Public land belongs to all
September 29, 2016 at 7:00 AM
updated September 29, 2016 at 7:02 AM
By Tim Palmer
... Beyond the guns, the bravado and the deeply fractured logic of those claiming to stand by the Constitution, political attacks on the property owned by all Americans are underway. These range from the platform of the Republican Party to "compromises" designed to allow more drilling, logging and unrestrained profiteering...
With 650 million recreational visits per year to federal land, 60 percent of Americans' water supply coming from national forests alone, and with these places serving as the cornerstone of wildlife habitat, everybody should be concerned ...
Nearly all the federal land in the West has belonged to America's taxpayers ever since we took it from the American Indians.
The values of public land most evident to me in the pursuit of my own livelihood are in the rivers flowing from national forests and BLM land. Look no further than the water we drink, the streams where we swim and the fish we catch for sport or in commercial fisheries at sea ...
Here in the West, the best thing we have going is public land. We all need to protect it as if it were our own, because that's exactly what it is.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/09/public_land_belongs_to_all_ame.html
Vogon_Glory
(9,117 posts)We need to remind the folks who enjoy hiking, camping, hunting, and fishing that one of the major points on the Trumpkins' agenda is privatization--the selling off of public lands to the private sector and the closure of those lands to public access. That's what the Bundys were about. That's what the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion was about.
The overwhelming part of those lands would be sold to the super-wealthy and large corporations. Not just large corporations, but large FOREIGN corporations.
If the politically-apathetic wish to shaft coming generations, all they have to do is remain in their haze and do nothing.
Igel
(35,293 posts)It may belong to all, but it's to be protected for a few.
This area, because of religious connotations dating back to dim antiquity, in many cases before 1700. (/snark)
This area, because religious sensibilities prevent use of the land for anything religious.
This area must be roped off so that a few hundred people a year can enjoy the 100,000 acres.
This area must be roped off to protect a species. One nearly extinct. In the US, but not all that uncommon on the other side of an artificial line. So why's the land protected? Not to satisfy anybody living nearby.
It's a question of empathy and a fine line. When I was into trout fishing, I liked Oregon's laws. I could wander up the stream in search of holes to cast my hook into. It was great.
On the other hand, the streams often ran through backyards with houses often less than 30 feet away and families who considered their backyards to be fairly private would suddenly find 3-4 guys tramping there--with no way for the owners to build a fence.
We could shoot and hunt on BLM land. But in some areas the BLM land went right up against, in patchwork fashion, private land. You could shoot at an animal and 15 feet past the animal would be somebody's backyard and house. They could put up a fence, but it would be dangerous for them to let a kid there without a fence that could stop a 0.38 slug. At the same time, there were owners who all but had a lock on a little cul-de-sac of land that may have an easement to get to, but few people would even know there was an acre or two of wild public land there. Nobody could touch it, few could get to it, and so they enjoyed having no neighbors against their back fences.
At the same time, most of the decision makers live in cities, often in states in which most of the land was originally held by the Crown but which, apparently foolishly, the Crown gave to citizens instead of holding it in reserve for ... Well, this was what the US government originally did, until it realized it was giving away something that it could profit from.