Remember when Strange Maps “discovered” that so much of the 13 western states is owned by the Federal Government? On the one hand, it was nice to see people paying attention to public lands in the west.
Public lands in a western state, with grazing cattle. Wild Earth Guardians image.
Public lands. Photo from the Montana Wildlife Federation
At the Bathtub, we remarked on the history of the issue with a map that showed where the publicly-owned lands really are (the Strange Maps version only showed a dot in the middle of each state proportionate to the federal land held in the state.) On the other hand, it was an open invitation for know-nothings and know-littles to jump in with silly ideas. Remarkably, the post remained free of such folderol — until just recently.
- In October, a Portland real estate blogger picked up on the post at Strange Maps. His post related information — but in the comments, one fellow urged we sell off the lands. Oregon has a good amount of land held in trust by federal agencies, but it’s far from the the highest percentage. Oregon has benefited from public lands more than many other states. Who would suggest selling off assets?
- The Capitalist Digest — which misappropriates Jefferson’s warning to the clergy (famously engraved around the rotunda of the Jefferson Memorial, but I digress) — displayed a remarkable lack of historic perspective and a unfamiliarity with capitalist property law, declaring that the federal government’s holding lands in trust was one of the things Marx and Engels wished to see (November 10, not a week after the election). Had Marx and Engels actually meant that wise land stewardship was something to be striven for, that public lands should be used to the public good, they would have been in the bosom of capitalism when they did so (I suspect they were not in favor of poor stewardship.) The Capitalist Digest would urge burning Milton Friedman and Jesus Christ if their names had appeared in the Communist Manifesto. This is not a bunch that works on principles and reason. Under U.S. law, federal land management is not communist at all with small exceptions made to support American cattlemen, sheep ranchers and mineral and oil extractors, and I doubt that the Capitalist Digest really intended to indict American oil producers, miners and livestock operations. The Capitalist Digest blames their insanity on Robert Higgs at the Independent Institute, as if The Capitalist Digest can’t make up their own minds.
- Then, on November 13, Marginal Revolution wondered aloud about selling off the public lands identified at Strange Maps, in order to establish “a buffalo commons.” Do these guys even think before their fingers dance on the computer keys? Why would we savage buffalo commons in Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and elsewhere across the west, in order to create others in the Dakotas? Didn’t they figure out that the problem in the Dakotas was selling off too much of the public lands, too cheaply? Don’t they know anything about the Dust Bowl?
- Market Urbanism pushed the Marginal Revolution article.
- A blog called Horn Bar joined in.
- Religious naifs got into the fray. They blame their temporary (we hope) insanity on Ross Douthat, at The Atlantic’s blogs.
- Etl World News (?) joined in.
- This issue really doesn’t have anything to do with trading Order of the Arrow patches (a Boy Scouts thing), but that didn’t stop OA Trader from weighing in on the wrong side noting the piece at Marginal Revolution (though, as Bill points out in comments, he doesn’t endorse the view – my error).
- I realized things had gotten way out of hand when Tobin Harshaw at The Opinionator, a New York Times blog, jumped on the bandwagon.
None of these sites gives any serious thought to the idea. None provides a scintilla of an iota of analysis to indicate it would be a good idea.
As one of the the principal spokesmen for the Sagebrush Rebellion in the early days, I want it known that I’ve thought these issues through, and argued them through, and followed the documentation for 30 years (Holy frijole! I’m old!). Issues with public lands revolve around stewardship. Bad stewardship is not improved by a change in ownership. Ownership change has all too often only led to worse stewardship. Selling off the public lands is a generally stupid idea.
Certain local circumstances change the nature of a tiny handful of such deals — but not often, not in many places, and not enough to make a significant contribution to retiring any debt the federal government owns.
On the other hand, incomes from these lands typically runs a few multiples of the costs of managing them. The Reagan administration discovered the lands were a great source of money to offset losses in other places, and for that reason (I suspect) never really got on the Sagebrush Rebellion band wagon — or, maybe Reagan’s higher officials just didn’t get it.
It’s troubling that such a flurry of stupidity strikes now, during a transition of presidents. This is how stupid ideas get traction, like kudzu on a cotton farm, while no one is paying deep attention. Let’s put this idea back into its coffin with a sagebrush stake in its heart.
Bottom line: Keep public lands in federal trust. The Sagebrush Rebellion is over. The sagebrush won.
_____________
Speaking of presidential transitions, who should be Secretary of Interior? Stay tuned.
More:
- “Can the West Lead Us to a Better Place?” David M. Kennedy in the Stanford Alumni Magazine, May-June 2008. Too rare, a thoughtful article about land use in the American West, and how we should proceed.
Update 2014: The original GSA map showing percentages of federal holdings in each state (including Indian Reservations as federal holdings), as published in Strange Maps when it was still active.
[…] Public lands issues are greatly given to great misunderstanding; this is not new […]
LikeLike
Aw, c’mon, Ed. You sure you can’t work up a good belly laugh over “the public lands have all been mortgaged to the UN?” The strange part is, I worked in Yellowstone for sixteen summers and never once saw a black helicopter, even though there’s a helipad right behind the Old Faithful ranger station. Them UN fellers sure are sneaky.
LikeLike
Just want to point out that some of the huge tracts of land owned by the Federal Government are used to provide for the common defense, which I find to be a laudable (as well as constitutional) goal. Just a reminder to some to be careful what you wish for.
LikeLike
And frankly, the idea of a buffalo commons is a good one. I’m perplexed at the proposal to sell off wild lands to purchase more, when what we need is a greater amount of such wild lands, not equal, and not less. Thanks for dropping by, Prof. Popper.
http://www.policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/popper
LikeLike
Anyone wishing further information on the Buffalo Commons proposal should look at my website, policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/popper. The idea originated with me and my wife, Deborah Popper, a geographer at the City University of New York/ College of Staten Island and Princeton University. The idea has no particular connection with the Sagebrush Rebellion approach to selling the federal public lands. Best wishes,
Frank Popper
Rutgers and Princeton Universities
fpopper@rci.rutgers.edu, fpopper@princeton.edu
LikeLike
Not sure why saying I was surprised by a fact which was previously unknown to me puts me on the wrong side of the argument.
Perhaps you could explain how expressing surprise = “weighing in on the wrong side.
There was no opinion pro or con expressed in the post, just passing along a fact I encountered.
LikeLike
As I noted at your blog, James, you make no carve out for Yellowstone when you talk about public lands. If you wish to go back and start qualifying your comments, limiting what you’re talking about, be my guest. Until you do, you have suggested we sell off Yellowstone — and the Tetons, and Zion Canyon, and Grand Canyon, and Canyon de Chelly, the Bob, the Davy Crockett National Forest, and much else that you probably also didn’t give a second thought to. By failing to note you wish to leave Yellowstone out of the deal, you’ve put it in. You didn’t say reserve anything from sale, either. And I’ll wager I can show you lands on almost any National Forest or tract of Bureau of Land Management land that will take your breath away. At that point, you’ll say “I didn’t mean to sell that jewel.” Too late. This is how a lot of stupid ideas get going in government. I’m trying to stop the stupidity now.
You can rest easy that you’re not alone — look at the list of others joining you, most without question, most without clues, just like you. Am I the first to point out it’s a stupid idea? Then things are much worse than we imagined.
Yellowstone is a National Park. I was unaware there is any educated person in North America, at least, who did not know that. When I mentioned Yellowstone, I assumed you had at least an inkling of what you were talking about. I apologize for assuming you know anything at all about public lands — it was clearly my mistake.
In short, you’ve confirmed my suspicion that you don’t really have very many clues about what it is you claimed to be discussing. Not my problem, except when you make such posts, which amount to your coming over to my house to urinate in my pool. Please stop.
If you have a point beyond what you’ve already said, by all means, make it. I cannot know what you do not post, however. Defenders of the public lands and the U.S. Constitution are not mind readers, as a rule. I can only go on what you wrote. If you wrote in error, you can correct it.
No, you didn’t say to sell everything. You left the Great Smokies out of the stuff you mentioned with any specificity. You’re probably close enough to the Smokies to know better. You really should visit Yellowstone, and Great Basin, and Big Bend, and Cedar Breaks, and Bryce Canyon, and Canyonlands, and see why it’s a bad idea outside of Tennessee, too.
P.S. — Go to the people who sold you the bell for advice on making it work properly. If that information is lost, you might want to try this site:
http://www.brosamersbells.com/church.html
Or, you might try contacting someone who rings regularly — like the ringers at the National Cathedral: http://www.cathedral.org/wrs/news/wash_post_2003.htm
LikeLike
Wow….that is amazing. You have a profound hermeneutic of suspicion taking place in your reading of my comments. Unbelievable. I hope you do not treat everyone that way.
Just so your readers know that I am the Religious naif you referred to, they should also know you have a failure to not only read closely but also to pay attention once I clarify things. You jumped on something that was not intended, and even after I clarified you still didn’t listen. There are several problems here:
1) Again, I didn’t say sell everything.
2) You mentioned Yellowstone specifically, and I did not.
3) You did not mention national parks in general in your first comment.
4) I disagree with you that what can and should be sold has already been sold.
That is the point. Now we could debate these things, but that is not something I am interested in. It will just be a matter of disagreement.
Instead, I am interested in you learning to read with charity, giving someone the benefit of the doubt.
That is not what you did with me, even after an attempted explanation. Unless you have failed to understand what I mean, I do not want to sell Yellowstone, or national parks in general. That was not my point.
LikeLike