AMERIKA
Our Public Lands are Slipping Away
BLM lands in northern Utah. Photo: Jeffrey St. Clair.
Our public lands, our sacred birthright and legacy to posterity are under serious and potentially life-ending threats. In the most extreme example, the State of Utah has filed a lawsuit against the federal government to take control of national public lands in Utah.
Straight out of Project 2025.
Utah claims that 18.5 million acres of “unappropriated” Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands must be turned over to the state because it has been deprived of the revenues BLM collects from grazing, logging and mining. History shows that as a condition of statehood, Utah agreed to not seek control of federal public lands. The Utah Enabling Act of 1894 established the terms and conditions for statehood and a constitution. The act was signed by President Cleveland on July 18, 1894.
Under Section 12 the Act transferred a little more than 1 million acres of federal lands to Utah, not 18.5 million. It states: “The said state of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose…”
No matter to the authors of Project 2025, who advocate for privatizing public lands and erasing America’s environmental and wildlife protection laws. The Utah lawsuit may be the first installment.
A less transparent effort involves legislating National Forest management to suit special interests. Music fans of a certain age will recall the Beatles Let It Be album and George Harrison’s “I, Me, Mine.” That sums up the so-called “collaboratives.”
These have taken form as the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Act, Greater Yellowstone Recreation Act, Idaho Panhandle Public Lands Initiative and Lincoln Prosperity Project. These carve up National Forests and allot the pieces according to the self-selected and exclusionary special interests. These plans would override years of forest planning, effectively ending public involvement by permanently legislating management set in stone. No management changes due to changing conditions. No reaction to climate change.
These bills are far from traditional wilderness legislation, which decided what happened to the roadless portions of the National Forests. Special interest legislation seeks to decide the fate of the entire Forests.
The “green” groups that support special interest legislation are a far cry from the conservation leaders of the past. The Marshalls, Leopolds, Zahnisers and Brandborgs would be deeply disappointed with how quickly the well-heeled big budget groups threw in the towel. They now push bills that cater to motorized and mechanized recreation, logging and other development interests. The sad thing is many of today’s “conservationists” don’t know who these people were.
The leaders of the past realized it would take time and commitment measured over many years to achieve a worthy success. It took eight years and three presidents from first bill to final passage for the Wilderness Act. The collaborative groups want instant gratification. They sprinkle feel-good talking points over their self-centered proposals and expect universal acclamation. The quest for fast rewards and big bucks shows a lack of foresight, patience, commitment and integrity.
Forest planning is complex and has many moving parts. Simply saying the loggers get the trees, the snowmobilers, motorcyclists and mountain bikers get permanent routes and Wilderness can inhabit the ice and rocks freezes the American public owners of these lands out of the picture. They are taking the “National” out of National Forest and the “public” out of public lands.
It must be intoxicating to play land baron with somebody else’s land. But like spending somebody else’s money, it isn’t right.
No comments:
Post a Comment