending public land I strongly encourage you to join or donate to Backcountry Hunters and Anglers (BHA) www.backcountryhunters.org. I know having "hunters" in the name may scare many here but they are core conservationists out west and are fighting hard to maintain our open spaces that we are so blessed to have.

disposition2 9y ago

For anyone interested, I did some review in to somewhat related information (the review of national monuments since 1996) last week: https://justinhorner.github.io/national_monuments.html https://justinhorner.github.io/national_monuments.html